Ford Vice Chair John Lawler expects more engine outsourcing to suppliers

[jpd80]

45 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

👍 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.

The upgrades were just increased production volume at the two plants for  Coyote V8s and the 6.8/7.3 V8s.

 

The V8s tend to be more fuel efficient under load compared to Ecoboost V6s, turbos need richer

mixtures under boost and that makes an even bigger difference the heavier the load, like Super Duty

trucks can tow….its the opposite of down sizing engines for fuel efficiency when running with no load.

Edited June 8 by jpd80

[Rick73]

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The upgrades were just increased production volume at the two plants for  Coyote V8s and the 6.8/7.3 V8s.

If I recall correctly, at least one report implied there would be a new V8 variant, though there is so much misinformation on Internet that it is impossible to know what’s actually true.  My personal opinion is that if Ford will be introducing large and heavy hybrids in near future, they could use a dedicated engine optimized for that application.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

If I recall correctly, at least one report implied there would be a new V8 variant, though there is so much misinformation on Internet that it is impossible to know what’s actually true.  My personal opinion is that if Ford will be introducing large and heavy hybrids in near future, they could use a dedicated engine optimized for that application.

The 6.8’s limited use is mostly due to the 7.3s maxing out production. Apart from that,

I haven’t heard anything on a new engine variant

so I’ll be surprised along with the rest of the folks here.

[Kranger84]

On 6/7/2025 at 1:18 PM, 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.

2.3 Mpc update is much more than a tweak. Different block, crank, piston, cyl head..etc. Also there is a hybrid being built now for South Africa market that we export based on MPC.  I work at CEP and it was a major change.

[CurtisH]

1 minute ago, Kranger84 said:

2.3 Mpc update is much more than a tweak. Different block, crank, piston, cyl head..etc. Also there is a hybrid being built now for South Africa market that we export based on MPC.  I work at CEP and it was a major change.

Is it still an open deck block?

[Kranger84]

10 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

Is it still an open deck block?

Yeah the coolant channel is open

[CurtisH]

12 minutes ago, Kranger84 said:

Yeah the coolant channel is open

I would prefer a closed deck or at least a semi-closed deck like the 2.0.  A lot of the Ecoboost Mustang enthusiasts use the 2.0 block when building a new engine for the added strength. 

[bzcat]

I think the point is small displacement ICE is being phased out in favor of EV, especially in Europe and China, so there will be increasing needs for car makers to pool resources and figure out a way to sunset the business in a way that makes sense. Collaborating on next gen ICE for your non-performance models makes sense when you are looking at reduced volume. 

 

It's not the first time Ford looked outside for engine suppliers. The PSA diesel for example was a mainstay of Ford Europe passenger cars for nearly 20 years before Ford developed inhouse EcoBlue replacement. 

 

But for something like Mustang (or any of Farley's "non-commodity" core models like Bronco etc.) I expect Ford will continue to develop its own engines. 

[mackinaw]

59 minutes ago, bzcat said:

It's not the first time Ford looked outside for engine suppliers. The PSA diesel for example was a mainstay of Ford Europe passenger cars for nearly 20 years before Ford developed in-house EcoBlue replacement......

 

In the 80's you could get a BMW diesel six cylinder in a Lincoln Mark VII.  And a Mazda 4-cylinder diesel in a Ranger.

[akirby]

5 hours ago, Kranger84 said:

2.3 Mpc update is much more than a tweak. Different block, crank, piston, cyl head..etc. Also there is a hybrid being built now for South Africa market that we export based on MPC.  I work at CEP and it was a major change.

Different block or just different liners?  If so I take back my tweak comments.

[rmc523]

Ford Exec Says Customers Stopped Caring About Powertrains

 

“I think powertrains — ICE powertrains over time are going to need to consolidate, and they’re not going to be differentiated. I don’t think that consumers really think about powertrains the way they did 30 years ago, where it defined what a vehicle was, the horsepower, the displacement, the torque and everything about the vehicle, I think a lot of that is gone. And so does everybody need to develop the next 4-cylinder and 6- cylinder as that arc comes?”

What would a future without Ford powertrains look like? Europe could provide the answer. The VW-based Ford Transit Connect uses Ford EcoBoost and EcoBlue branding throughout its lineup, despite the fact that the powertrains were fully developed by the German automaker. The partnership also enabled Ford to build the Explorer and Capri EVs off the VW MEB platform. Additionally, Ford builds the Ranger-based Amarok pickup and Transit Custom based Transporter for the company, complete with Blue Oval engines and transmissions, so it’s reasonable to assume the company could walk away from producing powertrains for certain vehicle segments in favor of a mixed model.

[akirby]

He’s right.  Outside of sports cars and some high end luxury cars there really isn’t any differentiation at this point.  

[Bob Rosadini]

On 6/6/2025 at 10:42 AM, scode1 said:

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/

Amazing huh?  Apparently GM dropping almost a BILLION on a new V-8 says either Ford or GM is going to be a big loser.

As to Ford's position as stated by John Lawler, at what point is Ford no longer a true manufacturer?  

One more thing for Toyota to add to ..."the best built vehicles last the longest",..."We take pride in insuring what we sell we build".

 

And if we look at HD trucks..and I'm not talking about a 2500 Silverado or an F-250, as years ago when diesels took over the market, a buyer could chose from Cummins, Cat, or GM, or they could buy a Mack as Mack while offering those engines too, prided themselves on their in house complete proprietary power trains.  But in terms of volume, far different from what Lawler is talking about.

 

I can see unique vehicles with n outsourced engine- as in the Yamaha in the original SHO, but if we are talking about large numbers, what is the point of losing your identity?

 

Another interesting thought....Mr Lawler thinks we should outsource  engines while his boss thinks nothing of building a Formula 1 engine 🤔

 

Thought this old coin I have is a good example of Ford Pride:

[akirby]

Or maybe Ford already spent the money on their v8s over the last 15 years while GM did next to nothing.  
 

500 hp 5.0.  
Flat plane crank 5.2

Aluminator 5.2

Predator and Carnivore Supercharged 5.2

 

Not to,emotion the all new 6.8 and 7.3 Godzilla V8s to go along with the high output diesels.

 

All GM is doing is trying to catch up.

[7Mary3]

I don't know, GM has gone from Gen. III to Gen. IV to Gen. V (LT), the DOHC LT 5.5L, the Blackwing (didn't go anywhere), and a bunch of major revisions to the Duramax (with a brand new 8.3L on the way).  Not exactly 'next to nothing'.  

 

The 6.8L and 7.3L were not exacly 'all new' either, there's a lot of 6.2L Boss in their DNA...

[Bob Rosadini]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Or maybe Ford already spent the money on their v8s over the last 15 years while GM did next to nothing.  
 

500 hp 5.0.  
Flat plane crank 5.2

Aluminator 5.2

Predator and Carnivore Supercharged 5.2

 

Not to,emotion the all new 6.8 and 7.3 Godzilla V8s to go along with the high output diesels.

 

All GM is doing is trying to catch up.

AK..Almost a billion to catch up to......?  Something that Lawler thinks has no business as an inhouse product?  Or I guess you can make the case that he is saying "we are done..going forward we can save by outsourcing any future developments.

[Bob Rosadini]

2 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I don't know, GM has gone from Gen. III to Gen. IV to Gen. V (LT), the DOHC LT 5.5L, the Blackwing (didn't go anywhere), and a bunch of major revisions to the Duramax (with a brand new 8.3L on the way).  Not exactly 'next to nothing'.  

 

The 6.8L and 7.3L were not exacly 'all new' either, there's a lot of 6.2L Boss in their DNA...

For sure!  What current GM's share what with a 283,327,350?  Think of what the new Vette powertrain must have cost..for one very unique market.

Oh, education needed.. what does the 6.8/7.3 have in common with a 6.2?🤔

[akirby]

31 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

AK..Almost a billion to catch up to......?  Something that Lawler thinks has no business as an inhouse product?  Or I guess you can make the case that he is saying "we are done..going forward we can save by outsourcing any future developments.

He was talking more about smaller engines used worldwide like the 2.0L turbo. 
 

And I was thinking more about truck engines than car engines so I guess it’s not as bad as I suggested. But I still see this as GM catching up to Ford rather than surpassing them with this new V8.  Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

[7Mary3]

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

For sure!  What current GM's share what with a 283,327,350?  Think of what the new Vette powertrain must have cost..for one very unique market.

Oh, education needed.. what does the 6.8/7.3 have in common with a 6.2?🤔

 

From what I understand a lot of the 6.2L block tooling was used over.  Many key dimensions such as bore centers and bearing sizes are the same. 

[Bob Rosadini]

56 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

From what I understand a lot of the 6.2L block tooling was used over.  Many key dimensions such as bore centers and bearing sizes are the same. 

thx-never thought of it from a manufacturing perspective.

 

2 hours ago, akirby said:

He was talking more about smaller engines used worldwide like the 2.0L turbo. 
 

And I was thinking more about truck engines than car engines so I guess it’s not as bad as I suggested. But I still see this as GM catching up to Ford rather than surpassing them with this new V8.  Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Got it..just thinking from an economy of scale I'm thinking those 4 bangers are a big number when you look at all the Fords using them-unlike my reference to the Yamaha in the SHO.

[CurtisH]

55 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

From what I understand a lot of the 6.2L block tooling was used over.  Many key dimensions such as bore centers and bearing sizes are the same. 

Looks like they have the same bore spacing, but different deck heights. So they probably reused some of the tooling. 

[jpd80]

On 6/12/2025 at 5:00 AM, 7Mary3 said:

I don't know, GM has gone from Gen. III to Gen. IV to Gen. V (LT), the DOHC LT 5.5L, the Blackwing (didn't go anywhere), and a bunch of major revisions to the Duramax (with a brand new 8.3L on the way).  Not exactly 'next to nothing'.  

 

The 6.8L and 7.3L were not exacly 'all new' either, there's a lot of 6.2L Boss in their DNA...

While that may be true as an brownfield project, the only dimension shared was bore spacing, mainly because it allows casting suppliers to keep down costs. 

It’s a clever way around the accountants without justifying an all new engine

Edited June 12 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

23 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

AK..Almost a billion to catch up to......?  Something that Lawler thinks has no business as an inhouse product?  Or I guess you can make the case that he is saying "we are done..going forward we can save by outsourcing any future developments.

The vibe I'm getting is Ford is done with engineering their own 1.5 3 cylinders because no-one cares about those engines, and the lifespan of them is very limited, so it's hard to justify future investment in developing them any further. 

 

EVs, especially affordable EVs, are gonna become the go to option in the future for people who just want easy, reliable, low hassle transportation. That's all the people currently buying crossovers with sewing machine engines. If I put an electric compact crossover in front of someone that looks better than an escape, is cheaper and more reliable to own long term, is more refined, and quieter inside, and better to drive, most people are gonna buy the electric escape. 

 

I personally believe Fords future is gonna be a lot of it's icons still using gas engines, but hybridized, think a 5.0 mustang hybrid in a decade, or a 2.7 hybrid bronco. Then you'll have buyers that want EVs like CE1 because they're just better options for the people who want reliable transportation pods. 

 

Then you'll have a third, relatively small group, that doesn't want aspirational products like mustang, but also isn't ready to go EV yet. That's the crowd who Ford will outsource engines for. People who still want a gas engine, but don't care what kind it is, and are just waiting a few more years until buying an EV.

 

It makes a lot of sense to have this strategy. Invest in powertrains where people actually care out them, outsource the work to another company to save a ton of money for vehicles where buyers don't care. It's a win-win as long as the quality of those powertrains is world class. 

[Rick73]

For roughly ten years Ford has successfully marketed EcoBoost engine technology, but if the future involves much greater use of HEV, PHEV, and EREV powertrains, EcoBoost may not be best engine choice, particularly on smaller and lighter vehicles, and also as electric power level is increased.  Ford has the 2.5L Atkinson engine, but may need smaller Atkinson engines for future vehicles that are smaller and or more fuel efficient.  IIRC Toyota and Honda have hybrid powertrains with 1.5 ~ 2.0 liter Atkinson engines, though smallest not necessarily sold in North America.  Anyway, I can imagine a scenario where smaller EcoBoost are phased out and replaced with some type of hybrid.

[morgan20]

On 6/5/2025 at 1:09 PM, Biker16 said:

Ford Vice Chair John Lawler expects more engine outsourcing to suppliers 

 

 

Hey Lawler, you're right but a decade late! The Autoline host said this in 2018:

Sergio published his famous “Confessions of a Capital Junkie” essay three years ago, but his conclusions are even more relevant today.

 

Marchionne declared there are too many automakers making too many similar models and using too many similar components. He saw this duplication of effort as wasting capital. He predicted many automakers will have to merge and even tried to get General Motors to merge with FCA, but that effort went nowhere.

 

Since he wrote that article, automakers are under even more pressure to invest in areas they never had to spend on before. Not only do they need to electrify their entire product lines, they need to develop autonomous cars and launch mobility services. They need to allot new money to new areas such as cybersecurity and connectivity.

 

Most of them are straining to come up with the capital to do all that, at the same time they have to continually invest a fortune redesigning and improving their existing product lines.

 

Some of the duplication in this industry is crazy. For example, GM makes 2.0L 4-cylinder engines. So does Ford. So does FCA. I’m absolutely positive that none of their customers could tell the difference between these engines because the specifications are so similar. The same goes for the different 6-speed and 8-speed automatic transmissions they all make.

 

Most owners can’t tell you what the displacement of their engine is. Or how many gears are in the transmission. Most don’t care, just like they don’t care who supplied the steel, who made the headlamps or who makes the seats. All they want is a good-looking, comfortable car that drives well, is efficient and reliable.

 

Engines and transmissions are extremely capital intensive. They take years to design and develop and require a huge amount of tooling. GM, Ford and FCA spend billions of dollars every year duplicating what the other is doing.  By merging their powertrain operations together, they could free up billions in capital.

 

GM and Ford already have collaborated on designing a couple of automatic transmissions. But it has not saved them the kind of money Marchionne was envisioning. This is not about collaboration or joint ventures.

 

When automakers collaborate on a project, it tends to go slowly. There are more meetings, more arguments and more compromises. They often collaborate on a product, then bring it back in-house and tweak it more to their own liking. Yes, they save some money, but they could be saving much more.

 

What the auto industry needs are standalone powertrain suppliers who can make commodity engines and transmissions. OEMs may want to keep some of their high-performance powertrains in-house because the customers who buy them truly care about where they come from. But the commodity stuff can go.

Edited June 13 by morgan20