Not willing to cede any pickup ground to its rivals, Ford Motor Company will soon open orders for a light-duty diesel pickup. Under the hood of its F-150, the Blue Oval’s new 3.0-liter Power Stroke diesel V6 promises class-leading fuel economy (in a very small class) and greater towing capacity than its Fiat Chrysler competitor.
The model’s trailer-yanking potential is the result of the latest battle in the great, ongoing Torque War.
With 250 horsepower on tap and 440 lb-ft of torque delivered at 1,750 rpm, Ford’s light-duty diesel tops the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel (currently available as a 2017 model) by 10 hp and 20 lb-ft. Its towing capacity — 11,400 pounds — beats the Ram by 2,110 lbs, while a payload capacity of 2,020 lbs is some 380 lbs greater than the EcoDiesel.
Power and hauling prowess is one half of the diesel equation, but it isn’t as marketable if fuel economy isn’t up to snuff. Ford claims an EPA-estimated 30 mile-per-gallon highway figure — presumably for a rear-drive variant. That earns it the title of most fuel efficient F-150, as well as leader in the light-duty class.
Ram’s EcoDiesel took a fuel economy haircut after the EPA revamped its testing regimen, meaning the model currently rates a 27 mph highway figure. Earlier models carried a rating of 28 mpg highway, with the HFE model aero’d out for a 29 mpg figure.
Helping Ford’s quest for the efficiency crown is the model’s recent weight loss and the addition of a 10-speed automatic transmission. A start/stop system comes standard.
Yes, it’s the stuff “that dreams are made of,” claims Dave Filipe, Ford’s vice president of global powertrain engineering. The crew tasked with finessing the continually improved 6.7-liter Power Stroke put their skills to use in crafting this engine, with plenty of technology carryover between the two. A variable-geometry Honeywell turbocharger aims to reduce lag, while the engine’s compacted-graphite iron block material and forged steel crank come straight from the 2.7-liter EcoBoost bin.
While Ford gets in on the aero game with dual radiator shutters, it doesn’t let the drag-reducing feature sacrifice performance. The shutters stay closed at moderate loads but pop open during hard uphill climbs to aid the engine-driven fan.
“We know that competing diesels with electric cooling fans have to dial back on power under extreme heat and altitude, so we decided on a viscous-controlled mechanical fan that has the capacity to move much more air across the radiator and intercooler in extreme conditions,” said David Ives, Ford diesel engine technical specialist. “This gives F-150 Power Stroke owners more power and more passing capability in harsh conditions.”
You’ll have to wait for official pricing. Certainly, there’ll be a premium attached — no doubt the greatest of the model’s six-engine lineup. Orders open in a couple of weeks, with the first F-150 diesels arriving on dealer lots this spring.
[Image: Ford Motor Company]
Am I reading correctly that it uses the same crankshaft as the 2.7 ecoboost? That’s an interesting choice.
I think the author was trying to say that they used CGI for the block and a forged crank like they do in the 2.7, however the use of those materials is not unique to the 2.7 in Ford’s history. It does specifically note that is uses the CGI material in the block and I bet that was the intention of the crank comment too. I guess time will tell.
So less powerful than the Egobust and a boat load more money. All for only 5% sales.
This from the company that said a diesel has no place in an F-150.
To be fair, 5% of F-150 sales is still a very big amount.
44,825.
Not all will be new F-150 buyers. Maybe 20% (~9,000 units).
Just not worth it at all. Remember Ford said a diesel has no place in the F-150
“Remember Ford said a diesel has no place in the F-150”.
No, Ford didn’t say that.
They Absolutely did. Mike Levine said it.
You buy a diesel for the low end torque, not for the “power”.
Ok, it’s got less torque than the EgoBust.
The 3.5 EB was designed to provide a torque band comparable to diesels.
FCA expected low sales numbers with the Ecodiesel but have exceeded all expectations. I’m betting Ford will see the same results.
People worry and complain about turbo/engine reliability in gassers but don’t(as much) with diesels even though technology is shared i.e. CGI block,and forged crank.
Lou,
The 3.5EB was designed as an alternative to the 6 litre class of V8 gassers.
No EB is offered as a diesel challenger.
The EB’s still fall short on low end grunt. This where diesels are good. EB’s also don’t offer the same hp as a diesel with FE low down either.
“No EB is offered as a diesel challenger.”
Bull. Ford said EgoBust was used in place of a diesel. Mike Levine said it when he said that there are no plans for a diesel F-150.
“Ok, it’s got less torque than the EgoBust.”
No, that’s not true.
So in your world, 440 is MORE than 470?
awesome.
original dodge cummins data.
Year Displacement Peak hp Torque (lb-ft) Pump Valves
1989 5.9L 160 400 VE-Rotary 12V
1990 5.9L 160 400 VE-Rotary 12V
1991 5.9L 160 400 VE-Rotary 12V
1992 5.9L 160 400 VE-Rotary 12V
1993 5.9L 160 400 VE-Rotary 12V
https://cumminsengines.com/pickup-truck-cummins-ram-history
I was musing the other day; I just bought a 2018 F-150 with the 3.5L EB. 375 HP and 470 lb*ft. My first truck was a 2000 F-350 7.3L. I don’t recall exactly but I /think/ that truck had 235HP and 485 lb*ft.
Granted I’m not saying that my f-150 could ever tow like the f-350, but interesting nevertheless.
Also interesting, though… At 65MPH that F-350 (a CC, LWB, 4×4 variety) would get about 18MPG. Just got back from a 2000 mile trip with my F-150 and got about 17.5MPG. I’m hoping that the “break-in” phenomenon is real and that increases to 20+ eventually.
“competing diesels with electric cooling fans have to dial back on power under extreme heat and altitude”
Apparently Ford does not know the difference between altitude and elevation. Or can these trucks fly?
The correct usage of altitude/elevation in the non-aviation world is not as clear cut as you think it is.
The numbers outclass the ’94 Dodge Ram 2500 I bought back in late-’93…and that Dodge was so strong with a trailer behind it.
I believe that the Ford diesel will be the choice for those who will tow on a regular basis since towing MPG of the diesel will be significantly better than the 2.7 Ecoboost. While I have several turbo gassers in my current fleet, you simply can’t beat a diesel for some things…one of which is resale. Yes, the diesel option costs more to buy but those costs tend to all be front-loaded.
The silliness continues. First, in most if not all states, towing more than 10,000 lbs. requires a CDL. Secondly, for stability, towing requires a minimum of 10% of trailer weight on the tongue. That weight is carried by the truck. Many travel trailers have a higher percentage than that. Your typical 28 foot Airstream will have a tongue weight of 1200 lbs. fully loaded. So that leaves 800 lbs for people, dogs and “stuff” in the bed.
And the typical “payload” reported by mfrs. is for a stripped, regular cab, which no one buys. Check the payload of a moderately tricked out crew cab, and it will be 30% less, at least.
And the revelation that this engine is based on the 2.7 liter Ecoboost block should not be music to a buyer’s ears. The history of such “value-engineered” diesels is not encouraging. “Dieselized” gasoline engines from VW/Audi and GM from the early 1980s were not a success, even though none of them had forced induction or achieved this high an output per unit of displacement. The typical failure point was the head gasket. The typical truck application engine is going to see a higher duty cycle than in a car or SUV. Dealing with the extra heat generated by the engine working at a higher load is not just a matter of a bigger radiator and cooling fan; it’s about designing the coolant flow through the engine block to prevent isolated hot spots under load, even when overall coolant temperature is in the normal range.
You don’t need a CDL to tow 10k# unless you are towing those pounds commercially, at least not in any of the states that surround me. That’s why you used to see commercial rigs towing trailers (particularly horse trailers hook ups) with writing about ‘not for hire’. Perfectly legal most places to hook up your 13k# RV and trundle off. In my state, and I believe my region, at 26k combined you have to get a CDL even if you aren’t commercial but that’s a 15-18k# trailer.
I’m not speculating on the other stuff because I don’t know what all went in to engineering this. I know it’s built on similar internals to the diesel already in use in Euro markets but beefed up.
I will add though, that I wish manufacturers would display GCWR as prominently as tow rating. I agree that would be much more meaningful to display.
Florida exempts *all* RVs and travel trailers from their CDL requirements. I doubt we are the only state that does this.
Unless you’re being completely insane and unsafe FHP isn’t going to hassle you for towing anything. Might be different in places like Virginia, Ohio, or Pennsylvania.
Same here in CT you can even buy a sleeper cab peterbilt reg as a RV and drive with NO CDL here.
It’s probably less dangerous to tow in Florida than most other states since there are so few hills here.
DC Bruce,
Since this is still nominally the “truth” about cars, I must point out it is patently untrue that any state requires a CDL to tow more than 10,000 lbs.
If you’re a commercial driver, then a CDL may be required to drive a 10k GVWR truck/van whether it is towing anything or not.
RVs, particularly, and other non-commercial recreational towing (boats, race car trailers etc) only trigger CDL requirements in three states (Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Indiana) and Washington, D.C., and then either when you surpass 26,000 GCW (DC, HI) or the trailer is longer than 45 ft (IN, WI).
Many states do require a different “class” or endorsement on a non-commercial drivers’ license.
It doesn’t say that it is based on the 2.7l block, the article says that is uses the CGI material for the block as is also used on the 2.7l. The engine is an evolution of the 3.0l “Lion” diesel and will be built alongside the version used in Range Rovers. CGI has been used in diesel engines for sometime, including from the beginning in the Lion family. The 3.0 diesel uses a timing belt do drive its overhead cams, while the 2.7 uses a pair of timing chains. The diesel uses a one piece CGI block while the 2.7 uses a 2 piece block with the main section CGI and the lower portion aluminum.
The Lion also predates the 2.7, so if there was similar architecture which there isn’t other than they are both V6, then it would be the 2.7 Ecoboost that was developed from the Lion diesel family.
Now there is reason for concern that they may not have the engine’s cooling system designed for the continuous maximum output operation that is more likely to occur in a pickup than a SUV. However Ford has had these on the road for several years of testing and suspect that if there was a problem it would have been addressed with all the other changes made to prep the Lion for F150 use.
@DC Bruce – each state or province has different requirements for CDL. Generally speaking anything with air brakes requires CDL.
In my jurisdiction you can tow recreationally up to 4,600 kg (10,120 lb) without any extra endorsements. Over 4,600 kg means a “heavy trailer endorsement”. if you have air brakes then you need a Class 1 or your CDL. I’ve noticed that many US jurisdictions are similar.
These numbers seen by truck makers are mostly bragging points. Ram who does not play hard in the towing game with 1/2 tons had released a study saying that the average 1/2 ton owner doesn’t tow more than 5k.
Chevy who has stayed out of the HD war between Ram and Ford says that the average HD owner does not tow more than 10k.
Personally, I’d rather tow a 7k trailer with a truck rated for 11-12k than one rated for 7-9k.
States may have different laws, but from the federal requirement, anything going interstate that is over 26k or 26k combo requires a CDL. Anything over 10K requires combination registration, but if you have a 10k truck (F250) and a 14k trailer, your combo is only 24k.. If you’re using the truck commercially you are required to have DOT registration, but no CDL required. Further, it’s not silly to buy a truck able to haul 12k if you’re planning on hauling 10k.
800 pounds of dogs would be by far the most entertaining payload IMO.
Aerodynamic improvements on vehicles with profiles of bricks?
It would be fun to see what a no holds barred, shaped for lowest Cd pickup truck would look like? I wonder if it could come anywhere near the .25 of a Tesla? I am guessing that most certainly it would not look macho and tough enough and would be a market flop.
A pickup optimized for aerodynamics would probably violate European pedestrian-protection standards. On the other hand, that might not matter, since Europe represents only a tiny fraction of sales for these full-size American trucks.
Engine driven fan?
OK Gearheads, if and when did the last engine driven fan exist from the factory in a 1/2 ton truck?
Like 2012? The Mopar 4.7L used an engine driven fan if you got it with “HD engine cooling” which was a standard part of the towing package for the Jeeps and Dodges it was offered on.
With the push toward fuel economy I was wondering how quickly the manufacturers had dropped engine fans. I’ve never paid enough attention to care – I have paid more attention to the death of hydraulic power steering in mass market automobiles.
I know you could get an engine driven fan on Ford HD trucks in 2014. I’m 75% sure you still can.
I don’t know about the 2nd gens, but the Nissan Titan had them until 2015.
I think Ford will be surprised by the take rate for these – I think it will be closer to 10%, especially if the option isn’t insanely expensive. I just wonder what the maintenance requirements will be. If I had the money lying around, I’d buy one, probably in an XLT SuperCrew 4×2. I wonder what the city fuel economy rating will be?
My only dislike is the stop/start thing – I suspect you’ll be able to turn it off, but you’ll have to turn it off on every trip, like some others.
“meaning the model currently rates a 27 mph highway figure”
I assume that is the average speed a RAM travels over the speed limit.
As per C&D’s article, the diesel will cost $4000 more than the 2.7, 2400 more than the 3.5, and 3000 more than the 5.0 in US. And will only be available on Lariat and above unless you’re a fleet buyer. So that limits it’s appeal to only extensive towers, and most of those people are buying Super Dutys to begin with.
I was about to ask about trim level required – great Scott!
Interestingly enough I was doing an AutoTrader search for V8 Ford F150s and there was a dealer in Utah who was only carrying the 5.0 (in XLT 4×4 form anyway) in extended cab configuration with buckets and console. I could already picture the young men who would be buying and modifying them.
Yeah, it’s about as smart as GM’s strategy when they offered QuadraSteer. If you wanted that, it was part of a $6000 option package.
I guess you could possibly get around the trim level requirement if you were buying through a buying club (like as a member of a credit union), where they buy through the fleet department.
No you are not going to get around the trim level requirement by buying through your credit union of other buying service. Yes you often deal with the fleet dept in those transactions but that doesn’t mean that they will stock those or order them for anyone. If a option is considered Fleet only then you need a FIN on the order form for Ford to process it. So you have just as good a chance by going directly to the fleet dept and see if they will use an existing FIN of another customer to submit the order.
The Lariat is the defacto base trim level, the XLT is the loss leader version while the XL is fleet only and dealers are not required to stock them. So not a big surprise that it is only available on the Lariat and higher trims.
Hmmmmmm no problem finding XLTs around these part’s Scoutdude but then again around here a significant portion of the population lives in areas that are sometimes easier to get to with a tractor or a Wrangler than a truck. But they’ve got horse trailers to pull, livestock to round up, and elk to hunt – so truck it is!
I never said that there aren’t a lot of XLTs out there just that those are the loss leaders and by design they are limited in the options you can get. So not a big surprise that at least at the start of availability that you can’t get it on the XL and XLT without a Fleet Identification Number.
Ford isn’t losing money on either the XLT or the XL trucks. Just look at how much they knock off for rebates (or a government bid) and you know there is plenty of padding for FoMoCo and the others on the trucks. Compare the options of an XLT or XL with trim packages on any car and you’d not be saying it’s all that limited.
“We will not offer diesel in F-150. Ecoboost provides power and efficiency that outweigh the disadvantages of emmissions, cost and complexity of diesel” Quote Ford
“Ford will not sell Ranger in United States or Canada. There is a version of F-150 that meets the needs of all pickup buyers. Midsize truck market is declining with no demand for Ranger that is 9/10 size of F-150.” Quote Ford
Diesel F-150 and Ranger both being introduced this month. So much money spent to sell trucks that don’t serve a purpose to buyers that don’t exist.
Keep it up Ford and you will have the credibility of Tesla.
Best post in the thread.
Why, because its 100% BS?
“Buyers that don’t exist” like the nearly 800K trucks they sell a year? Those don’t exist?
Like any business, you change and evolve, or you die. You respond to market demands and you change course to maintain your position, or improve upon it.
Ford said it would wait and see how GM’s midsize trucks did before investing in federalizing the Ranger. They are doing fairly well, thus we get a Ranger.
800,000 is not 5% of F-150 sales.
And it’s not BS. That line about the F-150 diesel came right from a Ford spokesperson.
The line about the Ranger came right from a Ford spokesperson as well. Hell Ford said that the Transit Connect was the Ranger replacement.
You really think there is a huge untapped market of blind sheep that are willing to plunk down thousands on a shitty Ford diesel F-150 or an ancient Ford Ranger?
800,000 is not 5% of F-150 sales.
And it’s not BS. That line about the F-150 diesel came right from a Ford spokesperson:
“Reached for comment, Ford spokesman Mike Levine sent us the following statement: “We do not speculate about future products. While diesel is a solution, it is not the solution. EcoBoost offers the ideal combination of performance and fuel economy that over 60 percent of F-150 customers are choosing.”
The line about the Ranger came right from a Ford spokesperson as well.
Heck Ford said the Transit Connect was the perfect Ranger replacement. Here is Ford on the new “world” Ranger:
“We’re moving it to a position of real capability,” explained Schirmer, saying that Ford wanted to provide “performance leadership with this model,” which also unfortunately meant bringing it to a size that would come too close to overlapping with the F-150 model lineup in North America. Although the new Ranger is about six inches narrower than the F-150, it’s within just two or three inches in length.”
So a company is never allowed to change its mind? Ever? Even as the market changes?
Weird world you want to live in.
One point not mentioned if fine particulate. Diesels are burdened with DPF/urea systems and the current Ecoboost engines are not.
Studies done in the EU show that high compression turbocharged direct injection engines produce as much if not more fine particulate than diesels.
It makes sense to offer diesels just in case fine particulate gets regulated in Turbo DI engines.
John,
In Ford’s case it was about ensuring the success of the F150, not evolving Ford.
The comments by Ford regarding Ranger alternatives reeked of pure BS.
The same goes for this “all American” Lion fitted to the F150. The block and crank are no different. Ford only stated it is the same as the 2.7EB.
WTF is Federalising?
Ford will change the Ranger similar to the Colorado.
The global Ranger exceeds most luxury cars already for safety.
The changes will be made to suit the US’s unique and one’sy approach to vehicle design regs or in other words meet technical barriers.
Ford will have to spend less money to federalize the Ranger than GM did with the Colorado. Like the diesel F150, Ford should have brought this here years ago.
The 2019 Ranger will be a worldwide update as well. It is definitely designed with the intent to meet any regulations in its intended markets.
Ford changes its mind and decides to ship a thing that they decide is now popular/salable.
Tesla can’t ship a product on time or in promised quantity.
Same thing, right?
Ford saying it won’t do something is not a promise until the end of time; it’s a statement of current internal policy.
Ford states “we are not going to do this” many, many, many times and then does exactly what they said they would not do.
Tesla states many times “this is what we will deliver and when” and then does not meet their promises.
Both discredit “the quality of being trusted and believed in” which is credibility.
Manufacturers most often do not comment about future product. Ford executives commented often and consistently in regard to Ranger and diesel F-150. The message did not change. No Ranger and no future in midsize truck market. No diesel F-150, no need for diesel F-150 and no need for 1/2 ton diesel truck. 1/2 ton diesel is answer to question consumers are not asking.
This is not as simple as Ford adjusting to the market. Ford screwed up and misread the market. They are now reacting to the competition.
What is unusual is the years and years of on the record negative commentary against diesel and against midsize truck market.
As a stock holder of Ford I’m more than disappointed with lack of leadership and product planning.
@Oberkanone – Ford went with the ecoboost line. They invested heavily in that area and marketed it as a global product. It makes sense that they would put “all their eggs” in that basket especially from a marketing perspective. Small diesels in the USA have been a hard sell. It would hurt their sales if they made a vague statement about the future of their engine programs since people would hold out for a small diesel.
If you recall when Ford released the EB line they also had the 6.2 available in the F150. Why do you think that is? Simple, they weren’t completely confident in how the EB line would be accepted. Sales were great so they killed the 6.2 in F150.
why hurt a new problem by ruminating about diesels or big V8’s?
The same can be said for the Ranger. When they killed it the market for small trucks was imploding. The global Ranger by their own reports is 10% smaller than a F150. Ford was also going to release the aluminum F150. Why risk providing an alternative to a new product that was a big gamble?
The aluminum F150 and HD is solid in the market so it is now time to introduce the Ranger.
Ford’s stance is more marketing than policy.
Ford seldom comments on product in the manner they did with diesel and midsize trucks. This went far beyond marketing.
Because a diesel F150 and a Ranger DON’T MAKE SENSE, doesn’t mean that the market won’t buy em. IMO Ford simply thought with reason and forgot about the emotion of it all. Also, the statements are quite old and markets do change, though I still think both are only emotional answers. If you’re selling trucks, that doesn’t make the answers wrong.
It’s super cute how the three anti-Ford trolls all commented on this thread. If you keep on saying it.. eventually it’ll be true I’m sure!!
How is it “anti-Ford” when you are quoting what Ford said?
“How is it “anti-Ford” when you are quoting what Ford said?”
Context
History
Stop/start on a diesel worries me greatly. I can almost guarantee that they’ll sell these to the crowd here in Texas that buys the Platinum and Limited F-150 for the shiny panel on the tailgate. There’s a lot of those, so don’t kid yourself about finding a buyer.
‘Stop’ comes standard, ‘Start’ is a higher trim package.
I don’t believe the 3 litre US Lion is all new, this is Ford marketing, nonsense.
It is great to see a diesel F150. Looking at the secifications one wonders if the XD is also in Ford’s sights. Ford would of studied what trim level was most popular in the XD.
Again, how can you believe Ford, when not long ago it said when the Ranger is gone (2012) we have plenty of alternative vehicles to fill the void. The same goes for diesels in 1/2 ton pickups, “there is no market in the US for this as our EBs more than compete”.
Its better late than never in some cases. This is refreshing.
This 3.0L diesel is suspiciously similar to 3.0L diesel used in Jaguar vehicles. 3.0L Lion diesel was designed by Ford’s Dagenham Diesel Centre.
Powerstroke 3.0L is ALL new per Ford. Right?
I don’t know why they are calling all new. Especially since it is made on the same line as the LR engine. Fake News, etc…
Ford isn’t worried about the XD.
I think it’s a stretch to call this an all-new engine. It’s going to be built on the same line as the Land Rover engine at Ford’s Dagenham Engine Plant. It’s a Lion diesel that is updated for the F150. The suggestion that it is anything else would be incorrect.
“all-new” is the most abused term in the automotive field.
“Looking at the secifications (sic) one wonders if the XD is also in Ford’s sights.”
That is backwards… Nissan had the Ford 3/4 ton in their sights. The F150, not so much (if at all).
If Ford was targeting anyone, FCA’s ecodiesel would be it not a low volume outlier like Nissan.
Lou and Adam,
I’m not making a statement that the XD will outsell or anything of the sort against Ford.
What I’m saying is Ford studied the sales performance of the XD within Nissan itself to ascertain how best apply and value add the Lion V6 into the F150 lineup.
@Big Al from Oz – Sales numbers or specifications, it doesn’t really matter that much.
I see Titan XD Cummins primarily in mid to high end spec trucks which is no different than what I see in Ford, Ram, or GM/Chev diesel pickups.
A buyer of a 60-90k 1/2 ton will be less likely to balk at the added price of the diesel. Ford doesn’t need to stare at Nissan to see that fact.
No one is clamoring for 1/2 ton diesels. Ford is running this up the flagpole, if it sells it sells.
I wonder if Ford knew how many of the B&B would be crying themselves to sleep tonight when they released this – ?
Myself, I think they are pricing it too high…I would say maybe a grand over and above the 3.5L Ecoboost.
For other truck manufacturers, who sell gas engines that don’t make peak torque until up around 3,600 rpm, this engine would really represent an increase in towing flexibility in their half-ton line…but two of Ford’s gas F150 engines already make similar or greater peak torque that this 3.0L diesel, and they also make it below 2,000 rpm…so lots of the diesel low-end punch is already there in the gas EBs.
Yes, the diesel will get better fuel economy…but these are expensive vehicles and don’t go to people who are laser-focused on fuel economy; for someone paying $60k for a truck, the fact that their turbo gas truck gets 22 mpg on the highway instead of 30 mpg is not that much of a deal-breaker, and many are probably willing to take the lesser fuel economy in exchange for an engine that has both high low-rpm torque AND lots of horsepower.
Both engines will have that low-end torque; it’s not clear to me that choosing high fuel economy rather than high horsepower will command that much of a price premium.
This diesel option is almost certainly not a game changer. For most buyers it will not represent a better value than the Ecoboost considering its much higher initial cost. However, it will come down to how well it is marketed and I’ve underestimated Ford’s marketing department in the past so who knows.
Bottom line though, I believe, is the opening phrase from this article: “Not willing to cede any pickup ground to its rivals,”
@Fordson – I agree that mpg isn’t a big deal for these buyers. I suspect Ford is just targeting their own buyers who want a diesel but not a 925 lb ft torque monster with a 10k engine premium.
“Not willing to cede any pickup ground to its rivals,”
This sums it up.
Someone earlier stated that 5% of F150 sales is 44,825. If Ford increases their sales by that amount or retains buyers with a typical 10k profit margin per unit, well….. do the math and you get my point (and Ford’s)
Not now, but if oil prices surge–as predicted–an ‘econo-diesel’ might sell like hotcakes.
TTAC (Steph Millems) – – –
Good job on this Ford story.
This is the only article posted lately that has sparked my interest.
It offers passion, and is exciting.
All the other articles are just about, well, cars (*yawn*).
Maybe TTAC should change its name to TTAT, and really plunge into the deep end….(^_^)..
======================
@NMGOM – If one considers the rate at which the car side of the market has shrunk, TTAT might be the only way to survive.
I think the niche for whom this will be the most attractive option is very small. But a very small portion of 800k annual sales may still be worth chasing.
For this to be the best option you’d have to 1) tow 2) with a half-ton 3) often enough to make up a gigantic purchase price deficit that gets you less top-end power. I think most of the people towing that often are using 3/4- or 1 tons anyway.
I just purchased a new 2017 Laramie Ram EcoDiesel last week in Fort Worth. I have friends who have them and have been extremely satisfied with their reliability and the fuel mileage. Theirs are rear drives, mine is 4 Wheel with 2 wheel button. I left Dallas with it yesterday afternoon, and am currently sitting in a motel in Hopkinsville, KY on a business trip.
I averaged 24 mpg and only had to fill up once before I got here. Truck now has just under 1200 miles. I fought a head wind, and rain for more than half the distance to get here, so I’m thinking the mileage will improve on the way home Wednesday. So far, loving the torque feel, although the fuel mileage was only marginally better than on the Hemi Longhorn I traded in. Loving the quiet diesel as well. I didn’t realize how many creature comforts I was giving up going from a Longhorn Laramie to a Laramie…missing the odor of real leather…The deal on this thing was fantastic, with a list of 57 plus K, discounted to 42,150…tough to turn that down even though it IS a leftover 17…
OzCop,
Not sure of the range on your tank. but don’t forget to add some winter fuel, KY is going to get cold this weekend…
Perhaps I don’t read numbers so well but my 2010 F-150 makes 320hp and 390lb/ft. More than enough to tow my boat, which weighs more than what I see 99.9% of F-150 drivers towing – which is nothing at all. Again, without resorting too much to numbers ( English Major here ), for the anticipated pricing of both the new truck and the Diesel option I’d think one could buy three 2010 XLT SCabs with the 5.4L and burn them out on the cheaper gasoline and still be ahead of the curve that introduces EV trucks.
Since when does anything regarding all but a basic pickup, have to make sense? A huge reason for picking a diesel pickup involves engine braking, and the piece of mind knowing you’re better equipped to handle a strong headwind with a high-profile trailer or whatever gets thrown at you. Engine specs don’t tell the whole story, although I feel right at home pushing gas V8s to the breaking point (the don’t) and love a lot of things about diesels, as long as the truck payment is in someone else’s name.