LSFan00 Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well, no sh*t. Anonymous poster on the internet vs. Fortune 50 company analyzing it's most profitable product line. Brilliant insight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well, no sh*t. Anonymous poster on the internet vs. Fortune 50 company analyzing it's most profitable product line. Brilliant insight. Which one of us has spent the day implying that Ford is on the verge of doing something that they could've already done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Which one of us has spent the day implying that Ford is on the verge of doing something that they could've already done? And who has spent the day arguing online with that person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 See, the difference, is I'll admit I've been arguing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Ram Ecodiesel scores 28 mpg on EPA hwy test........ Hands up all of those that think the '15 F150 + EB 2.7 will be about 2 mpg behind that figure and about $3,000 in front on price. Something completely left field, a 4.5 V10 Ecoboost made off the 2.7 Ecoboost complete with CGI Block. Where the 2.7 EB gets 325 hp / 360 lb ft, the proposed 4.5 might see 500 hp / 600 lb ft. if done correctly, it could offer SD and MD buyers a torquey alternative to the 6.7 diesel. Edited February 5, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) I'm not a half ton buyer, rather have and need a 3/4 ton truck to move our goosneck trailer. That said, I think Ford is making a big mistake not having a diesel in the F150. Everyone keeps talking about the economy of the deal, but I think that is the furthest thing from peoples minds when buying these 40-60k vehicles to tow their toys around. If I was pulling a boat, bumper tow horse trailer, toy trailer etc and was getting a half ton pickup to pull it around, it would have a diesel engine in it.... No questions asked. Heck, I don't need a diesel in my 3/4 ton with the limited towing I do now, but their it sits in my garage (It's a Dodge 2500 Cummins because the Fords at the time with a 6.0 scared the bejebers out of me, will be replaced with an F250 6.7 at some point). And if you don't tow with your truck and are just buying for image, then a diesel is a better image in a truck than a 2.7L turbo. People buy what they want and like, and I truely believe there is a much larger market for diesels in the half ton range than what is led to beleive. Just look at the take rate in the larger class. 2-1 diesels. Wouldn't surprise me if it was 1-1 in the half ton class if a diesel was offered. I think Ram is sitting on a goldmine right now. Edited February 5, 2014 by Chester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 But the diesel F150 in discussion was not aimed at you or the demographics you described, it's specifically for fuel economy purpose. The "certified for Transit" 3.2 I5 only has 200hp/350tq, it will not add capability to F150, only higher mileage. The customer you cited, Ford has plenty options for them, EB35 can tow 11,000+lbs, if that's not enough, go for a SD, like you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) This is marketing. A 500 mile trip @28 mpg =17.9 gallons of diesel. 17.9 x's $3.759 (todays's diesel price in VA) is $67.29 A 500 mile trip @22 mpg = 22.7 gallons of gas. 22.7 x's $3.059 (today's gas price at Exxon & Shell) is $69.44 A brand new Dod...err..Ram will save you $2.15 over a 2013 F-150 EB. One more example of why fuel economy ratings should be listed in gallons-per-100-miles instead of miles-per-gallon. Edited February 5, 2014 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 But the diesel F150 in discussion was not aimed at you or the demographics you described, it's specifically for fuel economy purpose. The "certified for Transit" 3.2 I5 only has 200hp/350tq, it will not add capability to F150, only higher mileage. The customer you cited, Ford has plenty options for them, EB35 can tow 11,000+lbs, if that's not enough, go for a SD, like you did. No, you missed it, he's talking about the same guys I am; 40-60K trophy trucks that may or may not tow a boat/trailer 1 to 10 times a year. These guys are not going to buy a 2.7L turbo 4 to brag about mileage too often. And there are a lot of them. Thanks to the 3/4 ton models (and Audi/Merc/BMW) the diesel is perceived as a premium product. There's no point in arguing whether it's silly/wrongheaded/will actually save money over 3-5 years or not. We're talking about (a lot of) people looking at spending 50K on light duty pickups for mostly commuter/grocery duty. Their tastes/preferences matter, even if they are a little odd to many (myself included). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 So, as you said, you spent (plan to spend) 50k on a trophy truck with bragging rights, what is the reason to make you prefer a half ton over a 3/4 ton? Can't be mileage, doesn't seem to be capability, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 3/4 tons are much more challenging to drive/park. (I've never owned a truck). Why does Bill Gates need a 30,000 square foot house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 3/4 tons are much more challenging to drive/park. (I've never owned a truck). Not really. Sure, my F250 is a bit more challenging to park than my F150 was, but that's because my 250 has a 6.75' bed and my 150 had a 5.5' bed. The '15 F150 is also the same width as the current F250. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The Ram diesel's max tow rating is 9k lbs, and is as low as 8,400 lbs for the 4x4 Laramie Limited crew cab package. Remains to be seen what the Nano's payload and towing are, but if they're 20% lower than the EB 3.5's, they'll be in this ballpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 No, you missed it, he's talking about the same guys I am; 40-60K trophy trucks that may or may not tow a boat/trailer 1 to 10 times a year. These guys are not going to buy a 2.7L turbo 4 to brag about mileage too often. And there are a lot of them. Thanks to the 3/4 ton models (and Audi/Merc/BMW) the diesel is perceived as a premium product. There's no point in arguing whether it's silly/wrongheaded/will actually save money over 3-5 years or not. We're talking about (a lot of) people looking at spending 50K on light duty pickups for mostly commuter/grocery duty. Their tastes/preferences matter, even if they are a little odd to many (myself included). Problem is that as we get closer to 2025, Ford may have to sell 10 F150s with the 2.7 for every "trophy truck" F150 V8. The individual buyer does not care about fleet average, but Ford sure does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 True. Just read fiat is predicting up to forty percent of ram half ton as diesel. I thought 40k was an outlandish number earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 True. Just read fiat is predicting up to forty percent of ram half ton as diesel. I thought 40k was an outlandish number earlier. I don't see them moving that many with such a big upcharge over gas version. They would be lucky to move 1,000 units a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 3/4 tons are much more challenging to drive/park. (I've never owned a truck). Why does Bill Gates need a 30,000 square foot house? I see. You want the F150 to be even more "one truck fits all" than it already is. TBH, if Ford really wants to strech F150 range (expand its reach), it should be at the low end (no Ranger), and the MPG end (2017 CAFE mandate), not at the high end, where they have many options. Remember several years ago, when the '15 F150 program just started, Ford had the Navistar V6 diesel, ant later the 4.4L Lion,they were prepared for the diesel transition. But, neither made the cut! OTOH, weight savings and EB engines made it! I don't think Ford made the wrong decision here, far from it. They weighed all the options, played out all the scenarios, diesel engines just did not build a strong enough business case. Now, there's talk about the next gen Navigator to be a true Range Rover competitor - if that's true, you may finally get more than 10k/year diesel volume for F150/Expi/Navi combined. So, maybe wait for F150 MCE? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 True. Just read fiat is predicting up to forty percent of ram half ton as diesel. I thought 40k was an outlandish number earlier. You said 40k would buy a diesel option on the King Ranch package. And that *is* an outlandish number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 True. Just read fiat is predicting up to forty percent of ram half ton as diesel. I thought 40k was an outlandish number earlier. IT WILL BE LESS THAN 15% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 No, I didn't. I asked would 40k a year justify it? You as usual took it to be an assertion of fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The Ram diesel's max tow rating is 9k lbs, and is as low as 8,400 lbs for the 4x4 Laramie Limited crew cab package. Remains to be seen what the Nano's payload and towing are, but if they're 20% lower than the EB 3.5's, they'll be in this ballpark. Sadly though, the Ram diesels numbers will KILL any powertrain from anyone....under load....diesels forte... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 I would certainly agree 03 ls that more than 1k a month would be needed. Not sure where the line would be, moving forward from today, from 1k to 4k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 So, as you said, you spent (plan to spend) 50k on a trophy truck with bragging rights, what is the reason to make you prefer a half ton over a 3/4 ton? Can't be mileage, doesn't seem to be capability, either. easy answer, 1/2 tons are used as everyday transportation, the F-150 can and IS peoples main/ only form of transportation...the Superduties not so much....they may have capacity but they do not drive as refined, park as easily, have all the accruements AND truck for Truck arent as good a value for money and they never seem to have comparable financing/ lease programs...remember, the f-150 has BIG TIME bragging rights for Ford...#1 is important Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Sadly though, the Ram diesels numbers will KILL any powertrain from anyone....under load....diesels forte... Yeah, about 30% better than a gasser. Which, amazingly enough, is how much more diesel costs than gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yeah, about 30% better than a gasser. Which, amazingly enough, is how much more diesel costs than gas. glancing across the road at Valero, it the same price as Premium...$3.85..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.