Ford finally releases specs for F-150 3.0L diesel

[ShinerBock]

Power - 250 hp at 3,250 RPM and 440 lb-ft at 1,750 RPM

Max Towing - 11,400 lbs


Still underpowered to me(your towing preferences may be different) for the size of truck it is going in and an 11k tow rating, but I am sure there will be a market for it like the Ecodiesel. By the towing specs, it seems to be offered in the HD F150 which is something Ram needs for the Ecodiesel and its dismal payload.


TFL Truck: FORD RELEASES POWER, TORQUE, TOWING SPECS FOR 3.0L POWERSTROKE DIESEL

[RobertRyan]

Allamakee1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Allamakee1 wrote:

Mr. I got magical numbers only us Ford guys can see, can't report out any ACTUAL number to prove his point. Not a single one of those quotes gives any actual numbers of the 3.5 vs the 5.0, but to answer your question, YES please let's get back on topic.

And the same could not be said about you stating that the Ecoboost did not outsell the 5.0L until 4 years later? Show me the numbers you have for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Allamakee1 wrote:


By the way, I'm not mad at all. I get a chuckle every time I read your posts, this has been very entertaining for me. Also, I enjoy debating and got a plethora of valid points already on the board. My goal is not to make a believer out of you, as some people just have a certain basis, but to ACCURATELY inform anyone interested in the original topic.

Funny, because I think the same of your posts.

Although, if your goal is not to make a believer of me, then why are you debating my opinion? The article that I posted earlier from August 2015 about the Ecodiesel only making up 12 percent of Ram 1500 sales was fact. It was also a fact that this was before VW admitted to cheating. What I said after that was opinion signaled by the words "This should" and "I think" yet you still took issue with the post.

So what did you take issue with, the facts in the article or my opinions? If you take issue with my opinions, then how can you say you are not trying to make a believer out of me by your continual effort to try and change my opinion which is based on past market data?

That’s good, I’m glad your not getting frustrated.

Can I as an actual owner/driver of a similar vehicle to the one in question have an opinion also, maybe a different one? Dare I say, more valuable one than a non-owner to those interested in this type of engine. I listened to your opinions, however I disagree with the future trend you see with these trucks and capabilities by the way. You are not my target audience in this debate.

Well the 5 litre V8 outsold the 2008 version when it was sold in the Lincoln

The first Ford vehicle to feature this engine was the 2007 Lincoln MKR concept vehicle under the name TwinForce.[54] The engine was designed to deliver power and torque output equivalent to a typical 6.0-L or larger-displacement V8 while achieving at least 15% better fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse emissions. In the MKR, the concept TwinForce engine was rated at 415 hp (309 kW) and 400 lb?ft (542 N?m) of torque, as well as run on E85 fuel.[55] When the same prototype engine reappeared in the Lincoln MKT concept in 2008 North American International Auto Show, the name was changed to EcoBoost.

[Allamakee1]

ShinerBock wrote:

Allamakee1 wrote:

Mr. I got magical numbers only us Ford guys can see, can't report out any ACTUAL number to prove his point. Not a single one of those quotes gives any actual numbers of the 3.5 vs the 5.0, but to answer your question, YES please let's get back on topic.

And the same could not be said about you stating that the Ecoboost did not outsell the 5.0L until 4 years later? Show me the numbers you have for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Allamakee1 wrote:


By the way, I'm not mad at all. I get a chuckle every time I read your posts, this has been very entertaining for me. Also, I enjoy debating and got a plethora of valid points already on the board. My goal is not to make a believer out of you, as some people just have a certain basis, but to ACCURATELY inform anyone interested in the original topic.

Funny, because I think the same of your posts.

Although, if your goal is not to make a believer of me, then why are you debating my opinion? The article that I posted earlier from August 2015 about the Ecodiesel only making up 12 percent of Ram 1500 sales was fact. It was also a fact that this was before VW admitted to cheating. What I said after that was opinion signaled by the words "This should" and "I think" yet you still took issue with the post.

So what did you take issue with, the facts in the article or my opinions? If you take issue with my opinions, then how can you say you are not trying to make a believer out of me by your continual effort to try and change my opinion which is based on past market data?

That’s good, I’m glad your not getting frustrated.

Can I as an actual owner/driver of a similar vehicle to the one in question have an opinion also, maybe a different one? Dare I say, more valuable one than a non-owner to those interested in this type of engine. I listened to your opinions, however I disagree with the future trend you see with these trucks and capabilities by the way. You are not my target audience in this debate.

[ShinerBock]

Allamakee1 wrote:

Mr. I got magical numbers only us Ford guys can see, can't report out any ACTUAL number to prove his point. Not a single one of those quotes gives any actual numbers of the 3.5 vs the 5.0, but to answer your question, YES please let's get back on topic.

And the same could not be said about you stating that the Ecoboost did not outsell the 5.0L until 4 years later? Show me the numbers you have for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Allamakee1 wrote:


By the way, I'm not mad at all. I get a chuckle every time I read your posts, this has been very entertaining for me. Also, I enjoy debating and got a plethora of valid points already on the board. My goal is not to make a believer out of you, as some people just have a certain basis, but to ACCURATELY inform anyone interested in the original topic.

Funny, because I think the same of your posts.

Although, if your goal is not to make a believer of me, then why are you debating my opinion? The article that I posted earlier from August 2015 about the Ecodiesel only making up 12 percent of Ram 1500 sales was fact. It was also a fact that this was before VW admitted to cheating. What I said after that was opinion signaled by the words "This should" and "I think" yet you still took issue with the post.

So what did you take issue with, the facts in the article or my opinions? If you take issue with my opinions, then how can you say you are not trying to make a believer out of me by your continual effort to try and change my opinion which is based on past market data?

[Allamakee1]

ShinerBock wrote:
For someone who says they do not like to get into it you sure do debates into different twists further from we were discussing. But if you want to turn this into a different debate just because you ran out of valid points on the last one and are still mad then lest do it.

August of 2011

"In May, June and July, the F-150 engine mix ran 41 percent EcoBoost and 15 percent 3.7-liter V6 base engine, Ford says."


August of 2011

"Ford sold nearly 50,000 units of its F-series in July, making it the most popular vehicle in the United States. The automaker says its EcoBoost V6 accounted for 40 percent of its volume, while the 3.7-liter V6 took 16 percent of sales. Other engine options, including a popular flex-fuel 5.0-liter V8 and the F-150 SVT Raptor's high-performance 6.2-liter V8, accounted for the remaining 44 percent of the truck's sales."


That is a combined 56% leaving the combined sales of the 5.0L and 6.2L only found in the Raptor and higher trim level at 44%. Due to the popularity of the Raptor, it is highly unlikely that the 6.2L made up less than 3% of F150 sales.

August 2012

"Not only has Ford sold over 200,000 EcoBoost F-150s since the engine's introduction, but as of July, EcoBoost V-6s accounted for 43 percent of F-150 sales. In fact, Ford now sells more V-6-powered F-150s than V-8-powered ones the base 3.7-liter V-6 accounted for 11 percent of all F-150 sales, pushing the total V-6 take rate to 54 percent. Although Ford doesn't split 5.0-liter and 6.2-liter V-8 sales, the two eight-cylinder engines together account for 46 percent of F-150 sales. Given that the 6.2-liter V-8 is the F-150's premium engine, we're inclined to believe that most of that 46 percent is dominated by the 5.0-liter Coyote V-8."



November 2012

"Fast forward 2 years later and that gamble has now become one of the most popular engines with over 200,000 sold. It’s a very popular engine, Ford spokesman Mike Levine said, adding that EcoBoost engines went into 43 percent of F-150’s sold so far this year. EcoBoost take-rates have exceeded our expectations."



May 2014

"Since being introduced for the 2011 model year, the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 has been installed in roughly 45% of Ford F150 pickups while the base 3.5L V6, the 5.0L V8 and the 6.2L V8 have all combined to account for the other 55% of F150 sales."



So what links can you provide that state that the 5.0L outsold the Ecoboost from 2011-2015 because everyone I link insinuates otherwise. All of the article I have found have stated that the 3.5 Ecoboost alone made 43% of all F150 sales. Or do you and Robert want to get back on topic?

"insinuates"
Mr. I got magical numbers only us Ford guys can see, can't report out any ACTUAL number to prove his point. Not a single one of those quotes gives any actual numbers of the 3.5 vs the 5.0, but to answer your question, YES please let's get back on topic.

By the way, I'm not mad at all. I get a chuckle every time I read your posts, this has been very entertaining for me. Also, I enjoy debating and got a plethora of valid points already on the board. My goal is not to make a believer out of you, as some people just have a certain basis, but to ACCURATELY inform anyone interested in the original topic.

[ShinerBock]

For someone who says they do not like to get into it you sure do debates into different twists further from we were discussing. But if you want to turn this into a different debate just because you ran out of valid points on the last one and are still mad then lest do it.

August of 2011

"In May, June and July, the F-150 engine mix ran 41 percent EcoBoost and 15 percent 3.7-liter V6 base engine, Ford says."


August of 2011

"Ford sold nearly 50,000 units of its F-series in July, making it the most popular vehicle in the United States. The automaker says its EcoBoost V6 accounted for 40 percent of its volume, while the 3.7-liter V6 took 16 percent of sales. Other engine options, including a popular flex-fuel 5.0-liter V8 and the F-150 SVT Raptor's high-performance 6.2-liter V8, accounted for the remaining 44 percent of the truck's sales."


That is a combined 56% leaving the combined sales of the 5.0L and 6.2L only found in the Raptor and higher trim level at 44%. Due to the popularity of the Raptor, it is highly unlikely that the 6.2L made up less than 3% of F150 sales.

August 2012

"Not only has Ford sold over 200,000 EcoBoost F-150s since the engine's introduction, but as of July, EcoBoost V-6s accounted for 43 percent of F-150 sales. In fact, Ford now sells more V-6-powered F-150s than V-8-powered ones the base 3.7-liter V-6 accounted for 11 percent of all F-150 sales, pushing the total V-6 take rate to 54 percent. Although Ford doesn't split 5.0-liter and 6.2-liter V-8 sales, the two eight-cylinder engines together account for 46 percent of F-150 sales. Given that the 6.2-liter V-8 is the F-150's premium engine, we're inclined to believe that most of that 46 percent is dominated by the 5.0-liter Coyote V-8."



November 2012

"Fast forward 2 years later and that gamble has now become one of the most popular engines with over 200,000 sold. It’s a very popular engine, Ford spokesman Mike Levine said, adding that EcoBoost engines went into 43 percent of F-150’s sold so far this year. EcoBoost take-rates have exceeded our expectations."



May 2014

"Since being introduced for the 2011 model year, the 3.5L EcoBoost V6 has been installed in roughly 45% of Ford F150 pickups while the base 3.5L V6, the 5.0L V8 and the 6.2L V8 have all combined to account for the other 55% of F150 sales."



So what links can you provide that state that the 5.0L outsold the Ecoboost from 2011-2015 because everyone I link insinuates otherwise. All of the article I have found have stated that the 3.5 Ecoboost alone made 43% of all F150 sales. Or do you and Robert want to get back on topic?

[RobertRyan]

Allamakee1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The article that I posted about the Ecodiesel only being sold in 12 percent of Rams(instead of the 20 that was expected and produced) was from June of 2015 which was before VW admitted to cheating. This should have been an optimal time given the claims that so many people have been waiting for a diesel in a half ton and it was before "dieselgate".

I think a lot of people like the idea of these small diesels and their cost savings, but when they go on a test drive to see how much power they have to give up and how minimal the cost savings actually are, then they start to rethink it. In many cases, most half ton Ram truck buyers that don't tow that much would be happier with the better performance of the 3.6L. I have no doubts that this would be the same for this Ford 3.0L diesel and the 2.7L Ecoboost.

So many things wrong/cherry picked with this post. People do your own research please.

FYI..... It took 4 years of production for the mighty EB to catch the 5.0 in sales and your commenting on an engine that at that point had been out for maybe a year. Stretch.

Agreed.

[Allamakee1]

ShinerBock wrote:
I am not sure if this is a totally true. The Ecoboost came out in the F150 in 2011, and it matched and exceeded the 5.0L sales within the first year.

I was talking about the 3.5 EB exclusively. Can't do the link, don't know how, but this is the quote from the article and several others. "Twin-turbocharged EcoBoost V6s were surprisingly effective when, in early 2011, 35 percent of F-150 buyers made the leap from conventional naturally aspirated powerplants." They go on to show that it surpasses the 5.0, but not until 3-4 years later.

I believe the link you quoted was only referencing 1 month sales timepoint and not a whole year, as you stated the EB came out in 2011 and that article was written still within 2011.

CNN will get ya every time.

[ShinerBock]

Allamakee1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
The article that I posted about the Ecodiesel only being sold in 12 percent of Rams(instead of the 20 that was expected and produced) was from June of 2015 which was before VW admitted to cheating. This should have been an optimal time given the claims that so many people have been waiting for a diesel in a half ton and it was before "dieselgate".

I think a lot of people like the idea of these small diesels and their cost savings, but when they go on a test drive to see how much power they have to give up and how minimal the cost savings actually are, then they start to rethink it. In many cases, most half ton Ram truck buyers that don't tow that much would be happier with the better performance of the 3.6L. I have no doubts that this would be the same for this Ford 3.0L diesel and the 2.7L Ecoboost.

So many things wrong/cherry picked with this post. People do your own research please.

Okay, so what was cherry picked? The article was written before VW admitted to cheating and I believe should have been the optimal time for Ecodiesel sales due to an anticipated market since it was within the first few years of production.

The rest of it is my opinion which is why I started the paragraph saying "I think". So are you just mad at my opinion and do not think I am allowed to have one? If you disagree with my opinion then feel free to tell me what parts you disagree with and why.

Allamakee1 wrote:
FYI..... It took 4 years of production for the mighty EB to catch the 5.0 in sales and your commenting on an engine that at that point had been out for maybe a year. Stretch.

I am not sure if this is a totally true. The Ecoboost came out in the F150 in 2011, and it matched and exceeded the 5.0L sales within the first year.

Ford F-150 buyers go for EcoBoost V6 engines

[Allamakee1]

ShinerBock wrote:
The article that I posted about the Ecodiesel only being sold in 12 percent of Rams(instead of the 20 that was expected and produced) was from June of 2015 which was before VW admitted to cheating. This should have been an optimal time given the claims that so many people have been waiting for a diesel in a half ton and it was before "dieselgate".

I think a lot of people like the idea of these small diesels and their cost savings, but when they go on a test drive to see how much power they have to give up and how minimal the cost savings actually are, then they start to rethink it. In many cases, most half ton Ram truck buyers that don't tow that much would be happier with the better performance of the 3.6L. I have no doubts that this would be the same for this Ford 3.0L diesel and the 2.7L Ecoboost.

So many things wrong/cherry picked with this post. People do your own research please.

FYI..... It took 4 years of production for the mighty EB to catch the 5.0 in sales and your commenting on an engine that at that point had been out for maybe a year. Stretch.

[ShinerBock]

bucky wrote:
I don't think that we can state a lack of interest in the Eco diesel as it was off the market for a while. The VW hysteria caused a lot of ripple effects in the industry.
I would have liked to have seen the 5.0 Cummins in the baby Rams but that's history now.

The article that I posted about the Ecodiesel only being sold in 12 percent of Rams(instead of the 20 that was expected and produced) was from June of 2015 which was before VW admitted to cheating. This should have been an optimal time given the claims that so many people have been waiting for a diesel in a half ton and it was before "dieselgate".

I think a lot of people like the idea of these small diesels and their cost savings, but when they go on a test drive to see how much power they have to give up and how minimal the cost savings actually are, then they start to rethink it. In many cases, most half ton Ram truck buyers that don't tow that much would be happier with the better performance of the 3.6L. I have no doubts that this would be the same for this Ford 3.0L diesel and the 2.7L Ecoboost.

[Samsonsworld]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:




As does the EcoBoost engine! The 2014 had it's share of engine issues yes. Care to look at the EB's record in both engine failures and recalls? The only engine issue I have had was a coolant solenoid valve that was repaired under the powertrain coverage costing my nothing. That would be the only major issue have had some minor issues like the drivers puddle light and the fog lamps shaking. Both replaced under the 3/36,000 coverage at no cost.

Why do you bring up the EB? I never mentioned it. I'm more concerned about the reliability of these small diesels. I just hope the Ram isn't any indication of what to expect from the Ford.

But just for the record, the longest EB engine failure thread I could find was only 6 pages long.

[bucky]

I don't think that we can state a lack of interest in the Eco diesel as it was off the market for a while. The VW hysteria caused a lot of ripple effects in the industry.
I would have liked to have seen the 5.0 Cummins in the baby Rams but that's history now.

[Ralph_Cramden]

Adam R wrote:
I don’t and having an engine screaming at high rpm is what I call drama. Go deal with it.

Ok.....

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

Samsonsworld wrote:

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
we have a guy over @ ram1500diesel.com that has a 2014 EcoD and tows RV's for a living. He has almost 350K on the clock here is the list of major repairs in the first 250K miles, Light switch, tail light bulb, alignment 196,000, Lift pump - $158 part 230,000 replaced chalky serpentine belt 250,000. So these little diesels are nothing to turn your nose up at.

There is also a 141 page thread at ram1500diesel . com called Eco diesel engine failures. 141 is a lot of pages. And I think you forgot to list the recalls.

Nose up.

As does the EcoBoost engine! The 2014 had it's share of engine issues yes. Care to look at the EB's record in both engine failures and recalls? The only engine issue I have had was a coolant solenoid valve that was repaired under the powertrain coverage costing my nothing. That would be the only major issue have had some minor issues like the drivers puddle light and the fog lamps shaking. Both replaced under the 3/36,000 coverage at no cost.

I have had one recall that I received a free grill cover to protect the intercooler from freezing in the winter. the other to did not pertain to my truck.

But this thread was about the new Ford 3.0 diesel not Rams.

And sorry Bock but I was told by a Ford powertrain engineer at the 2014 North American Auto Show AKA the Detroit Auto Show that ford would not be bringing a diesel to the f150 and I reported that fact right here! So what Ford was telling it's dealers is NOT what Ford was telling the public and that is what I based and will base my post/posts on!

Don

[ShinerBock]

ShinerBock wrote:

Allamakee1 wrote:
Why does FORD in YOUR quote state they expect the 2.7 to outsell the 3.5, if power is everything?

Don't know and it doesn't really hold any relevance to what we are talking about. Car makes say they expect to sell a certain amount of things all the time and many times it doesn't come true with it being over or under expectations.

Prime example....

"According to one WardsAuto columnist, sales of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel remain well behind the engine’s production rate, with only 12 percent of customers choosing the light-duty diesel over the Pentastar V-6 or Hemi V-8. As we reported late last year, Ram Truck announced it would produce one EcoDiesel out of every five Rams, expecting a take rate of 20 percent, but for some reason, those predictions have not come to fruition.

The lack of interest in the EcoDiesel is somewhat surprising given its excellent fuel economy and sterling reputation among critics and owners (ourselves included), but one aspect could be its relatively high price. Many economy-minded customers elect instead for the Ram 1500’s Pentastar 3.6L V-6, which produces 305 hp and 269 lb-ft of torque, compared with the EcoDiesel’s 240 hp and 420 lb-ft. Although customers take a significant torque hit with the Pentastar, they still achieve an estimated 25 mpg highway, at a cost $4,270 less than the torquier and more efficient EcoDiesel.

That price parity may not always pay itself off in fuel savings for some customers, as many “lifestyle” truck owners lease their vehicles and drive fewer than 12,000 miles a year. Especially in times when diesel is more expensive than gasoline, it takes substantially longer than the average duration of a lease to break even when buying an EcoDiesel over a Pentastar V-6.

However, for customers who tow regularly or who cover long stretches of highway on a regular basis, the EcoDiesel makes a lot of sense, as it provides excellent fuel economy that many customers report is even better than its EPA-rated 28 highway mpg. Additionally, the EcoDiesel doesn’t suffer as much of an efficiency penalty when towing as the gas V-6 or V-8.

It could be that not as many customers need the long-haul or towing efficiency the EcoDiesel provides as the higher-ups at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles predicted. It’s a great engine that we at Truck Trend love, but it’s true that it doesn’t make financial sense for every buyer. For its part, Ram Truck still claims that demand for the EcoDiesel is brisk."

Ram EcoDiesel Sales Flagging, Remain Behind Production Rate