Ford Vice Chair John Lawler expects more engine outsourcing to suppliers

[Biker16]

Ford Vice Chair John Lawler expects more engine outsourcing to suppliers 

 

Quote

Ford Vice Chair John Lawler expects more engine outsourcing to suppliers. Combustion engines will no longer be brand differentiators and will increasingly be sourced from suppliers as automakers look to stay competitive against low-cost Chinese rivals, Ford Vice Chair John Lawler said.

 

[mackinaw]

More on this from today's Autoline Daily.  Go to the 1:38 mark.

 

https://www.autoline.tv/daily/ad-4070-ford-could-outsource-engines-ram-revives-the-hemi-uk-production-hits-70-year-low/

[Harley Lover]

Possible interpretation: We've been able to do this (outsourcing) in China and reduce costs, so why wouldn't we do this in our U.S. market?

Editorial: this is another example of everything wrong with Ford, which has historically been driven (behind the scenes) by the Finance function. Granted, Ford are in business to be as profitable as possible, but IMO engines (as long as they're used in vehicles) are absolutely a differentiator and arguably the heart and soul of any auto company worth its oats. After all, it's Ford MOTOR Company. Look at the example of Ford's original hybrid effort with the Escape, and the lengths Ford went to to point out that Ford developed its own hybrid system, that it wasn't simply building Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive on license. Engineering is at the heart and soul of a car company, and this jack wipe would sell Ford's soul to save a buck. /rant

[Sherminator98]

29 minutes ago, Harley Lover said:

Possible interpretation: We've been able to do this (outsourcing) in China and reduce costs, so why wouldn't we do this in our U.S. market?

Editorial: this is another example of everything wrong with Ford, which has historically been driven (behind the scenes) by the Finance function. Granted, Ford are in business to be as profitable as possible, but IMO engines (as long as they're used in vehicles) are absolutely a differentiator and arguably the heart and soul of any auto company worth its oats. After all, it's Ford MOTOR Company. Look at the example of Ford's original hybrid effort with the Escape, and the lengths Ford went to to point out that Ford developed its own hybrid system, that it wasn't simply building Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive on license. Engineering is at the heart and soul of a car company, and this jack wipe would sell Ford's soul to save a buck. /rant

 

Counterpoint-consumers really don't care? In the grand scheme of things ICE engines are nothing more then marketing exercises and at least in Ford's case, customers are willing to embrace say Ecoboost V6s in the F-150 vs Ram getting rid of the Hemi in the Ram 1500? 

 

Long term it makes sense, since ICE is going to just shrink and shrink as time goes on. 

[twintornados]

Ford design but built in Cheapconquic, China....got it. Should do wonders for the warranty column. 

[scode1]

Looks like GM is taking a different approach to this.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gm-invest-least-800-million-engine-production-new-york-facility-sources-say-2025-05-27/

[Biker16]

I can foresee Ford, abandoning Development of Small displacement engines (<2.5 l) due to shrinking global small and medium vehicle sales. 

[jpd80]

I wonder if Ford has seen an opportunity to pick up at low cost, the Ram 3.0 I-6 turbo,

maybe indifferent sales of that engine in Ram 1500 has Ram knocking on Ford’s door…

 

Also,I kind of agree with biker with regards to outsourcing smaller capacity engines

and transmissions from say, VW?

 

The main reason for Ford doing any of this would be to reduce ICE production assets 

as in, getting them off the books by out sourcing like it’s already done with big chunks

of its other production assets…

 

So, If they don’t see a down side to this, could that be a future problem?

Edited June 7 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I wonder if Ford has seen an opportunity to pick up at low cost, the Ram 3.0 I-6 turbo,

maybe indifferent sales of that engine in Ram 1500 has Ram knocking on Ford’s door…

That's possible, but even if Ford buy engines from ram at a low cost, I don't know what they would buy the 3.0 from them when their own turbocharged v6 motors are so much better. Ecoboost engines are basically best in class as far as turbocharged engines are concerned. 

 

I could see Ford outsourcing powertrains in segments where it doesn't really matter, and they aren't all that remarkable, think things like the escape engine lineup. But in areas where Ford is a powertrain leader, or where those engines are still seen as being a major point of differentiation in the product, I firmly believe Ford will continue to invest. 

I could see Ford giving the 5.0 or their larger ecoboosts several additional reiterations in the coming years and decades.

 

As with all things, it'll be a mix. No-one cares what kind of engine an edge has, so I could totally see Ford buying from an external engine supplier for products like that, but still developing next gen truck and performance vehicle powertrains in house. 

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's possible, but even if Ford buy engines from ram at a low cost, I don't know what they would buy the 3.0 from them when their own turbocharged v6 motors are so much better. Ecoboost engines are basically best in class as far as turbocharged engines are concerned. 

 

I could see Ford outsourcing powertrains in segments where it doesn't really matter, and they aren't all that remarkable, think things like the escape engine lineup. But in areas where Ford is a powertrain leader, or where those engines are still seen as being a major point of differentiation in the product, I firmly believe Ford will continue to invest. 

I could see Ford giving the 5.0 or their larger ecoboosts several additional reiterations in the coming years and decades.

 

As with all things, it'll be a mix. No-one cares what kind of engine an edge has, so I could totally see Ford buying from an external engine supplier for products like that, but still developing next gen truck and performance vehicle powertrains in house. 

I think you are right as I misunderstood what John Lawler was quoted as saying in the auto line link 

he was talking about two possible engine suppliers one being VW, the other I couldn’t quite make out

but I think it was engine manufacturing spin off from Renault (?), I think he said “Horse”

 

Anyways, sounds like small engines and for Europe and maybe ROW markets, so maybe not North America.

Edited June 7 by jpd80

[Rick73]

Ford Authority linked video claiming essentially all-new 2.0L EcoBoost, so if correct (not 100% sure it is), at least for time being Ford will not need to develop a new popular engine size.

 

https://fordauthority.com/2025/06/2025-ford-maverick-2-0l-ecoboost-essentially-all-new-video/

 

Video makes it sound like new engine is likely an extension of Modular Power Cylinder architecture which in this case has 84mm bore X 90mm stroke, but sources like Wikipedia make it seem those engine dimensions have been around for a few years.  Maybe newest 2.0L EB just had not made it to Maverick yet.  The important part is that Ford is still working on proprietary engines.

[Rick73]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I wonder if Ford has seen an opportunity to pick up at low cost, the Ram 3.0 I-6 turbo,

maybe indifferent sales of that engine in Ram 1500 has Ram knocking on Ford’s door…

Ford obviously had some interest in an Inline-6 a few years ago when it was reported they were working on a new engine design for F-150, but since that time new Modular Power Cylinder 4-cylinder engines have been introduced, suggesting that architecture is the direction Ford is going.  Rather than buy RAM Hurricane I-6, I think Ford would more likely add 2 more cylinders to Mustang/Explorer/Ranger/Bronco 2.3L I4s to make new 3.4L MPC engine.

[akirby]

18 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Ford obviously had some interest in an Inline-6 a few years ago when it was reported they were working on a new engine design for F-150, but since that time new Modular Power Cylinder 4-cylinder engines have been introduced, suggesting that architecture is the direction Ford is going.  Rather than buy RAM Hurricane I-6, I think Ford would more likely add 2 more cylinders to Mustang/Explorer/Ranger/Bronco 2.3L I4s to make new 3.4L MPC engine.

There is zero reason to make a new 3.4L engine.  2.0 and 2.3 ecoboost are smaller and work better in transverse applications and RWD 2.3, 2.7, 3.0 and 3.5 have the RWD segment covered.  There just would t be enough advantages to offset development of a totally new engine.

[Trader 10]

3 minutes ago, akirby said:

There is zero reason to make a new 3.4L engine.  2.0 and 2.3 ecoboost are smaller and work better in transverse applications and RWD 2.3, 2.7, 3.0 and 3.5 have the RWD segment covered.  There just would t be enough advantages to offset development of a totally new engine.

Sure it would. Ford found enough reasons to develop all new 2.0 and 2.3 motors. The improvements in the new engine architecture could make for better V-6 motors. Ford may not move its V-6s to the new architecture but I can see cost savings in having a common V-6 design rather than the 2 different V-6 families currently. Interesting that Ford has said nothing about the new 2.0. 

[DeluxeStang]

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I think you are right as I misunderstood what John Lawler was quoted as saying in the auto line link 

he was talking about two possible engine suppliers one being VW, the other I couldn’t quite make out

but I think it was engine manufacturing spin off from Renault (?), I think he said “Horse”

 

Anyways, sounds like small engines and for Europe and maybe ROW markets, so maybe not North America.

Still, I like the way you think. I wonder if Ford would consider supplying its own engines and platforms to other brands. I can see a future where Ford sells 5.0s and CE1 platforms to brands with lackluster engineering departments. It could be a way for Ford to generate a considerable amount of revenue that goes beyond what it's currently doing. 

[7Mary3]

Three words sum up the whole sentence:  'Outsource', 'Supplier', and 'China'......

Edited June 7 by 7Mary3

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Trader 10 said:

Sure it would. Ford found enough reasons to develop all new 2.0 and 2.3 motors. The improvements in the new engine architecture could make for better V-6 motors. Ford may not move its V-6s to the new architecture but I can see cost savings in having a common V-6 design rather than the 2 different V-6 families currently. Interesting that Ford has said nothing about the new 2.0. 

The MPC upgrades are just tweaks to the existing engines, not all new engines.  V6 ecoboosts already have dual injection and other upgrades and there is no hole in the lineup for a 3.4L to fill.  I’m not saying it wouldn’t yield some improvements but not enough to justify developing an all new engines.  Also remember the I4s are global while the v6s are mostly North America.
 

The one wild card would be if it allowed consolidation of engine production if volume continues to go down.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Sure it would. Ford found enough reasons to develop all new 2.0 and 2.3 motors. The improvements in the new engine architecture could make for better V-6 motors. Ford may not move its V-6s to the new architecture but I can see cost savings in having a common V-6 design rather than the 2 different V-6 families currently. Interesting that Ford has said nothing about the new 2.0. 

Precisely.  It’s a fact that Ford replaced a 2.0L EB with a new 2.0L EB and also replaced a 2.3L EB with a new 2.3L EB based on MPC architecture within last few years.  Ford would not have done this without good reason.  These are facts, not opinions.  A new 6 may not happen at all, but I expect there would be more than “zero reason” for Ford to expand the modular engine design to 6 cylinders, especially since the hard part has already been done.  New engine design is cleaner and more efficient, plus existing V6 families are getting old.  I would personally prefer an I6 over a V6 due to lower cost and smoothness, but setting my personal preferences aside which I can easily do, a new MPC-based V6 engine family “may” also make sense, just like replacing the 2.0 and 2.3 engines did previously.

[Rick73]

1 minute ago, akirby said:

The MPC upgrades are just tweaks to the existing engines, not all new engines.  V6 ecoboosts already have dual injection and other upgrades and there is no hole in the lineup for a 3.4L to fill.  I’m not saying it wouldn’t yield some improvements but not enough to justify developing an all new engines.  Also remember the I4s are global while the v6s are mostly North America.
 

The one wild card would be if it allowed consolidation of engine production if volume continues to go down.

Ford called new 2.3 “all new”.  I don’t know what you consider a tweak, but pretty much everything that matters from block, head, crank, rods, pistons, cams, etc. are new.

[akirby]

Thicker cylinder liners, longer connecting rods and most likely heads adapted from the Nano V6s with dual injection.  Not rocket science.

 

Also note hp and torque in Explorer are unchanged at 300/310.

[jpd80]

MPC upgrades had more to do with staying in front of emissions limits, I'm hearing

anecdotes that the 2025 2.0 EB does not have GPF at least on some models.

[jpd80]

The move to 3.5 V6 Ecoboost engines years ago has served Ford well

and adding the Nano 2.7 and 3.0 V6 EB engines almost guarantees

that Ford already has heavily amortised engine platforms that can 

do the job until no longer needed.

 

While the 2.0/2.3 MPC EBs could possible be extended to I-5 or I-6,

I don’t think that disruption is warranted at this time but perhaps an

option for the future when ICE builds start to reduce significantly.

 

My earlier comment regarding buy in of the Ram 3.0 DOHC I-6 turbo

was in error as John Lawler made no such reference to Ram as a

possible engine supplier. The truth is that Ram would kill to have

the sales level that Ford has with F Series, so Ford must be doing

a lot of right moves.

 

Production upgrades to both V8 engine plants were announced earlier this year,

so hopefully USMC agreements can be negotiated to permit this proceeding.

 

 

 

[Sherminator98]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Precisely.  It’s a fact that Ford replaced a 2.0L EB with a new 2.0L EB and also replaced a 2.3L EB with a new 2.3L EB based on MPC architecture within last few years.  Ford would not have done this without good reason.  These are facts, not opinions.  A new 6 may not happen at all, but I expect there would be more than “zero reason” for Ford to expand the modular engine design to 6 cylinders, especially since the hard part has already been done.  New engine design is cleaner and more efficient, plus existing V6 families are getting old.  I would personally prefer an I6 over a V6 due to lower cost and smoothness, but setting my personal preferences aside which I can easily do, a new MPC-based V6 engine family “may” also make sense, just like replacing the 2.0 and 2.3 engines did previously.

 

An I6 is bigger pain in the ass to add to engine packaging and crash cell issues then an I4 or a V6 would be the major issue.

As for the all new Ecoboost I4-The original designs where based on Mazda JV engines from 15-20+ years ago, so they where due a major upgrade. They don't show any major improvement in MPG or performance, so like stated before-just keeping ahead of the emissions situation. The Mustang gets 1 MPG more on the highway and the Bronco actually loses 2 MPG city with the new engine (at least on Fuel Economy.gov)

 

The  2.7/3L Nano Ecoboosts are "new" design that only came out 10 years ago. 

[Rick73]

42 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:

An I6 is bigger pain in the ass to add to engine packaging and crash cell issues then an I4 or a V6 would be the major issue.

Length disadvantage is obvious to everyone, and does not require a mechanical engineering education AFAIK. 😀

 

On the other hand I-6 have many advantages over V6, so V6s are not a clear choice for everyone (manufacturers and buyers alike).  Somehow BMW, Mercedes, Stellantis, Mazda and others have made I-6 work with gasoline engines.  With diesel even Chevy found a way to package a 3.0L I-6 in larger vehicles.  It can be done, but whether Ford thinks it’s worth the effort and cost is a different discussion, especially with ICEVs’ future in doubt.  My point remains that while unlikely, there is “some” chance of a new V6 or I-6 engine family based on MPC architecture.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Production upgrades to both V8 engine plants were announced earlier this year,

so hopefully USMC agreements can be negotiated to permit this proceeding.

👍 Hope new V8 is not delayed, or worse cancelled.  I’m curious to see what’s coming from Ford.

 

Between RAM Hemi, GM V8s, and Fords (F-150 and Super Duty), there is still significant demand for V8s.  I know it’s not a politically correct thing to say because of environment, but seems accurate or factual.