Ford to introduce F-150 with diesel engine by 2009

Orange Crush · 10-11-2006, 10:15 AM

Raising the Bar
Ford to introduce F-150 with diesel engine by 2009

By RICHARD TRUETT | AUTOMOTIVE NEWS

AutoWeek | Published 10/11/06, 9:04 am et
DETROIT - Ford Motor Co. will launch its F-150 pickup with a diesel engine in 2008 or 2009, a former top executive confirmed.

If it arrives on time, the F-150 probably will be the first light-duty pickup with a diesel in North America.

Dave Szczupak, who retired last week as Ford's vice president of manufacturing for the Americas, said the F-150 will get a version of the 3.6-liter V-8 diesel used in the Land Rover Range Rover SUV sold in Europe.

Ford will be the first with the product unless Toyota or Nissan pulls off a surprise.

Gary Convis, Toyota's executive vice president of engineering and manufacturing for North America, said last month that Toyota had not yet sourced a diesel engine for the Toyota Tundra and might even buy one from a supplier. Nissan is negotiating with International Truck & Engine Corp. for a V-8 diesel for the Nissan Titan, but neither company has announced a deal.

GM eyes diesel engine

General Motors has announced plans for a small V-8 diesel truck engine after 2010. Dodge is expected to get new V-6 and V-8 diesels from longtime supplier Cummins in 2010.

Ford, GM and Dodge currently offer diesels only in their heavy-duty pickups.

The Range Rover's new diesel engine, developed with PSA/Peugeot-Citroen SA, was launched this year in Europe and looks like an ideal engine for a light-duty truck. The 267-hp V-8 develops 472 pounds-feet of torque - plenty of pulling power for consumers who might use a diesel F-150 to haul small trailers. The British market Range Rover gets 25 mpg.

Szczupak said a version of that engine would be used in the F-150. But engineers have to rework the engine to get it to conform to U.S. federal emissions standards.

"We haven't specified a Job 1 date, but we'll be pretty close by the end of 2008," Szczupak said of the 3.6-liter diesel.

Two major tasks

He said to get the engine U.S.-certified, Ford's diesel team has two tasks: First, it has to redesign some of the components to make the engine produce lower emissions in the cylinder. Then, team members have to choose a robust, reliable and affordable emissions system.

"There's a huge challenge for diesels in the under-8,500 (pounds gross vehicle weight) pickups in terms of meeting emission standards," Szczupak said.

Ford's diesel team has not made a final decision about the diesel F-150's emissions system, he said. Ford could go with urea injection to clean up harmful oxides of nitrogen, or NOx. The other option is a lean NOx trap. Both would be used with a diesel particulate filter.

"We will need a significantly more complex emission treatment and aftertreatment," Szczupak said. "We are looking at every option, whether it is a (urea) additive system or nonadditive."

Ford is determined to maintain sales leadership in full-sized trucks. The company has flirted with a light-duty diesel in the past but dropped plans when costs and reliability issues couldn't be reconciled.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1/TOC01ARCHIVE

Wiscdave · 10-11-2006, 10:18 AM

Ahhhhhhhh great!! I'll be listening to the Ford guys give me crap all weekend about this while we're up in Hurley, WI 4-wheeling in the snow. All I can say is I want to drive one.

Gunner22 · 10-11-2006, 11:05 AM

I hope this pushes other manufacturers (mainly Nissan) to get on the ball and produce light duty diesels. If all the main players get a diesel we will hopefully see a performance race just like we are seeing in the heavy duty truck diesel market.

**HudsonValleyTitan** · 10-11-2006, 11:43 AM

Since Diesels are for heavy hauling, their wasted in a 1/2 ton pick-up. I think Nissan realized this already. Being the first to bring something to market that's not needed is no big feat. If you're buying a Diesel for another reason....like fuel mileage, you're foolish. Diesels bring such a high up front cost, that any savings in fuel cost is moot.

troutking · 10-11-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HudsonValleyTitan

Since Diesels are for heavy hauling, their wasted in a 1/2 ton pick-up. I think Nissan realized this already. Being the first to bring something to market that's not needed is no big feat. If you're buying a Diesel for another reason....like fuel mileage, you're foolish. Diesels bring such a high up front cost, that any savings in fuel cost is moot.

I was thinking the exact same thing HV. What's so great about a diesel anyway. The guy I work for has one but we tow a lot of heavy trailers. Other than that I find them obnoxiously loud, horrible exhaust fumes and sometimes a pain it the neck to find a station that sells diesel fuel, which costs more than gas. Couple that with a higher price tag of about 5-8k, whats all the hype? I also hate driving behind most deisels and having that exhaust sucking into my cab. Older Fords are the worst for that.

JGM · 10-11-2006, 11:57 AM

True, diesels are an expensive upfront cost, but overtime production costs go down and the truck would get cheaper to produce, so you got to start somewhere also there is a demand for diesel vehicles, not just in cars and jeeps and big trucks. And now to put on my free range tree hugger hat.... With a diesel you can go bio-diesel which is better for the enviroment and will reduce the need for forgien and domestic dino-juice blah blah blah.

**HudsonValleyTitan** · 10-11-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JGM

True, diesels are an expensive upfront cost, but overtime production costs go down and the truck would get cheaper to produce, so you got to start somewhere also there is a demand for diesel vehicles, not just in cars and jeeps and big trucks. And now to put on my free range tree hugger hat.... With a diesel you can go bio-diesel which is better for the enviroment and will reduce the need for forgien and domestic dino-juice blah blah blah.

I guess it's a personal thing. We could debate the topic all day long....lol. I don't really see prices coming down on Diesels though. They've been around forever and are still substantially higher than their gas powered counterparts. Now if you're towing, and need a 3/4 or 1 ton truck, and plan on keeping the truck for many years, then a Diesel could be ideal. It's also kind of hard to be a tree hugger and a Diesel fan since they pollute far more than todays gas powered vehicles...even the new lower sulfur Diesel, although a HUGE improvement, is worse for the environment than a gas powered vehicle.
I do realize that some guys just need to do the Tim Allen grunt and have a loud Diesel underhood, but WANTING something and actually having it be useful or cost effective don't always go hand in hand. Bio fuels, being hard to find, are too far off to be bothered with... yet.

ewxlt · 10-11-2006, 12:45 PM

I don't know guys...a Titan with a diesel that gets 22mpg sounds pretty sweet to me...

the 12.4mpg I'm getting now kinda hurts....

BigA · 10-11-2006, 12:56 PM

Diesel is more expensive then gas right now, combined with the higher up front cost it probally wouldn't be any cheaper in the long run.

troutking · 10-11-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewxlt

I don't know guys...a Titan with a diesel that gets 22mpg sounds pretty sweet to me...

the 12.4mpg I'm getting now kinda hurts....

At an extra at least 5k purchace price plus higher cost for the fuel it would take a loooong time to pay for itself. Prob. more than 5 years. Most of us will trade our trucks in in 5 years so for fuel economy alone, not a slam dunk. You'd have to crunch those numbers but I bet you would lose. You would have a higher monthly payment to factor in.

Waterfowler · 10-11-2006, 01:22 PM

So the Ford gets a hand-me-down Euro diesel and the Dodge sticks with a Cummins? Oh yeah that's gonna sit really well with your average red blooded American male.

I see more job cuts in Ford's future.

**jmeyer** · 10-11-2006, 01:31 PM

This got me thinking here. I'm rather impartial to either gas or diesel, both have their advantages and disadvantages. From a straight cost of investment standpoint, I cruched some numbers and came to the following conclusion:

Based on $2.19/gal (Gas) and $2.56 (Diesel), a cost difference of $5,000 more for the diesel, and assuming 12.5 MPG (Gas) and 22 MPG (Diesel); it will take 6 years to recoup the extra cost associated with the more expensive diesel engine.

If diesel production costs could be droped to a difference of $2,000 more than the gas counterpart, it would only take 2.4 years to break even on the added diesel cost.

The other disadvantage with the diesel is availibility as others have posted earlier. There are 2 places to get diesel where I live, and both are rather shady. I dont know anything about the biodiesel, but I would venture to say that it would not get as good of milage as dino-juice similar to the effects of E-85. Therefore, that pushes the diesel milage advantage back down and increases the break even time further.

That's just my 2 cents.

troutking · 10-11-2006, 01:40 PM

Nice work there JM. I've never put the pen to paper on that one myself but I see my guestaments are correct. And that 22mpg may even be a little on the wishfull thinking side. We have become a sociaty of people who just want stuff, not really knowing why but I want one and I want it now! Ok I'm done.

**jmeyer** · 10-11-2006, 01:46 PM

I pulled out my old spreadsheet I created back when I was truck shopping. I was one of those red blooded Americans who wanted the biggest, baddest, smelliest truck I could buy.

I don't know why, but common sense got the better of me and I wised up and crunched some numbers. That was back when both gas and diesel were both under $1.50. Anyways, kind of glad I did now.

Waterfowler · 10-11-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmeyer

This got me thinking here. I'm rather impartial to either gas or diesel, both have their advantages and disadvantages. From a straight cost of investment standpoint, I cruched some numbers and came to the following conclusion:

Based on $2.19/gal (Gas) and $2.56 (Diesel), a cost difference of $5,000 more for the diesel, and assuming 12.5 MPG (Gas) and 22 MPG (Diesel); it will take 6 years to recoup the extra cost associated with the more expensive diesel engine.

If diesel production costs could be droped to a difference of $2,000 more than the gas counterpart, it would only take 2.4 years to break even on the added diesel cost.

The other disadvantage with the diesel is availibility as others have posted earlier. There are 2 places to get diesel where I live, and both are rather shady. I dont know anything about the biodiesel, but I would venture to say that it would not get as good of milage as dino-juice similar to the effects of E-85. Therefore, that pushes the diesel milage advantage back down and increases the break even time further.

That's just my 2 cents.

You are kinda looking at it like you aren't going to recoup the extra cost when you sell it or trade it in. Not to mention that diesels have better resale value than gas engines because diesels tend be just be getting broken in by the time a gas engine takes a downward spiral.

And a $.37 price difference between gas and diesel? Is that the national average? Last time I paid attention it was only like $.15 here in Cali.