Ford will offer diesel in F-150

[Biker16]

Ford will offer diesel in F-150

 

Richard Truett | | Automotive News / October 9, 2006 - 1:00 am

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

Click Here!

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.

 

New diesel

Ford F-150 diesel facts

 

* 3.6-liter, 32-valve V-8 with electronically controlled twin turbochargers

* Estimated hp: 250-275

* Pro: The F-150 diesel would offer a fuel-efficient pickup to small-business owners and should help Ford retain overall truck sales leadership.

* Con: Ford officials worry it could cannibalize sales of the more profitable F-250 diesel.

 

 

 

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.

 

You may e-mail Richard Truett at rtruett@crain.com

[ANTAUS]

About time...

[Blueblood]

Isn't the F-150 going to get the 4.4L version? I did the math about a month ago and in the same tune as the 3.6L should make about 330 horsepower and 53X Ft. pounds torque.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Blueblood

[swenson88]

Isn't the F-150 going to get the 4.4L version? I did the math about a month ago and in the same tune as the 3.6L should make about 330 horsepower and 53X Ft. pounds torque.

 

For the price premium the diesel will command that might be the smarter route, but it sounds like the F150 diesel is going to be going for mpg over power, kind of makes sense since the chassis of the F150 isn't capable of the towing that 4.4L could do. I just hope for Ford's sake they don't get leapfrogged between now and when this debuts, I really don't like press releases telling your competition what you're up to two years in advance, leaves the door wide open to be beaten to the punch.

[matthewq4b]

If Ford is smart they will offer this engine in the Panther as well for fleets. IE Taxi and PI units.

 

Should give the Old Girls a sizable boost in the sales Dept.

 

 

Matthew

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The 4.4L will be substantially detuned from its potential at release. that would be a very Ford thing to do. Also, the 3.6L has more of the go fast, make it expensive stuff on it than Ford is likely to allow into the F-150 anyway. I would expect HP number to be very close to what the 5.4L is running at the time. Likely 300HP. For Torque, it would likely be in the 450-500 lb range. Anything higher than that, and they'll have to start using a heavier transmission. As it is, I don't know how the exisitng (future for the F-150) 6AT will hold up under that load anyway.

[JLaudioF150]

How can you guys be so sure the Ford F150 diesel 3.6L will have more Hp than the Land Rover variant. I bet they'll offer it with 245hp (detuned) to achieve more MPG perhaps?

 

Then again, what da hell do I know? Anyways, it is a smart move for Ford. As for cannibalizing some F250s sales, I wouldn't worry much. Those who need to haul the real heavy stuff will go with the F250+

 

I think the main reason for a diesel F150 is fore MPG. Just my opinion.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I agree that a diesel F-150 is about mpg and towing. I am going on what I heard earlier that the F-150 would get a greater displacement version of the range rover engine. It will be a "premium" feature, therefore it will have to have premium power figures as well. Those figures will have to be roughly equivalent to their top of the line gas engine horsepower numbers, and the resulting torque that it takes to derive that figure.

Edited October 10, 2006 by old_fairmont_wagon

[Hemiman]

If Ford is smart they will offer this engine in the Panther as well for fleets. IE Taxi and PI units.

 

Should give the Old Girls a sizable boost in the sales Dept.

Matthew

 

 

When Pigs Fly! I'd be happy if they'ed just put the 3V MOD in the thing.

[Blue II]

The 6.2 Boss (AKA Huricane) will probably be rated higher than the diesel.

[igor]

The 6.2 Boss (AKA Huricane) will probably be rated higher than the diesel.

 

on HP, TQ or FE? or ???

 

Sorry .. it is morning .. but I was not making sense of your post.

 

Igor

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, true enough, any engine that is further premium to the 5.4L 3V would likely have more HP than either the 3.6L or the probably 4.4L Diesel that the F-150 is likely to see. Given that the current 6.0L PSD can't get much past the mid 300s in HP numbers from the factory, I wouldn't expect the smaller diesel to best a gas V8 that exceeds the displacement of the PSD in the HP department. However, given the possible displacement of the F-150 diesel, and its likely turbo arrangement, 300 hp seems doable, though I think that 280 would make the most practical sense (just not marketing sense).

[Bluecon]

When Pigs Fly! I'd be happy if they'ed just put the 3V MOD in the thing.

It doesn't make any sense that they don't just bolt the 4.6l 3v into the Panthers. It seems like a gimme.

[SysEng]

For Torque, it would likely be in the 450-500 lb range. Anything higher than that, and they'll have to start using a heavier transmission. As it is, I don't know how the exisitng (future for the F-150) 6AT will hold up under that load anyway.

 

 

At 472#T :eek5: , your looking at the 5R110. I seriously doubt the 6R currently used in the Expedition goes past 6R75 in its specs, which means its just on the edge with that 365#T 5.4L engine. Outside of an Allison, or the ZF truck tranny there is no 6AT that can realistically run with that engine at that spec, let alone in a 5400# truck. Typical torque usually ends at 440# in the ZF6HP26 tranny used a while back on Navigators. Pretty much the limit for most "light" trannys.

 

Mind you, this 3.6L engine is ALL CGI , which is Very COOL with me. I'd be quite happy to see it dropped to 250HP and 300#T if possible. That would work very well with the the F150/Expediton/"panthers" :D . But realistically on a twin turbo diesel, I think your looking at a minimum 350#T out of an 220CID engine.

That would need a beefed up 6R to work in the "panthers", which seem to be a heavier service requirement than the F150 :do what: ! Go Figure...

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Two reasons:

They still have a lot of 2V 4.6Ls in the pipeline to deal with.

They'd actually have to spend at least a little money to validate the 3V in the platform (i.e. testing NVH, reliability, emissions, other spects of the installation).

 

Possible secondary reasons:

Any change to the CVPI could eliminate some of the savings that some fleet purchasers have right now with the existing ones. A change in engine means that many spare parts will have to be stocked in two versions wheras before, only one version was needed. Expensive training for fleet techs would be needed as well. So, with that in mind, any significant change that is made to an updated panther that isn't 100% backwards compatible would mean that the vehicle would have to be immediately competitive with its closest competition, such as the charger. Will the 4.6L 3V + 5AT or 6AT combo (depending on if pulled from the explorer or mustang) be a better package than the Charger Hemi for performance or the 3.5L charger for economy? Will it still be price competitive? That's what you have to ask yourself. Personally, I think that the engine/tranny combo from the V8 explorer would be a perfect match to the CVPI and a minor to moderate rear end/rear axle/rear suspension upgrade to a mustang like setup would definitely make for a very competitive vehicle. Might not be quite as fast as the Hemi, but would be more efficient than it. Maybe not quite as efficient as the 3.5L, but definitely loads more performance. A nice compromise.

[Sherminator98]

They still have a lot of 2V 4.6Ls in the pipeline to deal with.

 

 

What else besides the panthers and F-150 are using the 2v 4.6l?

 

I think of the 08/09 F-150 isn't still using the 2V 4.6L, the Panthers days are limited...

[RichardJensen]

Panthers and F150 both see heavy use. I would imagine if the 3V stands up well enough to get stuck in the F150, it will handle being put in the Panthers as well.

[Blue II]

on HP, TQ or FE? or ???

 

Sorry .. it is morning .. but I was not making sense of your post.

 

Igor

 

HP yes, TQ maybe, FE no. The DI version is an unknown right now.

[RichardJensen]

They will have to ask SysEng's permission first.

It will have to be detuned to like a 4:1 compression, and it will need to be capable of running on kerosene or vaseline or something.

[DearbornDerek]

What else besides the panthers and F-150 are using the 2v 4.6l?

 

I think of the 08/09 F-150 isn't still using the 2V 4.6L, the Panthers days are limited...

 

Well, I don't know if this info means anything but when we were building test mules for the 09 F-150 we were using a 3V 4.6L with the new 6 speed trans and a 2V 4.6L with a manual trans.

[ANTAUS]

2V with Manual? Another half-assed effort. They couldn't find a manual that can deal with the 4.6L 3V, or they rather just not bother? Only benefit I would see from this is making the 2V Manual combo as the fuel economy leader (if you want that spin)...

[RichardJensen]

2V with Manual? Another half-assed effort. They couldn't find a manual that can deal with the 4.6L 3V, or they rather just not bother? Only benefit I would see from this is making the 2V Manual combo as the fuel economy leader (if you want that spin)...

It replaces the 4.2L V6/manual combo which is the current 'value' leader.

[calypsocoral]

This diesel F-150 will not become the mainstream engine option it should be for one very big reason-- emissions control.

 

The two options discussed in the article for lowering diesel particulates are both fundamentally-flawed. Both of them need to be replaced on a frequent basis. And, the EPA, et al. needs some kind of reassurance that the trucks' owners will follow through on this. What is the likely answer to this? Regulation. More regulation. Extra, more pricey, special emissions tests for the owners.

 

In my opinion, full-size trucks like the F-150 (and its corresponding SUV's, like the Expedition), should be powered by a good diesel. The pairing should work extremely well. Unfortunately, thanks to the government (ever more proof that you folks in California, Maine, Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts are utterly hopeless), this idea will likely flop.

 

Perhaps someone can introduce a bill to lower the size/weight class for particulate exemptions to include half-ton trucks?

[RichardJensen]

Ford's PM filter is cleaned periodically. At assigned intervals, the Diesel switches to a lean burn, and the hotter exhaust gas burns accumulated PM off the catalyst. It doesn't need to be replaced.

 

No automaker in the country is going to back an effort to roll back environmental regs.

 

And while CARB has perhaps focused overmuch on vehicle emission (since that's the one exception that the Clean Air Act gave them), there is something to be said for demanding technological innovations, instead of rolling over because scrubbing NOx out of diesel exhaust is just too darn hard.

Edited October 11, 2006 by RichardJensen

[old_fairmont_wagon]

While the 2V 4.6L is only used in the F-150 and the Panthers at present, they still make a crap load of them. Granted, the volume of the panthers and the fleet F-150s that seem to love the 4.6L 2V justifies this. Since it seems that the 2V will be kept around for the "value" F-150, it seems to me that since that volume may not be enough to justify a whole engine plant to itself, the Panthers will continue to use the 2V 4.6L as well in the coming years.

 

Some things just don't change.