By on June 29, 2016

2015 Ford F-150

The extended-cab Ford F-150 was somewhat louder than a conventional model, but it was the emissions certificate in the rear window that proved the pickup packed something unusual under the hood.

A partially disguised F-150 recently photographed testing in Michigan wore a code showing the presence of a 3.0-liter turbodiesel engine, and sported a tell-tale diesel exhaust tip. It looks like Ford is serious about besting its pickup competition in every way.

The photos, which can be viewed at Off-Road, TTAC’s sister publication, confirm what we were told by sources in 2014 — that Ford will add the 3.0-liter “Lion” V6 to the F-150’s engine roster.

Ford developed the engine when it owned Jaguar Land Rover, so it’s essentially asking for its own hardware back.  The mill features a compacted graphite iron block, twin turbochargers and air-to-air intercooler. Output varies, but the hottest offering on the east side of the Atlantic makes 271 horsepower and 440 pounds-feet of torque.

In early May, Ford bumped up the torque of the F-150’s 3.5-liter Ecoboost to take away twist bragging rights from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Now, it seems like the Ram 1500 HFE EcoDiesel’s class-leading highway mileage (29 miles per gallon) is in danger.

The Ram’s oil-burner is mated to an eight-speed automatic, but Ford, which recently embraced lightweight aluminum architecture in a huge way, has a 10-speed automatic in its inventory. Besting Ram in the fuel-sipping category would add another notch to the belt of America’s best-selling full-size pickup.

The automaker hasn’t said anything about when it plans to market the diesel, but it could happen by next year.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

77 Comments on “Ford F-150 Spotted With a 3.0-liter Turbodiesel; Ram EcoDiesel’s Mileage Crown Threatened...”


  • avatar

    BIG, POWERFUL ENGINES.

    It’s what’s going to make America Great Again.

    I am anxious to see what TESLA can come up with however. Can they build an EV Truck that tows over 10,000 pounds and can handle the punishment of a diesel?

    • 0 avatar
      SatelliteView

      old and tired mantra. being #1 in science and technology and getting fruits of those two things to mass market first will continue to ensure that America stays great

    • 0 avatar
      yamahog

      If electricity storage had a power density and cost profile similar to gasoline, only the rich would burn fuel.

      • 0 avatar
        SatelliteView

        it’s a matter of time. If Gigafactory will make as much batteries as the rest of the world combined, then we are just at the begging of the economy of scales.

        Batteries will continue to gain efficiency, just like internal combustion engine still is gaining 100+ years since it’s inception.

        • 0 avatar
          yamahog

          Look, recharagble batteries are a $50 billion/yr industry. There’s no way we’re just now seeing the ecomomies of scale.

          There are a few tricks available to optimize battery chemistry to cars but there aren’t any breakthroughs in the pipeline for humanity. Personally, my bet is that capacitors with yet-undiscovered materials are the way of the future. But batteries are an order of magnitude away from the energy density of gasoline (assuming a 30% thermal efficiency of the gas engine).

          From ’91 to ’05 the Wh/kg of increased about 2.5x. To increase the energy density of li-ion to that of gasoline in running through a halfway efficient engine, we’re going to need about 60 years of the same progress we’ve had for the last two decades.

          All the while, we have a very clear path to more efficient gas engines – better transmissions, HCCI, optical ignition systems, better lubrication, ect.

          What the world needs now is a cheap, renewable, efficient battery.

          • 0 avatar
            SatelliteView

            if it takes one, $5 billion factory to make current world’s supply – we’re only beginning. in 5 years there will be 2-3 more such factories.

            So, we’re doubling and quadrupling world’s output in a relatively short period of time with, about $20 billion investment.

            The battery pack is a lot larger vs gasoline tank, so energy density vs gasoline need not be identical.

            That being said, it’ll be 10-15 years before electric car will gain critical mass vs gasoline cars

          • 0 avatar
            bunkie

            Practically, you don’t need 100% of the energy density of gasoline, only about 35-40% as no internal combustion engine converts anywhere near as much of that stored energy into usable motion as electric motors.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “To increase the energy density of li-ion to that of gasoline”

            notgonnahappen.com.

            I simply don’t see it. even the massive 90 kWh battery in the P90D only stores as much energy as a little over 2.5 gallons of gasoline. there’s a ton of potential energy stored in chemical bonds which charge storage media like batteries can’t ever hope to match*.

            But, as Bunkie says, batteries won’t need to. far less of that 90 kWh is lost as waste heat, where most of the energy in gasoline is cast off and does no useful work.

            to me, the biggest disparity between BEVs and ICE cars is recharge time; an ICE vehicle can be fully “recharged” in 5 minutes. BEVs take rather longer. But, that disadvantage is offset by being able to recharge a BEV at home rather than needing to go somewhere and sit with your thumb up your butt while it recharges.

            I’d say ~250 miles of range per charge is probably the “sweet spot” for a BEV. Tesla’s success would agree with that. IMO advances in battery tech would be best served by making a ~250 mile battery *smaller* so the car has to dedicate less weight and space to the battery.

            * put it this way- there’s so much bond energy in a nitro group (NO2) that Top Fuel dragsters can make over 10,000 horsepower burning nitromethane in a 500 cubic inch V8. You can’t ever hope to match that with something which just stores electrical charge.

          • 0 avatar
            yamahog

            @SatelliteView

            In the past 15 years, there has been very slow process. On one hand, quadrupling volume moves you down the learning curve fast, but it also causes more people to compete for things like cobalt and lithium and all the other rare materials needed.

            Energy density and specific energy are very closely related in chemical systems. Right now, 1 kg of gasoline going through a 30% efficient engine makes about 46 kwh of energy. a 1 kg li-ion battery is good for about .8 kwh. Weight matters. Especially as run of the mill gas engines crest 50% efficiency with modern technology.

            @Bunkie

            My figure for gasoline assumes a 30% efficiency. The current gen prius crests 50% thermal efficiency in the best spots of its BSFC maps. Yeah, we all know that electric motors are 95-99% efficient but the gap between gas and electric motor efficiency is much narrower than the gap between gas energy storage and electrical energy storage.

            @Jimz

            I never said I thought li ion chemistries are going to propel us to gasoline-competitive energy densities. But I can see the world needs better batteries. Between 1991 and 2005, energy density in li-ons doubled. It only has to double about 3-4 more times until it’s competitive but I’m counting on a superior chemistry or capacitor usurping li-ion in the mean time.

            You’re mainlining 100% condensed stupidity if you don’t see that we’re in a golden age of material science and the world is crying for a better battery. And with the right chemistry or with a capacitor, you can dump massive energy into it in seconds. Imagine zapping 250 miles of range into a car in 30 seconds. Yeah, that’s possible with an ultra capacitor. Just make sure you have a bigger ultra capacitor in the ground so you smooth out the demand on the grid.

            @ everyone
            I offer no prediction beyond the one that electricity storage solutions are eventually going to get so good only the rich will burn gas.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Yamahog,
            Good points. Excellent points. I would only add that Lithium is only about 2% of the cost of a battery today. The anti-EV faction continually warns about “Peak Lithium”, but the reality is that it doesn’t impact pricing of overall batteries by nearly as much as the fearmongers project.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “You’re mainlining 100% condensed stupidity if you don’t see that we’re in a golden age of material science and the world is crying for a better battery. ”

            I’m stupid because I’m responding to something you said, with a direct quote? Thanks, jacka**.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @JimZ
            250 miles would be a nerve wracking time for some people. Trying to find a recharge point and even with a Supercharger it takes you 40mins to ” fill up” People are very uneasy with EV’s for a reason

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “Can they build an EV Truck that tows over 10,000 pounds and can handle the punishment of a diesel?”

      Yes, they can. But the challenges will be:

      1. Providing enough battery to give meaningful range in the wilds of Texas. Towing 5000 lbs behind the Model X severely cuts its range, as expected.

      2. Providing fillups quick enough to suit the workaday truck user.

      3. Sparing the resources to develop such an animal.

      But such a truck would be very cool, as long as Elon doesn’t fit it with falcon wing doors or something.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        SCE to AUX,
        I do believe EVs are confronting more challenges than diesel technology. I also believe battery tech will not advance in an expotential manner like semi conductor technology had. Battery technology has not done this yet for the past 100 years they have been around.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Minimum is 40mins. Towing 5,000lbs would not go very far. Seeing many people stranded in Texas

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      @BTSR:”BIG, POWERFUL ENGINES. It’s what’s going to make America Great Again.”

      Actually it is continued R&D, better education, infrastructure investments, expanded trade and staying ahead of our overseas competitors which will continue to make America great.

      Unfortunately many of the folks that are good at this stuff are labeled “elites” these days.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        +1

        I am a fan of Tesla and EVs. But the day of the EV Pickup is still a couple decades away, at least at current rates of battery tech improvement.

        • 0 avatar

          I think Tesla could build an EV pickup Truck now. Maybe within 5 years?

          Let’s imagine an F-150 clone built out of Model S parts.

          Nearly 300 miles range, 5000 pounds, aluminum Able to tow 10,000 pounds, 0-60 in 3 seconds with the $15,000 ludicrous upgrade.

          $150,000

          • 0 avatar
            SatelliteView

            in 5 years it’ll cost $80k. economies of scale for electrical vehicle manufacturing are at dawn

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            SatelliteView,
            I love human progress, but I’m also realistic about dreams. Electric vehicles are not at their dawn, they have been around as long or even longer than ICE vehicles.

            As today, EVs have only proven themselves where electricity is delivered to them via a conduit and not “carrying” their electricity around. A great example of the efficient use of electricity is within rail infrastructure.

            Looking at EVs vs ICE which form of motive power still offers the best potential for improvement? EVs, no. Here’s my logic;

            1. ICE gasoline engines that are leading with ICE technology can be up to nearly 30% efficient and compression ignition engines are at 40% (some are 50%). This leaves massive scope for efficiency gains over EVs.

            2. Providing the energy. EVs will never be able to fill/charge a vehicle within a couple of minutes with a framework of infrastructure that isn’t subsidised by the taxpayer. People who state you “just recharge at home” fail to see why ICE has taken the globe by storm. It’s call convenience providing freedom. This is dramatically reduced with EVs. Why do I want to own a vehicle that is onerous to manage unnecessarily. If it was a hobby like you EV guys like, then it’s worth it I suppose.

            3. Known/adequate resources to manufacture batteries. There is a significant amount of lithium on the planet, but economically viable lithium only represents a tiny portion. Most lithium is like gold. There is 10 billion tons of gold in the oceans.

            The other problem confronting battery tech is the minerals required to manufacture them is “waste” from the mining of other metals. The quantity of these minerals is only viable with the mining of the primary material. So, as more minerals are needed the price will rise considerably. It wouldn’t surprise me if the cost of an EV battery, even in two decades will cost 10s of thousands of dollars, if EVs are made and are as viable as you dreamers think.

            I do believe you EV guys are similar to the “Muscle Car” guys in some respects. Owning a 60s Muscle Car is an onerous task to keep on the road. The people that own them state “I’d never live without it”.

            But, it’s a hobby to them, and the government should also give them handouts to maintain, purchase and operate their muscle cars, like EV owner have.

          • 0 avatar
            SatelliteView

            “They have been around for as long as ICE” does not mean: “therefore they’re not feasible”.

            1. true. but, carbon burning is not properly taxed to account for externalities. If it would be, ICE engines would need that 30% boost just to remain at current level of competency.

            2. but for 90% of the drivers they are/will be feasible.

            as to charging time, it’s a matter of time before there will be supercharger 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 versions

            3. reminds me of the permanent discussion of “peak oil”. When there will be several gigafactories, lithium “production” will catch up.

            as to finite amount “waste” from which batteries are manufactured, I dont know about this one, but the assumption, as I understand it, is that batteries will be manufactured in the same way, which, given that the industry is just beginning to unwind, is unlikely.

            Tesla is a new iphone. Just look at the line of people to sign up for Model 3. Nokia never saw iphone coming either.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “I think Tesla could build an EV pickup Truck now. Maybe within 5 years?”

            Musk,

            A $5,000 dollar deposit for a Tesla Model F and I’ll get someone to start designing it.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Relative comparative advantages will also come into play. Even assuming battery tech becomes widely viable for passenger cars on a world wide basis; heck even just passenger cars in urban environs; will reduce petroleum demand enough to significantly lower fuel costs for ICE vehicles. In uses where batteries have less of a comparative advantage.

          • 0 avatar
            MQHokie

            “as to charging time, it’s a matter of time before there will be supercharger 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 versions”

            Maybe, but it would require a massive investment in electrical infrastructure (and probably a significant technology advance as well) to provide charging performance similar to filling up a fuel tank.

            Assuming the 90kWH battery in the Tesla as an example, at the common industrial/commercial standard of 480 volts, 3-phase, you would need cables capable of carrying a little over 100 amps to charge the battery from zero in an hour. Multiply that by 10 if you want to charge in 6 minutes – now you need 1,000A capacity, and those are some REALLY big cables. Not to mention very hazardous to the user’s health should something go wrong. The only way to reduce the required amps is to increase the voltage, and that carries a host of other issues. It gets worse when you look at residential power at half the voltage and single phase – the electrical service of a typical home can’t support that kind of power flow.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        How quaint!

        The above traits have, since at least the 70s, been displaced largely wholesale as a means of admittance to “elite” status. In favor of simple “distance”, along some metric, to the Fed and ruling junta. Which does go a long way towards explaining why great AGAIN has the appeal it currently does.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      The Tesla Model P (Pickup) and Model V (Van) are sorely overdue.

  • avatar
    madman2k

    I don’t have any desire for a diesel vehicle what with having to refill the DEF tank and pay the large premium at purchase and every time you fill up.

    Ford hasn’t been great at making diesel engines either, except the 7.3 and maybe the new 6.7.

    It will be interesting to see how they structure the pricing of the diesel engine vs. the two EcoBoost engines, and the 5.0.

    Wouldn’t be surprised if the 3.5 NA engine is dropped soon; the 2.7 EB is effectively only $500 more and I think they’d save money by not bothering to build any trucks with the 3.5 NA.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      Ford didn’t make the 7.3L, nor the abominations that followed until the current 6.7L was developed in-house. The engines you’re thinking of came from Navistar, which Ford no longer works with.

      The only other Ford diesel sold here is the I-5 in the Transit, and I have yet to hear any complaints about it.

      Ford diesels offered elsewhere aren’t especially hated or troublesom, same with the Lion they are using here.

      Your information is sorely lacking, you’re basically dumping on this engine based on the terrible reputation incured by another manufacturer’s engine.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        What John said ;)

        The initial corn-binder diesel was good but they lost their way with the 6.0 and 6.4. Some blame Ford for the crappy specs on the 6.0 and 6.4 but I’ve been told that they weren’t stellar engines even in IH trim.

        I obviously have no experience with global Ford. Big Al from Down Under seems to like his BT50 which is a Ford diesel.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Lou_BC,
          The five cylinder Duratorq is a fantastic engine so far. It’s no rocketship. To move my 2.2+ tonnes (4 800-4 900lbs) to sixty takes around 10 seconds. But this is sufficient for me.

          The 3.2 works as well or I believe better than the Lion under load. The Lion seems to lose it’s ability to pull. So for towing I would rather the 3.2, it will be a little bit slower but use much less fuel.

          Another surprising issue is the new Ranger (2016) with the updated 3.2 has less kilowatts and same torque and is faster than the “old” 3.2 to 100kph. The new 3.2 Duratorq is rate identically to the US variant, I suppose this is to do with our use of AdBlu and new emissions requirements.

          I suppose it’s to do with the characteristics of the engine. The Lion is a car engine and the 3.2 was designed from the outset to be a commercial engine.

          I believe the FE between the two will be similar in normal driving, again under load the Lion sucks in the diesel. It’s higher revving and higher horse power.

          I have driven a Lion powered vehicle, the Ford Territory and it appeared to work very well, but the Territory is a lighter vehicle than the F-150. I have also driven a Disco 4 with the Lion, but it didn’t perform as well as the Territory, but it was surprisingly fast.

          I’d say the F-150 with the Lion will do 0-60mph in 8s to 9s with the 10 speed.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Is the territory lighter than the current F150? I think my super crew is around 4500 pounds. And let the record show the stars have aligned and we agree on something…This motor in the F150 will make for a nice truck, the problem is I’d be willing to bet the price of admission will eclipse both the 5.0 and the 3.5. With diesel costing more in some areas here you really have to have the stars align for it to make sense. BUT if it can tow with at least the 2.7 with the towing package and you tow somewhat frequently then the fuel savings may make it worthwile. Not towing I sit around 21-22, but with my travel trailer hooked up I am in the 10-12 range. Works for me because I don’t have it hooked up that often but if I did then the diesel’s likely superior towing MPG would be better. This assumes they get it right, I may be wrong but I remember being suprised at the Eco-Diesel’s lack of capability in this regard but this is something Ford tends to get right.

      • 0 avatar
        mason

        “Your information is sorely lacking, you’re basically dumping on this engine based on the terrible reputation incured by another manufacturer’s engine.”

        Not exactly true. Look at both the 6.0 and 6.4 engines built by Navistar, in a Navistar platform with Navistar programming. They were actually “somewhat” reliable, at least compared to the identical engines stuffed in between Ford frame rails.

        The difference? For starters Ford insisted on cranking the HP to keep up with the Dirty Max and Cummins engines in the pickup segment, which led to an obvious change in tuning. Emissions hardware was also tweaked differently between the two manufacturers. The 6.0 and 6.4 without a doubt had their share of engineering shortfalls (HPOP, poor head designs, EGR coolers, etc.) but I’ve seen many examples of each in a Navistar chassis with a pile of miles, while hauling around a lot more weight than a Ford pickup could ever dream of.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          I’ve seen 6.0 Ford pickups with 200k+ miles on them, but that doesn’t mean the 6.0 was a good engine. A stopped clock might be right twice a day, but that doesn’t excuse it from being wrong the rest of the time.

          The 6.0 was an inherently weak design. The anemic 6.9/7.3 IDI had 5 head bolts around each cylinder, the T444e/7.3 Powerstroke had 6. Then the 6.0 went down to 4. It was a total rush job by Navistar to try to earn emissions credits in their bid to avoid SCR which is something nobody was able to do; Mazda gave up and VW is paying dearly.

          Plus the VT275 (a 6.0 Powerstroke sans two cylinders) is well known for breaking crankshafts. Then the Maxxforce 7 (6.4 Powerstroke) had a s**tty water pump design which cavitation and erodes the front cover which will eventually dump coolant into th crankcase.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The later 6.0s, ’05+, have almost all the initial problems worked out, although they are prone to head gasket failure when abused/neglected/tuned/ and mostly, drivers not shutting them down at the 1st signs of trouble. All modern diesels are delicate instruments.
            Pre emissions, full diagnostics, big power, makes them the sweet spot.

            The 6.4 is a complete throwaway, practically designed to fail. Don’t even bother.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            The VT365 was much less problematic for all the reasons I mentioned above. If you reread my post, I never said the platform was solid (my exact words were they had their share of “engineering shortfalls”). There were some pretty significant differences in PCM programming between the two engines, not to mention a large number of Power stroke problems started with the owners decision to drive with his right foot through the floor board with a 60 horse hot tune. VT365’s were detuned compared to the Ford engines and driven much more conservative.

            All in all it was a pretty tough time for all manufacturers across the board, particularly from 07 on. Cummins, Cat,PACCAR, Volvo, Mack, all struggled to meet the steep emissions curve set forth by the EPA. Navistar wasn’t alone by any means although they did take the longest (aside from Cat) to bring a legit emissions compliant engine back to the market.

    • 0 avatar
      mike1dog

      Not a big diesel fan either, but at least where I live, diesel is now on par with gasoline, price-wise. Of course that could change quickly to where it cost more than premium gasoline, like it was a while back. DEF fluid usually gets filled up when you do your oil change, and on an F-super duty at least, will cost you about twenty to thirty dollars to fill up. Of course, you have to factor in the initial investment which is about ten grand, and the fact that maintenance costs much more with a diesel, but the fuel is not crazy expensive.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    This should be interesting.

    I feel old every time I remember how slow the pace of change was with pickup trucks during the 1980s (the decade that made up the largest share of my childhood).

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    If the Lion engine can be more reliable than the RAM 3.0, Ford will have something.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      Does the RAM 3.0 have issues?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Ecodiesel had a recall for an exhaust leak. I’ve heard of emissions issues and incorrect low DEF warning lights.There are some reports of blown engines.

        I like the thought of a small fuel efficient diesel 1/2 ton but in the case of Ram, the payload isn’t there. I’m sure that some will say no one really hauls with their 1/2 ton but I do. Anything under 1500 lbs is useless in a crewcab 4×4 pickup since you have to consider occupants of the cab and assorted flotsam and jetsam of daily living can easily add 600 lbs of weight. That is the same reason why I am critical of the Nissan Titan XD. Payload does not match a full sized crew pickup especially in the case of the Titan. It is a HD masquerading as a 1/2 ton.

        The Colorado/Canyon diesel at least has a livable cargo rating around 1500 lbs.

        I do hope Ford offers this engine in all of their payload packages. The max payload package is available currently with 5.0 or EB 3.5. I doubt that we will see Ford add this to the max tow package. Time will tell.

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

          Why wouldn’t they sell this with max payload package?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Adam Tonge (bball40dtw) – agreed.
            It would be perfect with max payload.
            Would this engine work for max tow since that task belongs to the EB 3.5?

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

            In the Transit, the 3.2L tows about 400 lbs more than the 3.5.L in their highest spec’d tow packages. That 3.5L is seriously detuned though. I don’t think this diesel would have a higher payload than the 3.5TT or 5.0L, but it’s possible they make it a max tow half ton.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Adam Tounge
            3.5 is seriously detuned as it is a light cycle engine. Diesel is not. Payload varies with 3 litre Diesels from 3,000lb to nearly 10,000lb, depending on manufacturer and application

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

            The 3.5TT is detuned in the Transit because of packaging.

            I am quoting payload and towing numbers from the Transit. It’s the only platform in the US that Ford offers the 3.5TT and a diesel. The gas engine has better payload specs across the board and is 400 lbs behind in towing.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Adam Tounge
            That is what I mean by Light Duty Cycle, to cope with the vastly heavier Van ,the engine is detuned to prevent excessive stress on the engine and driveline. In a Pickup application, those stresses are only occasionally achieved.
            Similar story to the Duramax V8, that only has 300hp and 500lbs ft of torque in a Van. It is a light duty Diesel
            Ford Scorpion and Cummins similar capacities but heavy duty cycle engines.. That is why the Ford and Cummins ended up powering the F650/F750 series

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @heavy handle:

        A friend bought a new 2014 and got rid of it after 1 year. It had several sensors go bad, the fuel system replaced, one catalytic converter replaced, 3 O2 sensors, and an ECU failure which required flat-bedding the truck from his house.

        Edmunds had a long-term RAM experience some of these issues as well:
        http://www.edmunds.com/ram/1500/2014/long-term-road-test/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-back-in-service.html

        My friend’s dealer had trouble diagnosing the issues, acquiring parts, and communicating with him. So he finally got fed up and traded it for a Tundra.

        The RAM 3.0 held a lot of promise. It’s quiet, gets great fuel economy, and isn’t expensive. But what a disappointment in real life.

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

          The good news is that Ford has been kicking around the idea of a diesel F150/Expedition for a few years. I would hope that they have the reliability and supply chain set up to handle this roll out. Hopefully it rolls out even better than the 3.2L Transit.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Adam – a diesel Expedition would be Da bomb. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard people pine for a diesel Suburban.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

            The Expedition was supposed to get a 4.4L V8 version of this engine. Too bad it didn’t happen.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Adam – agreed. A big SUV would be the perfect place to put a small diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Lou_BC
            That is why Toyota has been very successful,with the 4.5 Litre V8 Diesel in the LandCruiser. It is not an option in NA, only the 5.7 Petrol engine available

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    @Steph Williams
    The Lion is called that for a reason. Designed by Peugeot and developed by Ford/Peugeot.
    Ultimate version was in the Peugoet Dakar Rally car
    http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/peugeot/peugeot-signs-sebastien-loeb-for-2016-dakar-attack/

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Lion? It must be a Lannister plot. These things run on wildfire.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      I am thinking it was called the Lion because Ford or Europe powertrain likes naming their diesel programs from predatory cats. Lynx (1.8 inline 4), Puma (2.2 inline 4, 2.4 inline 4, 3.0 inline 5), Lion (2.7 v6, 3.6 v8). Outside of the Gemini stuff, anyways.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        tres,
        You are correct regarding the naming conventions.

        But ……. RobertRyan is also correct that PSA Peugeot Citroën and Rover/Jag developed the diesel in a joint venture.

        It wouldn’t surprise if Peugeot’s Lion was also used as Robert described as it fitted into Ford’s naming convention, but this is a guess on my part.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          I was always under the impression that it was a solo Ford project in Dagenham. I could be wrong.

          The only joint ventures were the Lynx and Puma’s with Altran (Peugeot) which is the DV range (1.4, 1.6 and 1.6L.

          Jag was Ford at the time of the Lion conception. I witnessed the early builds of the Lion V8 (at least the ones in Michigan).

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

            It was a Dagenham project.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Adam,
            Yes.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            You are incorrect there, the Engine was basically a Peugeot design, that was developed for Ford Vans. Peugeot had a slightly larger version for their Dakar Rally Raid car
            Lion refers to the Peugeot crest, Peugeot is very good at Diesels, remember their LeMans Car and the battles with the Audi diesel at LeMans?
            http://www.car-brand-names.com/peugeot-logo/

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

            The name of the diesel family has nothing to do with Peugeot’s logo. The previous two diesel engines created by the Ford/PSA partnership were the Tiger and Lynx. The Lion V6 was developed by Ford and PSA engineers with input from Jaguar in Ford development centers. The Lion family was a continuation of the partnership.

            I’ve also heard that the Lion V6 was a Ford/Jag effort using lessons learned from the previous PSA partnership and PSA also used the engine, but both Ford and PSA indicate that it was a joint project. Unless we have someone that specifically worked on the project to chime in, we’ll have to use what we have and call it a joint project.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            Adam Tounge
            Yes it was developed at Dagenham by Ford Engineers, but Peugeot did the design and they helped Ford develop the engine. The ” Cat ” series is a nod to Peugeot. I think the 3.2 is a Dagenham design. 4.4 Engine had Jaguar input
            Now Jaguar is developing an inline series of Petrol and Diesel engines

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    The real question is, can this diesel F-150 withstand an old, flimsy toolbox falling into it and not turning into swiss cheese?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    This “Best in Class” nonsense is ridiculous.

    “I have two more foot pound of torque than you!” So, I must be a better person.

    This is what needs to be curtailed. “Best in Class” to me is an overall package, not just “My towball is rated to 10 000lbs and yours is 7 500lbs”. What a schoolyard bullsh!t form of marketing.

    The odd thing is people buy this! It’s you auto journalist who promote this crap along with the marketeers of motor vehicles.

    So, what other attributes doe the Lion offer over the VM diesel that makes it better? Two turbo’s? But, then how good does the single turbo system operate in relation to Ford’s twin turbo setup? There isn’t much in it between the two diesels.

    The reality is it is great to see a diesel in the F-150.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge (bball40dtw)

      One advantage the Lion should have over FCAs VM diesel is cost. Ford uses a lot of CGI blocks and turbocharges a lot of V6 engines. They should be able to offer this engine as a lower cost option than FCA.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Big Al from Oz – I was eager to see the VM Motori 3.0 end up in Ram 1500 but a lack of payload killed it for me. The Cummins Titan was also a disappointment again because of payload.

      I don’t care about max anything but at the end of the day a truck should do the functions a truck is supposed to do. Any crewcab 4×4 should not leave the lot with anything less that 1500 lbs of payload capacity. The Titan XD being touted as a HD alternative should be closer to 2k out the box. The Colorado is the only diesel that starts out at 1500lbs.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Lou_BC,
        It isn’t the VM diesels that is the problem with FCAs/Rams “average” performing vehicles.

        One positive for FCA, especially the Chrysler/Dodge/Ram/Jeep vehicles are the engines. The worst engine in my mind is the Pentastar. I do know some will challenge this. But, like the Hemi Ram I rented, the FE on it was quite appalling, even moving the weight of the pickup. 14mpg.

        Ram 1500s are built as a car. The only problem I found with the “carlike” Ram was it’s ability to manage the 5.7. It was great in a straight line, but that was all. It’s ride comfort was fantastic, but this is the trade off for it’s ability to work and dismal handling characteritics, even for a pickup.

        As for Nissan, I do believe Cummins needs to develop the ISV. The ISV is capable of putting out a significant amount more power and torque. The Titan I believe was targeting the SUV type HD owner. So, how much work it can achieve is relative to it’s targeted audience.

        You can see Diaz’s input into the Titan with parallel considerations in it’s concept as the Ram. Low payload, comfort(?). So the Ram and the Titan are going to be the most similar, as is Silverado/Sierra, F Series seem to challenge each other in some ways.

        It also appears some of the design considerations in the Titan is to circumvent CAFE and EPA regulations.

        It will be interesting to see how the 1/2 ton Titan pans out. I would like to see the Renault-Nissan 3 litre V6 diesel in the 1/2 ton Titan.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “It isn’t the VM diesels that is the problem with FCAs/Rams “average” performing vehicles.’

          I’ve always been critical of Ram 1500’s lack of payload.

          The engines can do the job but not the rest of the truck.

          If Toyota comes out with a diesel 1/2 ton then the Cummins Titan is as good as dead.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou,
            The great majority of pickups are not trucks. This is were old timers must change how they view a pickup.

            Even the so called pickups used for business are just daily driving tax write offs. They do not do much more than take kids to school.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • -Nate: ? What logic ? . He’s just afraid and frightened people do & say odd things…. -Nate
  • -Nate: Very interesting . Looks like they’re going to try to be like GM was long long ago . If they can make...
  • Arthur Dailey: Have to agree that the instrument panel on those Grand Prix’s was excellent. Far better than the...
  • Arthur Dailey: An old saying is that ‘a fish rots from the head down’. It is the same with a corporation....
  • 285exp: My father bought a 22 ft I/O fishing boat in 1971, so for his company car that year he ordered a Plymouth...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber