TTAC was the first to bring you news of the F-150’s move to aluminum construction, the 2.7L Ecoboost and the delays with the aluminum body panel production. And now we’ve got another bounty of information about upcoming engines, transmissions and other technology for the new F-Series trucks and their full-size SUVs.
TTAC’s sources tell us that even though the next-generation F-150 hasn’t even launched yet, there are already early-cycle and mid-cycle updates in the cards. According to them, Ford is feeling the sting of losing out to Ram on the first half-ton diesel pickup race. A diesel F-150 was in the works, but became a casualty of the recession in 2008. Now Ford is apparently at work on a 3.0L V6 diesel, codenamed “Lion”, that is set to appear by 2018. In other powertrain developments, we’ve learned that the 2.7L Ecoboost will have somewhere in the ballpark of 290-300 horsepower, though torque numbers remain unknown.
Around this time, we’ll also see a number of major developments for Ford’s truck line. A new 10-speed transmission will debut in both trucks and body-on-frame SUVs, as well as a new, aluminum bodied version of the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator. While production will take place in America, development is currently going on at Ford’s Mexican arm.
Despite the push for aluminum bodies, one product that won’t be making the transition is the next-generation of Super Duty trucks. Our source indicates that these trucks will stick with steel bodies, though the reasons behind it are unknown.
The F250+ are probably staying steel to keep weight up.
The more you weigh, the safer/better you tow.
Losing weight would be counter productive for the HD lineup.
Personally now that the 6.2 is gone, and with it hydraulic steering, I see no reason to even consider the F150, some people will have to go to HD.
They’re staying steel because it’s cheaper. The F-150 is going aluminum to save weight to meet fuel economy regulations, which don’t apply to most Super Duty trucks. If it weren’t for that, the F-150 would be staying steel too.
That too.
CHEAPER, STRONGER, BETTER.
I rest my case.
Stronger, Better?
That’s why aircraft are made of steel not aluminium…..LOL
Well one of the three.
So you are wearing a tinfoil hat made of steel so that the aliens/commies/liberals can’t read your mind for sure? Or is aluminum acceptable for this purpose?
Even if everyon else here doubts you have a BS degree. I at least believe that you actually have a degree in BS.
The extra weight also pushes the GVWR beyond EPA and CAFE fuel economy demands.
Also a very good point I completely forgot about.
“The extra weight also pushes the GVWR beyond EPA and CAFE fuel economy demands.”
Demands designed to hurt the industry.
@bigtrucks
Boy, you can produce some fine fecal matter.
The US has a plethora of tariffs, regulations (technical barriers) designed to protects it own indigenous motor vehicle industry.
It isn’t a socialist plot. It was a combination of the Big 2 (plus Fiat now), the UAW thinking it’s protecting jobs. Farmers protection their corn subsidies, the energy industry protecting lucrative diesel exports to the Eurozone and on and on.
It isn’t a conspriacy, but created by the same right wing and left wing people working together when necessary.
@Big Al from Oz .So right. remember the crap about leather upholstery hides for car seats? Oz sourced product was better,cheaper etc so the US blocked the imports…opening the way for Chinese product.
But the Americans can be guaranteed to make some dumb decisions. Think back to the GFC. What nearly killed the US auto industry?
It certainly wasn’t consumer friendly cars . It was the over reliance on big truck sales as I remember it, and not enough emphasis on regular cars… it seems no one learned much at Ford. Post war history of Ford says that is pretty much par for the coarse as the company stumbles from disaster to the next.
Ooooo, the president’s announcement about putting fuel economy regulations in place for heavy duty trucks just started to make sense…
Kinosh
…only to a liberal.
Because hardcore Republicans don’t try to make sense of things in the first place.
They just give up, get angry and blame their ignorance on some kind of hilarious conspiracy. Cheap yet depressing entertainment for everyone else.
@Alex Mackinnon- and what public school did you attend that taught you to be so smug?
Well, for one I’m not American. Public education is pretty decent and cheap in Canada. Which along with healthcare isn’t a controversy, despite having a oil loving neocon governement for the since 2006. Anyways, as far as what public school goes, University of British Columbia – Dept. of Mining Engineering.
Despite what bigtruckseriesreview says about tensile strength, steel is used primarily in civil construction because it’s cheap. You know, just like concrete. But hey we don’t make cars out of pretensioned concrete beams, now do we? How about slabs of granite? Would a uniaxial compressive strength of 60,000 psi make a material unilaterally good for every automotive application?
Most of engineering isn’t making things stand up to use, it’s making them an optimal balance of cheap and good. What this genius is ignoring is that the cheapest material for construction isn’t always the best material over the life of the vehicle. Shedding weight makes tonnes of sense when it costs money to the weight around for a long time.
You don’t see many people complaining that fibreglass fairings on motorcycles is the governments fault now do you?
The Lion V6 and V8 diesel engine family has been in production since 2004, at Ford’s Dagenham Diesel Centre in the UK, mostly for Jaguar Land Rover. The latest 3 litre V6 is a gem of an engine, smooth and very responsive even when moving 2.7 tons of Land Rover. It uses a clever sequential turbocharger setup with a smaller turbo pressurizing the intake of a larger one above 2800 RPM
Ford has a reputation for building reliable vehicles to uphold. Jaguar and Land Rover do not have such a problem and can fit anything they want.
Ford SD diesels are some of the most trouble prone vehicles on the road. Really living up to the acrynom, Fix Or Repair Daily. So they really don’t have a reputation to tarnish.
Ah, this guy. Yes of course you are correct! That must be why people who work with their truck for a living be it contractors, tow trucks, plumbers or electricians or just out in the oil patch are 70% Ford 20% Dodge 10% Chevy
I’ll admit I am amazed how the lousiest truck in this market segment continues to own it year after year. Do you realize that the 6.0 Ford diesel is soo bad that a common fix is to swap them out with a Cummins out of a Dodge? There is guy on one of my boating forums that was pretty proud of the facf that his 6.0 Ford diesel made 260K miles before it self destructed. WOW, what a great truck! He is a doing a Dodge swap to get it on the road again. That’s dedication to owning and driving a Ford product. And don’t get me wrong, I may own a GMC PU and Chevy SUV, but sans the styling, I think the Ford F150 is a great truck and like a lot of the other stuff they make. I just think their diesel SD trucks are garbage.
So that’s why Ford severed its relationship with Navistar, who developed the 6.0 and 6.4 liter diesels in 2010 and earlier SD’s? The Ford-developed 6.7 engine seems to be o.k., however. The earlier ones were not.
Yeah, the Navistar V8s had all kinds of problems. Things got bad enough at one point that Ford and Navi sued each other. You can buy kits to do the Cummins 6BT swap, but I’d do a DT466 just to be different.
@DC Bruce, yes the 6.0 was at the center of the Ford/Navistar divorce. My take was that it was sort of intentional by Navistar. When the 2007 emissions standards were released the EPA offered a carrot in that for every engine that met the 2007 standards that was sold before the requirement took effect they would be able to sell a engine that met 2007 emissions after the 2010 standards took effect. Ford sold way more diesel powered trucks than Navistar did. Navistar rushed the 6.0 to market to earn those credits, not that Ford wasn’t pushing to get it in trucks as soon as possible. The 6.0 had a lot of problems that cost Ford a lot of money in warranty repairs. Navistar said its your problem. Ford stopped paying for the new engines they were supplying. Contract ended and Navistar kept those credits and was able to sell MD and HD trucks that didn’t need urea injection like their competitors.
Yes and six years later navistar is still not in compliance with requirements. And gets fined for every truck sold. They are over their pollution credits and have no fix for the 6.0 that being said I know two people that had non stop problems with theirs and Ford bought them back plus cash and discounts on a new truck but everybody else that bought one after the teething issues have had no problem.
Carlson Fan, you do realize that today’s SD diesels don’t use the 6.0 anymore, right?
The current Ford-designed engines are doing just fine.
Yep I know. Still can’t figure why they sell so much better than the Ram and GM trucks considering their past history. The body and chassis IMO leave a lot to be desired compared to the other 2 as well.
“everybody else that bought one after the teething issues have had no problem.”
That’s nice, but those engines had extremely high statistical failure rates right up until the end. The “teething issues” were numerous fundamental flaws in basic design. The 6.0L Powerstroke was THE WORST engine of the last decade, bar none.
The 6.4L Navistar might come close from a poor design perspective, but by the time those hit the market, so many buyers were leery of Ford diesels they sold in much fewer numbers than the 6.0L did in the beginning.
The 4 cylinder PSA versions are absolute gems.
Too bad we don’t get them on this side of the Atlantic.
Those high failure rates are still better than anything made or licensed by gm previous to adopting the Isuzu technology. Congratulations on getting it right once every four decades.
Is this the same 10-speed auto that they’ve been working on with GM?
Yes.
A Vee-Six diesel?
Basically in the same class as the diesel Grand Cherokee has.
And the Ram EcoDiesel.
This class of engine makes tremendous sense for trucks, particularly in fleet service. Eventually they should downsize even further and have a four-cylinder diesel as the base engine, but I think customer acceptance of the small diesel six needs to happen first.
A four-cylinder diesel hybrid half-ton truck would be expensive to buy, but get insane mileage — think 50 mpg. It could pay for itself very quickly for buyers who use their trucks 12 or 16 hours per day. Probably too expensive for personal use, though.
An inline six already has broad customer acceptance, it’s called the Cummins.
The diesel six in a vee pattern is what I hadn’t heard of before.
You haven’t heard of the RAM 1500 EcoDiesel?
@86er
Cummins have the ISF range of diesels. These are being made in China.
The US EPA and Cummins with Nissan have done extensive testing and development of the 2.8 ISF.
The Cummins 2.8 ISF is getting about 190hp and 385ftlb of torque. I bet we will see these in the Navara/Frontier pickups in the future.
Cummins also have a 4 cylinder 3.8 litre ISF. If the same technology applied to the 2.8 ISF was applied to the 3.8 it would develop around 280hp and 550ftlb of torqe.
This would make a fantastic HD engine and it’s American.
Big Al, that 2.8 would make a perfect engine for a fleet half-ton truck.
“Despite the push for aluminum bodies, one product that won’t be making the transition is the next-generation of Super Duty trucks. Our source indicates that these trucks will stick with steel bodies, though the reasons behind it are unknown.”
Aren’t most of the cabs for the semis these guys want to pretend to be driving made out of aluminum?
A main reason behind it is obvious, it would mean Ford has to update the almost 20 year old cab, not just change the front clip again.
The cabs on class 8 trucks are made out of aluminum because there is a limit to how much weight they can legally haul and the lighter the tractor, the more money the truck can make.
The reasons for not going to aluminum have already been discussed and mostly hashed out, there is no need to lighten the super duty as it doesn’t need to meet the same fuel economy standards. Why add cost to it when there is zero benefit to the company and negligible benefit to the consumer? So you can gain a half mile per gallon? That equates to $800 dollars savings at $4.00/gal over 100,000 miles. You’re going to pay more than an $800 premium to have the SD clad in aluminum.
I don’t know where you have your information from the Lion diesel has been around for sometime.
In the 2.7 litre version it is used in Land Rovers and the Ford Territory.
The 3 litre version is used in the Land Rover and Range Rover.
A small diesel HD? Hmmm. I get a lot of flack from some of the US pickup fraternity for having a 5 cylinder 3.2 Duratorque in a midsizer.
The Lion diesel will do the job in a HD, abeit slower. It’s FE should be very good.
I would buy a trayback (flatbed) 3.2 Transit, if the US had them like us, before a 3 litre Lion HD for work.
But at least Ford is trying.
A 3.8 ISF Cummins could be a better option if the Cummins was developed further like Cummins had done with the 2.8 ISF.
Its a start Al. The Transit will be getting the 3.2L here. The launch of the Transit keeps getting pushed back though. Originally, it was supposed to be out already. The 2015 F150 and Super Duty have taken priority.
@bball40dtw
The great thing about the 3 litre class diesels which many don’t look at is the drivetrains are already mass produced for gasoline V8s.
This will reduce costs and development time.
@bball40dtw
Also, it appears you could be correct about the Lion moving to the new F-150. But, I would think it would be the premium engine.
The Lion’s are an expensive engine even by diesel terms, hence they have been used in prestige and luxury vehicles in the past.
Maybe time has reduced their costs.
I’m expecting at least 250hp and 440ftlb of torque out of them in the pickups.
Regardless of the specifics, I am happy that there will be more choice in the F-series lineup, and trucks in general.
I know there are always arguements about medium sized pickups and diesel pick ups around here. While I question how they will both sell, I would love a F150 diesel or even a diesel Ranger. I don’t care if its the 3.0L or 3.2L. I could see either one replacing our large CUV. An aluminium Expedition with the 3.0L diesel would make me openly weep from happiness.
Ok…why would Ford got through all that when the 3.2L Powerstroke (Duratorq in European trim) is already federalized for Transit Full Size?? The fitment of 3.2L I5 diesel in F150 would be a natural expansion of an already proven powertrain.
Fuel economy
The same reason Ford does most things…… They don’t have a clue as to what they are doing.
Ford knew how to stay out of bankruptcy, that is more than GM could manage.
Lots of companies go bankrupt.
And Ford still has no business being in the auto industry. Their engineers have the collective intelligence of a puddle of urine. Their “styling” departments either are blind or run by a group of toddlers and airplane boy has done nothing but flush quality down the toilet.
And if you think I’m a GM fanboy because of my username, you are incredibly ignorant.
I love to read the pickup truck blog entries. Everything is a threat to manhood. Extra weight is not an advantage ever. Peterbilts have used aluminum cabs for years. Big trucks have aluminum wheels and some even tow beautiful aluminum trailers. This is because every pound of truck is a pound of cargo you can’t haul.
Get over the aluminum. Thousands of airplanes have been flying around for 50 years…made completely of aluminum. Aluminum is not a threat to your manhood.
Airplanes, trailers, and semis are not light duty pickup trucks. Nor are they built by a manufacturer as incompetent as Ford.
And the trailers and semis still have corrosion issues and issues with paint adherence. Heck, Ford can’t even figure out how to get paint to stick to steel let alone aluminum
Ford still has not gone bankrupt. GM fanboys seem to forget that.
This from a supporter of a company that so tarnished the reputation of diesel engines that it has set back American car buyers so far it has been 30+ years and people still speak of the oldsmodiesel debacle like it was last week.
Where are you getting that I’m a supporter of GM?
Because of a internet username? Wow, the ignorance is strong with this one.
But at least GM knows weary they are doing when painting a vehicle and how to make a reliable engine that doesn’t guzzle gasoline.
@kincaid
I have seen much and experienced much argument in relation to the US pickup truck crowd.
The odd issue I have found is many don’t want to know or aren’t prepared to accept change, even if this change is beneficial to them.
I have found many US bloggers can’t even reason/believe that many countries outside of the US could envisage there are many countries with living standards comparable to the US or even better.
Pickups are a global vehicle more so than any other commercial vehicle. The odd thing is outside of the US most pickups are only bought to earn a living from. But this is also changing. Australian’s now buy most pickups, or as we call them utes for recreational purposes. But we buy a significantly higher proportion of 4x4s and most are diesel.
@Big Al from OZ,
You might add Pickups are virtually non-existent in Europe and Russia. Heavily used in Asia(except North Asia), North America,Australia , New Zealand . Moderately used in Africa, India, Middle East and Latin America.
They are also used as “cars” outside NA.
Rather amount of diesels you buy has to do with the fact that your petrol /diesel taxes are the opposite of ours, nothing more.
@mike216 Absolutely nothing to do with it. People like the “grunt” of diesels. For a light use Pickup the cost of diesel too petrol is not that much. Also diesel is more expensive here.
On the other hand a V10 Triton in a Motorhome would be changed to LPG.
I don’t see how semi-tractors and airplanes at much, MUCH higher price points (that aren’t built by Ford in the first place) using aluminum in their construction means that people should be a-okay with Ford using it so completely in their lighter duty truck line.
@Kincaid – correct. Nothing like a truck blog to bring out all of the bloggers compensating for a wee schmeckle.
@Carlson Fan – Who makes that engine in the Dodge er Ram er FCA truck?
That would be Cummins.
Ever look up who Cummins sells engines to?
Ford uses Cummins and Allison in their commercial trucks along with other drivetrains.
It would make sense to swap a dead shitty 6.0 Cornbinder engine for a CUMMINS I6.
@Z71_Silvy – on the subject of incompetence, GMC has the record for the worse corporate losses of any USA company. 3 of the bottom 10 (or top 10 worst losses depending on your point of view) were from GMC.
Most fleet trucks do not sell with diesels. Big fleets tend to buy what ever is the cheapest and a 10K price premium rules out diesel.
Fastlane Truck did a quick comparison of the 2014 Ram 6.4 coil spring 4×4 against the 6.2 Ford and the 6.0 Chevy.
It was embarrassing for Ram.
Both the Ford 6.2 and Chevy 6.0 had better acceleration times. One tester felt that the Chevy rode better than the Ram.
Okay, now I want a Raptor SUV made of aluminum with a 3.0 diesel. I’ll sell my Suburban 2500 4×4 for one.
I work at the Kentucky Truck Plant body shop where the Super Duty is built. We also heard the rumors about staying steel. I asked our manager that is in charge of launching new products in the body shop and he assured me that we will be going to aluminum. It is too far into the works to turn back now. We are getting ready to build a whole new body shop just for this reason.
They are going aluminum now. Derek’s article was about the “new” for 2015 SuperDuty. Which was basically just a refresh.
I hope they do a better job than what the created in the 6.7 Scorpion. You couldn’t give me one.
The list of unhappy owners is long but a friend’s nephew has been through 3 engines, 3 sets of head and when it does FINALLY go out of warranty it’s gone. International-Navistar made the last good engine in the 7.3 and you’d be surprised what they bring on the open market with the last one being installed in 2002.
Contractors are also shying away from diesel engines in fleet operation. The up front costs and maintenance required doesn’t work out in the end. Gasoline is cheaper too.
A recent discussion I had with the owner of a medium size landscaping and grounds maintenance company revealed the same thinking. He cannot justify a diesel truck unless it is 100% dedicated to pulling
heavy loads.
The 6.0L+ monsters used in HD pickups and the engines being used in 1/2-tons and midsizers are two different breeds of animal.
EDIT: Wait, why are we commenting on a two-year-old article?