Referring to the front plate issue. There is NO Way for Ford to separate front ends on the assembly line for on-plate states. Any state by state issues are dealt with at the dealer. Ford makes the vehicles meet all 50 state laws. The opening isn't bad. The 2013 GT500 has 80% of it's front end gapped open for the intercooler.
I'm a little lost on the bed issue you're talking about. If you mean the painted bed showing through the wheel well, what do you expect? The beds are painted then assembled. They are not going to go back and shoot black in the wheel wells, nor do I expect them to. No other manufacture does it either.

 

I think he just wants it covered with the liner that he bought to put in there...at least that's what I got out of his rant.

 

Right. I understand how it's painted and assembled. Dearborn is one of dozens of assembly plants I've spent time in. My issue is that it's unsightly to leave it that way and that Ford should either black it out after the fact or cover it with a piece of black plastic. If they put it on even 50% of the trucks...say anything above an XL trim...the tool cost would be insignificant over that volume and those parts and the labor to put them on would be $30 tops.

I recognize I may find the exposed body color (its more heavy overspray actually) a bigger deal than most people but to my eye it just plain looks unfinished. It's not as bad as the big upside down part number label that is visible on the side of every GM pickup frame...but it's close.

 

I always love seeing that one.
I'm just going to get a can of flat black and hit the bed area one of these days. Yes, all black would be better, but it's small & easy enough where I can take care of it. I think Ford would get more flack raising the price $30 per truck to black it out rather than leaving it painted (oversprayed)

 

Why doesn't FORD have a diesel engine for the F150?

 

Cost and emissions.

 

To be more specific, cost to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.

The 4.4L V8 originally developed for the F150 won't show up in the F150 for the reasons glc mentioned. It's going in Land Rovers now.

Don't be surprised to see a 3.2L I5 diesel show up in the F150 in, say, 2-3 years. It's coming to the Transit, which will replace the E-Series, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the engine show up in the F150. It won't be able to tow a house, but it will get fuel economy numbers better than the 3.7L V6 with slightly more towing capacity.

 

Now that would be neat

 

Not only cost to reduce emissions, but cost of a diesel engine itself. It would put the cost of the truck too close to a F-250. Same reason in a way we don't have the new Ranger here - cost would be too close to a F-150.

 

True, but in reality, with all the emission scrubbing stuff, the 4.4L wouldn't be but maybe $1-1.5k more than the 6.2L. Remember, the 6.2L is a $3k option (or it was), so the diesel wouldn't be much more than that. However, the emissions equipment adds another $1.5-2k over the cost of just the diesel.

 

I don't really see where a 4.4 diesel would be a significantly better tow motor than the 6.2 or the EB gas motor.

The only reason the 6.2 is such an expensive option is CAFE - they need to discourage it. If anything, it costs less to actually build a 6.2 than a EB.

 

Agreed!

The only difference I could really see with the 4.4 is better fuel economy when towing. That is where the diesel really shines...fuel economy when loaded!

 

Wonder who enforces the "6%" rule.

One of the drivers for ATI loaded a 4x4 unit on the upper rear of his trailer, forgot to chain his load, and the unit ended up in the middle of Michigan Ave.

Anyhow, a week later the same unit was delivered to a dealership.

I shipped it out, myself.

I never, ever follow car-haulers too closely, cuz I know better.

 

It has similar numbers to the 7.3L (330hp/516tq) so I think it would be significant. Only question is would the rest of the truck handle it.

 

Actually, the question is whether that would be enough torque to pull this thread back on topic.