Automotive News [sub] reports that Ford has decided to shelve plans to introduce a diesel F-150 in 2010. Last spring, Ford demoed dealers with a 4.4-liter oil burning V8 F-150. It boasted an estimated 350 hp and 500 lb·ft of torque—more power and twist than the F-150’s 5.4-liter gasoline V8 while quaffing 20 percent less fuel. And then F-150 sales dried-up and gas prices cratered—especially relative to diesel. “No new date has been scheduled [for the diesel pickup],” Mark Fields, Ford’s president of the Americas, told Automotive News late last month. “We’re still looking at the appropriate time to do that. We’ve put it on the back burner for right now.” According to AN‘s source/speculation, the diesel F-150 has officially been delayed until 2013. “But it will likely be canceled outright unless diesel prices fall substantially below gasoline for a prolonged period.” And then what? You’d think Ford would want a fully developed, tried and tested diesel F-150 in their quiver ahead of any such completely unexpected development. Then again, money’s too tight to mention.
Why no one wants to be first to market with a 1/2 diesel I’ll never know. It is a gargantuan competitive advantage one can offer. A lot of interested diesel pickup truck buyers shy away from them only b/c you have to option up to 40k or to a 3/4 + platform in order to have a diesel engine. Diesels are perfect for trucks as the performance advantage of a turbo diesel easily outshines a gas engine – plus the 20-30% better fuel mileage.
What a stupid move. All of the American Car Companies need unique product to sell, but since that requires some degree of R&D $$$, Facilities $$$ as well as some degree of risk taking as far as going into a new market segment, they’ll just try and sell the same thing everyone else is selling. And hope it turns out for the best.
Here’s a classic example of Detroit Old School Thinking. Ford says, “There aren’t enough people out there who will want a diesel powered truck for us to satisfy their demand through conventional means.”
What Ford could do is make a Ford F150, sans engine, and let someone else install whatever-the-hell a customer wants … big oil burner, small oil burner with turbo, flux capacitor, dilithium crystals, popcorn popper, etc.
A 4.4L with 350hp and 500 lb-ft? Not only should they be putting that in the F-150, they should be putting it in everything they make. Heck, put it in the Mustang.
Geez, it seems like it’s been at least 10 years or so that I’ve been hearing about how Ford will be offering a small diesel option in the F-150. I have no use for a pickup 99% of the time, but if a diesel F-150 or Ranger was available, I might be interested. What would really be awesome is if they put a small TD in the Ranger, like they offered in the 80s. But that might make sense, and we obviously can’t have that.
I don’t know if Mahindra will ever offer their diesel pickup, but it seems unlikely now. If Ford actually followed through, they’d have a definite advantage over any other pickup models in North America.
While I think it would be pretty awesome to have a diesel option in the F150, I have to wonder how many buyers would really go for it. The main problem would of course be the cost, the 6.4 liter engine is a $7000 option on the Super Duty trucks, and the big reason why the diesels are so much more than the gas F150s. Also, right now anyone who wants a dieself Ford pickup can always go for an F250.
Well, auto manufacturing still involves some degree of predicting the future, and Ford sees the future of diesel in the US going nowhere, and I sadly agree.
There appears to be no sign that diesel taxes will be relieved in the near future, and the government hard-on for ethanol as the only alternative to gas seems unabated. Also, all signs indicate that diesel emissions regs will only get more stringent and more balkanized, making the production of 50-state legal vehicles ever more complex and expensive.
However, I also agree that Ford is being short sighted and really missing an opportunity to have a unique market niche all to itself. If there is any market where the benefits of diesel will sell themselves to buyers, it’s trucks. I myself have shopped for a diesel truck and gave up when the price of entry topped $40k…
Further proves the rule that the MAJORITY of pickups are not used to do any sort of work other than “pickups” of the shopping at the mall.
The technical reality is that diesels which meet the latest US emission standards (2007/2010) are loaded with expensive (and currently not too reliable) technology. Talk to anybody running a fleet of new diesel trucks.
As someone who had an inside view, the costs were out of control. Necessary/expensive changes were needed to the underbody & frame due to the fuel and exhaust system packages just to make eveything fit, let alone work.
Plus, whatever program assumptions and cost savings projections that were made early on to share components/systems, were probably thrown out the window after closer inspection (F150/Expedition/Econoline).
At least Ford has the fortitude to use its limited resources in a wise manner.
Toyota invested billions developing its successful hybrid technology without a market. Regardless, it’s hard to fault Ford when U.S. automotive strategy is predicated on the presidential whim of the day
I’m almost okay with this, mostly because of their current financial position and the fickleness of buyers of the retail oriented F150.
But Ford did the same thing with the Transit Connect, trotting out the diesel version for the Dealer’s fleet depts to gawk over. Why they tease the fleet market with something as perfect as a diesel-TC is beyond me. If it’s not doable, don’t send it off to dealers!!!
As someone who had an inside view, the costs were out of control. Necessary/expensive changes were needed to the underbody & frame due to the fuel and exhaust system packages just to make eveything fit, let alone work.
I’ve heard that’s the same reason GM hasn’t made a Diesel Suburban/Tahoe.
Diesels don’t make any sense unless you do a lot of heavy towing on the highway. Otherwise you’re much better off with gas.
@Sajeev Mehta :
But Ford did the same thing with the Transit Connect, trotting out the diesel version for the Dealer’s fleet depts to gawk over.
That was only because they didn’t have a gas version – the European TC is diesel only, and the US-market 2.0 was just a quick fix.
bluecon: Diesels get 30% better mpg than gasoline equivalents regardless of whether you are towing or not.
Normally diesels were only $500 – $1000 increase in price over a gas equivalent (even when you eliminate the ignition system – which if offset by a higher pressure fuel system and often a turbo / intercooler setup).
The main reason why costs are out of control is they are only used on heavy trucks and outside of VW/Audi no one has adapted them to light trucks and passenger vehicles – which brings the costs down over time. For instance the hybrid premium was $5-7k when they first arrived and now the premium has come down to $2-$3k with economies of scale, production efficiencies found and newer and more efficient technologies. That same thing will happen to light vehicle diesel engines over time – even with the stricter emissions control.
Funny thing is CO2 emissions from gas engines are much higher than diesel (though offset by particulate emissions).
The real issue is when you get a diesel pickup they are either the super luxurious $50k+ models or the opposite end of the spectrum such as a stripper 2500HD type work trucks. Bringing a value priced lower powered diesel down to a common equipment 1/2 such as an LS or LT Silverado would open up to a market that’s never had the choice. The reason there is no market is that there are no diesels that compete in this (except when you do a conversion by specialty shop).
@jaje
The main reason why costs are out of control is they are only used on heavy trucks and outside of VW/Audi no one has adapted them to light trucks and passenger vehicles – which brings the costs down over time.
Mercedes has their DeNOx system, Renault/Nissan has one, Honda and Mazda have something for their diesel fours, PSA has, Volkswagen has… basically everybody who likes being competitive in the European market needs to plan for Euro6.
2013 for a F-150 diesel???
This is the pivot point where the Board of Directors says NO, make it 2011.
Hello? Anyone home up there?
Let’s not forget the demand side, either. With gas cheap and contractors broke, selling ANY higher-cost F-150 probably just doesn’t pencil out….
Mirko Reinhardt : That was only because they didn’t have a gas version – the European TC is diesel only, and the US-market 2.0 was just a quick fix.
That’s what the dealer said too, but their complaint was why even tease them with a diesel option? Their fleet buyers will fixate on the diesel motor and be less than happy if the dealer backpedals on that point.
Too bad… I wish small turbo diesels would catch on over here in the states. Between “green” Bio-diesel, the MPG gains, the torque and the indestructible nature of them it would be a slam dunk/home run in the light truck market. For example I know someone who had a HEMI Ram and quickly ditched it for the diesel version. He added an ECU chip to the diesel and has been all smiles ever since. They say nothing replaces displacement, but having gobs of low-end torque is damn addicting.
Also worth noting Ford does have the 4.5 liter V6 PowerStroke that was used in the LCF trucks availible should they ever need it.
Whats kinda funny is that Ive actually worked on a diesel F150. Granted it was a ’64 with a Mercedes 240D in it, but even without a turbo it was decent for around town, pulled no problem. Granted, I didnt try to go much over 50, but that was mostly cuz of the brakes, not the engine.
Thats the problem with the domestic automakers and consequently their brain-washed customers…if it dosent have a big, honking, noisy, clusterF of a 6.6 or 7.3 in it, it WILL be lame. Once again, I say “wrong” and Detroits failure to make these small diesel engines has done alot to put them in the deep hole theyre in.
Certainly, our lameass low-cetane Dfuel dosent help either.
Most F150s will never, ever see the kind of duty that would require a diesel (that’s what the SuperDuties are bought for) and F150 buyers who’d care about fuel economy aren’t buying F150s.
Sure, it would be a good truck, but one for which a North American market doesn’t exist. Ford knows this. Remember that the F150 sells more units than any other vehicle: if diesel doesn’t make sense here, it won’t make sense anywhere else.
@fred diesel,
The owners manual from my ’66 F-100 shows a Perkins four-cylinder diesel as a factory option. Never saw one. Maybe export only.
Financially it doesn’t make sense to buy the diesels. You never get the money back in fuel savings and then there is the diesel maintenance issues.
Bad move Ford…and this one could be costly. Everyone knows gasoline isn’t staying at $2/gallon for long and when it does eventually shoot up, diesel engines will once again be at the forefront of people’s minds.
The engines needs to come NOW…as in yesterday. There’s an interesting 4-way comparo over at InsideLine where a 2009 Ford 150 Lariat got beaten, partly because it couldn’t live up to its 11,200lb max tow rating (it was hooked to a measly 6000lb trailer and lagged behind the rest of the trucks in the comparo).
It’s time that Triton engine is retired.
psarhjinian : Your first point sums up Ford’s reasoning beautifully.
In your second point, though…you forget that in some other countries diesel is less expensive than gasoline, making this a much more attractive option.
JMII: “Too bad… I wish small turbo diesels would catch on over here in the states. Between “green” Bio-diesel, the MPG gains, the torque and the indestructible nature of them it would be a slam dunk/home run in the light truck market.”
Unfortunately it will never be. The anti-Diesel CARB regs have made BioDiesel pretty much a no-go. In order to get a Diesel engine in compliance with emissions they have engineered to the point where BioDiesel no longer works. Newer (2009-forward) 50-state (read: California) emissions-compliant Diesels will all cough up CEL errors when run on blends higher that 5% BioDiesel. Ironic isn’t it? Since running B20 to B100 (20% to 100% BioDiesel) would lower the emissions significantly.
Thank you California. In your quest to kill Diesel you are really just killing BioDiesel. Are these really the consequences you intended?
–chuck
Diesels actually present a transaction from both the perspective of the automaker as well as the end customer.
Most Regular Joe customers will evaluate the “benefit” of a diesel based on fuel savings, or “macho coolness,” or some other vague notion to create an rationalization to opt for diesel over regular petrol.
The automaker has a dilemma because offering a diesel results in investment to develop the engine, investment to produce the engine, and investment to put that engine into a vehicle. Then they get hit with the whammy of having to pay more variable cost (compared to the regular gasoline engine) for the parts in that diesel. Diesels have a price premium passed to the customer, but this premium is often times insufficient to even cover the variable cost increase of that diesel. And of course, this means the incremental price increase won’t cover the incremental investment to offer that engine.
So in the end diesels exist to reinforce the idea that the base truck is more potent. The diesel option allows the manufacturer to talk about the “maximum towing” of the F150 in terms of diesel; and market it in unique ways that are unavailable in the absence of the diesel. It will be interesting to see how this affects Toyota’s plan for a diesel in the Tundra for the USA market. They have an opportunity to basically be the only light-duty truck with a diesel; but is this marginal marketing benefit worth the effort and cost to make diesels available? Before they were at risk to lose market share (since everyone loves market share), but now GM, Ford, and probably Dodge will not have diesels in anything but the super-heavy-duty trucks.
Yes, some heavy-duty users and customers will appreciate the diesel engine for items well above and beyond an average individual. These users would love to opt for diesel – but they don’t represent enough buyers.
In your second point, though…you forget that in some other countries diesel is less expensive than gasoline, making this a much more attractive option.
Well, yes, but people in those countries don’t buy F150s, either, so the end result is the same. Ford has no trouble moving diesel Transit Connects, Focus wagons and Rangers in those markets.
In summary:
* In North America, a diesel F150 doesn’t make sense because of the diesel part.
* Outside North America, a diesel F150 doesn’t make sense because of the F150 part.
Thank you California. In your quest to kill Diesel you are really just killing BioDiesel. Are these really the consequences you intended?
Considering that, in CARB areas, the pollutants from diesel still pose a problem, I’d say the answer is yes, indeed.
Biodiesel can’t scale up to the needs of California, and even if it did, the emissions would still be a problem and you’d have the extra issue of conditional emissions based on fuel. CARB was twitchy about urea injection because it was impossible to guarantee it’s long-term consistent performance; biodiesel doesn’t stand a chance under those conditions.
CARB doesn’t hate diesel, they hate emissions: get a diesel to beat gas or CNG emissions levels and they wouldn’t care. But no one has done that yet, and even the cleanest diesels approach even the dirtiest gas powertrains.
psarhjinian
But isn’t the kind of diesel engine in question as well? I’m pretty sure the majority of diesel engines sold in ye olde Europe vary from inline 4s to inline/V6 engines…but little or no V8s.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m all for Ford axing the Triton engine (or at least dwindling its numbers) and offering the 4.4 diesel V8 in its place.
@SupaMan :
But isn’t the kind of diesel engine in question as well? I’m pretty sure the majority of diesel engines sold in ye olde Europe vary from inline 4s to inline/V6 engines…but little or no V8s.
V8s are for big rigs – Most “work trucks” in Europe are Sprinter/Transit/other van based pickups with four cylinder diesels in the 90-130hp range.
300+ hp V8s, gas or diesel, and automatic transmissions are just something that doesn’t appear in trucks this small in Europe.
everyone knows that GM put their much cooler – turbo(s? I forget) in the valley, intake thru the valve covers, etc – mid-sized diesel on ice as well, right ? and long before they were (potentially) being told what to do by the gov’t. if the business case doesn’t make sense, it’s not somewhere they want to go. esp as they have superior powertrains in their pickups to anyone else already.
Toyota stopped development on their diesel for the Tundra. Acura delayed/killed their diesel TSX when they couldn’t get it to pass emissions in automatic trans form.
the added cost for aftertreatment is too much to offset with pricing which customers will accept, so you end up either losing margin (something most are loathe to do these days) or pricing beyond what customers will pay. if you have strong margins or price at a premium beyond your top model (ala BMW 335d) then dipping a toe in the water is doable. if you have to invest in all the infrastructure to produce the engine and fund the engineering, it’s harder to justify. It would be more likely that small diesels would make their way into C/D sized cars in the US before they’re in full-sized trucks given current fuel prices.
and there is no hybrid greenie cache with a diesel, even if the overall energy use is lower and you don’t have all those heavy metal batteries left over down the road, so you lose out on holier-than-tho points which are so important to that segment of buyers.
and there is no hybrid greenie cache with a diesel,
I know three people running SVO in older Mercedes who would disagree with you.
even if the overall energy use is lower and you don’t have all those heavy metal batteries left over down the road
Does anyone throw batteries away? I mean, really? Most companies will at least take batteries in on trade, and many will pay a bounty on large enough quantities. Nickel is not exactly free or easy to obtain
I just got handed a big check for recycling hundreds of lead-acid batteries from our datacentre. I’ve also been recycling (in huge volumes) cellphone NiMH and lithium batteries for years. The ‘batteries in a landfill’ line is bogus.
( The ‘batteries in a landfill’ line is bogus ) – except when it comes to alkaline batteries which are still dumped in landfills and leak dangerous toxins into our water supply.
I unfortunately discard NiCad, Nimh, and similar packs infrequently (dead rechargeable drill just this weekend, for instance), as I have been unable to find anyone within 50 miles willing to accept them. Unless you live in a major metro area, batteries are still being chucked in the landfill. Each year, Americans throw away 84,000 tons of alkaline batteries, mainly because they have no other choice.
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/126550/computers/battery_free_mice_is_the_green_thing_to_do.html
http://willtaft.com/environment/there-may-be-no-need-to-recycle-alkaline-batteries/
( The ‘batteries in a landfill’ line is bogus ) – except when it comes to alkaline batteries which are still dumped in landfills and leak dangerous toxins into our water supply.
One: alkaline batteries are not used in any hybrid or electric car
Two: I can take alkalines to Radio Shack, Batteries+ and my local (and not large) town’s green waste management office.
Three: you should be marking them as hazardous waste and disposing them as you would certain chemicals and radioactive items, not just chucking them into the nearest bin.
There’s no excuse for not disposing of waste in a sustainable manner, unless you count laziness as an excuse. If your local government doesn’t do it, well, you can squeeze them until they do. That it doesn’t happen has everything to do with social inertia.
“unless diesel prices fall substantially below gasoline for a prolonged period”
The Ratio of between diesel and gas powered cars is dropping in Europe so demand for diesel will drop.
Gotta love all the comments that say Ford Execs are out to lunch. I guess they think it’s a good idea to press on with money-losing product decisions. Damn the torpedoes! Were doing the Diesel anyway!
At least they have publicly stated that diesels are on the back burner (not off the stovetop) until which point that diesels make economic sense for consumers and manufacturers. That to me makes the most sense.
Ford — you continue to make the right decisons lately. Keep it up!
Wouldn’t Ford’s Ecoboost gasoline turbo direct injection engnes go a long way toward diesel efficiency without the polution and fuel cost problems associated with diesels?
Maybe the problem of NO small diesels would subside if A) the shameful quality(ie LOW cetane) of our Dfuel and the great quality of biodiesel(not WVO) were more known, and B) if regulators would allow qualified after-market solutions to emission specs. Just as I doubt current after-market chip, turbo/supercharger and exhaust modifications meet specs, possibly they could. Now, its all an OEMs all-or-nothing game. Legislators need to change an over-restrictive law.