Why no diesel Ranger in the US?

[Cmar]

My Aussie Ranger is a 3.2 litre 5 cylinder Ford Duratorque diesel mated to the 6R80 six speed auto and 4x4 . It is conservatively rated to 148 Kw (198 Hp) and 470 Nm (350 FP) of torque.
Almost all those FP's are available just off idle, through to about 3,000 rpm.
I generally get on average ~10 litres per 100 Km or in your money about 24mpg +/- about 10%
It's a very smooth diesel that's very quiet on the highway, but a bit rattly at idle.
It doesn't even notice our Jayco camper or in fact most things I tow with it. Also runs well up the beach for beach front camping.
You can also get the 2.2 diesel here which is basically the same as the 3.2 but missing a cylinder, and the 2.0 bi turbo which has only been out here for 6 months or so. A 2.4 litre petrol engine was available for a while but was no match for the diesels and was dropped a few years ago.

Sponsored

 

[VAMike]

My Aussie Ranger is a 3.2 litre 5 cylinder Ford Duratorque diesel mated to the 6R80 six speed auto and 4x4 . It is conservatively rated to 148 Kw (198 Hp) and 470 Nm (350 FP) of torque.

Ford was talking about redesigning that engine for the transit van in north america but at last word canceled the project. Understand that US automakers have trained their customers to buy horsepower. A <200HP engine is a tough sell. The take rate is going to be low, so the costs are high. A diesel option usually runs around $4k or more (for the ranger the quantity would be low enough that more is likely). A $4k premium for a <200HP engine is an even tougher sell. Traditionally diesels could sell themselves through reliability & fuel economy. Famously you could run an old school prechamber diesel underwater if the intake was clear. Those days are long gone, and a modern diesel with a turbo, direct injection, and extensive computer control is no less complicated than a gas engine. And the fuel economy (partially because of the energy cost of emissions controls, partially because of improvements on the gas side) isn't enough better than gas to make it attractive. (Think 50 year break-even.) Places that already have a strong diesel infrastructure & culture aren't going to change because it would cost too much, but there's basically zero chance that the US market will switch.

 

[VAMike]

I'm aware that it's not ready for prime time, but none of those required advancements will happen if no one invests in it. That's my point. You have to spend money and stick your neck out there in order to move forward. Advancement and innovation doesn't happen by just sitting back and doing nothing.

The industry is just finally getting it's butt in gear for electrification, because government regulations and the public (and companies like Tesla) are forcing them to. I'm aware that hydrogen is a big risk, but I'm of the opinion that it'll result in big reward, environmental wise at least. Better than electrification, which just moves most of the environmental impact further back in the manufacturing process. You're free to disagree. There are pros and cons to both. I didn't mean for this thread to turn into an argument about Hydrogen. I just made an off handed side comment about the future that I'd like to see. Carry on.

You can make electricity from hydrogen. And nobody is sitting back and doing nothing--there is a lot of R&D money in hydrogen storage & transportation right now. You're conflating the costs of looking for a solution and the costs of rolling out a solution. At this point there are so many possible approaches for a hydrogen future and the pace of development is so rapid that picking one, freezing the state of the art, and spending (again, trillions) to roll it out is just crazy. On the flip side spending money on electric infrastructure is a no-brainer because even if hydrogen takes over for transportation in the future, we're still going to run our lights on electricity. We're also probably going to still be running our cars on electric motors, we'll just swap out the battery for a fuel cell--so no down side to getting better at electric motors.

 

[SILK]

If we look at the smallest diesel available in a Ford vehicle in the US, it's the 3.0 PowerStroke as a $4,000 option in the F150. Since the F150 and Ranger are drastically different in terms of aerodynamics and weight, we can't really compare the specs and economy of the 3.0 with the 2.3 EcoBoost. So I'll compare the 3.0 with the 3.5 available in the F150. The 3.0 would get better economy and towing capacity if fitted to the Ranger, but the 2.3 gets better mileage than the 3.5, so it's very hard to make a direct comparison. I think that Ford would tune it a bit differently, and the differences between the 3.0 and 2.3 would be in the same ballpark as the differences between the 3.0 and the 3.5.

3.0 PowerStroke:
250hp / 440ft. lb.
11,440lbs towing capacity
22mpg city / 30mpg hwy / 26 combined
Cost of diesel upgrade: $2,400 ($4,000 for 3.0 vs $1,600 for 3.5)
Current avg. PA diesel price (via AAA): $2.74/gal
23gal (F150) @ $2.74/gal = $63.02/tank
26mpg * 23gal = 598mi range
$63.02 / 598mi = $0.11/mi

3.5 EcoBoost:
375hp / 470ft. lb
5,100lbs towing capacity
17mpg city / 23mpg hwy / 20 combined
Current avg. PA 87 gas price (via AAA): $2.44/gal
23gal @ $2.44/gal = $56.12/tank
20mpg * 23gal = 460mi/tank
$56.12 / 460mi = $0.12/mi

$0.12/mi - $0.11/mi = $.01 difference per mile
100 pennies = $1.00
100 * $2,400 (cost of 3.0 upgrade over 3.5) = 240,000

You'd have to drive 240,000mi for the engine to pay for itself in gas mileage over the standard gas engine. Maybe you will! But most won't. And you won't see any cost savings until after 240,000 miles.

Now, that's assuming you were buying the engine strictly for economy purposes, which nobody does. Yes, you can tow 2+ times more with the 3.0. That's good! So if you're towing something more than once a week, really of any weight, the diesel might be worth it for you. But if you're not, the turbo is the better option. People who tow that much aren't out here buying Rangers for that purpose.

TL;DR - It would be cool in theory to have many engine options, including a diesel. But for Ford the numbers just don't add up to a lot of potential sales.

 

[VAMike]

You'd have to drive 240,000mi for the engine to pay for itself in gas mileage over the standard gas engine. Maybe you will! But most won't. And you won't see any cost savings until after 240,000 miles.

also the DEF cost, and generally the routine maintenance schedule for diesels is a little more expensive.

Now, that's assuming you were buying the engine strictly for economy purposes, which nobody does. Yes, you can tow 2+ times more with the 3.0. That's good! So if you're towing something more than once a week, really of any weight, the diesel might be worth it for you. But if you're not, the turbo is the better option. People who tow that much aren't out here buying Rangers for that purpose.

this. for large commercial diesels there can still be a rational economic argument, but for the majority of midsize (and really also half ton) trucks they're mostly a fashion statement in the US market. regen cycles have also taken a bit of the shine off for commercial users.

 

[Floyd]

When they can now make a gas engine which out performs diesel in every meaningful way, that kinda makes a small diesel in a light truck superfluous.
The logic is similar to why they don't make a US Ranger in regular cab or even in a true 2WD.
They tell me that ( like Nashville Cats) nobody buyzem.

 

[RedlandRanger]

When they can now make a gas engine which out performs diesel in every meaningful way, that kinda makes a small diesel in a light truck superfluous.
The logic is similar to why they don't make a US Ranger in regular cab or even in a true 2WD.
They tell me that ( like Nashville Cats) nobody buyzem.

I would have to agree - the EcoBoosts have mostly (not entirely) matched the diesels for performance and fuel economy while not having the additional cost, weight and maintenance expenses. To me, it is a really good compromise and I understand why Ford made the decision they did.

The whole diesel argument, especially for mid size trucks is not nearly as compelling as it was 10 years ago, IMO.

 

[Floyd]

I would have to agree - the EcoBoosts have mostly (not entirely) matched the diesels for performance and fuel economy while not having the additional cost, weight and maintenance expenses. To me, it is a really good compromise and I understand why Ford made the decision they did.

The whole diesel argument, especially for mid size trucks is not nearly as compelling as it was 10 years ago, IMO.

For daily driving, a couple MPG is worth the sacrifice when considering the strong acceleration of the 2.3 over any LT 4CYL diesel... not to mention that MPG difference is more than compensated for in fuel cost and availability.
As for long term reliability in light trucks, Diesel over Gas... PSHAW!!

 

[outdoorphotog]

To many cry baby hippies in the USA hate diesel.... thats why its less popular

 

[Floyd]

To many cry baby hippies in the USA hate diesel.... thats why its less popular

Having been a fleet mechanic with plenty of diesel equipment and diesel vehicles as well as gasoline equipment and gasoline equipment, even some electric and propane powered equipment and vehicles,.
I have operated and repaired them all.
I prefer 4 stroke gasoline power for every engine I own with the possible exception of my chainsaw
.
Every type has its place of course, its just that cars and light trucks are no place for diesel engines.
I love those little 3cyl diesels for light plants , small generators or even lawn mowers.

I love the 4cyl Perkins engines in backhoes and light equipment... maybe a small one in an old strictly off-road rock climbing little truck or jeep?

 

[winmag4582001]

Why does anybody believe that diesels are "complex" or "difficult" to work on?
It's as simple as it gets!
I will admit that the US EPA standards make a diesel unreliable and inefficient, but once you remove all that crap, it has more power and efficiency with a lot less problems.
Diesels are as simple! My favorite motor is the 12v71 Detroit. Any window licker can work on it and it sounds like satan raping a dozen demons!
I would like a diesel option.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Why does anybody believe that diesels are "complex" or "difficult" to work on?
It's as simple as it gets!
I will admit that the US EPA standards make a diesel unreliable and inefficient, but once you remove all that crap, it has more power and efficiency with a lot less problems.
Diesels are as simple! My favorite motor is the 12v71 Detroit. Any window licker can work on it and it sounds like satan raping a dozen demons!
I would like a diesel option.

Hi Brett,

For those that do not know how to decode...a 12v71 means a V 12 configuration of 71 Cubic Inches per cylinder. And DDAs were two stroke and very powerful. Noisy beyond belief. I got into a friends project to install a 353 DDA in a 1981 Bronco.... We could never get the mufflers to quiet it down but it was mazingly powerful for a 3 cylinder motor. We did have a run away and clamped a three ring binder over the air intake. It cut a perfect 4" circle in the vinyl cover.

I got briefly involved with Class 8 Semi tractor racing on road courses. There was one over the top Rig....powered by a 8v71....very strange to see an Class 8 tractor in a 10 wheel drift...

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[VAMike]

Why does anybody believe that diesels are "complex" or "difficult" to work on?
It's as simple as it gets!

Ancient indirect ignition diesels, sure. Modern high pressure computer controlled direct injection engines are not the same thing. Are they impossible to work on? Of course not. Are they dramatically simpler than modern gas engine? Not really. But the real question is whether real US customers want simple, classic 100hp engines in their brand new midsize trucks? Also not really.

 

[outdoorphotog]

Having been a fleet mechanic with plenty of diesel equipment and diesel vehicles as well as gasoline equipment and gasoline equipment, even some electric and propane powered equipment and vehicles,.
I have operated and repaired them all.
I prefer 4 stroke gasoline power for every engine I own with the possible exception of my chainsaw
.
Every type has its place of course, its just that cars and light trucks are no place for diesel engines.
I love those little 3cyl diesels for light plants , small generators or even lawn mowers.

I love the 4cyl Perkins engines in backhoes and light equipment... maybe a small one in an old strictly off-road rock climbing little truck or jeep?

I see what you are saying. Would be nice to see some more variety as far as engine choice.

 

[winmag4582001]

Ancient indirect ignition diesels, sure. Modern high pressure computer controlled direct injection engines are not the same thing. Are they impossible to work on? Of course not. Are they dramatically simpler than modern gas engine? Not really. But the real question is whether real US customers want simple, classic 100hp engines in their brand new midsize trucks? Also not really.

I somewhat agree. 95% of American men that call themselves "mechanics", I wouldn't let touch my lawnmower. That number goes up to 98% when talking about dealerships.
Americans have been brainwashed into thinking diesel is difficult the same way they've been brainwashed into thinking covid only spreads at private businesses and not WalMart.

I still say having a diesel option would be nice.

Sponsored