The News Wheel
1 Comment

Report: F-150 Could Get Range Rover’s Turbodiesel V6

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page
2015 Ford F-150

Could the new F-150 receive a turbodiesel engine option?

Ford seemingly isn’t content with the numerous changes it’s made to its F-150, adding everything from a high-luxury Limited trim and CNG/propane capabilities to the 2016 model year. Now, according to a report from AutoBlog, Ford appears to be considering taking things even another step further by testing out the viability of an F-150 turbodiesel.

Prepare for Rain, Sleet, and Snow: With these handy and simple windshield wiper maintenance tips

One of AutoBlog’s spy photographers spotted an F-150 prototype driving around Dearborn with camouflage only present on the truck bed. This camo didn’t cover up a Venturi exhaust tip, however, and the photographer discerned that this was a diesel-powered model. A source told the website that the engine beneath the hood was not a Power Stroke diesel, but rather the same 3.0-liter Lion V6 turbodiesel that will power the Range Rover and Range Rover sport.

It’s further speculated that an eventual turbodiesel engine for the F-150 would be mated to the same 10-speed automatic found in the upcoming F-150 Raptor.

Ford, naturally, declined to speculate about future products and reminded AutoBlog that the EcoBoost is doing just fine, thanks. Whether Ford follows up and throws its name into the hat of diesel-powered light-duty pickups remains to be seen.

Ford’s Award Winners: 2016 Reader’s Choice Award goes to the all-new Edge

News Source: AutoBlog

  • gregsfc

    If this happens, unless Ford has engineered new and cheaper exhaust-treatment systems that will pass emissions standards, the same conundrum exists with Ford and a diesel as exists in the market today with Ram and the GM twins when it comes to light-duty pickups, as the Lion is at least as costly to manufacture as the Ram Ecodiesel.
    The problem with this concept is that base-level powered diesels are being designed for fuel economy with limited horsepower but are being planted in only the largest, heaviest, most featured versions of manufactured trucks to true price premium of the diesel. In other words, these are fuel-frugal, not-so-capable diesels, and are being offered in truck configurations only where high capability is expected and needed; instead of in the lighter-duty configurations where these amazing diesels would best fit and provide a package of great fuel economy and adequate power.
    As an example, the 3.0 Ram Ecodiesel, with 240 hp and 420 peak lbs foot of torque would be the perfect power train for reg cab or extra cab, 2wd, short bed, with standard 17″ rims and modest trim level, not much more than a work-truck configuration, creating a diesel, full-size truck weighing no more than 5200 lbs for lighter duty 1/2-ton tasks for around $4K more than the base V6 gas Ram 1500, but Ram won’t let us have such a truck. They market the Ecodiesel as a heavy-hauler, luxury-laden towing vehicle, starting @ $38.5K against a base price of less than $27K for the lower utility, base truck. By contrast Ford currently offers their most advanced and fuel efficient power train in the lower end models starting less than $28K MSRP with the 2.7 Ecoboost and takes out the option of the smaller Ecoboost in the higher end models and this is as it should be. One can go out and find a F150 work truck, with the 2.7 EB and pay only $750 than that same configured truck with the base V6, but one can’t even get near that lowly with an Ecodiesel.
    This wrong-minded marketing gets worse with GM, as they’ve brought forth a 2.8 I4 Duramax with 181 horsepower, which is perfect for the lighter, smaller, and cheaper versions of the Colorado and Canyon for those who need a run around, handy-man kind of truck at a decent price and fantastic fuel economy. But GM has so far held out the Duramax for only the crew cab and only the ones featured with all the towing and active safety features. So in essence, GM wants only dedicated towing buyers with at least $34K to give for a compact truck to have a Duramax, versus a starting price for a 4 cylinder gas Colorado or Canyon of around $21K.
    The diesel conundrum, as I see it, is that the true up charge for the diesel is being hidden from the consumer to avoid sticker shock and rejection by the market. Where the true cost of a diesel does show up is in the commercial van market, where the manufacturers do let fleet customers have a diesel near the bottom of the range. Even as these diesel engines are cheaper, more simplistic and older designs, than the ones being offered in the pickups so far, the premium for those upgraded diesels in the Ram Promaster, MB Sprinter, and Ford Transit all exceed $5,000; some are closer to $6K. But if the true up-price were revealed in the less profitable versions of pickup trucks, it would be even higher, as these are more advanced engines. And the Lion would probably be the most advanced of them all.
    Some may suggest then that larger, more capable diesels should be designed and put into trucks as Nissan has done with the Cummins 5.0 V8, but then there is the problem of an even more expensive diesel design that gets no better fuel economy than a small-block V8 with advanced, fuel-saving features or a direct-injection, turbo-charged gas engine as Ford is offering today. The only advantage then of a big diesel is superior torque, but it will take a lot of money to pay for that torque and a lot of money at the pump as well.
    So I don’t see the diesel equation changing until some engineering figured out to make certifying diesels for emissions more affordable, and probably some material cost cutting as well to make them more competitive from a cost standpoint with spark-ignition engines. Otherwise, we’re going to see the hybrids coming in and doing better than diesels, which also doesn’t have economics working in its favor, since, with a hybrid, one vehicle has two fuel tanks and two power trains working in parallel, which of course is a bad idea going forward for mass production.