Just a general complaint I have with not just Ford is that they limit certain options on their higher end models. For example, not allowing you to get a 2.7 engine on a Platinum or a 6.5' bed on a Limited. I could see why they would do the opposite - offer more engine options in a higher end model - but I can't see why they would increasingly limit our choices the more you pay.

From what I understand of Ford's production lines, they build all the trim levels out on the same lines, and in random order according to how they come through the system. So putting a 2.7 in a Platinum shouldn't be any different logistically from any other option. Of course, the finer grained you get with options, the more the possible combinations begin to get overly complicated, but you'd think that if they offered an option on one model, they'd also offer it on the next higher up.

Anyway, it's not a huge complaint, but I do wonder if there's a practical reason why they do it.

 

There may be some practical aspect, but I'll bet marketing plays a big role. Floor plan does as well. Some dealers do sorta take in the niche vehicles, but most of us get the standard options. Unless a top end truck is specifically ordered, it does often sit a little while. Most folks spending $60k want to get what they want, not the same deal they could get on something they don't want. So if 95% of people want the 3.5 EB, I don't want a 2.7 EB high trim level truck on my lot. If dealers don't order it then it becomes a very small market share. Sorta like the manual Fusions and F650/750 we recently lost in our latest battle against lazy Americans. Then from there it probably goes back to logistics. Is it profitable to make something for 5% of people when 90% of the 5% are willing to take the "nicer" option. Just my thoughts though.

 

They also limit the smallest engines so you can't get them on the heaviest trucks. The baby ecoboost certainly has enough ***** to move around a top trim truck, but possibly not at acceptable fuel economy.
That's just a guess though. I am sure marketing plays a big role too.

 

I think a lot of what is available relates to fuel economy. I ordered a super-crew and really wanted an 8' bed. But it isn't available. It would make the truck heavier and therefore the MPG would drop. The manufacturers need to hit the CAFE standards. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpor...e_Fuel_Economy

 

I'm not sure exactly how the government does its fuel ratings (but they do seem silly). Since there is no sticker different between size trucks EPA that I've ever noticed, I'm not sure EPA ratings are a concern. Don't they just do one test RC SB 4x2 and then one with 4x4? How much more does a crew really weigh than a little truck? Considering the tow capacity of the 2.7 I find it hard to believe that's really the concern, the air resistance would be able the same, so weight is the only economy factor unless I'm not considering another variable?

 

The lightest 4x2 Regular cab weighs 4049 lbs.
The lightest 4x4 SuperCrew weighs 4695 lbs.
A loaded Platinum 4x4 Supercrew weighs 5862 lbs.

Those massaging seats and massive moon roofs are pretty heavy.

I don`t know how much of a difference the extra 1800 lbs makes on the highway, but I could imagine it`s a big deal in the city portion of the test.

 

I was involved with EPA fuel economy and emissions testing for 25+ years. EPA ratings are not only a concern, they are often the BIGGEST concern!

One truck can be used for all testing, from a RC 4x2 to a loaded Supercrew 4x4. The inertia and horsepower settings on the dynamometer used to run the test are set to simulate each truck.

Each model has a road horsepower at 50 MPH rating. This is determined by actual measurement. The inertia for each truck is set by it's weight, and there are 125 pound increments. If a vehicle goes up a pound, it might push it up into the next 125 pound increment. So adding one pound to a vehicle can cost quite a bit in fuel economy by the rating system. You'd never see the difference on the road by adding one pound, but the sticker could change, and that is a big, big deal.

For example, I used to work on the Lincoln LS program. One year the audiophile radio was not available on the Sport models. There was no issue with fitting it, the room was there. The problem was the amplifier added about 3 pounds and the car went up 125 pounds in it's inertia weight setting. This lowered the city fuel economy by 0.1 MPG, and this was enough to make the car a gas guzzler under the law. Ford had a policy that they would never sell a gas guzzler, so the audiophile had to be deleted to sell the Sport model. Try figuring that one out without inside knowledge of why that option wasn't available!

There could be reasons like that limiting your choices. Since I don't work there anymore I don't know if it is the cause or not, but it could be.

 

Thanks for the insight Mark.

 

IMHO, if Lincoln still built the Mark LT truck it would have the most powerful engine and the most extreme creature comforts available in a truck.

The King Ranch and Platinum trucks are meant to provide that. Many folks who tow RV's will do so with a high end vehicle, a 2.7L engine for instance isn't going to give those big towing numbers that the 3.5L or the 5.0L will.

If I'm paying the big bucks for a truck of that pedigree, I want the best engine option to be standard equipment.

 

Which is understandable. I'm probably going with the 5.0 anyway just so I can get a hidden winch where the 3.5 places it's intercooler.

But if I weren't doing that, I think I'd pick the 2.7 for better mileage. I'll tow, but nowhere near the max - probably only 5,000 lbs or so, and I think the 2.7 would work just fine with that load.

I'm not sure that the majority of people who buy a Limited or Platinum will tow with it. They might, or maybe most of them just think they might.