| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Ford dialing back F-150 V8 production due to dwindling demand |
| 2019-05-08 |
| [autoblog] It seems like yesterday that diehard pickup truck lovers and enthusiasts were detesting the arrival of slightly more fuel-efficient force-fed six-cylinder engines as a replacement for gas-guzzling V8s. But now they've seen the light, at least with Ford F-Series trucks. The Dearborn automaker is reportedly dialing back production of its 5.0-liter V8 due to dwindling demand as buyers are opting more for the EcoBoost V6 engines. Automotive News Canada spoke with Ford Canada's spokesman Matthew Drennan-Scace and John D'Agnolo, president of Unifor Local 200, which represents workers at Ford's Windsor Engine Plant in Canada. "We've had down shifts every week since January, and we have two down weeks in the summer, and two more down weeks scheduled in September," D'Agnolo said. "We could see that sales of the 5.0-liter were dropping." "All employees affected by the shift reduction will have the opportunity to move to Windsor Engine Plant Annex to support 7.3-liter engine production," Drennan-Scace told Automotive News Canada in an email. Buyers of the F-Series trucks have the option to equip a base naturally-aspirated 3.3-liter Cyclone V6, while stepping up moves to the turbocharged six-cylinder EcoBoost engines in 2.7- and 3.5-liter form. The eight-cylinder option is Ford's venerable Coyote 5.0-liter V8, which is also found in the Mustang, but in a different state of tune. There are Powerstroke diesel options available as well. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #10 There's also the fact that the V8 will add 2 grand to the price. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2019-05-08 18:00 |
| #9 Having spent my hot rod days running turbos and superchargers, I won't use one in my personal vehicles. I've seen a jillion ways for them to break. Just bought (in March) an F150 Coyote. The mileage benefit of the 6 would've been about 2mpg. I'm currently averaging ~19 mpg on the street in Houston. And it's got no problem moving an 8k lb trailer. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2019-05-08 17:58 |
| #8 how does this affect towing captaincy? |
| Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2019-05-08 17:31 |
| #7 Obviously turbo's make them run hotter. I wonder about engine life. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-05-08 17:25 |
| #6 I have the 3.5 T Eco boost in a Lincoln MKS...rated at 368 hp and i get ~22.5 mpg. The next gen is a 3.0 turbo at 400 hp. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2019-05-08 16:53 |
| #5 After totaling my Avalanche, I bought an F-150 and love it. After test driving the 5.0 V-8 and the 3.6 Turbo V-6 my decision was easy: the Turbo had better initial response and acceleration through the curve. On paper the Turbo has more HP and more torque, and in practice gets great gas mileage. I am still wistful for my '91 3/4 ton Suburban 454 cu in with fuel injection. Caught up with an offensive Camaro once on the Houston loop. |
| Posted by: brujotejano 2019-05-08 14:40 |
| #4 Depends... I buy light trucks because crawling in and out of subcompacts is a pain without help from the Jaws of Lifeâ„¢. There is a market for people like me that miss the old steel battlewagons that used to be made before the CAFE Standards started downsizing everything. |
| Posted by: magpie 2019-05-08 12:43 |
| #3 Replacing a V-8 with a turbo-charged 6 makes a lot of sense - power when needed with better gas mileage. I suspect sales numbers are still good. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2019-05-08 10:06 |
| #2 Oh. Canada. |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2019-05-08 09:40 |
| #1 Flooding the market could result in price reductions. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2019-05-08 07:07 |