6.2L ?

[MY93SHO]

That's not even the point, guys. Biker's not advocating a diesel in the F150. He wants a 3.2L diesel in the F250.

 

In short, a less powerful motor than the base engine, at a $6k premium, for people who need F150 capability, but want it with the harsher suspension and generally worse NVH of an F250.

Of course he does. When you throw common sense out the window anything is possible!

[jpd80]

That's not even the point, guys. Biker's not advocating a diesel in the F150. He wants a 3.2L diesel in the F250.

 

In short, a less powerful motor than the base engine, at a $6k premium, for people who need F150 capability, but want it with the harsher suspension and generally worse NVH of an F250.

But that makes even less sense. why offer a super Duty that isn't and charge buyers $6,000 for the inconvenience......

 

Ford could offer any number of engine options to SD buyers but may never see an increase in sales or ROI.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I don't know.

 

If Ford had a better ~3L diesel option, I think the case for a second diesel option in the F250 would be significantly stronger.

[blazerdude20]

That's not even the point, guys. Biker's not advocating a diesel in the F150. He wants a 3.2L diesel in the F250.

 

In short, a less powerful motor than the base engine, at a $6k premium, for people who need F150 capability, but want it with the harsher suspension and generally worse NVH of an F250.

I agree with your points. The 3.2L currently is not of the power needed for a 3/4 ton truck.

 

However I do agree with Biker that for most buyers, especially in the 250, that the 6.7L is overkill. A smaller engine might be better suited for the truck. Question is where do you get said motor? Maybe pull a GM and chop off a bank of cylinders and create a new V6.

[RichardJensen]

The 3.2L won't be around forever. Its replacement may be suited for use in the F250.

 

I don't think it's a pressing need for Ford.

 

And in terms of CAFE, it should be noted that Ford's 2.7L will have a greater impact than Fiat's 3.0L diesel because CAFE is sales weighted.

[fordmantpw]

If every buyer was logical, we wouldn't be seeing the increase in vehicles with diesel engines.

 

My point is the 6.7 is too much for most buyers, and the the I5 is a logical option for those who want efficency and the "Aura" of a diesel engine.

 

It's gonna have to produce a lot more than 350 ft-lbs, and is going to have to cost a lot less than the $6k upcharge of the 3.2L.

 

Why would you forfeit over half the torque and HP of the 6.7L to only save $2k on a $60k truck. I agree that the 6.7L is overkill, but what you are proposing makes absolutely zero sense, even for those high on diesel exhaust!

[Inselaffe]

I don't know.

 

If Ford had a better ~3L diesel option, I think the case for a second diesel option in the F250 would be significantly stronger.

 

Ford does and has had one in production since 2004. The 3.0 Lion V6 in its most powerful form is 290 bhp and 440 lb-ft and very soon it will meet EPA/CARB emissions when Land Rover start selling it here. The Lion's current turbo system is more complicated and expensive than the VM Motori diesel, parallel sequential dual turbo vs single, but that can explained by the higher output and it's not beyond Ford to do a single turbo version. Everything else in terms of engine cost compared to the VM would be a wash.

 

Despite my attachment to this engine I'm not sure I see the benefit of diesel over here, but Ford do at least have the option.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Inselaffe

[jpd80]

Ford built a second diesel plant in South Africa to make.2.2 I-4 and 3.2 I-5 diesels.

The 2.2 makes 280 lb ft but the 3.2 is only 350 lb ft - something is up there.

 

A consideration for Asian markets is the prohibitive tax on engines over 3.0 liters,

it may be to Ford's advantage to develop a new I-5 and I-6 off the I-4 to meet

all customers needs.

[jpvbs]

The AJD V6 (lion) makes as much as 270hp and 440lb-ft in Land Rover/Jaguar applications. I'm sure that would work but how much would it cost? If it cost too much most buyers will just opt for the 6.7.

[fordmantpw]

The AJD V6 (lion) makes as much as 270hp and 440lb-ft in Land Rover/Jaguar applications.

 

To accommodate the duty cycles and rigors of a Super Duty and to meet the stringent test for Ford trucks, you would probably need to decrease those numbers by 10-20%.

 

I'm sure that would work but how much would it cost? If it cost too much most buyers will just opt for the 6.7.

 

Bingo! And are you going to get significantly better fuel economy than the 6.7L to give a 'pro' to go along with the 'con' of losing all that power? Doubtful.

[jpd80]

Again, you have a V6 engine less than half the size of the 6.7 producing half the torque but with a similar premium.

This isn't going to fly unless F150 & SD buyers get what they want, a 4.4 TDV8 for $6,000 might scrape through

for use in both F150 and Super Duty.... Honestly, I don't see this happening fo reasons previously stated.

 

IMO, the magic numbers are 500-550 lb ft and ~$4,000 premium but the reality is it's not possible for Ford.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

 

The Lion's current turbo system is more complicated and expensive than the VM Motori diesel

 

And it only delivers marginally more torque, in a 'high performance' iteration.

[jpd80]

Ford could offer a S/C 5.0 V8 and still give back plenty of change on $8,000.

The focus in Super Duty should be making the gasoline engine options as efficient as possible.

Edited March 24, 2015 by jpd80

[30 OTT 6]

Ford needs to fix the 6.2L by doing what they did to transform the mod motor into Coyote. Design a better block around the same bore spacing so that the same tooling can be used. This time design the block knowing that there is absolutely no chance this thing will find itself in anything less than a half ton pickup. Put some iron into it so it can be safely punched out to 7+ litres.

 

Maybe design a different head too. A 3 valve SOHC with a single (and nonbreakable or ejectable) sparkplug per cylinder. They could then get replace those massive rocker arms with the valve adjusters built in with a simpler stamped unit like the Coyote.

[Biker16]

Buyers are not always logical.

 

Look at the sales of other Diesel powered vehicles.

 

Let me describe where I envision this motor would be.

 

Output ~220hp and ~400ft/lbs

 

Only a $4000 premium over the base gas engine.

 

Targeted at buyers use their truck alot, and carry or tow medium loads often.

[fordmantpw]

Buyers are not always logical.

 

Correct.

 

 

Output ~220hp and ~400ft/lb

 

Which means most of them aren't going to pay $4000 (your number, I expect it to be higher than that) more for an engine that has 200 LESS HP and LESS torque than a gas engine. They aren't logical meaning they will just look at the cost and power numbers and say "NOPE!"

 

You contradict yourself badly here.

[RichardJensen]

Output ~220hp and ~400ft/lbs

 

Only a $4000 premium over the base gas engine.

 

Targeted at buyers use their truck alot, and carry or tow medium loads often.

 

That's 50lb-ft more than the 3.2 for $1k less.

 

I think a more reasonable target would be ~450lb-ft for the same price.

[OHV 16V]

 

...an engine that has 200 LESS HP and LESS torque than a gas engine...

^^ This. Price of gas vs. diesel means it'd take how long to recuperate the extra money spent on the diesel upfront, and all for an engine with (as you said) less horsepower and torque than the gasser.

 

It would be cheaper for Ford to just revise the 6.2-liter at that point. Not to mention, if they did something along the lines of what 30 OTT 6 mentioned above, they could have an economical gasoline solution for the bigger classes of F-Series trucks.

[jpd80]

Do you know what's funny here?

I bet the 2.7 Ecoboost is going to be very popular in F150 because of the very points Biker has suggested.

EB 27 has the required torque, more than enough horsepower and very importantly, doesn't cost $6,000 to get.

 

Take that further, if Ford does offer the 3.5 Ecoboost in the next lighter F250, the 6.2 may be doomed to history.

A 700 lbs lighter F250 with a 400 lb lighter engine, makes the new F250 close to the '14 F150's weight.

In essence, an 1100 lb weight reduction and a more efficient engine makes F250 the new F150 HD.

 

 

QED

Edited March 25, 2015 by jpd80

[Mad Hatter]

Do you know what's funny here?

I bet the 2.7 Ecoboost is going to be very popular in F150 because of the very points Biker has suggested.

EB 27 has the required torque, more than enough horsepower and very importantly, doesn't cost $6,000 to get.

 

Take that further, if Ford does offer the 3.5 Ecoboost in the next lighter, the 6.2 may be doomed to history.

A 700 lbs lighter F250 with a 400 lb lighter engine, makes the new F250 close to the '14 F150's weight.

In essence, an 1100 lb weight reduction and a more efficient engine makes F250 the new F150 HD.

 

 

QED

I would rather see the 5.0 as the base engine than the 2.7EB, if that was the case. I know the TQ peaks a little higher in the 5.0, and it's not going to be as flat. But I think the 2.7 will be overworked in a vocational role in a 250.

 

Engine Specifications Engine type 2.7L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L EcoBoost® V6 3.5L Ti-VCT V6 5.0L Ti-VCT V8 Engine Control System Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 325 @ 5750 rpm 365 @ 5000 rpm 282 @ 6250 rpm 385 @ 5750 rpm Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 375 @ 3000 rpm 420 @ 2500 rpm 253 @ 4250 rpm 387 @ 3850 rpm

[jpd80]

 

I would rather see the 5.0 as the base engine than the 2.7EB, if that was the case. I know the TQ peaks a little higher in the 5.0, and it's not going to be as flat. But I think the 2.7 will be overworked in a vocational role in a 250..

MH, re read my post 2.7 EB for F150 , not 250

 

EB 3.5 (not EB 2,7) into F250 but i agree a lighter F250 could also use a 5.0 V8 but the thrust

is that ightening the F250 could change perceptions and increase sales of gasoline engines.

 

Of interest, inventory levels of '14 F150 and '15 F150 are running 2/3s V6 and 1/3 5.0 V8

don't know if that's just '14 remnant stock and bias building of '15 inventory.

Edited March 25, 2015 by jpd80

[Mad Hatter]

My mistake. I fixated on the 250 part since the 6.2 isn't an issue for 150s.

[jpd80]

My mistake. I fixated on the 250 part since the 6.2 isn't an issue for 150s.

Apologies too, my post was done to explain my reasoning by establishing what I believe will happen in F150

and then move on to suggesting what could happen in F250 if the EB 3.5 was used to replace the 6.2.

 

The question is whether a lighter Super Duty opens the door to modified versions of F150 engines.

Maybe future EPA economy targets for Class 2 and 3 trucks forces Ford to do something different..

Edited March 25, 2015 by jpd80

[twintornados]

As F150 and F250/350 slowly migrate back to a "One Chassis Design" approach, you just may see a smaller variant of 6.7 Powerstroke being created to fill the lower end of the Super Duty line....at this point, just about anything is possible and the current Powerstroke is a proven design thus far...so making a smaller variant of it (between 5 and 6 liters) might just fit the budget....but at this point, I no longer believe it would be prudent of Ford to put the 3.2L I-5 in F150....it makes zero sense.....3.2L in Transit for companies like FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc ...sure....Winnebago, Four Winds, etc etc...sure...but F150?? I just don't see it anymore....the best reason for not doing it is what RAM did with their 1500 series....those chickens will come home to roost and when they do, they will realize that a 1/2 truck with a diesel was not that smart after all.....

 

Sure, it sounds like a good idea when mister gruff voice announcer guy tells you about the "Guts...Glory....RAM"....but he probably showed up at the sound-stage in a limo anyway....

Edited March 25, 2015 by twintornados

[fordmantpw]

As F150 and F250/350 slowly migrate back to a "One Chassis Design" approach, you just may see a smaller variant of 6.7 Powerstroke being created to fill the lower end of the Super Duty line....at this point, just about anything is possible and the current Powerstroke is a proven design thus far...so making a smaller variant of it (between 5 and 6 liters) might just fit the budget....but at this point, I no longer believe it would be prudent of Ford to put the 3.2L I-5 in F150....it makes zero sense.....3.2L in Transit for companies like FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc ...sure....Winnebago, Four Winds, etc etc...sure...but F150?? I just don't see it anymore....the best reason for not doing it is what RAM did with their 1500 series....those chickens will come home to roost and when they do, they will realize that a 1/2 truck with a diesel was not that smart after all.....

 

Sure, it sounds like a good idea when mister gruff voice announcer guy tells you about the "Guts...Glory....RAM"....but he probably showed up at the sound-stage in a limo anyway....

 

A V6 version of the 6.7L would be 5.0L and put out in the neighborhood of 330 HP and 645 ft-lbs. That is essentially equivalent to the 6.4L in my F250 and is more than sufficient for a 3/4 ton truck (and 1-ton for that matter). If that could be done at a cost of entry of $5k vs. the $8k+ of the 6.7L, and improve fuel economy by a couple MPG, I think you would have lots of buyers for an F250 with that engine. I may be one, depending on what the gas options available are at the time.