Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Budget F-150 Shoppers Looking At Ram, GM

[Sherminator98]

https://fordauthority.com/2025/02/ford-ceo-jim-farley-says-budget-f-150-shoppers-looking-at-ram-gm/

[ZanatWork]

Given the size/cost/complexity of most modern full-size pickups, I wouldn't be surprised for the Maverick and Ranger market niches to gain more momentum going forward. It's easy to forget, in these days of 2oo-300 "base" hp in so many levels of trucks, that many years went by with half-ton, small block V8 equipped pickups averaging around 160-170 hp.

Granted, modern vehicles are much heavier due to safety regs and what-not, but I wonder if full size pickups might soon go beyond the price/capabilities that average buyers require or even desire...?

[Motorpsychology]

As the piece points out, the pickup market is becoming increasingly 2-tier. there will always be a market for lower price trucks, but there is a certain stigma with things "budget." Nissan Titan quit the segment even though they undercut the others by quite a bit on MSRP and ATP.

[Motorpsychology]

7 minutes ago, ZanatWork said:

Given the size/cost/complexity of most modern full-size pickups, I wouldn't be surprised for the Maverick and Ranger market niches to gain more momentum going forward. It's easy to forget, in these days of 2oo-300 "base" hp in so many levels of trucks, that many years went by with half-ton, small block V8 equipped pickups averaging around 160-170 hp.

Granted, modern vehicles are much heavier due to safety regs and what-not, but I wonder if full size pickups might soon go beyond the price/capabilities that average buyers require or even desire...?

Great signature!

[Sherminator98]

53 minutes ago, ZanatWork said:

Granted, modern vehicles are much heavier due to safety regs and what-not, but I wonder if full size pickups might soon go beyond the price/capabilities that average buyers require or even desire...?

Done underestimate people’s desires to overbuy when it comes to a vehicle. 
 

I have buddy of mine with an older F-150 and he does rentals and fixes them up-he also has two kids between 7-13. He was complaining about the costs of maintenance at the dealership of that F-150 and costs of a new or even used one-I mentioned to him that maybe a Maverick might be a good choice instead? 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, ZanatWork said:

Given the size/cost/complexity of most modern full-size pickups, I wouldn't be surprised for the Maverick and Ranger market niches to gain more momentum going forward. It's easy to forget, in these days of 2oo-300 "base" hp in so many levels of trucks, that many years went by with half-ton, small block V8 equipped pickups averaging around 160-170 hp.

Granted, modern vehicles are much heavier due to safety regs and what-not, but I wonder if full size pickups might soon go beyond the price/capabilities that average buyers require or even desire...?

Yes, and even lower in cost than small block V8 was the 300 cubic inch six (4.9L) which was base engine on many pickups.  I prefer the six over the 302 V8 for trucks.  Power was close to same but felt like it pulled stronger at low RPMs.  The six was a workhorse though only around 150 HP.  No doubt it would have been way too slow for buyers today.

 

The problem I see is that a lower-power engine alone won’t same much cost.  Pickups have gradually become larger, heavier, and far more luxurious and complicated.  

[mackinaw]

42 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, and even lower in cost than small block V8 was the 300 cubic inch six (4.9L) which was base engine on many pickups.  I prefer the six over the 302 V8 for trucks.  Power was close to same but felt like it pulled stronger at low RPMs.  The six was a workhorse though only around 150 HP.  No doubt it would have been way too slow for buyers today.....

 

I have the 4.9L six in my '94 F-150.  A legendary engine.  I don't haul much in it, just firewood in the fall.  You're right in that it is slow, but even after 31 years, it's smoothness still amazes me.  There's times while stopped at a stoplight, I'm not sure the engine is even running.    

[akirby]

3 hours ago, ZanatWork said:

Given the size/cost/complexity of most modern full-size pickups, I wouldn't be surprised for the Maverick and Ranger market niches to gain more momentum going forward. It's easy to forget, in these days of 2oo-300 "base" hp in so many levels of trucks, that many years went by with half-ton, small block V8 equipped pickups averaging around 160-170 hp.

Granted, modern vehicles are much heavier due to safety regs and what-not, but I wonder if full size pickups might soon go beyond the price/capabilities that average buyers require or even desire...?

As sales start to drop prices will also drop back closer to pre pandemic levels adjusted for inflation.  Back then you had XL/STX models starting around $30k and XLTs in the mid to upper $30ks after incentives.  And you’re just not going to save very much on cost or mpg with a smaller cheaper engine than the 2.7L.

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Done underestimate people’s desires to overbuy when it comes to a vehicle. 
 

I have buddy of mine with an older F-150 and he does rentals and fixes them up-he also has two kids between 7-13. He was complaining about the costs of maintenance at the dealership of that F-150 and costs of a new or even used one-I mentioned to him that maybe a Maverick might be a good choice instead? 

Does he need to do a lot of towing or carry a lot of bulky items in the bed? If he does, I'd recommend a ranger, more capable than the maverick, cheaper to buy and operate than an f-150. 

 

But if he doesn't need to do a ton of towing or hauling, the maverick could be a really good suggestion. The maverick is the perfect "I need to haul a dresser" type of truck. 

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

I have the 4.9L six in my '94 F-150.  A legendary engine.  I don't haul much in it, just firewood in the fall.  You're right in that it is slow, but even after 31 years, it's smoothness still amazes me.  There's times while stopped at a stoplight, I'm not sure the engine is even running.    

Agree, great engine.  Interesting to consider that a similar engine using present-day technology would be closer to 300 HP, using Godzilla V8 as reference, which would be more acceptable in power today than the 4.9L I-6 of the past.  However, as Kirby stated, wouldn’t save a ton of money upfront, and would likely burn a bit more gas than 2.7L EB in City cycle.  Even so, I’d still prefer it over a 2.7L EB V6.  Gas savings alone don’t add up to big dollars IMO, and there’s more to joy of driving.  Meeting emission regulations would likely be the real challenge though.  I think GM is only manufacturer left with pushrod half-ton pickups.

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 Gas savings alone don’t add up to big dollars IMO, and there’s more to joy of driving.  

That 2.7 ecoboost has gobs of torque below 2000 rpm.  My 3.5 F150 just loafs along effortlessly at 1100 rpm at 45 mph and gets 26 mpg.  

[ausrutherford]

His statement eludes to that GMC buyers and Ford buyers are similar. This reminds to 15 years ago when a lot of people said GM should have killed GMC when they restructured and Chevy could carry on. However, GM research said that GMC buyers would go to Ford at too high of a percentage. 

 

It appears that is still true. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

That 2.7 ecoboost has gobs of torque below 2000 rpm.  My 3.5 F150 just loafs along effortlessly at 1100 rpm at 45 mph and gets 26 mpg.  

I’m quite aware of your preference. 😀

 

My point on trying to reduce costs, as Farley discussed, is that if I (or others) drive 10,000 miles per year, get +/- 20 MPG, and therefore buy +/- 500 gallons of gas annually at a cost of roughly $1,500, saving 10% or so by swapping a larger-displacement base N.A. engine for a twin-turbo smaller-displacement engine will be difficult to justify if only saving $150 a year.  I know very well how we got to where we are due to government regulations, but if viewed from perspective of buyer who may want what he wants regardless of government restrictions, he may take cheaper, larger, and simpler engine of similar power and spend a bit more on gas.  RAM replaced Hemi pushrod V8 with twin turbo six and fans didn’t like lack of choice, and GM has pushrod V8s, including 5.3L, and they hold their own against 2.7L TurboMax.  Granted, buyers do not buy trucks based solely on engine or gas costs.

 

From a cost standpoint I don’t drive enough anymore to justify a smaller turbo engine on gas savings alone, and from enjoyment standpoint, I actually prefer the slightly higher purring RPMs of a N.A. engine.  I suppose having Mustangs that cruised at around 3,000 RPM at 70~75 MPH influenced my preferences today.  Even my V10 cruises well above 2,000 RPM, and I don’t mind the engine speed, which is saying a lot because engine is not as smooth as old Ford I-6s.

 

I know we have discussed this topic before that IMO Ford no longer has a basic entry-level F-150 engine.  Note I said “IMO” because I also know you disagree.  It’s just interesting that Farley brings up related subject matter in slightly different context.

[jpd80]

Conversely, for Ram or Silverado to now add a turbo 6 would be tough going for their buyers to accept. Just thinking if CAFE keeps rising over the next couple of years, the GM 5.3 may be in trouble….or not.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Well, no kidding. Not as many want a $500+/mo lease payment as you hoped, eh? 
 

 

[Dequindre]

I can definitely see this being the case. GM and Ram seem to have better option packages that allow people to build desirable trucks at a (relatively speaking for the full-size market) decent price. Ford's option packages cause the MSRP to rise quickly. 

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Dequindre said:

I can definitely see this being the case. GM and Ram seem to have better option packages that allow people to build desirable trucks at a (relatively speaking for the full-size market) decent price. Ford's option packages cause the MSRP to rise quickly. 

To be fair, the RAM and GM trucks can be optioned up to high prices rather quickly as well.

They only give the perception of low cost until you start wanting a well appointed vehicle,

it just doesn’t seem as painful when the monthly payments are stretched out to 72 or 84 months..

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Conversely, for Ram or Silverado to now add a turbo 6 would be tough going for their buyers to accept. Just thinking if CAFE keeps rising over the next couple of years, the GM 5.3 may be in trouble….or not.

Valid point.  We often speculate people don’t like change, but that’s not entirely correct IMO.  What people don’t like is bad change, or change for the worse.  In case of RAM the new twin-turbo I-6 has had some issues, it costs more, and EPA rating is not as good as base Pentastar V6.  Budget minded buyers will likely stick with cheaper NA V6 anyway, and it appears many others want the Hemi back as an option.  As with Ford, fuel economy differences don’t add up to a lot of savings, and if they have to use premium gas for the turbo engines, it offsets EPA fuel cost savings.  From my perspective manufacturers gain more by meeting CAFE than individual buyers do.

 

If you recall Ford and Chevy both canceled twin turbo I-6 projects a couple of years ago when electrification was taking over.  It was probably the right move as buyers started to push back on everything that costs them more.

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/03/gm-turbo-six-cylinder-truck-engine-project-canceled-exclusive/

 

IMO the entire thing is a huge mess because government regulators placed burden on manufacturers instead of buyers thinking the masses wouldn’t push back as hard because it didn’t affect them directly, but eventually buyers pay the price themselves one way or another.  And you’re correct that CAFE, EPA, etc. may all change now, and again in a few years.  I doubt anyone knows what is going to happen with regulations, including manufacturers.

[jpd80]

Truck buyers like what they like and clearly, many Ram and Silverado/Sierra buyers

are rusted on to the V8s. GM and Ram did such a good job of convincing generations

of buyers to stay V8 that a turbo V6 was not needed.

 

Conversely, Ford moved quickly to shift buyers from 4.6/5.4/5.0/6.2 to the 2.7 & 3.5 EBs.

Well, it didn’t seem like much to convince people to switch. In the late 2000s, that switch

couples with DI and 6-speed autos was  a winning combination that Ford built on with the

JV 10-speed auto and hybrid. While all of those elements seem complex, the less complex

alternative for Ford was to go BEV and ditch the lot. When that plan went off the boil, the

alternative of hybrids, PHEVs and EREVS is simply a rejigger of what’s  already in play.

It’s most definitely reactionary, not proactive…and who can blame Ford when the rules

look to be up in the air with the latest politics..

 

At the moment, the simples thing to do is just off3 cash incentives and killer lease deals,

do the traditional selling strategies and work down those inventories until the latest build

profile works it way through to buyers.

Edited February 27 by jpd80

[papilgee4evaeva]

20 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Conversely, for Ram or Silverado to now add a turbo 6 would be tough going for their buyers to accept. Just thinking if CAFE keeps rising over the next couple of years, the GM 5.3 may be in trouble….or not.

I figure they would jump on the turbo-6 since the base engine in the Silverado has been a turbo-4 for a few years now...

[balthisar]

My LL5 manager drives a Ram, and won't even look at Fords.

 

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, balthisar said:

My LL5 manager drives a Ram, and won't even look at Fords.

 

My dentist sold his Ram and bought an F-350.  

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, papilgee4evaeva said:

I figure they would jump on the turbo-6 since the base engine in the Silverado has been a turbo-4 for a few years now...

Yeah but it doesn’t sell all that well,

especially when compared to the F150 2.7 Ecoboost. 
Ram having big issues with selling its I-6 turbo right when inventory is stacked up.

[Sherminator98]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Ram having big issues with selling its I-6 turbo right when inventory is stacked up.

 

I think its more so product mix (higher end vehicles vs lower end) then the engine. 

[Rick73]

New twin-turbo Hurricane six contributes to that higher price compared to Hemi or Pentastar.  It’s difficult to separate issues completely, though IMO some/many buyers inherently want to keep engines as simple as possible, even if fuel consumption is a bit higher.