Jump to content
Drew Dowdell

Ford News: Ford Cuts V8 Production

Recommended Posts

Ford said that it would be cutting a shift from its Essex Engine Plant in Ontario starting in October.  Ford says the move will "better align with consumer demand".  The likely cause? Ford F-150 buyers are shifting more of their purchases away from the 5.0 liter V8.

F-150 buyers have a choice of 5 engines when selecting a truck, the 2.7-liter Ecoboost, the 3.3-liter V6, the 3.5-liter Ecoboost, and now a 3.0-liter PowerStroke Diesel, all in addition to the 5.0-liter V8, and the customer mix appears to be skewing towards the smaller displacement engines.

The cut in shifts will not result in job cuts as those workers will be transitioned to another engine plant to build the 7.3-liter engine due to be installed in the 2020 Ford Super Duties. That transition will happen in November of this year. 


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense especially as Ford starts to develop the F150 on the Rivian based skateboard concept and the V8 is replaced by Torque Electrics.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Makes sense especially as Ford starts to develop the F150 on the Rivian based skateboard concept and the V8 is replaced by Torque Electrics.

I think this is more about immediate need than anything 4 to 5 years in the future. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Ford starts with the V6 and charges extra for a V8 (normal) and even more for the EcoBoost 4cyl and even more for the EcoBoost V6.  Is it just me, or are Ford truck buyers being milked for illusory fuel efficiency gains here?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As the proudly satisfied owner of a 2016 F-150 SuperCab with the 2.7L EcoBoost V-6, I totally understand the drifting away from V-8 engine optioning by Ford truck buyers.  This smallest of engines in the F-150 line-up is always right there under one's right foot, with a turbo'ed 325hp and 350 lbs/torque offering plenty of acceleration and oomph. Perhaps more impressive, however, is the fuel economy. Every mixed-driving tankful nets me right around 22mpg, and on straight hwy driving I'll do 26mpg. Hard to complain, and hard to covet a V8 when getting this sort of performance from a V6....

 

Edited by garnermike
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the take rate for V8 trucks would be if they weren't practically a spacial order option these days.  The last time I was at my local ford dealer finding a new V8 truck was like where's Waldo.  When people go shopping they cant buy what isn't available.  The take rate for V8s may be higher if Ford actually made them more available IMO.  I just did a quick search, of the sea of new trucks at a dealer by me there is 4 with the 5.0.   You cant buy what you cant find.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well. the expedition and navigator prove that.

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 11:22 AM, Potluck said:

no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well. the expedition and navigator prove that.

Mustang might well become the only regular production Ford with a V8. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Ford is cutting V8 production is a reflection of CAFE realities (at least until BEVs become superior). 

I would make one modest proposal: do not quash all the torque.  GM made a huge mistake by providing a V6 with relatively little real torque.  I say that as one who owns a Lucerne with a 3800 V6.  I read elsewhere in these forums that the GMC Terrain also lacks power (i.e. torque).  That (I hope) got fixed with the 2018+ models given that the engines are even smaller now.  I do hope that Ford ensured that their V6 engines are NOT the weak, no torque variety that seem to plague more than a few carmakers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 11:22 AM, Potluck said:

no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well. the expedition and navigator prove that.

The turbo just replaces the extra 2 cylinders and the volume air displacement...

The added weight that comes with the required turbo plumbing and the needless complexity and the extra moving parts of the turbo itself just seems contradictory to me when people say: "no need for v8s when the v6 turbo does just as well."  

Oxymoron is what it is... because a turbo V6 requires a lot of complexity just to replicate what a naturally aspirated V8 does quite easily...with its eyes closed and its hands tied behind its back type deal...

I dont get the OVERengineering solution...I really dont. 

 

 

Edited by oldshurst442
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sick of hearing about how smaller displacement TURBO engines do an equal or better job than their higher displacement, more cylinder counterparts...

Its like the more we repeat this bullshyte the more we will believe it?

 Smallish displacement turbo V6s do NOT do an equal or better job that equal horsepowered and torqued naturally aspirated V8s do.

Small displacement turbo 4 cylinders do NOT do an equal or better job that equal horsepowered and torqued naturally aspirated V6s do.

On paper, it seems that the smaller displacement turbo engines do an equal or better job...but in reality they dont.  

All it is, its just a compromise between the two.  Whatever the manufacturer wants to favour one over the other. 

To bypass some BS CAFE emissions standard.

A forced induction application on an engine should be considered as a COMPLIMENTARY power adder and helper...NOT as a REPLACEMENT...

Like I said above...repeat a lie long enough, we will eventually believe in that lie...

Edited by oldshurst442
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 3, 2019 at 1:19 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I think this is more about immediate need than anything 45 years in the future. 

Is Ford really looking that far ahead?

 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with the turbos (though I question just hoe much abuse that they can really take) But, I also realize most folks don’t know how to care for a turbo either, (try to take care of the one in my Nox)

That said, there should be more V8s for those who still want simple, traditional power in their truck. I already know what Ford is doing....the 5.0 will be completely gone within a year or two.

Darn shame that they can’t give the the best of both worlds.....choice is a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, daves87rs said:

.the 5.0 will be completely gone within a year or two.

I've heard rumors of a new 4.8 replacing it.. No clue if there is any accuracy behind it though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big online car mags will be coming out with a story soon about how great the F-150 Limited with the 3.5 Ecoboost performed while towing a 4,500 lbs boat.   The caveat is that it only got 7.3 mpg while doing it and 9th and 10th gear get locked out in tow mode to make sure the turbos keep spinning high. 

Nothing Eco about that.

The same mag got 12mpg out of a 6.3 Escalade pulling a similar load. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

One of the big online car mags will be coming out with a story soon about how great the F-150 Limited with the 3.5 Ecoboost performed while towing a 4,500 lbs boat.   The caveat is that it only got 7.3 mpg while doing it and 9th and 10th gear get locked out in tow mode to make sure the turbos keep spinning high. 

Nothing Eco about that.

The same mag got 12mpg out of a 6.3 Escalade pulling a similar load. 

I actually think that's more impressive by the Escalade than disappointing in the 3.5. 

I've watched quite a few videos on trucks towing(saying that sounds quite absurd of me LOL) and they don't seem to care about the mpg hit because there is so much power there available and it doesn't need to sit at 6000rpm to do so. 

Usually when TFL(like them or hate them, they try to be as consistent and accurate as they can) tows, all the trucks are within 1mpg of each other towing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

One of the big online car mags will be coming out with a story soon about how great the F-150 Limited with the 3.5 Ecoboost performed while towing a 4,500 lbs boat.   The caveat is that it only got 7.3 mpg while doing it and 9th and 10th gear get locked out in tow mode to make sure the turbos keep spinning high. 

Nothing Eco about that.

The same mag got 12mpg out of a 6.3 Escalade pulling a similar load. 

So I bet the Turbo Boost had that engine at 6000 or more RPM while the Escalade was cruising along at 1800 to 2000 rpm getting that 12 mpg. I have towed many a boat with my Escalade and always get between 12 to 14 mpg depending on if I go local or drive over the pass.

Would not want a Turbo for hauling for nothing compared to my V8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dfelt said:

So I bet the Turbo Boost had that engine at 6000 or more RPM while the Escalade was cruising along at 1800 to 2000 rpm getting that 12 mpg. I have towed many a boat with my Escalade and always get between 12 to 14 mpg depending on if I go local or drive over the pass.

Would not want a Turbo for hauling for nothing compared to my V8.

I just re-read the discussion thread... it was spinning at 2,500 rpm at 70mph in order to keep the spools fed. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I just re-read the discussion thread... it was spinning at 2,500 rpm at 70mph in order to keep the spools fed. 

So only a 500 to 700 rpm difference, yet that 7.3 mpg to 12 mpg is big time failure IMHO. They might as well offer a Hybrid option to enhance the pulling and keep the MPG higher. Thank you for following up on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Add a hill or elevation to the mix and the turbo engine will put some distance between the two. 

Yeah, the Turbo does have more pull, and that article will mention it I'm sure.  It's just how much gas it sucks in the process. 

19 minutes ago, dfelt said:

So only a 500 to 700 rpm difference, yet that 7.3 mpg to 12 mpg is big time failure IMHO. They might as well offer a Hybrid option to enhance the pulling and keep the MPG higher. Thank you for following up on this.

That's what boost does.  That's how they're getting that amount of power out of a 3.5 liter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Add a hill or elevation to the mix and the turbo engine will put some distance between the two. 

I have not seen that driving around here with Turbo small engines versus big block V8's. My Escalade 6.0 V8 and Durango 5.9L V8 do very well, I usually pulling a trailer just effortlessly move over the mountains around here compared to the smaller engine trucks / SUVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dfelt said:

I have not seen that driving around here with Turbo small engines versus big block V8's. My Escalade 6.0 V8 and Durango 5.9L V8 do very well, I usually pulling a trailer just effortlessly move over the mountains around here compared to the smaller engine trucks / SUVs.

It's just science. Turbo engines are superior at higher elevation. They do not lose the roughly 30% power reduction when a mile in the sky like a N/A engine will. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

It's just science. Turbo engines are superior at higher elevation. They do not lose the roughly 30% power reduction when a mile in the sky like a N/A engine will. 

Good point, for places like Colorado and those passes that are hitting above 5000 feet elevation, but I think the main passes here in Washington at 3000 feet I wonder if it really makes any difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      20190505_110414-mp4.mp4
      Mother’s Day weekend was a busy one. The kids had planned out the whole Sunday for the wife and I had planned the day before to build an area with a raised garden bed for the wife. The raised bed material was bought, the area mapped out and the plan to get up early and rent a truck to pick up cedar chips and black gold compost soil was scheduled.
      Saturday morning went as I expected, up early, quick breakfast and off to be the first in line at the U-Haul rental place. Figured rather than $75 per delivery, two types of material meant $150, why not spend $19.95 for a single day rental of the truck, pick up the material myself and pocket $130 or so.
      U-Haul actually has it to mileage and other fees that made the single days truck rental $55 and change, so not as big as I expected but still roughly a $95 savings.

      Surprise was that the truck I got was a new 2019 F150 with V8 that only had 300 miles on the odometer. Having not been in a new Ford pickup in the last couple years, I was excited to see how it drove, what the fit n finish was like and over all materials.
      U-Haul trucks are your base trucks with rubberized floors, dash is all hard plastics yet they still had backup camera and the V8 engine. As such the truck had no problem even loaded down with dirt or the cedar chips moving. Over all ride was decent and I actually really loved the seats as they were very supportive to my large size and yet comfy driving from freeway to local roads, never tiring to the body. Radio was a basic am/fm with a base pair of stereo speakers. Decent and functional.

      Dash being a base truck was hard plastic, as we have seen in many videos about even top of the line Luxury auto’s, the dash did make a big amount of squeak noise. Screen size of the radio system was also very small. Yet as many folks have used the term, the truck was functional.

      Fit n Finish was very tight, did not find any large panel gapes or errors in the paint job or exterior body.  I did find the very simple tie down points with already rusting bolts to be a bit surprising but it still worked and the truck had a bed so I did not have to worry about messing the truck bed up. Interesting observation is that when the truck is locked, so is the tailgate, so with a load, I had to always keep the truck unlocked so the tailgate would open and let me unload my chips and soil.
      The V8 engine was very smooth and quiet and the only drawback was the weird auto stop / start. If you’re in normal traffic it works just as GMs systems have worked with turning off and on the engine. Yet sit in one place too long and then release the brake pedal and you get a message on the center dash screen saying you have been stationary too long and must put the transmission in park and then back to drive before engine will start back up. Even with following their directions, it seemed the engine did not want to start back up forcing me to put it into park and then manually starting the truck again.


      Other than that single issue, the truck worked and the backup camera was nice to have to get as close as possible to the wife’s new raised veggie garden.

      Hit me up with any questions you have about the truck or my project. Yes I did take out the grass the weekend before so my cedar chips are 3-4 inches deep.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford said that it would be cutting a shift from its Essex Engine Plant in Ontario starting in October.  Ford says the move will "better align with consumer demand".  The likely cause? Ford F-150 buyers are shifting more of their purchases away from the 5.0 liter V8.
      F-150 buyers have a choice of 5 engines when selecting a truck, the 2.7-liter Ecoboost, the 3.3-liter V6, the 3.5-liter Ecoboost, and now a 3.0-liter PowerStroke Diesel, all in addition to the 5.0-liter V8, and the customer mix appears to be skewing towards the smaller displacement engines.
      The cut in shifts will not result in job cuts as those workers will be transitioned to another engine plant to build the 7.3-liter engine due to be installed in the 2020 Ford Super Duties. That transition will happen in November of this year. 
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford reported first quarter operating earnings of $801m, up $160m over the same quarter last year.  The company says that it expects this quarter to be the strongest quarter of the year due to seasonal factors and major product launches later this year.  However, the company says it still expects to finish 2019 better than 2018.
      Outside of North America, Ford is still losing money, but those losses are shrinking.  Ford recently announced a restructuring plan for Europe that included over 6,000 layoffs. 
      Also in the earnings report, Ford revealed that the company is subject to a criminal investigation by the Justice Department due to its emissions certifications. We recently reported that Ford had launched its own internal investigation into its emissions certification process. 
      Ford's stock rose more than 6% in premarket trading. 

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...