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

[Rick73]

17 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...

Except for buyers who are trying to avoid turbos, you’d be asking them to accept 2 instead of 1. 😀

 

May sound crazy to some of us, but there’s a reason Ford designed the Godzilla V8 to appease some buyers.  As the saying goes, make it as simple as possible and no simpler.  Cheap, simple, and more inexpensive to repair works for a lot of people.  It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to be.  When buyers are given a choice, they’ll act according to their own preferences, not what they are told by others to like.

[rmc523]

We get it.  you don't like turbos.

[Rick73]

1 minute ago, rmc523 said:

We get it.  you don't like turbos.

Love them, when needed.  Just don’t personally need one.  Or two.  When you don’t need a lot of power, which I don’t, they make very little sense.  It’s not that I don’t like them, they just don’t serve a purpose for me.  I’m in the KISS camp whenever possible.

[92merc]

Given both GM and RAM have had issues with the active fuel management system, ie collapsed lifters, I wouldn't say those engines are any more simple.  From what I've seen, I'd say lifter issues have made both of those less reliable than Ford's "complex" twin turbos.  Collapsed lifters seem to be more prevalent than even the variable valve timing issues the EB's and Gen1/2 Coyotes have had.

[akirby]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Except for buyers who are trying to avoid turbos, you’d be asking them to accept 2 instead of 1. 😀

 

May sound crazy to some of us, but there’s a reason Ford designed the Godzilla V8 to appease some buyers.  As the saying goes, make it as simple as possible and no simpler.  Cheap, simple, and more inexpensive to repair works for a lot of people.  It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to be.  When buyers are given a choice, they’ll act according to their own preferences, not what they are told by others to like.

Except in this case it was a cheaper simpler alternative to the 6.7 turbo diesel and all the added costs of a diesel including fuel.  When you compare it to a Coyote v8 it’s not that much better.

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Love them, when needed.  Just don’t personally need one.  Or two.  When you don’t need a lot of power, which I don’t, they make very little sense.  It’s not that I don’t like them, they just don’t serve a purpose for me.  I’m in the KISS camp whenever possible.

Well I went from a 3.0L NA v6 fusion that got 17-18 mpg to a 2.0L turbo fusion that got 22 mpg easily and up to 28 on the highway.   And wife went from a 3.5L NA edge and 3.7L NA MKX to a 2.0L turbo Nautilus.  Edge and MKX were at 17-20 mpg.  Nautilus is minimum 22-25 and 28-30 on trips.  And the turbo is easier to drive because it builds torque so quickly at lower rpm.  With the V 6s you had to wind them out to get power.  So other than potential repair costs there is no logical reason to not want turbos.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

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

Well inventory began shooting up the moment Ram ended production of the classic and its

V8…..

It may not have been the cause but certainly didn’t help matters, so I would say that Ram is in

a much worse situation than GM or Ford 

Edited February 28 by jpd80

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, 92merc said:

Given both GM and RAM have had issues with the active fuel management system, ie collapsed lifters, I wouldn't say those engines are any more simple.  From what I've seen, I'd say lifter issues have made both of those less reliable than Ford's "complex" twin turbos.  Collapsed lifters seem to be more prevalent than even the variable valve timing issues the EB's and Gen1/2 Coyotes have had.

It’s no only the AFM lifters failing either, the normal (non-AFM) roller lifters are also failing.

Same thing is happening in the 7.3 as well by the way….

[Rick73]

57 minutes ago, akirby said:

Except in this case it was a cheaper simpler alternative to the 6.7 turbo diesel and all the added costs of a diesel including fuel.  When you compare it to a Coyote v8 it’s not that much better.

Agree cheaper and simpler than diesel, but doesn’t explain why Ford went to cost of developing all-new Godzilla instead of upgrading 5.4L V8 and or 6.8L V10.  I would guess market research, especially from fleets, indicated a pushrod V8 along with simpler port fuel injection was preferred by these buyers.  Don’t get me wrong, my V10 has well over 200,000 miles and still going strong, so not complaining one bit.  Given a choice, would take Godzilla though.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Well I went from a 3.0L NA v6 fusion that got 17-18 mpg to a 2.0L turbo fusion that got 22 mpg easily and up to 28 on the highway.   And wife went from a 3.5L NA edge and 3.7L NA MKX to a 2.0L turbo Nautilus.  Edge and MKX were at 17-20 mpg.  Nautilus is minimum 22-25 and 28-30 on trips.  And the turbo is easier to drive because it builds torque so quickly at lower rpm.  With the V 6s you had to wind them out to get power.  So other than potential repair costs there is no logical reason to not want turbos.

That’s probably the main hurdle that scares some people away.  I personally think that buyers who trade frequently, and therefore keep their vehicles mostly while under warranty, are not too concerned with possible major repair costs.  On the other hand those who buy and drive until wheels fall off, or can’t afford huge repair costs without incurring hardship, may feel differently.

 

You've mentioned maintenance is no different, which I mostly agree with, but long term repairs probably are significantly higher for vehicles kept 200,000 miles or so.  And for what it’s worth, I don’t think gas savings would pay for many added repairs at present shop rates, and also how much time it takes to fix engines with all the clutter around them.  For my personal preferences, if not for emissions, an even smaller version of Godzilla similar in displacement to Chevy 5.3 would be good enough.  Honestly, the 5.3 in a 4WD Silverado Crew Cab feels plenty quick, so may not need to be that large.

[akirby]

42 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Agree cheaper and simpler than diesel, but doesn’t explain why Ford went to cost of developing all-new Godzilla instead of upgrading 5.4L V8 and or 6.8L V10.  I would guess market research, especially from fleets, indicated a pushrod V8 along with simpler port fuel injection was preferred by these buyers.  Don’t get me wrong, my V10 has well over 200,000 miles and still going strong, so not complaining one bit.  Given a choice, would take Godzilla though.

Maybe the 5.4 didn’t have enough torque and the v10 was bad on emissions or mpg.  More likely it was cheaper for Ford to manufacture.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

It’s no only the AFM lifters failing either, the normal (non-AFM) roller lifters are also failing.

Same thing is happening in the 7.3 as well by the way….

Wasn't the 7.3 designed almost with the sole intent of being this indestructible heavy duty truck engine? I remember the longevity of that motor being one of the main speaking points when it was revealed. If it's failing relatively often, that's a shame. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Agree cheaper and simpler than diesel, but doesn’t explain why Ford went to cost of developing all-new Godzilla instead of upgrading 5.4L V8 and or 6.8L V10.  I would guess market research, especially from fleets, indicated a pushrod V8 along with simpler port fuel injection was preferred by these buyers.  Don’t get me wrong, my V10 has well over 200,000 miles and still going strong, so not complaining one bit.  Given a choice, would take Godzilla though.

You answered your own question, the 6.8 was brought back for MD because it was rugged enough to survive

while Ford developed a suitable replacement after the 6.2 failed durability testing. They had a choice, make the

often mentioned 7.0 Boss or take the opportunity to totally rework the engine into something new and simpler.

 

The 7.3 is like Ford’s LS but for bigger vehicles, modifiers are going to jump on this as a better option in a Ford

where parkas a coyote is a really tight fit or they just want a pushrod engine for simplicity.

 

54 minutes ago, akirby said:

Maybe the 5.4 didn’t have enough torque and the v10 was bad on emissions or mpg.  More likely it was cheaper for Ford to manufacture.

Yes, yes and yes.

The V10 was brought back for MD as a stop gap measure after the 6.2 couldn’t pass MD durability test.

The 7.3 looks like a total rework of the Boss truck idea  into the pushrod truck engine the brass originally

wanted back in the early 2000s.

Edited February 28 by jpd80

[Winnipesaukee1]

15 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Wasn't the 7.3 designed almost with the sole intent of being this indestructible heavy duty truck engine? I remember the longevity of that motor being one of the main speaking points when it was revealed. If it's failing relatively often, that's a shame. 

It’s failing way more than the 6.2 ever did due to low quality lifters. Wish I had just ordered my 22 with the 6.2 as I will be driving it for a while due to Ford discontinuing the configuration.

[jpd80]

26 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Wasn't the 7.3 designed almost with the sole intent of being this indestructible heavy duty truck engine? I remember the longevity of that motor being one of the main speaking points when it was revealed. If it's failing relatively often, that's a shame. 

Most definitely a supplier issue where the roller bearings in the roller lifters seem to be failing prematurely.

and the reason for roller cams:

With modern oils, there’s no phosphorus in ther to poison converters so breaking in 

flat tappet cams no longer successful unless you buy classic oil for pre-2006 engines.

Edited February 28 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

Vast majority of car and truck buyers don't give a shit what is inside their car for an engine as long it runs well and gets ok gas mileage in their eyes.

 

All your doing is trying to pick pepper out of fly shit...and the success of the Ecoboost engines in the F-150 has shown that it is pretty much a nonfactor with 60% of sales being one. 

[jpd80]

55 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

Vast majority of car and truck buyers don't give a shit what is inside their car for an engine as long it runs well and gets ok gas mileage in their eyes.

 

All your doing is trying to pick pepper out of fly shit...and the success of the Ecoboost engines in the F-150 has shown that it is pretty much a nonfactor with 60% of sales being one. 

Not sure who you are directing that to but my guess is our friend…so no offence taken.

 

There is a big difference in early acceptance by Ford buyers and Ecoboost engines (complete success as you said)

the EB 35 so successful that it put the 6.2 boss engine on the scrap heap, killed it for CAFE fuel efficiency.

 

What will be harder to switch are GM and Ram fans who do prefer their V8 and the big issue for

Ram is that it never prepared buyers for the change and the quick withdrawal of the hemi V8.

(Ford didn’t either but their buyers were always open to something new/different)

 

GM hasn’t even tried beyond the 2.7 I-4 turbo because sales of that have been woeful,

they will die on the V8 hill even though they have had 3.0/3.6 V6 TT available for years.….

perhaps Mary Barra still has all of GM eggs in the BEV basket?

Edited March 1 by jpd80

[Sherminator98]

19 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

What will be harder to switch are GM and Ram fans who do prefer their V8 and the big issue for

Ram is that it never prepared buyers for the change and the quick withdrawal of the hemi V8.

(Ford didn’t either but their buyers were always open to something new/different)

 

I think Ram's issue is that their buyers often are at the lower end of the spectrum economically-Ram where/are very popular with firefighters (at least where I have lived at) and that isn't exactly a job that can afford a 50K plus pickup new now. 

 

[92LX302]

The main issue I had when I bought my F150 Tremor last fall is that with Ford's simplified packages, you end up paying way more for a specific feature. There's a pretty big jump in price between a 401A and a 402A. This was especially apparent when compared to GMC which pretty much let you build an AT4 à-la-carte. 

 

 

 

Also... Is offering the Tremor in red too much to ask, Ford? 

Edited March 1 by 92LX302

[jpd80]

33 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I think Ram's issue is that their buyers often are at the lower end of the spectrum economically-Ram where/are very popular with firefighters (at least where I have lived at) and that isn't exactly a job that can afford a 50K plus pickup new now. 

And no doubt that monthly payment is getting way beyond many buyers.

[fuzzymoomoo]

12 hours ago, 92LX302 said:

The main issue I had when I bought my F150 Tremor last fall is that with Ford's simplified packages, you end up paying way more for a specific feature. There's a pretty big jump in price between a 401A and a 402A. This was especially apparent when compared to GMC which pretty much let you build an AT4 à-la-carte. 

 

 

 

Also... Is offering the Tremor in red too much to ask, Ford? 

This is my biggest issue as well. There’s literally only 3 things I really considered must-haves when I was looking and to get all 3 I damn near had to get a Lariat. I don’t want blue cruise or any of that self driving stuff. At least give me the option to remove that. One of the myriad reasons I kept my Fusion. 

[Rick73]

13 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

Vast majority of car and truck buyers don't give a shit what is inside their car for an engine as long it runs well and gets ok gas mileage in their eyes.

 

All your doing is trying to pick pepper out of fly shit...and the success of the Ecoboost engines in the F-150 has shown that it is pretty much a nonfactor with 60% of sales being one. 

Manufacturers have been “branding” engines since before we were born, so at least they must think some buyers care; though most may not fully understand differences.  Truck buyers may be more hands-on guys than average so may care more, who knows.  First branded engine I recall hearing as a child was Olds Rocket V8 when old guys were reminiscing the good old days.
 

Anyway, sounds good to throw around names like Hemi, Cummings, EcoBoost, PowerStroke, etc.  If buyers didn’t care, why waste money on marketing?  Granted, most buyers today don’t care as much unless they read it on an Internet review.

 

EcoBoost has undoubtedly been a great sales success for Ford.  Assuming 60% of F-150 are equipped with EB, that number becomes much smaller as a percentage of all half-ton pickups.  Until recently, I’d guess 3 out of 4 buyers or more chose V8s, or entry-level N.A. V6s for those on tighter budget.  That’s not a definitive endorsement for the fuel-saving technology.  IMO Farley is justified in questioning what Ford can do differently or better to increase F-150 market share even more.  If he thinks anything is perfect and can’t get better, he should get fired.

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Manufacturers have been “branding” engines since before we were born, so at least they must think some buyers care; though most may not fully understand differences.  Truck buyers may be more hands-on guys than average so may care more, who knows.  First branded engine I recall hearing as a child was Olds Rocket V8 when old guys were reminiscing the good old days.
 

Anyway, sounds good to throw around names like Hemi, Cummings, EcoBoost, PowerStroke, etc.  If buyers didn’t care, why waste money on marketing?  Granted, most buyers today don’t care as much unless they read it on an Internet review.

 

EcoBoost has undoubtedly been a great sales success for Ford.  Assuming 60% of F-150 are equipped with EB, that number becomes much smaller as a percentage of all half-ton pickups.  Until recently, I’d guess 3 out of 4 buyers or more chose V8s, or entry-level N.A. V6s for those on tighter budget.  That’s not a definitive endorsement for the fuel-saving technology.  IMO Farley is justified in questioning what Ford can do differently or better to increase F-150 market share even more.  If he thinks anything is perfect and can’t get better, he should get fired.

Most of those engine “brands” like Coyote and Godzilla are internal code names that enthusiasts have adopted.  Not marketing to get buyers.  Hemi was the exception when it first came out.

 

Your perception of how people shop for vehicles is really skewed by your personal preferences.   Most of us here aren’t average buyers either but we understand and accept that.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Your perception of how people shop for vehicles is really skewed by your personal preferences.   Most of us here aren’t average buyers either but we understand and accept that.

Yes, I have personal preferences, but who doesn't?  Obviously I buy based on my preferences, needs, budget, etc. but again, so does everyone else.  I’m as objective as a person can get, highly analytical, and deal mostly in facts.  I try my best to participate on that basis but sometimes lines get blurred.  I know perfectly well that because I like something doesn’t mean others will, or should.  I may like Coke best, but understand and accept there are a lot of Pepsi drinkers too.  Likewise, just because I prefer N.A. engines for myself doesn’t mean I think EB are bad or should be avoided.  Like with most things, there are pros and cons to both types of engines.

[DeluxeStang]

On 2/26/2025 at 5:07 PM, Rick73 said:

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.

Because we're talking about complexity and long term reliability, do we have any accurate data comparing Ecoboost engines to the 5.0 and to the competition's v8's?

 

My uncle bought a 2018 f-150 5.0 10 speed recently because he wanted something really reliable and thought the 5.0 would be more trouble free than a 3.5. the truck had about 45k miles on it when he bought it and had already had it's, it believe they're called cam phasers and lifters, replaced. The front dif also went out and was about 6 grand, that's apparently a very common issue on that gen of f-150.

 

He's only had it for like 20k miles. Whereas my neighbor has a 2019 ranger that's been dead reliable believe it or not despite only having a 2.3 4 cyl, an even smaller engine that what our significantly lighter maverick hybrid has, and it seems to get by just fine. 

 

I take your point, but there are so many high mileage Ecoboost motors now, the highest I've heard of was 600k on a transit fleet van, original motor still. It seems like it mostly comes down to maintaince, people beat the shit out of cars, and neglect them, then blame the brand when they break.