Does anyone want a F-150 diesel option?

[Ford-Trucks Editors]

Ford's new global Ranger has two new diesel options. Could one of them show up in the F-150? Does anyone in America care? 2012 Diesel Options; New Ranger Gets Two, Could F-150 Be Next?

[preppypyro]

Ill take a diesel in an f150 please! I need something to replace my grand cherokee diesel when that thing needs to be replaced!

[tseekins]

I think it would be a nice choice but the ecoboost is doing darned near the same work with less over all costs.

I think it will be a tough sell in great quantities.

[spdmpo]

I wouldnt buy one. The engine option would cost too much and diesel cost is higher, maintenance is higher. With the gas engines available now I'm not sure many would bite.

[Chris Anchor]

I would love a small block diesel. Chris

[powerstroke72]

Originally Posted by tseekins

I think it would be a nice choice but the ecoboost is doing darned near the same work with less over all costs.

I think it will be a tough sell in great quantities.

Originally Posted by spdmpo

I wouldnt buy one. The engine option would cost too much and diesel cost is higher, maintenance is higher. With the gas engines available now I'm not sure many would bite.

Agreed. The other thing to keep in mind is that these trucks are already outrageously expensive whether it's an F-150 or a Super Duty. Stick a turbo diesel in an F-150 and you're going to be getting really close to the price point of the Super Duty line. At that point, it would almost be crazy to buy the F-150 rather than a Super Duty. I think the EcoBoost was the best choice for the F-150 in terms of fuel economy and power. The torque band is huge and almost as flat as a pancake. With the EcoBoost available now, I think Ford would have difficulty arguing the value and added cost of putting a diesel in the F-150 at this point in time.

The EcoBoost is a low cost option compared to a diesel. How much would a diesel add to the price of a new F-150? As it stands now, it's a $7,835 option in the Super Duty. Even at say $5k, that's a huge chunk of change to add to the price of an F-150. Add that to an MSRP of a loaded Platinum, KR, or Lariat and you'll be in the mid $50k range at best.

[preppypyro]

The thing I think stands out for most guys that would choose the diesel, is longevity. With the exception of the 6.0, and maybe the 6.4, the diesel engines thrown in ford trucks were known to last a long assed time!

Since we are speculation on extra costs, why not speculate the added value of a diesel engine that MAY just last twice as long?

Important to all, nope, but important to the guys that drive their trucks till there just aint nothing left to drive, you bet!

Of course longevity is just a speculation, as could many other things be, like real world towing and economy. If the diesel performed on par with almost every other diesel out there, guys that had to tow, and couldnt quite justify a superduty, would eat these trucks up!

5k difference on a brand new truck isnt the end of the world for most, and I think the diesel would sell, even if just for the fad phase of it.

[640 CI Aluminum FORD]

Sure I think a diesel F-150 would be cool to see...But not really practical anymore because they would charge an arm, leg and first born child for it.

...Now on the other hand, if Ford could produce a diesel F-150 that got 25+mpg combined then yes I think it might be a viable option. But I don't really see that happening.

[meborder]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I'd like to announce that we, the American public, are officially getting screwed out of a viable diesel option for the F150.

I was on the jobsite today and saw a cab-over box van with a badge that said:
"LCF
POWER STROKE 4.5L V6"

And then it had a "Woodhouse" badge underneath that indicating it was sold by Woodhouse Ford in Blair NE.

According to the Contractor this box van knocks down 20-25mpg.

Enough with the "it would cost too much to develop it" line of crap I keep hearing. Ford has it ..... and refuses to put it in a platform in which the buying masses could make good use of it. The public wants it, and Ford has it .... what's the friggin problem here?

If this powerstroke v6 can get that kind of mileage in a 11ft tall cab-over box van, immagine what it could do for us in a pickup.

To me this is just another case of the big three only offering us what they think we need and the bare minimums of what they can get away with from a CAFE standards standpoint.

excited to see that they have such an animal, but irritated to see that they refuse to offer it to the public.

[powerstroke72]

Originally Posted by meborder

Ford has it ..... and refuses to put it in a platform in which the buying masses could make good use of it. The public wants it, and Ford has it .... what's the friggin problem here?

Actually Ford doesn't have it. Navistar / International does / did. It was basically a 6.0L with two cylinders chopped off. It was rated at 200 HP and 440 lb./ft. of torque in the LCF and was also marketed as the MaxxForce 5 by Navistar after the 2007 emissions update. It was rumored to be going in the F-150 and it was being developed for many applications. When Ford was considering fitting a diesel in the F-150 after the Navistar debacle that ended their relationship, it was to be a 4.4L V8 that ultimately landed in the Land Rover. It was going to be built at the Chihuahua Engine Plant in Mexico when it was destined for the F-150. Not sure if that's where they're building it for the Rover.

The 4.5 Powerstroke was discontinued as of 2010. I know that Mark Kovalsky said that he was there on the development of the program on the 4.5 and when they tried to make it meet emissions required for the F-150, it would barely run and had 0-60 times of approximately 25 seconds. Here's a link to that thread:http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/72...5l-diesel.html

Considering how Ford and Navistar ended their relationship, I wouldn't look for this 4.5 engine to go into the F-150 in our lifetime.

[dilas]

I would if it gives us at upper 20's or lower 30's in MPG range. The 3.2 diesel is being sold on Ranger overseas.

[Grodyman]

Absolutely not. Maybe in 10-20 years when they figure out how to make these things less complicated, more reliable, less expensive, and more practical.

Gman

[tseekins]

Not all is lost gentlemen. I just got my truck trend last night.

The USPS has contracted with Navistar to back fit the small mail trucks with a 3.2L diesel. According to the article, this is a Navistar / Mahindra joint venture.

Most of the USPS LLV's, (long life vehicles) are plain wore out. The powers that be and we're speaking of our government here, seem to think that back fitting a vehicle with an unproven diesel wil be cheaper than replacing the whole damned truck.

I can't wait to see this abortion unfold.

[peety37]

I for one would love to see a small 4 cyl diesel, 250+hp with a 6 or 8 speed manual transmisson. They would have plenty of working power and get great mileage. If you want a truck to tow, haul or, work, this would be perfect. If you want to do the same but tow at 70+mph then go EB.

I had a 73 F100 with a 240 I-6, 3sp on the coloum. If you could tie it to it, it would move it, you just didn't do it fast. So I think we could do the same with a small diesel and alot of shifting and gearing NO AUTOMATIC

[Hybris]

I would want it but Ford will have to get the pricing situation under control.

I can understand charging more early on to cover R&D costs but when I could almost buy a Chevy Aveo outright for the price of Powerstroke it no wonder that diesel engines are a hard sell in the US because they are so expensive.

I will state now though I am aware that all the EPA requirements don't help things either.

All that said if Ford were really wanting to get me in a 1/2 ton diesel I would like to see the 6.7L in the F150 not just because of the power to weight ratio it would have but all so getting parts for it would be simpler down the road after the truck has aged some.