Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Ford F-150 SuperCrew EcoBoost

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Here's info on the 3.5L V6 EcoBoost torture test and tear-down:
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/experiencef150/?intcmp=fv-fv-a1b02c03d000616e00f00g05h07j11k09m3n0p20101221
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like.html

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The Detroit automakers for decades turned out cars that barely outlived their warranties. They pushed junk out the door and expected their customers to serve as field testers, death by a thousand cuts. They say their cars are better now but won't back it up with an honest, 10 year/200,000 km, no weasel clause, comprehensive warranty.

If the EcoBoost is as durable as Ford says why doesn't it put its money where it's mouth is?

"Detroit" isn't making the case their cars are better, consumer publications are making the case. The Fusion has been the second most reliable car (Prius is the top) you can buy pretty much since it was introduced.

So far, the EcoBoost engines have been very reliable. With the take rate being higher than anticipated, why would they bother with an extended warranty?

[Gardiner Westbound]

Detroit" isn't making the case their cars are better, consumer publications are making the case.

Are auto writers two-faced shills and flacks? Do bears poop in the woods? Are Catholic priests good babysitters? Beholden to the advertising department, feted on first class junkets, loaded down with swag, and loaned a steady stream of specially prepared vehicles, most wet themselves with glee at new model introductions and produce cloying, fawning, puff pieces – lest the gravy train pull out of the station without them. The softball daily newspaper car reviews are particularly disingenuous. Car of the Year (COTY) awards are pure, paid marketing schlock.

See Taking Readers for a Ride, American Journalism Review, September 2011, http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5141

[Cord]

The softball daily newspaper car reviews are particularly disingenuous. Car of the Year (COTY) awards are pure, paid marketing schlock.

Is it any surprise that those newspaper articles appear in "special advertising sections?"

Of course, those damning statements about media car articles and awards apply to all brands, not just Detroit-based makers, right?

[Snowman]

The AR 2011 looks more like a real truck to me not a "sport truck"  and I'd bet that the GR is available without that chrome bar.    Those GR diesels... yes please

The mine manager in Auz I work with has a turbo diesel Ranger and it is a nice truck.... and almost half the price of a Land Crusher.

[Spec5]

Some amusing stories from my friends waiting for their 2012 Ecoboost F150 - the local dealership has actually been rotating them through vehicles while they wait for theirs to come in as they need 2 vehicles and well the dealership screwed the order up.

Anyway so far they've had nothing but 5.0L F150s (save for a weekend in a Fusion). Of the 4 they've had 2 of them have had issues. The first various electronic bits wouldn't work or wouldn't work properly (no details yet - have to wait till we get together for the next UFC to get those!) and I just got a text from the wife this morning of their "brand new" 2011 F150 being hauled onto a flat bed truck. Not as bad as you might think - she went to leave this morning and noticed the tire was flat - not a big deal - she's a car chick and set about changing the tire herself - so she starts on the crank to lower the tire and the crank broke!

Like I said nothing major and all of this stuff would be covered if someone owned these vehicles but wow - 2 out of 4 with issues? And keep in mind they only have these vehicles for days at a time!

[Gardiner Westbound]

Not as bad as you might think - she went to leave this morning and noticed the tire was flat - not a big deal - she's a car chick and set about changing the tire herself - so she starts on the crank to lower the tire and the crank broke!

Ever wonder why they put a $2 jack in a $50,000 car. Cuz they ran out of $1 ones!

They solved that problem by not putting spare tires or jacks in some new cars.

[redman]

Many of these diesels are already available in offshore product lines. With DPF and common rail diesels which meet and exceed many emissions laws here, it leads me to wonder if there isn't some collusion between manufactures, oil companies and even gov't. Every liter no sold means less profit for oil companies and less taxes for governments.

I'm no longer buying the ill argument of emissions or production costs. Diesel versions with smaller displacements then there gas counterparts are sold with a mild increase to offset mild production/material costs in Europe successfully.
Somehow diesel options here are marketed as an outrages 8-10K premium. It does the job of making these engines non viable for the average user and feeding the pick-up manufacturers statements of low percentage of diesels actually get sold in order to justify development and productions costs.
Another "trick" the manufacturers do here(Can/U.S.) is to oversize there diesels for the application. This overkill not only makes for reduced fuel economy but the added weight makes for added expense that gets passed on to the consumer.
It's an idiotic formula specific to (Can/U.S.) markets. It shocks me that anyone believes the B.S. put forth by manufactures and media.

Rob

I know VW, and I suspect the rest, amortize the costs of their diesel engines over their entire fleet ie, gasoline engines are sold at a slightly higher price than they could to offset the extra production costs of their diesel engines.

At one point, one of the VW execs let it slip that VW actually lost money on every diesel they sold in NA, but they continued to sell them for marketing purposes than anything else.

Modern common rail diesels use fuel pressures up to 26000psi, about 10x higher than in a direct gasoline injected engine. The components used are high strength, high precision and very expensive. The high compression pressures require much stronger engine castings, etc. Emissions controls are more expensive too, with selective catalytic reduction systems (urea injection), particle traps and exhaust gas recirculation. Diesels are always much more expensive to produce than a similarly powerful gasoline engine.

Gardiner Westbound has it right too, the tax structure in Europe greatly favours diesel over gasoline.

Currently Robert Bosch are in their t3rd generation of Common Rail for passenger cars, the injector actuators consist of several hundred thin piezo crystal wafers. Piezo crystals have the special characteristic of expanding rapidly when an electric field is applied to them. In a piezo inline injector, the actuator is built into the injector body very close to the jet needle. The movement of the piezo packet is transmitted friction-free, using no mechanical parts. Since there are no mechanical parts reliability is on par with other long term components found on diesel engines that would be part of a rebuild.
Robert Bosch claims that this application has logged millions of Km's in both street and commercial applications and are now toying with 4th gen applications and testing.

[redman]

Here are the dimensions of the Aussie T6 Ranger versus the F150. It's where the 90% figures come from

Again. 90 X 90 X 90 = 73%

It is a much smaller truck than an F150, and not that much bigger than the current Ranger. Compared to a Tacoma it is longer but 2 inches narrower.

Pickuptrucks.com eventually figured it out:



http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/03/grown-ranger-measuring-the-all-new-global-ford-rangers-size.html

Maybe another way to get the point across is that the current North American Ranger is dimensionally 88% the size of an F150. But in actuality it is, as Cord points out, a much smaller truck than that as soon as you sit in one.

Thanks this was excellent information. It's interesting to see that Ford has viable diesels already in production namely the 3.2L Diesel that would be excellent in the F150. High low end torque coupled with better fuel economy and long term diesel reliability. Need I say more but "why aren't these engines and similar here". Don't need to hear that they don't meet emissions and and the other rederict. Simply drive one of these "new diesels" for yourself and keep on asking why.

[safristi]

Detroit" isn't making the case their cars are better, consumer publications are making the case.

Are auto writers two-faced shills and flacks? Do bears poop in the woods? Are Catholic priests good babysitters? Beholden to the advertising department, feted on first class junkets, loaded down with swag, and loaned a steady stream of specially prepared vehicles, most wet themselves with glee at new model introductions and produce cloying, fawning, puff pieces – lest the gravy train pull out of the station without them. The softball daily newspaper car reviews are particularly disingenuous. Car of the Year (COTY) awards are pure, paid marketing schlock.

See Taking Readers for a Ride, American Journalism Review, September 2011, http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5141

  Gardiner take your anti Catholic BIGOTRY  elsewhere to some Tripe
 BLOG...............your attempt at Humour is pathetic.....be ashamed......I'd appreciate your apology and rescinding of your obnoxious post...........

[dirtyjeffer]

Pickuptrucks.com eventually figured it out:



http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/03/grown-ranger-measuring-the-all-new-global-ford-rangers-size.html

Maybe another way to get the point across is that the current North American Ranger is dimensionally 88% the size of an F150. But in actuality it is, as Cord points out, a much smaller truck than that as soon as you sit in one.

sweetness...the global Ford Ranger, with a 4 cylinder diesel is exactly what i would be interested in...lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient and less expensive than an F150...but still has some versatility to it...you would think their "Global" pickup truck would actually be available in their HOME market...since they already have that truck, they should bring some over (maybe a few thousand) and see if they sell...i bet people said the Transit Connect wouldn't sell (it doesn't look like much on paper), but there are TONS of them, and they are $30k with basically nothing in them.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Detroit" isn't making the case their cars are better, consumer publications are making the case.

Are auto writers two-faced shills and flacks? Do bears poop in the woods? Are Catholic priests good babysitters? Beholden to the advertising department, feted on first class junkets, loaded down with swag, and loaned a steady stream of specially prepared vehicles, most wet themselves with glee at new model introductions and produce cloying, fawning, puff pieces – lest the gravy train pull out of the station without them. The softball daily newspaper car reviews are particularly disingenuous. Car of the Year (COTY) awards are pure, paid marketing schlock.

See Taking Readers for a Ride, American Journalism Review, September 2011, http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=5141

Missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about Motor Trend or Car and Driver, I'm talking about Consumer Reports specifically. They buy all their test cars anonymously and their reliability data is collected from their subscriber base. They don't accept advertising in any way and don't attend press junkets.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

sweetness...the global Ford Ranger, with a 4 cylinder diesel is exactly what i would be interested in...lighter, smaller, more fuel efficient and less expensive than an F150...but still has some versatility to it...you would think their "Global" pickup truck would actually be available in their HOME market...since they already have that truck, they should bring some over (maybe a few thousand) and see if they sell...i bet people said the Transit Connect wouldn't sell (it doesn't look like much on paper), but there are TONS of them, and they are $30k with basically nothing in them.

The truck in PJs picture weighs over 2 tonnes and in Australia runs $A53k. Now they include a bunch of taxes and fees in their on the road pricing. Accounting for those, it'd still be in the $35-40k range. The top engine is the 3.0L Duratorq with 154hp and 280ft-lb engine. It might work in Canada, but it would be DOA in the US.

From January to June, Ford sold 2163 Transit Connects in Canada. Not bad for a commercial vehicle, but not exactly a run away hit either.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Given that Ford, GM, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan and even Honda have all considered, then killed diesel programs, they must know something about the market that isn't obvious from the outside.

[dirtyjeffer]

Given that Ford, GM, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan and even Honda have all considered, then killed diesel programs, they must know something about the market that isn't obvious from the outside.

that's not it at all...it costs a LOT of money to develop a new product...considering none of those brands have a small diesel engine that meets our emissions requirements, it would cost a silly amount of money to make one...VW did it, as did BMW and MB...they seem to do quite well with their take rates on diesels, and as gas keeps going up in price, i would guess the take rates will only improve...another thing to consider (and likely the biggest reason) is there are still efficiency gains to be had with a conventional gasoline engine, which is what we are seeing in the last couple of years...things like electric steering, smart alternators, direct injection, turbo-charging and others have allowed more power and reduced fuel consumption...it is far less expensive to squeeze every last ounce out of an existing "technology" than to almost start from scratch with a clean diesel...for example, let's say you have 2 engine choices, turbo 4 cylinder gas engine and turbo diesel...instead of spending $200 million in improving your gas engine and an additional $500 million in developing a diesel model, you can simply spend the $200 million on the gas engine and it benefits every single car that engine goes in...simplified product lines also generally mean lower production costs, more streamlined service/training costs and reduced inventory/spare parts costs.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Given that Ford, GM, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan and even Honda have all considered, then killed diesel programs, they must know something about the market that isn't obvious from the outside.

that's not it at all...it costs a LOT of money to develop a new product...considering none of those brands have a small diesel engine that meets our emissions requirements, it would cost a silly amount of money to make one...VW did it, as did BMW and MB...they seem to do quite well with their take rates on diesels, and as gas keeps going up in price, i would guess the take rates will only improve...another thing to consider (and likely the biggest reason) is there are still efficiency gains to be had with a conventional gasoline engine, which is what we are seeing in the last couple of years...things like electric steering, smart alternators, direct injection, turbo-charging and others have allowed more power and reduced fuel consumption...it is far less expensive to squeeze every last ounce out of an existing "technology" than to almost start from scratch with a clean diesel...for example, let's say you have 2 engine choices, turbo 4 cylinder gas engine and turbo diesel...instead of spending $200 million in improving your gas engine and an additional $500 million in developing a diesel model, you can simply spend the $200 million on the gas engine and it benefits every single car that engine goes in...simplified product lines also generally mean lower production costs, more streamlined service/training costs and reduced inventory/spare parts costs.

Interesting thought experiment, but not what happened.

The 4.4L that Ford was going to use in the F150 is currently in production for Range Rover along side the 6.7L diesel engine in Chihuahua Mexico. Like the 6.7L they can meet emissions standards, but they cancelled the engine for the F150. It boiled down to the fact that it wasn't much cheaper to produce than the 6.7L. How many people are going to pony up an additional $8-9k to get a diesel in a light duty truck?

For the rest of the manufacturers, their programs were really far along when the plug was pulled. The 5L Cummins was to be used in the Ram and Nissan, Isuzu had completed the design for the Toyota. GM even had the 4.5L Duramax at SEMA back in 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J4wFwIXC7U

It wasn't an issue of R&D costs in the least. That part of the respective programs had already concluded.

The projected fuel economy numbers were supposed to be 25% better than the old 5.4. The Ecoboost gains about 18% better fuel economy with better power delivery than the 5.4, and is much cheaper to produce. Combine that with diesel prices that typically run 5-10% higher than gas in much of the US it's pretty difficult to make the case for it.

In the US, BMW, MB and to a lesser extent VW remain niche players. To put things in perspective, in 2010 in the US, Ford sold more F series trucks than the total number of vehicles sold by Mercedes and BMW combined. Any misstep could be enormously costly.

[dirtyjeffer]

i'm not talking about 4.4L diesels...of course they won't be much less expensive than the larger 6+L models use...i am talking about some decent 2.0L or 2.5L four cylinder diesels...and that would certainly negate your "$8-$9k price premium"...for a VW, the diesel is about a $2500 premium.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

i'm not talking about 4.4L diesels...of course they won't be much less expensive than the larger 6+L models use...i am talking about some decent 2.0L or 2.5L four cylinder diesels...and that would certainly negate your "$8-$9k price premium"...for a VW, the diesel is about a $2500 premium.

Your previous argument was that the diesels were killed due to development costs. I was showing that that wasn't the case. Be that as it may.

I don't think an engine like the 2.2L Duratorq, 145hp/275ft-lb diesel is going to be a draw to typical pickup buyers, even in the marginally smaller T6 Ranger, which is still on the heavy side of 2 tonnes for the 4x4. The 1,478kg Jetta has 140hp/236ft-lb and pulls 0-60 in just under 9 seconds. The T6 Ranger would be a dog with the Duratorq.

The base price of the Jetta is $15,875. To get the diesel, you have to move up to the Comfortline, $ 23,875. The $8000 difference in price isn't generated just by the extra goodies. Even if you keep it in the Comfortline range the 2.0 starts at $19,075 or $4800 less than the TDi.

[Ex-airbalancer]

My new truck weighs 2960 kgs loaded that is twice the weight of the Jetta
My friend has a Ram with a Cummins engine, empty his mileage on the hiway is around the 16 l/100km zone
But when it loaded fown with steel u do not notice the weight

[dirtyjeffer]

Your previous argument was that the diesels were killed due to development costs. I was showing that that wasn't the case. Be that as it may.

i didn't say it was killed because of development costs, i said that it may have had something to do with the decision NOT to proceed with it...i was more or less thinking out loud and trying to figure out why they may have ditched it.

I don't think an engine like the 2.2L Duratorq, 145hp/275ft-lb diesel is going to be a draw to typical pickup buyers, even in the marginally smaller T6 Ranger, which is still on the heavy side of 2 tonnes for the 4x4. The 1,478kg Jetta has 140hp/236ft-lb and pulls 0-60 in just under 9 seconds. The T6 Ranger would be a dog with the Duratorq.

there are plenty of Rangers out there with the 2.3L four cylinder engine and they seem fine...a small diesel would be even better (likely better than the 4.0L V6 dog they still have in there too).

The base price of the Jetta is $15,875. To get the diesel, you have to move up to the Comfortline, $ 23,875. The $8000 difference in price isn't generated just by the extra goodies. Even if you keep it in the Comfortline range the 2.0 starts at $19,075 or $4800 less than the TDi.

that is intellectually dishonest to compare the 2.slow base price with the well equipped mid trim diesel model...and if that is how you wish to "prove your point", you are being rather ridiculous.

i am sure there are other differences between the vehicles, as when i almost purchased a 2010 TDI Comfortline just over a year ago, the price premium was "only" about $2500...unfortunately, the VW website isn't working to go through it quickly to get every difference...and i don't feel like navigating through the pdf brochure, as it will take far too long to do.

when quickly looking at the VW USA site, the mid trim model with the 2.5L engine is $19,845 vs $22,525 for the TDi, a difference of $2,680...the price differences between US VWs and Canadian VWs isn't much (last i checked, about $2k, which is a far cry from Toyota, who prices Canadian models $5-$9k higher than down south)...as i said, i did all of this homework as i almost bought one, but decided to hold out for the new model, which i didn't like.

[Vanstar]

You know, I would imagine a large car company like Ford has market tested the idea of small diesels quite extensively and if they felt they could make money on them, they would do it in a flash.

Canada's market is peanuts compared to the USA. I would suggest that the posters here in favour of diesels go spend some time in the USA, as I have done many times over the years. In America, Bigger is Really Better. Trucks sell like crazy and the automakers make scads of money on them. The vast majority of the trucks on the road are half ton gas models. They are price and financing sensitive. A nice 5.0L F-150 can be had for quite a bit less than $30,000 and $500 a month. I am not sure the average buyer is going to want to add 25% to that price. I know I wouldn't since the diesel would simply would not be worth it.

There are many other costs and issues with new powerplants, dealership training being the most obvious, as is introducing a new parts system. I would think that Ford (and the others) have come to the conclusion that diesels are not worth if for light duty applications and not a money maker.

I have come to the same conclusion, too.