Why no diesel Ranger in the US?

[SILK]

Haha no worries. Here's a link for the end-all-be-all capability stats that Ford releases:

https://www.ford.com/cmslibs/conten...neral/pdf/guides/20Towing_Ford_F150_Oct15.pdf

One thing I will point out though, is that the diesel doesn't tow less than the Ecoboost because of the actual limitations of the diesel. It's because Ford decided not to make it out-tow the Ecoboost. Ford's marketing team has to be able to convince their buyers that a turbo V6 is tough, so the headline stat needs Ecoboost in there.

The diesel has its advantages for some consumers for the F150, but definitely not in the same way as the powerstrokes in Superduties.

This was kind of the entire intent behind my post. I seriously looked at the GM twins with the Duramax, but I just liked the Ranger better. The math isn't there in this segment. So while diversity in a product lineup is good for the consumer, there's an element of diminishing returns for the manufacturer. That return would likely be in the red for Ford when all costs were added up. I can definitely understand their unwillingness to toss the 3.0 in this truck. And if you've gotta have a diesel midsize pickup, GM would like to speak with you. Did the Frontier w/ the Cummins ever come out?

Sponsored

 

[VAMike]

One thing I will point out though, is that the diesel doesn't tow less than the Ecoboost because of the actual limitations of the diesel. It's because Ford decided not to make it out-tow the Ecoboost. Ford's marketing team has to be able to convince their buyers that a turbo V6 is tough, so the headline stat needs Ecoboost in there.

Or, they didn't want to spend even more money on more configurations that they weren't going to sell enough of to recoup the investment.

 

[doug910]

Or, they didn't want to spend even more money on more configurations that they weren't going to sell enough of to recoup the investment.

I'm sure that was a reason/factor as well. The bottom line is that the diesel was stunted on purpose by management, not a result of the physical limitations of the engine/truck.

 

[doug910]

This was kind of the entire intent behind my post. I seriously looked at the GM twins with the Duramax, but I just liked the Ranger better. The math isn't there in this segment. So while diversity in a product lineup is good for the consumer, there's an element of diminishing returns for the manufacturer. That return would likely be in the red for Ford when all costs were added up. I can definitely understand their unwillingness to toss the 3.0 in this truck. And if you've gotta have a diesel midsize pickup, GM would like to speak with you. Did the Frontier w/ the Cummins ever come out?

Not that I've seen yet. I don't think the new Frontier has been released yet, but seeing a Cummins would be cool in a Frontier.

 

[VAMike]

I'm sure that was a reason/factor as well. The bottom line is that the diesel was stunted on purpose by management, not a result of the physical limitations of the engine/truck.

But not really. Everything is a balance of factors, money being one of them. To argue that a fanciful version of the diesel f150 could tow more requires acknowledging that a fanciful gas version of the f150 could also tow more. There wasn't a business case to build either. So don't call the diesel version "stunted" unless you call every vehicle "stunted" because they all are a series of compromises.

 

[Whodeez]

Not that I've seen yet. I don't think the new Frontier has been released yet, but seeing a Cummins would be cool in a Frontier.

I thought they stopped with the cummins Titan, why would they then put one in the Frontier?

 

[SILK]

I thought they stopped with the cummins Titan, why would they then put one in the Frontier?

There was a full plan to put a mini-Cummins into the Frontier. If it wasn't ever put in there, it was damn close. They built a project truck with the diesel in it. It's not some myth.
https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/future-concept/frontier-diesel-runner-mid-size-pickup-truck.html

 

[doug910]

But not really. Everything is a balance of factors, money being one of them. To argue that a fanciful version of the diesel f150 could tow more requires acknowledging that a fanciful gas version of the f150 could also tow more. There wasn't a business case to build either. So don't call the diesel version "stunted" unless you call every vehicle "stunted" because they all are a series of compromises.

Sure, everything is a compromise and more could be done with more money. But I think you're underestimating the amount of money and effort Ford puts into Ecoboost over the 3.0 diesel. They're definitely playing favorites.

 

[VAMike]

Sure, everything is a compromise and more could be done with more money. But I think you're underestimating the amount of money and effort Ford puts into Ecoboost over the 3.0 diesel. They're definitely playing favorites.

If that was the case, then you could just overload your f150 diesel and everything would work fine, right? I suspect that isn't the case. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. I mean, of course they spend more effort on the gas f150, they sell tremendously more of them--it would be crazy to spend the same amount of money on something that has a 5% take rate and something that is like 60% of the trucks they sell (various v6 gas, I don't know the exact breakdown). Diesel fans have always been convinced that if the manufacturers just built what they want it would sell like hotcakes, but I suspect if the manufacturers had any inkling that were true they'd just build that thing and not leave money on the table. It's probably just the case that they won't sell in massive quantities in the US market because of a whole lot of things the manufacturers don't control.

 

[ch47dmechanic]

If that was the case, then you could just overload your f150 diesel and everything would work fine, right? I suspect that isn't the case. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. I mean, of course they spend more effort on the gas f150, they sell tremendously more of them--it would be crazy to spend the same amount of money on something that has a 5% take rate and something that is like 60% of the trucks they sell (various v6 gas, I don't know the exact breakdown). Diesel fans have always been convinced that if the manufacturers just built what they want it would sell like hotcakes, but I suspect if the manufacturers had any inkling that were true they'd just build that thing and not leave money on the table. It's probably just the case that they won't sell in massive quantities in the US market because of a whole lot of things the manufacturers don't control.

Yep. Maybe people don't know this, but manufacturers really do spend a lot of time with focus groups and study what their core market truly wants and would be willing to pay for. It's therefore no surprise at all that they won't shoehorn a V8 into the Ranger, nor offer the 3.5TT and probably even the 2.7TT or a N.A.-market diesel option. It'd cut too far into F-150 sales and wouldn't have the ROI numbers they'd need in order to invest in such options.

 

[Sandman Ranger]

The Ranger has been on the market for a while in Europe and Central/South America, available with a turbo diesel. Why not in the US? Why does the US never get the powerful and economical diesels? Last year in England I rented a BMW 5 series sport with a turbo diesel. It was a rocket ship that got almost 48mpg. Subaru sells a badass diesel Forester in other countries that has more torque and twice the mileage of the US version of the gas motor.
Did Chevy and Buick's sad attempt at diesels in the 80's or Ford's 6.0 leave that bad of taste in the US consumer's mouth?

Thank VW.

 

[Cmar]

Sadly GM's attempts to build a consumer diesel in the early 80's seemed to consist of little more than sticking a couple of high compression heads on a V8 big block, stuffing an injector into the spark plug holes, and a rotary injector pump down the distributor one. Voila - a diesel engine!

Mazda got away with that one with their little 2.0 litre FE3 based diesel engine, but the petrol engine it derived from, was already a sturdy bit of kit to begin with, designed for turbocharging.

GM's attempt didn't seem to be so successful. People here imported them and transplanted them into Cruisers and Nissan Patrols, but they were heavy, slow, thirsty, and unreliable, with a nasty tendency to crack pistons, heads, and blocks if pushed hard. They did sound good though.

Sponsored