Ford to try their hand at a diesel 1/2 ton?

[Garandman]

So 50% more people "worK" with trucks than did 20-30 years ago? Otherwise, using your logic, truck sales would not have gone through the roof.

The other trend of more passenger space and less bed indicates more work as well.

It's not "my" logic, as the graphic states it's from Ford.

If I made the graphic the posing percentage would be over 50%, based on the number of empty beds I see.

 

[GManBart]

I think there needs to be a distinction made here. People buy a truck to be able to do work...tow, haul, etc, but that doesn't mean the primary usage of the vehicle is to do those things. When I'm driving to or from work (in a city) and see half ton pickup trucks in the normal commute traffic one right after the other, that says a large percentage of them are people with 9 to 5 jobs that are using their truck as a commuter vehicle. Those same folks use the truck to pull their boat/motorcycle/camper etc on weekends, for vacations, etc. Only a few are obviously being used as part of the actual work the owner/driver does.

On the flip side, when I see 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks the majority are being used as work trucks in some fashion....marked utility vehicles, marked commercial vehicles, towing trailers, etc. You don't see too many people buying 3/4 ton or larger trucks and using them as their daily commuter (although it does happen). I know a number of folks who own 3/4 or 1 ton trucks, but they usually stay parked except when they're actually towing their trailer/boat/etc.

It would seem that many/most people buying 1/2 ton trucks use them as daily drivers, and that isn't the case nearly as often with 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. So sure, they buy 1/2 ton trucks to be able to do work, but that's a secondary function for most of them.

 

[fordmantpw]

330hp and 516 ft lbs is plenty to pull a 10 ton load. 30 years ago 330hp was all they got, to pull a 44 ton gcvw over the Alps to Italy, before the tunnels were even made. I dont know about the USA but most 12 ton box trucks used for distribution still dont have more than 240hp here. The Cummins ISB 4.5 at 220hp is still the most popular engine in this segment.

Oh, I agree with you! I would love to have that 4.4L in an F250 because I don't need nearly 1000 ft-lbs to tow my 9500 lb fiver. However, Ford backed out of that engine due to costs, emissions, and the recession back in '08.

 

[Btown]

Oh, I agree with you! I would love to have that 4.4L in an F250 because I don't need nearly 1000 ft-lbs to tow my 9500 lb fiver. However, Ford backed out of that engine due to costs, emissions, and the recession back in '08.

I thought Ford cancelled it due to the end of the relationship with Navistar over the 6.0 and the economy in the toilet. Ford designed the 6.7 and used some things from the 4.4.

 

[fordmantpw]

I thought Ford cancelled it due to the end of the relationship with Navistar over the 6.0 and the economy in the toilet. Ford designed the 6.7 and used some things from the 4.4.

The 4.5L was a V6 built by Navistar (3/4 of a 6.0) that was supposed to go in the F150, but didn't meet NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) requirements for the F150, so it was canned. The 4.4L was Ford-built.

 

[Btown]

The 4.5L was a V6 built by Navistar (3/4 of a 6.0) that was supposed to go in the F150, but didn't meet NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) requirements for the F150, so it was canned. The 4.4L was Ford-built.

All the articles I saw and remember state it was the 4.4L that is was used in Range rovers. It was a V8 also.

Detroit 28: 29 Ford F-15, diesel and EcoBoost coming, mpg increased - Autoblog

 

[fordmantpw]

All the articles I saw and remember state it was the 4.4L that is was used in Range rovers. It was a V8 also.

Detroit 28: 29 Ford F-15, diesel and EcoBoost coming, mpg increased - Autoblog

Yes, the 4.4L V8 is used in Range Rovers. It is Ford-built at the same plant as the 6.7L I believe. It was supposed to be in the '09 F150.

The 4.5L was a V6 (6.0L V8 with two cylinders lopped off) designed and built by Navistar. It was canned for the F150 (I think it was supposed to be in the '04 or '05), but still went into the LCF trucks for a while before the deal with Navistar went completely south.

 

[buickanddeere]

Actually no. In the expansion stroke the temperature drops as much as it rose during compression, unless fuel is injected to create more power in the expansion stroke than the compression stroke took.

What is lost to the cooling system is combustion heat. Only a refrigerator dissipates compression heat.

Cooling system absorbs heat during the compression stroke plus the small amount of leakage past the rings.
You need to study the Carnot cycle used in the Otto gasoline and diesel engine.

 

[GLyford]

Not many people over here buy the basic F150.

But how much of that is because it is what they actually want, and how much of that is because greedy dealers only put those "loaded" vehicles on the lot? Eventually all that stuff trickles down to the used market, too, and that's all you can find. Pretty sure that's half of what killed off the manual transmission in most trucks.

I am quite happy with my basic package "work truck" with the crank windows and base trim. If I could have found one in a stickshift I would have. And I pretty much paid full edmunds value for it, which means (to me at least) there is considerable demand still for these basic base model trucks, even 10 years old.

I'd love to see a nice base model ranger come back too, but I guess that will be a few more years yet

In either 1/2 ton full or midsize, I'd be willing to at least try a diesel version, but I doubt that I would pay a premium for one.

 

[buickanddeere]

Wife's 4x4 GMC crew cab with the DI 5.3 on a trip under ideal conditions averaged 8.5L per 100KM.