VW caught cheating on emissions

[jpd80]

 

I don't think the AJD could be pushed to near those numbers reliably. The AJD is pretty much at it's limit displacement wise. So if Ford is looking to match the 3.0L RAM the AJD is the answer.

If GM revives the 4.5L Ford will be on the short end of the stick along side Ram.

Or does Ford even need to do a diesel in in F150 at all, it seems to be selling as many as it can make at the moment.

Cutting out the 6.2 and those 16 and 18 mpg figures pays bigger dividends than adding a 30 mpg diesel ever would.

 

Do they just tough it out with no diesel and concentrate on delivering best gas fuel economy to all of their buyers,

connect with and impress as many of those existing and returning buyers as possible?

[matthewq4b]

Or does Ford even need to do a diesel in in F150 at all, it seems to be selling as many as it can make at the moment.

Cutting out the 6.2 and those 16 and 18 mpg figures pays bigger dividends than adding a 30 mpg diesel ever would.

 

Do they just tough it out with no diesel and concentrate on delivering best gas fuel economy to all of their buyers,

connect with and impress as many of those existing and returning buyers as possible?

 

Ford does not offer the 6.2L in the F150 and in the SD it is the only gas option so cutting it not really an option.

 

The I5 project would would pretty much be a an EU exercise with the same folks that did the 6.7 so it would it would not tie up the boys working on Gasoline engines in NA.

 

Since it would be an additional engine option and it could be used in the SD, it would help over all CAFE numbers.

 

Additionally, it could replace the Cummins being used in the SD and cab overs in other markets thus keeping more money in house.

I would envision a 6.7 Based Inline 5 available in at least 2 HP configs. One for max power in the F Series and one for max fuel efficiency in the Transit where 300HP is maybe not needed.

It would also help the Transit CA to become a viable ambulance chassis in NA and have a broader appeal to the NA market up-fitters with the HP of the 3.7 and more torque than the 3.2 Diesel currently available.

It would also be able to find a home in the stripped chassis and E series cutaway finally putting a Diesel back in those, broadening their appeal to up fitters, and would also be able to be utilized by the Ford Power Products division for off road applications.

 

Overall an inline 5 based off the 6.7 has a larger potential list of applications and sales than the AJD and being based off a what is essentially a Medium duty Diesel and an inline with one more bearing saddle than the 6.7 there should be no questions as to reliability or durability, and being based off the 6.7 it will reduce the number of bits ford needs to keep on hand compared to the AJD.

 

Since it would be tied to the 6.7 when it is due for replacement the next gen can see the I5 done in lock step with the V8.

 

I know where Ford is thinking about with the AJD it is and quick an easy fix, but I feel it is a bit of a stop gap and a one trick pony just to counter the 3.0L VM in the Ram, instead of actually competing with the Ram.

 

Ford might as well look at the big picture and do some thing that has broader appeal, corporately and globally.

[jpd80]

 

Ford does not offer the 6.2L in the F150 and in the SD it is the only gas option so cutting it not really an option.

Huh?

Ford had the 6.2 V8 as an option in last gen F150, it was cut for the 2015 and that's why they went so CAFE positive.

 

Since the SDs are above the GVWR limit for CAFE, they are subject to different fuel economy targets.

Rumor has it that a new gas engine size is coming for SD - most likely F250 to enhance fuel economy.

 

I like your ideas with a large I-5 diesel if it could be made practical for the intended applications.

The current 6.7 is around 1500 lbs so maybe the weight of your proposed I-5 (800 lbs?) is too much for Transit..

 

Personally, I think the current I-5 just needs a good make over with some up to date thinking,

a nice twin scroll turbo for a start for enhanced torque characteristics, perhaps an I-6 version too?.

 

Maybe we're overlooking the obvious, a next gen I-4, I-5 and I-6 diesel family....

Edited December 26, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Huh?

Ford had the 6.2 V8 as an option in last gen F150, it was cut for the 2015 and that's why they went so CAFE positive.

 

Since the SDs are above the GVWR limit for CAFE, they are subject to different fuel economy targets.

Rumor has it that a new gas engine size is coming for SD - most likely F250 to enhance fuel economy.

 

I like your ideas with a large I-5 diesel if it could be made practical for the intended applications.

The current 6.7 is around 1500 lbs so maybe the weight of your proposed I-5 (800 lbs?) is too much for Transit..

 

Personally, I think the current I-5 just needs a good make over with some up to date thinking,

a nice twin scroll turbo for a start for enhanced torque characteristics, perhaps an I-6 version too?.

 

Maybe we're overlooking the obvious, a next gen I-4, I-5 and I-6 diesel family....

 

Yes that is what I meant the 6.2 currently is not in the F150, it is not offered, what went on the past is kinda irrelevant now.

 

And Ford does need a new gas engine for the commercial and SD segment, currently they make the 5.4L the 6.2L 6.8L 2V and the 6.8l 3V. Ford has a bit of mess when it comes to their larger displacement gas engines. They certainly need to consolidate with one engine or one engine design..

 

The 3,2L is a good engine for what it was designed for. But it is not capable of 300HP for use in the SuperDuty. The architecture is just not robust enough to be pumping out that hp reliably Currently the 3.2L's weakest link, is the chain driven valve train ,remember it is light duty 4 pot auto diesel with another cylinder tacked on and similarly light duty valve train and cylinder head.

 

 

The current 6.7L Diesel is approx 990LBS dry. A 4.0L I5 based off the 6.7L with a CGI block like the 6.7 (the current 3.2L is grey cast) and Aluminium heads, 575-610Lbs dry should be easily achievable and is likely not too far off the existing 3.2L. The head on the I5 would have about the same amount material in it as a single 6.7L head/valve cover, as the 6.7 top end was designed for packaging constraints first and weight second. The I5 would not need the intake and exhaust ports on the same side of the head like the 6.7. and could have a simplified head/valve cover design thus saving weight, In the 6.7L the valve cover is also the intake manifold.

I would leave it a cam in block engine all gear driven like the 6,7L and other medium duty diesels, and utilize most of the 6.7L's valve train.

 

 

The I5 could easily be expanded out to an I6 and that would give you a 5.0L I6 not sure what application a 5.0L I6 would have, maybe for some of the lighter duty medium applications like cab overs and what not, but the option is there.

As for the 4 bangers, I think those would be better off based on light duty auto diesels.

[blwnsmoke]

I posted this before but they have some M SDs running around with the 5.0 and a 5.8DI in the 2017MY. Will be curious to see what comes of it.

[RichardJensen]

 

Ford has a bit of mess when it comes to their larger displacement gas engines. They certainly need to consolidate with one engine or one engine design..

 

That mess is pretty much due to the E-450's cramped snout. When Ford launches their new MD range (much argued about elsewhere), they'll be able to consolidate.

 

What would blow me away is if the 5.8L DI engine blwnsmoke refers to gets traction. Using plasma-transfer wire arc liners in a pickup motor would be pretty crazy. If that engine were powerful enough to replace the 6.8L, that would be absolutely insane. Seems a long-shot though.

[matthewq4b]

 

That mess is pretty much due to the E-450's cramped snout. When Ford launches their new MD range (much argued about elsewhere), they'll be able to consolidate.

 

What would blow me away is if the 5.8L DI engine blwnsmoke refers to gets traction. Using plasma-transfer wire arc liners in a pickup motor would be pretty crazy. If that engine were powerful enough to replace the 6.8L, that would be absolutely insane. Seems a long-shot though.

 

The E 450 only engine option is the 6.8 2V The 5.4 is still being used in the stripped chassis along with the 6.8L 2V. The SD cab and chassis are using the 6.2 and 6.8 3V to the F650 and 750 are using just the 6.8L 3V gas So you can not really blame it all on the E Series.

 

I'm pretty sure Ford will need something 6L plus for the F650 and 750 just to get the torque with out spinning the crap out of it. Ideally an engine that would be capable of 6 and 7.0L displacements would be perfect. Something along the line of the old 385 series but longer stroked done from CGI would be about perfect.

 

DI I don't think would ideal in some of these application with the heavy loading on these engines they would surly see intake valve coking issues.

[jpd80]

 

Yes that is what I meant the 6.2 currently is not in the F150, it is not offered, what went on the past is kinda irrelevant now.

It is significant because it allowed Ford to make a huge jump in CAFE by eliminating all those 16 and 18 mpg versions.

That on its own adds much more improvement over keeping them and adding a 30 mpg diesel, that was my point.

 

Given the the rumors that some SDs are beng fitted with 5.0 and 5.8 DI, I'm betting that Ford has a commitment

to 10% fuel reduction in 10,000-15,000 GVWR well in hand, a lot of changes coming for lighter F250 / F350.

 

With regards to the the Range Rover 3.0 TD, at 22/28/25 mpg on the EPA city/highway/combined

those figures in a vehicle of similar weight to F150 bodes well for that engine's chances of getting the nod

especially when it's already been federalized in a Range Rover

Edited December 26, 2015 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

 

The E 450 only engine option is the 6.8 2V The 5.4 is still being used in the stripped chassis along with the 6.8L 2V. The SD cab and chassis are using the 6.2 and 6.8 3V to the F650 and 750 are using just the 6.8L 3V gas So you can not really blame it all on the E Series.

 

The 5.4L is no longer in production (check the brochures for the 2016 E-Series).

 

So what you have is the 2V 6.8 in the E350/450 for clearance reasons, and the 3V available in literally everything else (including the F-59).

 

Yes, you do have some 6.2L F250s and F350s, but you can't buy a cab/chassis or DRW F250/350 with the 6.2.

 

I'm not sure what happens to the 6.2L. I find it hard to believe that the block is so thoroughly deficient that the next MD motor has to be a clean sheet design. But it is possible that the heads need a major rethink.

[matthewq4b]

It is significant because it allowed Ford to make a huge jump in CAFE by eliminating all those 16 and 18 mpg versions.

That on its own adds much more improvement over keeping them and adding a 30 mpg diesel, that was my point.

 

Given the the rumors that some SDs are beng fitted with 5.0 and 5.8 DI, I'm betting that Ford has a commitment

to 10% fuel reduction in 10,000-15,000 GVWR well in hand, a lot of changes coming for lighter F250 / F350.

 

With regards to the the Range Rover 3.0 TD, at 22/28/25 mpg on the EPA city/highway/combined

those figures in a vehicle of similar weight to F150 bodes well for that engine's chances of getting the nod

especially when it's already been federalized in a Range Rover

It is significant for meeting CAFE but was not a point of discussion for the topic at hand.

I would not speculate at this time as to what Ford will do in regards to the DI engines in the SD , I do see it as a potential warranty headache unless the fueling system is revised with wash injectors to keep the intake valves clean. This is a common practice on others for combating Intake valve coking but also cuts in to FE.

 

Yes it the AJD is the easy route but it is also a one trick pony not sure what else it could go in. I don't Ford think is ready to start offering diesel cars or modifying things like the Explorer to take it. So it sort of leaves it orphaned.

[matthewq4b]

 

The 5.4L is no longer in production (check the brochures for the 2016 E-Series).

 

So what you have is the 2V 6.8 in the E350/450 for clearance reasons, and the 3V available in literally everything else (including the F-59).

 

Yes, you do have some 6.2L F250s and F350s, but you can't buy a cab/chassis or DRW F250/350 with the 6.2.

 

I'm not sure what happens to the 6.2L. I find it hard to believe that the block is so thoroughly deficient that the next MD motor has to be a clean sheet design. But it is possible that the heads need a major rethink.

The 5.4L is still in production for the F59. It is the epitome of an orphaned engine. The 6.8 2V is also in the F59 and available through Ford Power products. The 3V is in the F59 My over sight on that. But no diesel which is just weird. This may be why we are seeing more and more Freightliner based units on the road.

 

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/strippedchassis/specifications/engine/

 

A 4.0L I5 is ideally suited for the F59 in both power and cost it would fit the segment quite nicely.

 

And yes, no 6.2L in any cab and or stripped chassis I'm not sure that the engine is thoroughly deficient. Just deficient enough, I just don't think it is ideally suited for heavier applications the engine needs to rev to make any kinda power, same issue the other V8 mods had, gutless bottom end. And there have been some valve train issues in the 6.2 grenaded lifters, etc. I think this is due to the low gearing needed (4:30) for towing applications and the high revs needed to make any kinda power. This may be amplified in medium duty applications.

I believe it is this failing that has kept V10's in production, the V10 is a really torquey engine thanks to the extra power stroke per revolution. The 6.2 was a large displacement engine done on the cheap it is just an over grown MOD motor with most the same issues as the V8 mods. So that may be why it's use has been limited to just the F250 and F350 pick ups.

 

A 5.8L Di for the SD pick ups would be an acceptable alternative and it would address the bottom end power issue in that application.

 

In the medium duty segment Ford should maybe take a step backwards and go back to a push rod engine, in fact it would easy enough to take the 6.7 architecture and base a gasser off it. It would just be a matter of lightening the block and redoing the heads. Kinda like the 350 Old's Diesel but in reverse. This has been done in the past especially in stationary power plants and the resulting gasoline engines were basically indestructible with life spans nearing their Diesel equivalents. Plus it would be a much lower cost alternative to a DI engine.

 

Until Ford address the valve coking issue in their Di engines it is probably best for them to stay out of the medium trucks for the time being.

Edited December 27, 2015 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

The 5.4L is still in production for the F59. It is the epitome of an orphaned engine. The 6.8 2V is also in the F59 and available through Ford Power products.

 

The F59 is now strictly a 30 valve V10: http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/strippedchassis/trim/f59commercial/. You're posting a link to the F350/450 stripped chassis, and that info seems incorrect, based on this: http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/strippedchassis/trim/e350drw/ (and also based on Biker's complaints on another thread about the inability to order an E350 cutaway with the 5.4). Yet, for some reason it shows up in their mammoth body application guide: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/2016/Body_Application_Guide_2016_LoRes.pdf

 

So I think the E350/450 5.4 availability needs to be settled by Dean H. or someone similar because I'm seeing conflicting information on that. Possibly they're going to do a buildout of remaining 5.4 stock as they did with the 6.0L back when the 6.4 came out.

 

I don't really count Ford Power products, anymore than I'd say that the old 2V 4.6 is still in production because you can buy replacement parts and build one from scratch.

[jpd80]

Well, here's a quick quiz for those that are interested,

Since Ford no longer shares MD production with Navistar and total builds of its own MD Trucks YTD is 9,700

is it even worthwhile developing a new gas engine for these and the large stripped Chassis considering

just how few are built?

 

Perhaps that's why ford favours the 6.7 diesel and why in reorganizing those MD E-sreies, it will

take the easy route with current engines.....upgrades to the 6.2 were mentioned in the UAW agreement..

Edited December 27, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

 

The F59 is now strictly a 30 valve V10: http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/strippedchassis/trim/f59commercial/. You're posting a link to the F350/450 stripped chassis, and that info seems incorrect, based on this: http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/strippedchassis/trim/e350drw/ (and also based on Biker's complaints on another thread about the inability to order an E350 cutaway with the 5.4). Yet, for some reason it shows up in their mammoth body application guide: http://www.fleet.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/brochures/2016/Body_Application_Guide_2016_LoRes.pdf

 

So I think the E350/450 5.4 availability needs to be settled by Dean H. or someone similar because I'm seeing conflicting information on that. Possibly they're going to do a buildout of remaining 5.4 stock as they did with the 6.0L back when the 6.4 came out.

 

I don't really count Ford Power products, anymore than I'd say that the old 2V 4.6 is still in production because you can buy replacement parts and build one from scratch.

 

The application brochure printed date is June 2015 so It looks like 5.4L availability was changed some point after the printed date. And it could be a build out or Ford has a large customer that is still requesting the 5,4 in the stripped chassis. 2017 will tell all on that front.

 

 

As for Power Products the V10 2V is used by several manufacturers as the power plant for stationary back up gens sets and for irrigation pumps, so regardless it is still in production for that application. The power products application uses some unique engine parts they are just not truck engines pulled from the line.

 

The lack of bottom end torque in the 6.2 is probably what has kept the 6.8 in production for the applications it is used in. Not sure what Ford can do with the 6.2L to address this issue. Again they ended up with a motor that has them a bit constrained.

 

As Jpd mentioned for medium duty applications the volume is not really there there to justify a totally new engine.

 

This is where a Gasser based off the 6.7 architecture is a viable option a it would just mean lightening the block casting and decking it, a lighter crank forging, with a revised top end.

 

A 6.7L gasser based off the 6.7 diesel would be a torque monster with the 6.7L's 4.25" stroke in a lighter package than the V10. Perfect for the F650/F750 It should in theory be a more fuel efficient engine than 6.8L V10 with 2 less cylinders and not having to rev as high, If Ford needed more an over bore of just .100" Which the 6.7 architecture could handle for gasoline, would give you 427 or 7.0L but I'm sure 6.7L would be more than enough.

 

It could also be de-bored by.150" Giving you 6.2L but with a 4.25" stroke compared to the 6.2L's 3.74" stroke.there would be no shortage of torque and perfect for the SD pick ups.There would be further opportunity to de-stroke if lower displacements were needed.

 

6.7 and 6.2 Scorpion based gas engines would be low revving (compared to the 6.8 V10 and current 6.2 V8 ) torque building motors.

With an I5 based off the 6.7 you would have the whole SD MD line Cab and chassis's and a Diesel for the F150 covered off with just one engine architecture.

 

I can see the appeal of a 5.8 Trinity based engine for the SD it would need an Iron block and having the V10's 4.165" stroke and being DI it would meet the HP and torque demands for the SD pick ups and be a more viable engine than the 6.2 is. But I doubt it could replace the V10 in the medium duty units and hang together.

 

Building gassers from the 6.7 Diesel would be a relatively inexpensive exercise as you are not designing up to meet a demand but down and that is always easier to do.

Edited December 27, 2015 by matthewq4b

[blwnsmoke]

How about them Vdubs???

[RichardJensen]

 

As Jpd mentioned for medium duty applications the volume is not really there there to justify a totally new engine.

 

That's a bit of a narrowly constrained argument, though. It doesn't count the decent E-Series volume (say ~40-50k w/a modern chassis), or Ford's cab/chassis F-Series volume, or even 3/4 & 1 ton gas pickups.

[jpd80]

 

That's a bit of a narrowly constrained argument, though. It doesn't count the decent E-Series volume (say ~40-50k w/a modern chassis), or Ford's cab/chassis F-Series volume, or even 3/4 & 1 ton gas pickups.

If all those applications were upgraded to accept current SD / MD engines is there any need for additional engines beyond that?

When those engines are made to fit all applications, I think the plan gets much simpler and easier to see...

[RichardJensen]

I think they're all going to get a new engine of some sort.

 

But at the same time, Ford's too big of a corporation for their to be a neat and tidy solution. I think there's always going to be a few stragglers and a few oddballs.

[jpd80]

I think they're all going to get a new engine of some sort.

 

But at the same time, Ford's too big of a corporation for their to be a neat and tidy solution. I think there's always going to be a few stragglers and a few oddballs.

Yeah, knowing Ford, nothing will ever be easy or straight forward...

 

You'd think that the SDs in E-Series and F-Series would be all under the one engineering envelope,

it shows how far engineering was allowed to drift apart for one reason or another and conversely,

just how long it takes to bring everything closer together..

 

What a outsider thinks is logical and sensible is probably ill advised in terms of present logistics

with funding, resources and supplier contracts. what a mine field that is to negotiate.

Edited December 27, 2015 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

You'd think that the SDs in E-Series and F-Series would be all under the one engineering envelope,

 

Well, bear in mind that the alleged 'simplicity' of the Small-block/big-block Chevy V8s ignores the wacky world of Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac V8s.

 

GM's V8 family was more odd-ball than Ford's in the 50s-70s.

 

Also, consider the old Emerson line about "foolish consistency"--would it make sense to refuse to develop 3v heads for the Mods simply because they couldn't fit in the E-Series?

[jpd80]

I meant at the moment, those SD vehicles would probably now be under the same engineering control

in order to take the next gen E-Series forward with newer power trains and other upgrades as required,

sharing a lot of the engineering modules with F- Series even if only as similar design approaches.

[matthewq4b]

 

Well, bear in mind that the alleged 'simplicity' of the Small-block/big-block Chevy V8s ignores the wacky world of Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac V8s.

 

GM's V8 family was more odd-ball than Ford's in the 50s-70s.

 

Also, consider the old Emerson line about "foolish consistency"--would it make sense to refuse to develop 3v heads for the Mods simply because they couldn't fit in the E-Series?

 

 

We have to loo back at GM's history to explain their power train choices. Each GM division was exactly that it;s own division with their own engineering dept's. They were in essence their own little fiefdom. So there was reason enough for each to be separate The executives of each had to justify their jobs. GM was more like a collection of sub-divisions under one banner and not really one company. And we all know how well that worked out long term.

 

Ford has the Mod architecture which now in cars has but one application the Mustang and how many variations of it have we seen in the Mustang, and how many were only available in the Mustang ? So Ford has proven that the Mustang can support it's own dedicated V8

 

And the 3 valve head was a bit a disaster with plugs breaking off and being left in the head. They would have been better off not pulling the 3 valve head from the Stang and using it in the trucks.

 

Ford at one time did do every thing with 2 V8 engine family's it was the 80's the small block and the 385 series. The we got the mod motors. fair enough , but they tried to make the MOD's do everything and that is where it all fell apart. It has never really worked, The engines worked great in some applications, failed in others and created a bunch of engines that never really were overly good or got stuffed in to applications they never should have been.

 

Pretty much every single major engine issue (and the list is long) they have had in the F Series in the last 15 years is because they used engines whose architecture was not primarily designed for the application.

Ford needs to to consolidate V8 engines from the SD and up. These engines do not need to be high revving engines but do need to be torque building motors. Something the mods have failed at excepting the V10 and the Trinity.

 

Ford did it right with the 385 Series it was used in everything from F-100's to F-750's with displacements ranging from 370ci to 460ci from the mid seventies to the mide late nineties.

Ford's F250 and up truck engine line up currently is in short, a mess. It is not conducive to maximizing profits by any stretch.

 

Time for Ford to leave the Mod architecture in the car's (well the mustang) and have a dedicated V8 for the SD's on up.

Ford has an excellent mid displacement V8 Diesel that has NO base architecture issues. All of the 6.7's problems have been due to ancillary equipment and a fuel filtering system that is not quite up to scratch.

As stated before, the 6.7 would be a good base for a gasser for the and would fit all the truck applications currently using a V8 or V10.

A half competent design engineering team could have a modified 6.7 gasser long block on paper inside 2 month's at most if they had access to the 6.7's original cad drawings, engineering calculations and the maximum allowable dimensions for each application.

Edited December 28, 2015 by matthewq4b

[jpd80]

Not picking on your post ( because I agree with most of what you said) but as I recall,

the 3-valve head was first used in F150 5.4 in 2002, .long before Mustang got the 4.6 3V.
Ford was slow redesigning the heads for different plugs, beyond 2008 there's no issue.
Mustang is more than ever reliant on F150 for a V8 to add volume and without those

5.0 sales in F150, I doubt Mustang would have anything like the current engine.

I agree with what you're saying about the MODs but that is with benefit of hind sight, most likely
driven by fear of impending rises in gas prices that never really occurred until about 2007.
Combine that with the elimination of V8s for cars and smaller SUVs and you have the perfect storm.

A lot of the ills with Ford's F250 are about to be addressed in the next generation, keep in mind that
the engine upgrades implemented in 2010 were life extension on an already aging product cycle
developed when Ford was still very low on cash and fighting for ts life. Since Re-organization,
I'd say that Ford has done a much better job of taking care of its primary revenue earners.

And F250 accounts for around 2/3s of all Super Duty sales so Id challenge the assertion that
it's limiting profitability, it is in fact the best earner next to F150. and it's also now an area where
Ford has to be careful with new EPA regs on fuel economy Class 2b-3 in this next product cycle

so they can't go to town on more expansive gasoline engine options, just the basics plus diesel..

 

The 6.8 fill a necessary role in MD but the volume of engines required in the short term

probably make it logical on the grounds of "minimum spend"... not saying Ford is cheap...:roll eyes

Edited December 29, 2015 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

 

 

Posted Yesterday, 03:10 PM

Not picking on your post ( because I agree with most of what you said) but as I recall,

the 3-valve head was first used in F150 5.4 in 2002, .long before Mustang got the 4.6 3V.

Ford was slow redesigning the heads for different plugs, beyond 2008 there's no issue.

Mustang is more than ever reliant on F150 for a V8 to add volume and without those

5.0 sales in F150, I doubt Mustang would have anything like the current engine.

 

I agree with what you're saying about the MODs but that is with benefit of hind sight, most likely

driven by fear of impending rises in gas prices that never really occurred until about 2007.

Combine that with the elimination of V8s for cars and smaller SUVs and you have the perfect storm.

 

A lot of the ills with Ford's F250 are about to be addressed in the next generation, keep in mind that

the engine upgrades implemented in 2010 were life extension on an already aging product cycle

developed when Ford was still very low on cash and fighting for ts life. Since Re-organization,

I'd say that Ford has done a much better job of taking care of its primary revenue earners.

 

And F250 accounts for around 2/3s of all Super Duty sales so Id challenge the assertion that

it's limiting profitability, it is in fact the best earner next to F150. and it's also now an area where

Ford has to be careful with new EPA regs on fuel economy Class 2b-3 in this next product cycle

so they can't go to town on more expansive gasoline engine options, just the basics plus diesel..

 

The 6.8 fill a necessary role in MD but the volume of engines required in the short term

probably make it logical on the grounds of "minimum spend"... not saying Ford is cheap...:roll eyes

04 was when the 3 valve ended up in the F-150 But it was not the first application of the 3 valve 5.4 that was actually in the rear drive Aussie sedans in 02.

 

Ya there is no issue with the F150 and Mustang sharing an engine and have always shared a small block V8 engine.

 

The thing limiting profitability is supplying 3 distinctly different engines for the SD and on up now the 5.4 may be using up parts but even then it is considerably more expensive than using just one engine architecture no matter how it cut.

 

The V10 is just about not a filler any longer going on it's 4th model year in MD's

 

Ford could easily go back to AVL who did most of the design work for the 6.7 PS for a gasser based off the 6.7 and an I5 Diesel. it wont even tied up Ford that much to have thew work done they just have to cut the check.

Edited December 29, 2015 by matthewq4b

[silvrsvt]

Getting back on topic...VW proposes to install new catylic converter as emissions fix

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160109/OEM11/160109821?template=mobile