Plant details behind Ford's $9 billion spending spree

[fordmantpw]

I guess you haven't heard of "One Ford". A US specific small pickup ? Not going to happen.

 

Isn't there a small global pickup (Courier??) that is in need of a replacement? Not saying that's what it will be, just speculating...

[theoldwizard]

I still think the next-gen Troller IS the new Bronco (and vice-versa).

 

Could be ! From Wikipedia

 

Ford Motor Company purchased Troller in 2007. In 2014, the Troller T4 received a major redesign, is now being built on a shortened version of Ford's T6 platform for the global Ranger. Currently looks more modern form of the Jeep Wrangler and early model Ford Bronco.

 

 

[rmc523]

 

Could be ! From Wikipedia

 

 

 

Well, Wikipedia isn't exactly a credible source.....haha.

[Hugh]

 

Could be ! From Wikipedia

 

 

Well, Wikipedia isn't exactly a credible source.....haha.

 

Considering they are using a C&D Blog post from 2014 to draw a conclusion...yeah, pretty credible

[PREMiERdrum]

I guess you haven't heard of "One Ford". A US specific small pickup ? Not going to happen.

I think the idea is a global compact pickup that slots below Ranger, which itself is too big to sell alongside F-150 here in the states.

[fordmantpw]

I think the idea is a global compact pickup that slots below Ranger, which itself is too big to sell alongside F-150 here in the states.

 

Bingo!

[jpd80]

I don't believe Ford will EVER make another production V10 !

There are points for and against but think back to why Ford did a V10 in the first place,

it was an easy way to derive a low volume large capacity engine while sharing as many

manufacturing process steps and parts as possible.

 

In terms of parts costs and changes between choosing a bigger V8 or a V10 add on is a wash.

The difference in my opinion comes down again to a V10 being less disruptive to build on the same line

as the 6.2, it still shares a lot of the existing machining process steps which is a huge plus in reducing

manufacturing cost and complexity especially on a low volume engine.

 

 

That is the right direction, but is it enough ? To be a real player in the MD petrol market, I think they need to be closer to 8.0L.

 

Any "durability" issues would obviously be addressed in this re-design.

 

Don't count out supercharging or electric turbocharging or EcoBoost (although I think EcoBoost applied to a MD engine is the least likely of the above).

I believe the durability issue was entirely due to insufficient durability and relatively poor design

of cylinder heads for intended truck use, why would you have sewer pipe sized ports on a truck engine.

It looks like the engine was designed with a hodge podge compromised elements to get it past the accountants.

 

Adding a pair of cylinders to the 6.2 turns it into an 8.1 liter V10 which is a bout right for a MD Truck gas engine.

Compare that idea with GM's failed 8.0 Liter V8 truck engine that was killed years ago, the 6.8 V10 survived

where a GM Big Block V8 didn't..... was it due to superior fuel economy or were other factors at play?

Edited November 13, 2015 by jpd80

[jpd80]

I think the idea is a global compact pickup that slots below Ranger, which itself is too big to sell alongside F-150 here in the states.

the gossip is that at the start of T6 project, the Americans want a truck that was smaller than being planned,

the width of T6 was set to grow, Nth American wanted a Ranger around 67-68" but T6 was planned at 72.5".

While those figures may not seem huge to us, it was the difference that could not be met under the planned

product envelope.

 

We've come a long way from 2006 and customers are now showing Ford that any future Ranger would not

be bought as a "cheap truck" as was the perception five years ago.... IMO, that was the excuse to close the

plant, book the savings and force those remaining customers to buy something else.

 

There's a field of opportunity for Ford to do a project on transit Connect that includes a small pick up -

I think that project need is valid but also different to the business case of a Global Ranger. Crew Cab

Ranger twinned with its Everest SUV brother would give Ford an opportunity to recreate Ranger as

a new era BOF Explorer and Sport Trac, one that fits neatly below the price zone of F150 Crew Cab

and Expedition while offering buyers a more rugged off road driving experience compared to Explorer..

Edited November 13, 2015 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

There's a field of opportunity for Ford to do a project on transit Connect that includes a small pick up -

I think that project need is valid but also different to the business case of a Global Ranger. Crew Cab

Ranger twinned with its Everest SUV brother would give Ford an opportunity to recreate Ranger as

a new era BOF Explorer and Sport Trac, one that fits neatly below the price zone of F150 Crew Cab

and Expedition while offering buyers a more rugged off road driving experience compared to Explorer..

 

But what is the market going to bear? The new GM mid-sizers are on pace to sell about 125k units a year between the two of them...which isn't really enough to keep a single plant busy or profitable...

 

What happens if gas hits $4+ again?

 

Unless Ford is planning on building the mid-sized Ranger/Everest AND a smaller pickup with the Bronco at MAP, thats the only way this would make sense...or even build the transit connect and MKC at the same plant...unless they wind up at Oakville with the Edge/MKX

[jpd80]

 

But what is the market going to bear? The new GM mid-sizers are on pace to sell about 125k units a year between the two of them...which isn't really enough to keep a single plant busy or profitable...

 

What happens if gas hits $4+ again?

 

Unless Ford is planning on building the mid-sized Ranger/Everest AND a smaller pickup with the Bronco at MAP, thats the only way this would make sense...or even build the transit connect and MKC at the same plant...unless they wind up at Oakville with the Edge/MKX

The Colorado/Canyon is not in a plant of its own, it shares facility with full sized vans.

 

So i was thinking that maybe Ford could do similar with Ranger/Everest/ Bronco shared

with a line of Transit Connect (in SWB, LWB and Wagon) and a small pick up version of TC......

 

An interesting hodge podge of products for MAP and one surely capable of weathering increases in fuel prices.

Anything but large trucks and Utilities would be safe harbor with $4/gal gas.

Edited November 16, 2015 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

There are points for and against but think back to why Ford did a V10 in the first place,

it was an easy way to derive a low volume large capacity engine while sharing as many

manufacturing process steps and parts as possible.

Possible with nearly no engineering costs, yes. The result was poor per unit cost.

 

In terms of parts costs and changes between choosing a bigger V8 or a V10 add on is a wash. The difference in my opinion comes down again to a V10 being less disruptive to build on the same line as the 6.2, it still shares a lot of the existing machining process steps which is a huge plus in reducing manufacturing cost and complexity especially on a low volume engine.

But that IS the heart of the problem ! Block and cylinder head machining lines are "hard" automation. Once design and built there is very little room for changes, especially changes of the order of magnitude of adding 2 more cylinders.

 

I am very curious to see what Ford plans to do with the 6.2L. Like the Coyote, they are likely locked into a bore spacing limit, possibly even a deck height limit.

[theoldwizard]

So i was thinking that maybe Ford could do similar with Ranger/Everest/ Bronco shared

with a line of Transit Connect (in SWB, LWB and Wagon) and a small pick up version of TC......

The size may be correct and manufacturing the TC in the US IS a good idea, but a FWD pickup ? History has shown that FWD pickups have never been a big success.

 

Could it be re-designed to be FWD/AWD/RWD. Sure, but is it worth the cost ?

[silvrsvt]

The Colorado/Canyon is not in a plant of its own, it shares facility with full sized vans.

 

 

I was under the impression that GM got out of the van business for itself. They are selling a rebadged Nissian NV200, but longer have a full sized van for light/medium duty..might still have a HD though?

[rmc523]

I was under the impression that GM got out of the van business for itself. They are selling a rebadged Nissian NV200, but longer have a full sized van for light/medium duty..might still have a HD though?

I think they only dropped the Express 1500, but the models above it are still around if I'm not mistaken.

[630land]

GM's big vans are certainly still in production, since relatives work at the plant.

[bzcat]

The size may be correct and manufacturing the TC in the US IS a good idea, but a FWD pickup ? History has shown that FWD pickups have never been a big success.

 

Could it be re-designed to be FWD/AWD/RWD. Sure, but is it worth the cost ?

 

History had also shown that FWD commercial vans have never been a big success... until Ford started selling one that the fleet buyers wanted exactly. If Ford has enough fleet buyers in the US telling it that they will buy a 30 MPG FWD truck, it will happen. But that's besides the point really. Transit Connect truck (or something similar in that size) is going to happen because Ford needs it overseas as we already discussed. So the only decision Ford has to make is whether to take a chance on the US market.

 

I was under the impression that GM got out of the van business for itself. They are selling a rebadged Nissian NV200, but longer have a full sized van for light/medium duty..might still have a HD though?

 

GM pulled out of the 8500 lbs GVWR market (Express/Savana 1500). They are still selling 2500 and 3500 van, and 4500 cab chassis. But without the 1500 in the mix, it may be tough to make some van/truck fleet deals happen. And of course, the 4500 cab chassis is not very competitive against Ford E-450, which dominates that market.

[silvrsvt]

 

 

GM pulled out of the 8500 lbs GVWR market (Express/Savana 1500). They are still selling 2500 and 3500 van, and 4500 cab chassis. But without the 1500 in the mix, it may be tough to make some van/truck fleet deals happen. And of course, the 4500 cab chassis is not very competitive against Ford E-450, which dominates that market.

Doesn't help that RAM alos has a new Van in the market, making theirs the oldest one on the market.

[jpd80]

Possible with nearly no engineering costs, yes. The result was poor per unit cost.

 

But that IS the heart of the problem ! Block and cylinder head machining lines are "hard" automation. Once design and built there is very little room for changes, especially changes of the order of magnitude of adding 2 more cylinders.

Like the modular Tritons, think about how the plant can be switched from 5.4 to 6.8 production

in a matter of hours, that's the beauty of modular design equipment, and common machining

processes across V8 and V10 blocks, heads, and crankshafts, even cams press on lobes, valve gear..

 

I am very curious to see what Ford plans to do with the 6.2L. Like the Coyote, they are likely locked into a bore spacing limit, possibly even a deck height limit.

It's almost like a low deck FE big block, I'm sure we can dream up a few favorites from the 1960s,

390, 406, 427....

[theoldwizard]

Like the modular Tritons, think about how the plant can be switched from 5.4 to 6.8 production

in a matter of hours, that's the beauty of modular design equipment, and common machining

processes across V8 and V10 blocks, heads, and crankshafts, even cams press on lobes, valve gear..

You can make all the arguments you want about a V10 being a good idea, but if the 6.2L block and cylinder head machining lines were NOT designed to accommodate a V!0 it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY it is going to happen.

 

I would also be surprised if Ford decide to do a whole new, petrol only, engine block, or should I say a new block machining line. A petrol/diesel block is possible (<8L for diesel, >8L for petrol), but I don't know if that is cost effective.

[Biker16]

 

GM pulled out of the 8500 lbs GVWR market (Express/Savana 1500). They are still selling 2500 and 3500 van, and 4500 cab chassis. But without the 1500 in the mix, it may be tough to make some van/truck fleet deals happen. And of course, the 4500 cab chassis is not very competitive against Ford E-450, which dominates that market.

 

The Issue I see is Ford is without a Diesel in the Segment, while GM offers one. For some high mileage fleets this Excludes Ford.

 

 

You can make all the arguments you want about a V10 being a good idea, but if the 6.2L block and cylinder head machining lines were NOT designed to accommodate a V!0 it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY it is going to happen.

 

I would also be surprised if Ford decide to do a whole new, petrol only, engine block, or should I say a new block machining line. A petrol/diesel block is possible (<8L for diesel, >8L for petrol), but I don't know if that is cost effective.

 

The issue I see is the 6.2 is a short Stroke Truck engine.

 

on metrics of Torque, Durability, and fuel consumption under load this design is a non starter.

 

We need a Long Stroke version of the engine.

 

With 1 inch increase in Stroke you get a 7.8l engine.

 

if you combine a increase in Stroke with Decrease Bore (increasing wall Thickness.)

 

You get Short Stroke narrow bore 5.7l V8 or a Long stoke narrow bore 7.2l V8.

[jpd80]

I think those issues have more to do with the serer sized ports making insufficient torque low in the rev range.

The stroke is actually 3.74" and probably a good balance up to around 5,000 rpm.

 

Fresh rumors that a 5.8 liter version will be joining the line up would suggest that Ford is focusing those

efforts on making F250 as fuel efficient as possible while retaining or improving the performance of that engine.

Similarly, if the 6.2 sees major improvements in efficiency and especially low end torque, maybe it becomes

the engine Ford always wanted in F350 to F550...... but that still leaves open a suitable replacement for the V10..

 

Could we in time see three variations on the Boss, a 5.8, a 6.2 and a larger 6.8 to 7.0 litre capacity.

 

TOW, I respect what you say regarding Hurricane and machinery not designed from get go to support manufacturing a V10..

Perhaps the solution is staring us all right in the face, a 5.8 for F250-F350, a better 6.2 for F250-F450 and a 7.0 for F450-F750?

Edited November 17, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

I think those issues have more to do with the serer sized ports making insufficient torque low in the rev range.

The stroke is actually 3.74" and probably a good balance up to around 5,000 rpm.

 

 

The Engine was designed to rev Which is not what you want a heavy duty Truck engine to do. as a result it's HP peak and torque peak are high in the power band. which is more stressful for the engine.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2010/02/25/robust--ford-tough--all-new-6-2-liter-gasoline-engine-complement.html

 

 

• Large bore, shorter stroke: This approach to creating power has its roots in storied Ford racing engines from the past. The large bore (102 millimeters) allows for larger intake and exhaust valves for improved engine breathing, and the short stroke (95 millimeters) allows higher engine speed for increased horsepower. Still, peak horsepower is generated at a relatively modest 5,500 rpm.

In a perfect world Truck engines should never rev higher than 5000rpm, the more severe the use the lower the Engine should REV, I think they forgot about that with the 6.2.

[fordmantpw]

Just throwing this out there...what if the 5.8L is an EcoBoost engine. Not tuned for pure HP and torque like some of the others, but with great low-end grunt, longevity, and good fuel economy under load. I've heard rumors of a turbo version of the 6.2L in the Super Duty, so maybe it's actually a turbo 5.8L....

[7Mary3]

Well, the large bore/short stroke thing didn't come from Ford's 'storied' racing engines of the past. In the U.S. both Cadillac and Oldsmobile were building oversquare V-8's while Ford was still screwing around with flatheads.

 

The Mod. V-10 was not designed because of some inherent advantage (beyond manufacturing) that a V-10 has over a V-8. I was told the primary reason for it's existence was to conform to Jac Nasser's instance that Ford only produce one family of 'obsolete' V-8 engines, and said V-8 must fit in a front wheel drive car platform. Such idiocy resulted in a compromised engine that could not grow much beyond 5.4L, clearly inadequate for all but the lightest 3//4 ton trucks. Adding 2 cylinders was the best answer to comply with the edict and still have a worthwhile gasoline engine for larger trucks. I for one would have much rather seen a modernization of the Lima engine family.

[silvrsvt]

Does anyone actually have any "proof" that the modular V8 was "compromised" for FWD applications?

 

Couple of facts:

 

The 4.6L 2v is ginormous vs the OHC 5L engine it replaced. Its much wider overall...even more so with the 4V head

 

It was only used in one FWD application...the Taurus based Continental of the mid 1990s (hmmm history repeats itself 20+ years later LOL)

 

Ford's always been a truck company...even with the general stupidity that was going on at Ford till Mulally took over, you'd think that they would focus V8 design for the F-series, not a luxury FWD car that was lucky to sell 50-100K units a year.