By on July 24, 2014

550x399xford-f-150_r-550x399.jpg.pagespeed.ic.G6qdiAdN5g

Not that long ago, buying a half-ton pickup with anything other than a V8 engine was looked upon as a sign of mental illness or an inadequate reserve of masculinity. The introduction of the Ford Ecoboost V6, as well as Ram’s gasoline and diesel V6s has shifted the tide more towards smaller cylinder counts, but Ford is projecting a big shift in take rates for the next-generation F-150.

According to Autoblog, Ford is projecting that roughly 28 percent of F-150s will be equipped with the 5.0 V8, while roughly 56 percent of buyers will opt for either the 2.7L or 3.5L V6 Ecoboost engines. The remainder, about 15 percent, will go to the base 3.5L V6. As to the other 1 percent? Perhaps there’s a CNG powertrain lurking somewhere in the shadows, Ford’s projections aren’t entirely rigorous, or the reporter in question is just bad at math, as reporters tend to be.

Right now, Ecoboost engines account for about 45 percent of F-150 sales, and even though everyone has an opinion on the efficacy of a turbocharged V6 engine in a full-sized pickup, nobody can deny their commercial success. Ford’s V6 push is also being aimed at potential buyers of the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon mid-size trucks, with Ford’s own PR team already taking shots at the new GM trucks before full curb weights, mpg figures and other specs have been released for either truck.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

93 Comments on “Ford Expects V6 Engines To Make Up Over 70 Percent Of F-150 Sales...”


  • avatar

    Dear TTAC:

    You owe me a new keyboard and monitor because I spit up my milk laughing when I read this headline.

    sincerely:

    -Reid Bigland

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      I laughed too. Why Ford would even issue such a pointless press release is proof that they are attention whores.

      Anyone with an IQ over 6 (which is probably Ford had to make the announcement…to alert their target buyer) would realize that when 75% of your engines are V6s (2.7 egoboost, 3.5 egoboost, 3.5 N/A), the take rate is probably going to be pretty high!

      No worries though, in the real world, they will all get proper V8 mileage because Egoboost is nothing more than a marketing scam. Have fun with your beer can trucks and high-strung engines guinea pigs…GM and Chrysler are going to be laughing all the way to the bank. Ford should offer free extended warranties on these so-called “trucks”…it’s the least they can do for their beta testers…I mean customers.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Look for Ram to follow suit in the near future. Think about this, have you heard about any planned updates to the 5.7L Hemi recently?

      • 0 avatar
        Z71_Silvy

        Does it even need any? I get well over 20 MPG on the highway in my truck…which is around what Ford can muster out of their V6.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          CAFE. 20mpg ain’t enough these days.

          • 0 avatar
            Z71_Silvy

            That’s all Ford can do (real world…not their lies) with their V6. Everyday usage, the 5.0 has shown to be more fuel efficient.

        • 0 avatar

          And that’s just it. The redesigned HEMI 5.7-L was already such a good engine that it really didn’t need the upgrades that it got. The only thing holding it back was the 5-speed and now you’ve got better transmissions.

          Until TESLA builds a viable truck (Model T?) with an EV platform producing tremendous amounts of instant torque, all I wanna see in my work truck is a V8.

          For the POSERS who roll around in trucks just to be seen in a truck…go ahead and get your V6.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It won’t be the Model T. If Ford owns the trademark for Model E, and made Tesla change E to 3, I would bet they still own the trademark for Model T.

            I’m also unsure why you would be calling people who want a V6 truck posers. The only reason why I won’t be purchasing a new F150 is because I cannot fit it in the garage. Based on my wife driving it on a regular basis and not towing often, I would buy an F150 SuperCrew with the 3.5EB. I enjoy the utility of a truck, and the crew cab trucks can also haul my family.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            If 325hp is all most consumers need in a pickup, isn’t it the ones who buy a V8 just to satisfy their egos who are the posers?

          • 0 avatar
            ttacgreg

            I would guess that POSERS comprise somewhere in excess of 90% of all pick up truck buyers anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            el scotto

            BTSR, I drove an F-150 with an in-line 6 on the farm. With a manual tranny. “Poser”?; Ye gods man! “Poser”? for using a truck for what it was made for? That’s more BS than I ever drove through

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            The cough hack current Hemi is based on a Porsche design. It needed two spark plugs to help pass emissions. The project was almost shelved due to difficulties meeting emissions. The “hemi’ was a prime example of corporate orthodoxy making the lives of engineers harder than they need to be.

            It has turned out to be a good engine. The first versions were revvers that were inappropriate for a pickup.

            Chrysler does not have enough vehicles with great mpg to satisfy CAFE. That is why we see the Ecodiesel with a 881 lb cargo rating in a Laramie Longhorn short box.

            Odd, I don’t see the same derision aimed at the Pentastar V6 or the Gm 4.3.

            Funny to see Z71_Silvy mention 6. A Freudian slip of epic proportions.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            The Ecoboost is becoming increasingly viewed with skepticism on many of the claims Ford has made about it, and rightfully so.

            It doesn’t achieve anywhere remotely close to its officially advertised fuel economy numbers in the real world, it has been plagued by reliability issues (not a single version of the Ecoboost earns better than a “worse than average” reliability rating by CR, and most earn a “much worse than average” reliability rating), and Ford has gamed nearly every purported comparison test of the Ecoboost against competitors’ motors in one or more ways.

            What’s the point of the Ecoboost when it sucks fuel at least at the rate of normally aspirated motors with twice the displacement (if not more so) in competitors’ vehicles (in real world driving) and is inherently more complex, and demonstrably less reliable?

          • 0 avatar
            Z71_Silvy

            “Funny to see Z71_Silvy mention 6. A Freudian slip of epic proportions.”

            How so?

  • avatar
    raph

    What is old is new I guess? I remember when there were plenty of I6 powered F150′s on the road used for general work and hauling.

    The chant always used to be with Ford’s big inline six “Lots of low end torque”.

    Also it seemed back then having a V8 was more a luxury than mandatory bit of equipment.

    Before the old man passed he bought a base F150 with the 3.7 V6. I was impressed with the little six and it did everything we needed it to do including towing a small boat and car occasionally. The caveat being I live here on the flat lands of the mid-atlantic with nice sea level air and not much on the way of hills except for a few bridges that are designed to allow general boat ( tugs, barges, small cruise ships, et al ) traffic to pass without opening the draw bridge

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Yeah, that’s how I got started; Inline 6 and three on the tree, way back in the nineteen sixties.

      But after buying my very first new V8, automatic truck, a 1988 Silverado 350, I’m not going back to a six-anything no matter how much sixes are hyped by the OEMs because of government CAFE mandates.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Z71_Silvy – ““Funny to see Z71_Silvy mention 6. A Freudian slip of epic proportions.”

      How so?”

      I’m not surprised that you missed that one.

      I’ll throw you a bone…………..

      How do you keep a moron in suspense?

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    “As to the other 1 percent?”

    This is due to the rounding of numbers. Ford expects 15 percent of F150s to be sold with the 3.5L. The 5.0L, 3.5EB, and 2.7EB will each make up one third of the rest of F150 sales. The 3.7L was the CNG-capable engine, so if Ford is still offering a CNG-capable F150, from the factory, the 3.5L would be the engine.

    The 3.5EB power numbers will also be updated to around 380 HP and 460 ft.lbs.

  • avatar
    Onus

    6 Cylinders have a long history in ford trucks. V6, or not.

    Only in the 1990-2000s did v8′s become ubiquitous in trucks when gas was cheaper than it had ever been before or since ( inflation adjusted )

    Heck you used to be able to get the 300 inline 6 in freaking medium duty trucks.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      That’s not much bigger (in cubes) than the trailblazers i6, equal per cyclinder to about a 6.6l V8. Not exactly a massive engine.

      • 0 avatar
        Onus

        Yeah no it’s quite a small engine. But, seemed to do the job.

        It’s advantage is it’s 3.98″ stroke and 4″ bore.

        So it was like a 6.6 liter v8 but, better fuel economy. Plus of course a straight 6 design which has many advantages in power delivery, balance, etc. Plus in a truck packaging wasn’t an issue at the time.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy67

          Easier to do a tuneup … 6 plugs all in a row, just asking to be changed. Don’t underestimate the ‘balance’ part, either.

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            I think the way the piston is sitting on the power stroke is beneficial to torque due to crank angle or some such. It’s been a, number of years since somebody explained it to me but all things equal except a straight or vee configuration the I6 will have more torque.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          It was a good engine that’s for sure.

    • 0 avatar
      davefromcalgary

      You are right on the timing Onus, and I think I know why. In 1997 Ford ditched the 300-6 for the woeful 4.2 V6. Dodge had the even worse 3.7 V6 and GM the torquey yet awfully thirsty 4.3 V6. Given that lineup, is it any wonder people flocked to V8 in droves?

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        dave, I went from a six to a V8 in 1988 and the difference for me was like night and day in favor of the V8.

        What I see now is an attempt by the government at behavior-modification of the truck-buying masses to switch from V8s to smaller engines in America’s best-selling vehicles (trucks).

        It certainly isn’t because of lack of gasoline availability. We’ve got so much of that, that gasoline is now our top export!

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          In 1988 the V8 in the F-150 had 190hp and 270 lb.ft. of torque.

          The new 2.7L V6 in the 2015 F-150 gets 325/375.

          So maybe, just maybe, the new engine is adequate for many buyers.

          As far as gasoline being the US’ top export, that is a complete distortion. Yes, we export gasoline and other oil products. However, we import so much more than we export. On net, 40% of the imports in our huge trade deficit are oil based.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            VoGo, you are one of the few who cares.

          • 0 avatar
            3Deuce27

            In 1987 I ordered a new f-150 4×4 with the new Ford L6/manual, it had about 160Hp and I can’t remember how much Torque. The power/torque of that six was more then adequate to haul a self contained 8-1/2′ camper and a race trailer with car and tools. When I ordered the F-150, I didn’t yet know I had a new son on the way, when I found out, I ordered a new 88′ Chevy 2500 4×4 Extracab with the 350 V-8/auto. That engine has/had only about 190Hp, it has hauled a similar camper, same race trailer, car and tools.

            The 88′ has also hauled a 20 ft camp trailer and boat all the way to the Beaufort Sea(past the Arctic cicle) three times, and been to Belize several times with the camper and 16′ utility trailer loaded with tools, cement, and rebar. I’m still driving that truck, today I’m loading it with yard debris, for a recycle run.

            Never once did I ever think I needed more power with either engine, more MPG, but never more power. I think the new v-6′s are more then adequate for any use.

            Remember, this country was built with heavy trucks and equipment that had power levels well below 100Hp, They did have a fair amount of torque, but nowhere near the amounts of the current crop of V-6′s. They used gear multiplication to motivate their loads. Today we have multispeed transmissions/’gears’ and great torque and Hp to handle far less loads then those old heavy trucks.

            For years now I have had a ton & half 51′ Ford flatbed dump with a 100Hp V-8(it was originally a flathead six), it has hauled a lot of heavy loads and is still available for duty. In my engine collection I have a 4-cyl 1921′ White 2-ton truck engine. It was the standard of its day at 24Hp.

            What we need is better efficiency, not more Hp.

            http://youtu.be/GkbRLPIQfcU

            http://youtu.be/nIQDV06MD0g

            F=1350

        • 0 avatar
          davefromcalgary

          The difference between V6 and V8/T6 is STILL night and day. The difference is that the V6 of today are performance equals to the V8′s of back then.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Back in my 1988, my first eye-opener with the 350 V8/Automatic combo was when I pulled my boat, trailer and all, out of Elephant Butte lake. I did that with the V8 idling, but even at throttle the rpm never went over 1000. It was all about TORQUE!

            Before that, launching my boat with an I6-Stick combo was an adventure on the slippery slope. A lot of slipping, sliding, drive-wheel spinning, clutch feathering, and more rpm to get the same torque.

            I think that 6s and 4s should be available for those who want to buy them in their half-ton pickup trucks.

            But those trucks so equipped should not be pawned off as somehow being “as good as” or better than the old V8-powered pickup trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            HDC, you know I don’t press arguments just for fun, but you honestly think a Pentastar/8 Speed isn’t a better work truck than a 318/4speed? Ill grant that the 318 would make more torque lower but in every other respect….really?

          • 0 avatar
            FormerFF

            @highdesertcat, if you look at the three engines that Ford puts in the F-150, the torque monster is the turbo 6. Not only does it produce more total torque than the 5.0, and only slightly less than the 6.2, but it does so at a much lower engine speed.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            FormerFF-

            Soon it will produce more torque than the 6.2L. Plus, like you said, the power is always there.

          • 0 avatar
            DevilsRotary86

            HDC:
            “I think that 6s and 4s should be available for those who want to buy them in their half-ton pickup trucks. ”

            Best statement in this thread all day. In a few years I MIGHT find myself in a position where a tow vehicle will be needed (or at least handy). For my requirements an NA V6 F-150 would be all the truck I need. In fact, I probably could get away with the base 3.5L NA V6 truck. I would have 0 interest in looking at the V8′s. But others may want to tow more. Or they just like having the V8 and that’s fine. But I would not be happy with the V8.

            Actually, I wouldn’t even want the F-150. For my requirements I think a used 4.6L E-150 (cheap) or a new 3.7L Transit 150 (expensive but nice) would be a better fit for me. Still, I wanted to express my agreement that the V6 is a great option for some.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            davefromcalgary, I have experience with the GM 350, the Ford 5.4 and the Tundra 5.7. My dad used several MOPAR 426 Hemis in his dragster, and I learned to rebuild those.

            I’ve never had any small V8s, at least not in my new vehicles. Both our Oldsmobiles had the 455.

            I have experience with the Pentastar V6 and 5-speed in my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee and that engine is just barely adequate in that configuration because of the vehicle’s weight.

            So to be honest I really can’t address your question because I don’t know. I have been a passenger in an Ecoboosted F150, and had it follow me in my Tundra up US82 into the mountains, and it can’t keep up, even at altitude with the blowers.

            So a normally aspirated Pentastar, even with an 8-speed, seems to me unlikely to outperform any small V8. Then again, flat terrain is different from the terrain I drive my vehicles in.

            If I had the choice at the time, I would have preferred the 5.7 in the Grand Cherokee. My oldest son owned a 2012 SRT8 Grand Cherokee with the monster block in it, and it drove like a sports car.

            —————————–

            FormerFF, I would only step back into buying another Ford truck if the Tundra were to drop its 5.7 because of EPA and CAFE mandates. Were that to happen, I would choose an F250 with the largest gasoline V8 I could buy.

            —————————-

            DevilsRotary86, I firmly believe people should buy what works for them. I have a problem with how these squirrel engines are being promoted as somehow “as good as” or better than any V8.

            That’s only for people who can’t afford to feed a truck in the first place.

            Given a choice, many Americans who know and appreciate real trucks will buy the biggest gas engine they can find for their truck.

            What I see is the choices we have being taken away from us by substituting tiny engines for the real deal.

            If people have to worry about the cost of gas, they can’t afford to drive. I’ll pay whatever gas costs in order to drive what I choose to drive, because it beats walking.

            Yes, it goes at the expense of restaurants, coffee shops and fastfood places. But that is just the breaks.

            And no matter what the price of gas, I have not seen Americans give up driving.

            Why not maximize power output and torque in the V8s like Ford is doing with their sixes and fours? Like 3Deuce27 implies.

            It won’t be long before the half-ton class of trucks will no longer have a V8 in the line-up. All this means is that buyers who want a real truck have to step up to a 3/4-ton or heavier class. And they will — some Ford lovers already have.

            I don’t need anything heavier than a half-ton. But if Tundra drops its 5.7, which it will eventually because of EPA and CAFE mandates, I’ll have to step back into an F250 with the largest gasoline V8 I can buy.

            I can well remember the monstrous torque of the long-stroke truck engines of the distant past, but there is no way that these high-spinning, blown car engines masquerading as truck engines can even come close to the old 6-cyl truck engines and modern V8s.

            —————–

            Sorry about the delayed response. I have a real life and was pulled away.

          • 0 avatar
            DevilsRotary86

            HDC:
            “That’s only for people who can’t afford to feed a truck in the first place.”

            Or in my case, a V6 F-150/Transit or small V8 E-150 is exactly what I need.

            “Given a choice, many Americans who know and appreciate real trucks will buy the biggest gas engine they can find for their truck.”

            See, the problem here is that I don’t like trucks and I despise driving them. However, in a few years I think I will be in a position where I can start tracking my RX-7. Autocrosses at first and work up from there. I calculate that the weight of the RX-7 plus an open aluminum car trailer is about 4000lbs. So I figure that a trailer rating of at least 5,000lbs would work, especially if it’s J2807 rated. That and a GCWR of around 11,000lbs or so. I have looked high and low for alternatives that could pull that would not involve me driving a pickup truck. I have looked at RWD station wagons, minivans, large sedans, everything. And I have come to the reluctant conclusion that a truck/van is the only real answer. And I think I am going van. I still despise driving the things but for some weird reason I think vans are cool. Plus the Transit has a 28″ high load floor, and it would work well for family travel. So I have the odd situation that I may trade a car that I love (my ’06 Acura RSX Type-S) for a van that I don’t like driving but I need.

            So, hope you understand if I look at trucks with the same attitude as when I pick out a new power drill or weed whacker. And this is why I have been keeping half an eye on these truck articles. In any case, I don’t need to make a move for about 3 years. So during that time I will enjoy my RSX-S!

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          Gasoline exports are made possible by non-consumptive oil imports. We have refinery capacity, not oil. We’re spending over $200B per year on consumptive oil imports, and it’s killing our economy.

          People who waste oil are just making their grandchildren poor.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DevilsRotary86
            A Chevy Tahoe can tow around 8,000 lb.

            A Tacoma is around 6,000 lbs.

            The new Chevy Colorado is around the corner.

            The truck makers do have tables that list all of the towing and cargo ratings for all of their trucks. That is a good place to start.

            If you plan on having a lot of gear or people in the tow vehicle that will eliminate most Ram 1500′s.

          • 0 avatar
            DevilsRotary86

            @Lou_BC

            Thanks for the advice, but I do think that a van is my best choice. I want something with a private and lockable cargo area. I would also like something with a low load floor, and the E-150 has a load floor 29″ off the pavement. The new Transit has a load floor only 28″. Most pickups seem to have tailgate heights of around 33″. And like I said, I think vans are more “travellable” with my family on long trips. With the 3rd row removed, it may be possible to sleep all 3 members of my family in the van.

            I have to say, I just don’t like the Tahoe. I balk at a $40,000 van (Transit). I definitely won’t go for a $50k SUV. And I have ridden in Tahoes before. They have that “driving an apartment from the 2nd story window” feel that I hate. So thanks, but I think I will pass on the Tahoe.

            The Tacoma however is tempting. It has the same problems as any other new truck. Too tall, too high of a tailgate height, etc. However, it is still possible to find one with a manual transmission and a V6, so that’s a big plus for me.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    Speaking of truck engines, can someone tell me why Ford and GM put a V8 diesel in their trucks, when nearly every medium and heavy truck uses an I6? Is it packaging, or marketing, or ?

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      The Powerstroke owners who need major engine work and find out that it is cheaper to remove the truck cab than it is to remove the tightly packed engine wonder about that too.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Ford just took what international offered, GM the same from DD. when they came to replace both those engines, they took different, albeit similar, routes. Obviously GM got it right the first time with Isuzu, the same cant be said about Ford and its European designed 6.0.

      I know the detuned IDI 6.2 Detroit diesel (V8) was capable of mpgs in the 30s in bread trucks. Granted I wouldn’t want to be behind the wheel of a well-tuned turbo 6.2. Slow.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @FormerFF – I suspect part of the reason is weight. An I6 Cummins is considerably heavier than a 6.7 Powerstroke. The Duramax 6.6 is the lightest. IITC over 200 lb heavier.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @DevilsRotary86 – sounds like you have given this a lot of thought. A van will give you versatility and an enclosed storage area.

      I was going to buy a new truck in 2008 but the Great Recession and some personal sh!t at that time scared me off. I did a partial trade of a beat up Ranger I had for a ’99 Safari 8 passenger van. I pulled the back seats out of it and put up a net to keep my dogs out of the front. It worked well but the only negative was the van smelled like what ever I carried. That was great when I carried lumber or potting plants but not so great when my 2 labs swam in a swamp or I took a load of garbage to the dump.

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    fords strategy of changing up powertrains sure keeps its service department raking in the dough. china will easily take up the replacement turbocharger slack once they start failing en mass.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      Do you have data that indicates that turbochargers are a service problem?

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Is it really that necessary, ford can’t build a reliable ignition system your going to trust them to use a turbo?

        I know the big thing here is to one-up each other on the hate speech against us skeptics, but seriously you don’t have any concerns based on Fords past reliability record, and gas turbo reliability in general?

        • 0 avatar
          86er

          Certainly turbos have been used in diesels for a very long time, but when those things go, and they do, oftentimes it is the employer footing the bill.

          Moreover, these Fords have two turbochargers on them.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Hummer, I believe they use the new Honeywell Turbos these days, better than any of the previous brands, I’ve been told by folks in Denver’s high altitude apllications.

          Plus watercooling in some applications, and better metallurgy and ceramics.

          In spite of all these improvements, I am not going to chance it. Give me a large displacement gasoline V8 any day over any of these high-strung squirrel engines.

        • 0 avatar
          FormerFF

          For me, yes it is. Real world actual data, I believe. Some guy’s musings on the internet is unsubstantiated conjecture and is not worth taking into account.

        • 0 avatar
          Loki

          GM owner talking about “reliable ignition systems”, oh that’s rich.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I was referring to spark, coils etc, but I see your point and raise you, I only bought the vehicles that they exceeded in building.
            i.e. trucks

      • 0 avatar
        johnhowington

        are they a service problem? no, they are a service solution to empty your pocket book. let me know how your ecoboost is running at 120k miles.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I think they are pricier than the old AirResearch Turbos of the past as well because of new materials used and finer machine tolerances.

          It’ll be interesting when the problems start to crop up, as they invariably do.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @FormerFF – emissions seem to be the bug-bear of all diesels.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    Ah! Now we know one of the big reasons for Ford focusing on the EcoBoost Mustang.

  • avatar
    TW5

    Turbos are great at altitude, but I prefer longevity to performance so I’d probably stick with the naturally-aspirated engine options.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    The F-150 is Ford’s cash cow. Can some of you comprehend that hundreds of thousands of miles have went into testing the turbocharged enginges and the new aliminum body? Glad to see some of you are smarter than a whole engineering department. Yessiree Bob; ignore facts and real world testing. Some guy making snarky comments on the internetz is always so much smarter.

    • 0 avatar
      Z71_Silvy

      Is that the same testing that DIDN’T reveal the TEN YEARS of spark plug issues in the boat anchor modular engines?? The same testing that didn’t reveal the corrosion on the ALUMINIUM hoods on the Mustang? The same famous engineering that didn’t reveal all the issues with Egoboost?

      Ford quality testing is a joke. They don’t have quality or do testing. They let the customers be the guinea pigs.

      Hence, the profits.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Sufferin’ succotash, Sylvester, You are full of good cheer today, huh?

        Yeah, Ford could really learn a thing or two from GM about product quality. That’s why Mary Barra keeps getting hauled in front of Congress, right? To lecture on GM quality management?

      • 0 avatar
        Monty

        And that’s somehow different than GM with over ten years of KNOWN Dexcool-caused catastrophic engine failures and faulty ignition components, or Chrysler with over a decade of a KNOWN problem with Caravan/Voyager/T&C transmissions?

        Should I continue? Honda and Toyota sludging issues, Porsche IMS failures?

        There’s more, so many more that searching online and listing the various malfeasances by the world’s auto manufacturers would take me days, if not weeks.

        I corrected your second last paragraph to reflect reality.

        “_______ (fill in the blank with any auto manufacturer) quality testing is a joke. They don’t have quality or do testing. They let the customers be the guinea pigs.”

        Go ahead, defend any or all of the other auto companies. Please. For the sake of the Internetz please defend any or all of the above examples to illustrate how much worse Ford is.

        • 0 avatar
          Z71_Silvy

          Explain to me how GM/Toyota/Honda/Porsche has anything to do with Ford’s (lack of) quality testing?

          The position that El Scotto presented (dismissing the very warranted skepticism of the beer can F150 and the 2.7 Egoboost by saying the ‘Ford tests stuff’) had nothing to do with any of those manufacturers.

          • 0 avatar
            Monty

            Somehow you’ve missed or ignored my point. Your accusation of the lack of quality testing by Ford is not without merit, but, I was trying to illustrate how Ford isn’t exactly alone in this regard, which you seem to ignore everytime you’re called out on your anti-Ford rants.

            EVERY other auto manufacturer does exactly what you accuse only FoMoCo of doing.

            I get that you have a bias against Ford; that has been made clear over the past several years, but either concede that every other manufacturer commits the same acts, or defend how they don’t. You conveniently forget to argue how Ford is different every time you’re asked, and I’ve asked you many times.

            I couldn’t care less about your FoMoCo hate, but it’s aggravating that you seem to think Ford is special in this regard.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Z71_Silvy – and GM is the current pillar of durability? They’ve recalled more vehicles than what they’ve built in the last 10 years.

        • 0 avatar
          Z71_Silvy

          Why would you bring up GM in a Ford article???

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @”Z71_Silvy Why would you bring up GM in a Ford article???”

            Your blog name and all of the stupid anti-Ford crap you spew is a dead give away to anyone with the capacity to avoid drooling on a key board.

            I don’t recall (sorry for the use of that word) your blog name showing up on GM threads.

          • 0 avatar
            Z71_Silvy

            Yea, my username has absolutely nothing to do with Ford being incompetent at everything…except lying.

            So, come on, why bring up GM in non-GM articles?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “Glad to see some of you are smarter than a whole engineering department.”

      So every decision at Ford is dictated by the engineering department?

      Was stuff like the 6.0L Powerstroke, the entire Windstar, and 4.0L SOHC not tested before going into production? Should people just completely ignore Ford’s past issues with aluminum hoods or their initial rollout woes with the Powershift and MFT?

      I don’t get why you need to be a dick to the people that think taking a wait and see approach to this comparatively newer stuff is a good idea.

      • 0 avatar
        johnhowington

        Bingo, ajla knows his history. Ford is notorious about changing everything about their vehicles with little regard to year to year compatibility. Aluminum bodies are frankly ingenious long term from the after market repairs, and just wait until that turbo shaft snaps and you get to fork over a couple grand in service.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        Perhaps I just like being a dick. Many try but so few do it well.

      • 0 avatar
        Shawnski

        The japs usually perfect others innovations (it’s dying society/relevance not withstanding). NASA killed a lot of pilots before it got to the moon. I submit that the market responds to innovation, I.e. Ford brand is no.1 in the US. The 4.0 sohc; didn’t know it had problems, owned one once, significantly faster/smoother than the lump that is the 4.3 (good god what a horrible sounding engine). The new LS (LT1 ?) based 6 is a little rough too I hear. GM can make a good six, but please don’t bother with a 90 degree block. I do like boosted motors, I have a Lightning (’04), EB 3.5 Explorer and 335i. But I am old school on stuff I wrench, SBF’s. It’s all about the experience and satisfaction I guess and not just marketing.

        The new 5.3 is only an equivalent to the current 5.0 F150, the EB 3.5 competes with the 6.2 (towing and better FE when not), the 2.7 should be comparable to the Ram light duty diesel, with better performance for less money.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Planned Obsolescence > TQM

  • avatar
    el scotto

    For the wait and see folks, I can emphasize. For luddites scuttling around like land crabs with one angry fist outstretched and the donkey-like ones braying this, this, this new-fangled stuff, well it’s just new fanlged, and will have 200% failure rates,will never work, and will never be acecepted, I’m tel my broker to go long on buggyy whips!; yes, I’ll revel in being unpleasant to those folks.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I’d prefer to let someone else do the Beta testing. The naysayers tend to be fans of the competitors or clinging tenaciously to the theory that 8 normally aspirated cylinders is better than 6 with boost.

    Like it or not I’m sure we will see more and more small engines.

  • avatar

    As long as CAFE is the prime motivator behind the push for smaller-displacement turbocharged sixes, that’s exactly what you’ll see more of in light-duty full-size pickups. These companies aren’t gonna be dinged to the tune of millions in gas-guzzler penalties just to keep those large V8s around.

    At least, not in trucks that aren’t exempt from those fuel economy standards.

    Step up to the 3/4-ton market where the F-250 resides and you can have all of the beefy big-block gas V8s you could ever want. V10s, too, if you aren’t a fan of those Powerstrokes.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      No V10 available in a pickup, you have to step up to a MD truck, F450-F750 (but not a F450 pickup), get one of the last of the Econolines, a step van or class A motorhome if you want the V10.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @John Williams – I find it ironic that people refer to the current crop of V8′s as large. All of them are small block V8′s and the larger displacement 6.2 Ford and Chevy are reserved for full bling and/or limited edition 1/2 ton trucks. Ram upsizing to the 6.4 is an anomaly. The 6.4 is 390 ci and the 5.7 is 348 ci. The larger 6.2 Ford makes sense as it will replace the V10 in MDT’s.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States