Hypothetical Build - F150 hybrid or Diesel?

[jpd80]

 

 

 

I said that yesterday.

You sure did and that got me thinking to actually go check out what the official figures were..

 

 

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious that Ford is making more profit on the I5.

A better plan to charge a premium to Transit fleet customers who can appreciate the worth of a diesel

and to avoid developing a hard to sell option in a gasoline dominated half ton truck market.

 

Horses for courses.

Edited April 2, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

 

I think it's pretty obvious that Ford is making more profit on the I5.

how so?

[RichardJensen]

how so?

 

Because it is almost certainly a cheaper engine to build, and it is definitely being sold at a higher price.

[jpd80]

The engine is sold as a premium option in the rest of the world, any sales in the US will reflect that in the $6,000 premium.

Sure FC sells more V6 diesels in Nth America but the actual volume is not that large compared to gasoline sales.

 

Bottom line is that those diesel sales are more important to FC than they are to Ford, understanding why is important.

Ram pays a penalty for having a popular V8 truck, the diesel is there to help restore balance to CAFE figures

so it offers an efficient diesel truck at affordable prices to its customers. Ford's V6 gasoline Ecoboost strategy

and lighter trucks means that it does not need a diesel to fill that role in half ton trucks.

 

Separate the need of a manufacturer versus the actual need of buyers.

Edited April 2, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Demand for the 3.0L VM diesel in the Ram has far out stripped initial estimates. They are making up 20% of production twice what was expected.

Ford just wants their piece of that pie pie simple as that. Has Ford lost sales to the diesel 1/2 ton ram? that is almost a certainty Ram is enjoying some of it's strongest sales ever in recent history they did not get those sales from people trading in Dodge Neon's.

 

The old 3.2L 5cyl used in the transit is not suitable for use in the F150. It is an archaic design and only sports 185Hp and 350Ftlbs of torque in NA calibration.

 

A new 3.0L Diesel should be in the mid 200'shp wise and. mid 400's torque wise. You never know Ford may be able to push 300Hp and 500 Ftlbs of torque in an new 3.0L diesel and should be able to match or even beat the 2.7's EPA ratings plus Diesels usually beat the stickered EPA ratings in real life. And would likely would find a home in the F150 and the NA Transit.

 

A hybrid in the F150 has merit as well but not sure it would generate the sales of the Diesel or have the potential profit margin once the R&D costs and total sales are factored in. I don't think a hybrid F150 would show the same percentage of return in comparison to a diesel.

The R&D to stuff the diesel in the F150 will be significantly lower than doing a hybrid and it will not significantly reduce payload (no heavy battery packs).

 

The newer diesels are more cost effective to manufacture than just a generation ago. It would not surprise me one bit if the 3.2 Duratorque/bPowerstroke is more costly to manufacture than the 3.0LVM Used in the Ram. There is much better combustion control and fuel delivery today than when the 3.2 Duratorque was designed. This allows for lighter construction of engine assemblies. Plus V configuration is cheaper to manufacture than a comparable inline engine (4cyl's excepted),

 

Over all the diesel has a better business case. I said a while back it would not surprise me one bit if Ford had a diesel for 2017-2018.

 

.I would look hard at an F150 with a diesel but would not give the hybrid a second look. And yes I'll be in the market for a new truck right about that time too.

 

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

Good points as usual Matthew, I see the diesel as something Ford doesn't need to do at the moment,

they have another new 2.7 Ecoboost engine there and they must get ROI on that engine without

any distractive product like a diesel, it won't take long at a projected 30% of sales so let's see..

 

Tier 3 Emissions are set to hit Light Trucks around 2017 or 2018 with added cost of meeting emissions

you can bet all manufacturers will be watching the implications for diesel very closely.

 

While some half ton truck buyers may be interested in a diesel option, I'm left with the feeling that

Ford is well underway with a hybrid F150. Having cast off JV partner Toyota, Ford probably has

a very set view on what it wants F150 to achieve...I think it will be a guilt free lifestyle truck and

that's the key here - an option people will be prepared to spend a lot of money to own but also,

one that the government is willing to subsidize and make available through affordable leasing

Edited April 5, 2015 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Food for thought,

I recently looked up the now discontinued hybrid Silverado, a 6.0 V8 that achieved 20mpg / 23 mpg,

not much of an improvement compared to todays's half ton trucks but when compared to the regular

6.2 Silverado of the day (13mpg/18mpg) the fuel economy improvement was in the order of 40% and

25% for city and highway test cycles respectivly.

 

So, how would an F150 5.0 hybrid perform in terms of fuel economy?

Currently, the regular '15 F150 5.0 2WD achieves 15mpg / 22mpg and with similar improvements

achieved in the Silverado example, fuel economy in the order of 21mpg / 27mpg could be expected.

While it's no diesel, I could see a truck like that appealing to a lot of lifestyle truck owners..

 

With a big enough battery on board, an energi hybrid truck could use the electric assist for the 9 minutes

normally needed to climb Ike Gauntlet at 60-65mph with a fairly hefty towing load - that would be impressive.

 

The same energi hybrid truck could also achieve up to 40 miles of electric only range for commutes.

Edited April 6, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Good points JP. The only thing is the typical truck buyers are shall we say the most eco conscious group. So on that front the Eco aspect of the Hybrid likely won't generate the traffic on the show room floor one would hope. Part of the reason the Silverado hybrid fell by the way side.

 

 

The 3.2 duratorque is getting long in the tooth and wont meet the proposed Tier 3 emissions, Ford needs a new mid sized diesel in the stable regardless.

 

Full size trucks tend to end up with buyers that rack up lots of miles so benefits of the hybrid may actually become a hindrance unless it's coupled to something like the 2.7L so when the battery capacity is all but depleted the truck is still capable of doing the job. Diesel emission tech is advancing quickly with the latest units in the pipe line with no EGR, DPF or SCR and are just fitted with a DOC converter (diesel oxidizing catalyst).

 

Yes a Hybrid certainly has it's place in the F150 but the Diesel option will recover investment costs faster and ultimately generate more sales.

 

Ideally the best set up would be a Diesel hybrid the few Diesel hybrids that are on the market get phenomenal fuel mileage, Like 65MPG combined in a Fusion sized vehicle.

[jpd80]

Good points JP. The only thing is the typical truck buyers are shall we say the most eco conscious group. So on that front the Eco aspect of the Hybrid likely won't generate the traffic on the show room floor one would hope. Part of the reason the Silverado hybrid fell by the way side.

I understand that, buyers of lifestyle trucks would have to be convinced as to the worth of 1) a hybrid truck for a start let alone 2) an energi version with bigger more expensive battery. But if Bob Lutz's lot is prepared to market a plug in hybrid Silverado for $79K, the I'm sure that ford could do the same and undercut that cost considerably..

 

 

The 3.2 duratorque is getting long in the tooth and wont meet the proposed Tier 3 emissions, Ford needs a new mid sized diesel in the stable regardless.

i wouldn't be so sure about that Matthew, Ford s currently readying the 3.2 for use in Transit to meet chrrent US emissions, Ford would hardly do that for just two or three years, not after Ford just built a second Puma plant in South Africa. No, I suspect the reason the power is less is because it ahs been tuned as a true truck engine and is more efficient at burning fuel under full load which unfortunately doesn't show up on EPA tests.

 

 

Full size trucks tend to end up with buyers that rack up lots of miles so benefits of the hybrid may actually become a hindrance unless it's coupled to something like the 2.7L so when the battery capacity is all but depleted the truck is still capable of doing the job. Diesel emission tech is advancing quickly with the latest units in the pipe line with no EGR, DPF or SCR and are just fitted with a DOC converter (diesel oxidizing catalyst).

Your comments regarding owners keeping their trucks for lots of miles is both true and false, i believe class 2A (F150) market is more dicverse, hence no diesel penetration, unlike Super Duty where work cycle is more diesel dependent.. By the time batteries age down for replacement, the costs should be much lower than now thanks to much broader use , so those batteries shoudl not be so expensive. In any regard, that won't be Ford's problem,.

 

 

Yes a Hybrid certainly has it's place in the F150 but the Diesel option will recover investment costs faster and ultimately generate more sales.

 

How funny would it be if Ford had both a hybrid and a diesel option that was both more efficient than Ram's and lower cost to boot.

 

 

Ideally the best set up would be a Diesel hybrid the few Diesel hybrids that are on the market get phenomenal fuel mileage, Like 65MPG combined in a Fusion sized vehicle.

Interesting tech but major issues with stop-start emissions on the diesel that are stopping its wider use in USA..

Let's hope there's a way around that.

Edited April 6, 2015 by jpd80

[Donaldo]

The engine is sold as a premium option in the rest of the world, any sales in the US will reflect that in the $6,000 premium.

Sure FC sells more V6 diesels in Nth America but the actual volume is not that large compared to gasoline sales.

 

Bottom line is that those diesel sales are more important to FC than they are to Ford, understanding why is important.

Ram pays a penalty for having a popular V8 truck, the diesel is there to help restore balance to CAFE figures

so it offers an efficient diesel truck at affordable prices to its customers. Ford's V6 gasoline Ecoboost strategy

and lighter trucks means that it does not need a diesel to fill that role in half ton trucks.

 

Anybody know how much Nissan is going to charge for their 5.0 Cummins diesel powered full size truck later this year? They're taking a slightly different path, blurring the line between heavy duty and full size.

[jpd80]

Anybody know how much Nissan is going to charge for their 5.0 Cummins diesel powered full size truck later this year? They're taking a slightly different path, blurring the line between heavy duty and full size.

The catch is that the 5.0 cummins is not an option on the Titan 1500 range, It's restricted to the XD only

and while not a true 2500 truck, it is indeed a heavy duty 1500 that can tow up to 12,000 lbs and carry up to 2,000 lbs

 

I have a feeling that sticker shock will restrict XD sales to those who really need a HD 1500 and not a diesel 2500.

This could also be the reason why the 4.4 V8 diesel was nixed on F150 back in 2010, competition with f250?

Edited April 6, 2015 by jpd80

[bzcat]

The catch is that the 5.0 cummins is not an option on the Titan 1500 range, It's restricted to the XD only

and while not a true 2500 truck, it is indeed a heavy duty 1500 that can tow up to 12,000 lbs and carry up to 2,000 lbs

 

I have a feeling that sticker shock will restrict XD sales to those who really need a HD 1500 and not a diesel 2500.

This could also be the reason why the 4.4 V8 diesel was nixed on F150 back in 2010, competition with f250?

 

The 1500 HD market is certainly a very tiny slice of the pickup truck market. Not sure if Ford really looked at it as potential F250 competition but more so just a pointless exercise with limited return on investment.

 

As to the original thread topic... I think we will see a hybrid F150 first before a diesel F150. Ford has been working on it for a while and I would guess it will come after the 10 speed auto is implemented across the board. And quite possibly only as a PHEV... I see fleets running something like that and taking the tax credits and reaping the reward on fuel savings.

 

2.7 Ecoboost + several hundred pounds of battery should return a payload that is similar to the 3.5 V6 (the non-EB base engine) and performance similar to 5.0 V8. So while the acquisition costs maybe higher vs. 3.5 V6, you are getting more performance and similar capability. Plus there is upside of tax credit and long term operating savings.

 

Diesel is missing the tax credit component and the operating savings is probably not as significant as ability to run on EV mode.

Edited April 7, 2015 by bzcat

[RichardJensen]

it is indeed a heavy duty 1500 that can tow up to 12,000 lbs and carry up to 2,000 lbs

 

Oh! 2,000 whole pounds, eh? Bet those Nissan engineers really stretched the envelope to hit that mark.

 

 

 

It would probably be best if they never, ever looked at Ford's payload packages---and never ever saw that the *base* engine in the Ford super-crew can be optioned to over 2,000lbs payload.

[Biker16]

 

 

The newer diesels are more cost effective to manufacture than just a generation ago. It would not surprise me one bit if the 3.2 Duratorque/bPowerstroke is more costly to manufacture than the 3.0LVM Used in the Ram. There is much better combustion control and fuel delivery today than when the 3.2 Duratorque was designed. This allows for lighter construction of engine assemblies. Plus V configuration is cheaper to manufacture than a comparable inline engine (4cyl's excepted),

 

 

Matthew

 

V6s are not cheaper to make than Inilne 5 or 6 engines.

 

why?

 

how many camshafts do V6 engines have vs Inline? in the case of DOHC engines 4 vs 2.

 

that doubling of parts extends to timing belts, gears and fuel rails etc.

 

maybe with I-8 and V8 do you see enough of a cost differential, but with V6 vs I-6 engines you simply don't See a reduction in parts or material to say V-6s are cheaper to make.

[Biker16]

 

Oh! 2,000 whole pounds, eh? Bet those Nissan engineers really stretched the envelope to hit that mark.

 

 

 

It would probably be best if they never, ever looked at Ford's payload packages---and never ever saw that the *base* engine in the Ford super-crew can be optioned to over 2,000lbs payload.

 

You realize the maximum payload on the transit I-5 is ~3900lbs.

[RichardJensen]

 

You realize the maximum payload on the transit I-5 is ~3900lbs.

 

Why are you trying to pick a fight?

 

That comment was clearly in response to the laughable notion that Nissan's "XD" Titan has only a 2,000lb payload; which--with proper rear-end ratio--can be achieved with the base V6 in a F150.

[Biker16]

 

Why are you trying to pick a fight?

 

That comment was clearly in response to the laughable notion that Nissan's "XD" Titan has only a 2,000lb payload; which--with proper rear-end ratio--can be achieved with the base V6 in a F150.

 

I am not picking a fight, I wanted to point out there isn't a direct correlation between Capacity and HP. Thus the 185hp engine is rated to carry as much as the 285 Hp engine.

[RichardJensen]

 

I am not picking a fight, I wanted to point out there isn't a direct correlation between Capacity and HP. Thus the 185hp engine is rated to carry as much as the 285 Hp engine.

 

That's not the point I was making.

 

My point is the absurdity of an "XD" as in "heavy duty" half-ton with only a 2,000lb payload capacity.

[jpd80]

Why did Nissan go to all that trouble making a Heavy Duty 1500 and then not give it more payload capacity?

That looks like a glaring omission/deficiency...especially in a vehicle with such a capable diesel engine.

[RichardJensen]

Possibly they're sandbagging the payload numbers.

 

But it is also possible that the program engineers and Nissan management simply cannot come to terms with the framework required to build a capable truck---perhaps they balk at the cost of the frame? Maybe they cannot find a proper balance between leaf-spring strength and ride quality, etc?

[jpd80]

Dunno about Nissan and what the new Titan and Titan XD are binging to the table, maybe the japanese

are trying too hard to be different and falling into a niche truck that suits their objective by balancing

a light duty frame - heavy duty frame / engine strategy...

 

 

Apparently, Ram also looked at using the 5.0 Cummins V8 diesel in the 1500 but couldn't get the highway economy

number above 24 mpg, that's one of the main reasons why it chose the 3.0 V6, the other would be the price

difference on the two engines, I'm thinking the 5.0 cummins option would have been North of $6,000..

 

Bearing in mind that F150 is now significantly lighter than the Ram 1500 perhaps a larger v8 diesel in F150

would give closer to 25 mpg on the highway cycle as well as 12,000 lbs towing and payload over 3,000 lbs.

A truck like that may be of benefit ti people who do a lot of towing and when driven for economy may give

up to 28 mpg. Tha;s where i see the 4.4 V8 being a good fit... but would buyers pay ~$8,000 premium?

 

I don't see any down side to Ford offering a gasoline hybrid and also a capable diesel option.

The only potential issue may be some internal competition with F250 sales.

Edited April 7, 2015 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

Personally, I think (hope?) the next F250 is going to be the 'in-between' truck that Nissan is hoping the XD will be. I think the next F250 will have IFS (judging by the pic we've seen) and have capability mid-way between the F150 and today's F250. The F350 will retain the SFA and be class-leading in towing/hauling. As the trucks stand today, there's really no reason to have the F250 and F350 SRW since they are essentially identical trucks. The F250 will have an EcoBoost engine and, possibly, maybe, not sold on it yet, a smaller diesel. The current F250, with 860 ft-lbs of torque, is really overkill for most that find the F150 lacking a bit.

[jpd80]

At the moment, Ford is going guns a blazin' at gasoline buyers and once those half ton customers are catered for,

I wonder if their perspective changes slightly to filling in some of the value niches discussed above.

 

While high gas proice may not be driving current efficiency goals, it is clear that F150 buyers do tend to

appreciate where technology helps them have increased performance (EB 3.5 Vs 6.2 V8)

So perhaps there is room for hybrids and strong diesel options too...

 

- Ecoboost technology is set to dominate F150's engine range

- F150 is a lot lighter than Ram 1500, so a small diesel like the 3.2 may still work

- A hybrid with either V6 or 5.0 V8 could give an interesting and different perspective and owner experience

- a larger V8 diesel shared between f150 and F250 may well be an option worth exploring.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Option 3 sounds like the best, most cost effective option IF the next 250 shares a cab with the 150

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I still don't fully understand why Ford doesn't explore a 3.3L I-4 diesel for the F-150 that's based on roughly half of the Scorpion 6.7L? If parasitic losses stayed relative to the engine size, the engine would be capable of 220 HP and 430 lbs of torque which is certainly sufficient for the F-150 as a competitor to the Ram's ecodiesel. Using that platform for development, technology that's designed for the 6.7L would be more easily applied to the 3.3L in the future as they would share a combustion chamber design and have a cylinder head that is high in commonality.

 

Truck duty cycles make hybrid development challenging. As seen in the Silverado, you have to retain gas engine capability sufficient to haul your rated capacities in a battery depleted situation. This means that you can't downsize the gas engine significantly to increase highway mileage. This is where GM's displacement on demand and EcoBoost's turbo setup can aid the situation, but not fully remedy it. I do see the EB engines pairing VERY well with hybrid systems however. Why? With the aid of the electric motors, there's less of a need for the gas engine to lean on the turbos to get moving from a stop. This could make for a drastic increase in city and combined mileage. Highway mileage much above 25 mpg is going to be more a matter of aerodynamics as it simply takes a certain amount of power to displace a certain amount of air per second. To get much higher highway numbers, its going to have to take some innovative shape design going forward.

 

I can give you a somewhat related anecdote, going to Disney World in Orlando this past week in our family minivan packed with kids (the Sienna's gone, we have a 2014 Caravan SXT), traveling with cruise control at 70 (yes, I do play it safe with the family on board), we managed roughly 25.5 mpg on the way there from New Orleans. On the way back, I was following my father in law, who was towing an RV, also at 70 mph, and achieved 30.3 mpg average on the way back. This was with a well loaded minivan (we were technically a few hundred lbs above the GVWR according to the door sticker). The weight was actually a bit heavier on the return trip, but the big difference was that I was trailing the trailer and firmly in its draft the whole way. That's a 5 mpg difference just from a reduction in wind resistance. Applying that information to a full sized truck and you see where cruise efficiency gains in the powerplant are a diminishing return for light trucks. You need to get innovative with respect to coefficient of drag while keeping the functionality of the truck intact.

 

This is why I see the next big change in the truck market will be a segmenting between trucks that will be used primarily for shorter trips at lower speeds in cities, and trucks that will be used for longer trips at higher speeds on highways. The city trucks will likely be hybrids and look similar to current trucks. The highway trucks will look much different and will likely be diesels. The auto makers will petition the government to allow the expected usage pattern of the trucks to influence their different effect on manufacturer fleet CAFE numbers so as to allow them to count highway numbers of the highway trucks and the city numbers of the city trucks instead of having to use combined numbers or having the current balance.