Is Ford headed for financial trouble?

Up until the early 2000's when my kids were in their teens, the largest car we owned was a 2dr Rabbit, though we only had one dog. And we would routinely take long, as in 12hr long, trips camping, sometimes towing a pop up
 

I've read twice in the last two days people selling their cars, the reason was, needing an SUV because I have a baby now. Both cars would be considered full size cars 

In reply to Opti :

I didn't realize the turbo engines were the same as the NA V6. Or is only the block the same? 

Opti said:

In reply to yupididit :

I just mean compared to an NA motor, they have coolant and oil lines to the turbos, and the coolant fittings like to leak. They are not fun or cheap to replace.

Funny... my 1st gen 3.5 Ecoboost F-150 has been leaking exhaust lately, which seems to be coming from a warped turbo manifold.  It also loses a little bit of coolant and oil, so I took it to the dealer to see about just doing the manifolds and the oil and coolant lines.  They quoted $5k.  $5k!  This is a job I can easily do myself, I just didn't really feel like it.  Now that I'm properly motivated, I think I might just convert all the stupid pushlock lines to -AN lines and never worry about it again.  But despite all the fanfare around leaks on these motors, if you keep putting oil and coolant in it seems that they will run basically forever.

In reply to Mr. Peabody :

Then you know how big of a pain it'd be to put kids (or anything) in the back. Shoot I'd bet many modern child safety seats wouldn't even fit in the door opening of Rabbit with the front seats folded. 
SUVs and minivans make parenting life a little easier. Do you need them? No... but you'll take all the help you can get to make things easier with small kids. Kids also come with more gear than they did 30 years ago (for the same reason.) 

yupididit said:

In reply to Opti :

I didn't realize the turbo engines were the same as the NA V6. Or is only the block the same? 

They're not. 

In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :

I read that these are better than the OEM manifolds as far as not leaking.

Saron81 said:

yupididit said:

In reply to Opti :

I didn't realize the turbo engines were the same as the NA V6. Or is only the block the same? 

They're not. 

Then why is he relating the two? 

In reply to Saron81 :

No, I never considered it a pain 

In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :

Your people and dog are clearly smaller than my people and dog.  Or something.  Not sure.  My son is 8 and not a particularly large kid, I've been skiing all my life and have the gear we need down, we don't bring extraneous stuff.  The cargo area of the R was *stuffed* and that was with my clothes and my sons clothes sharing one gear bag.  While I could carry another person in the front seat, fitting their stuff would be a serious stretch.  Them and the dog?  No freaking way.

Put simply, the Land Cruiser makes my life significantly easier.  I don't like banging my head against the wall for the sake of it, I don't enjoy that.  The other vehicle I was considering was the new A6 allroad, it would've given me the space I needed without being an SUV.  However I'd lose a few benefits of the SUV, one being the ability to tow, carry my KTM on a hitch rack, the other being the tail gate (which I love for skiing and mtn biking) and lastly being able to 100% depreciate it in one year, which saves me a TON of money.  Then there's the fact that the Land Cruiser will hold its value leagues better than the A6 allroad.

The nail in the A6 allroads coffin is that I couldn't get one without ordering it.  My friend just got his and he ordered it 8-9 months ago.

In reply to yupididit :

They arent the same. I was referencing, their old truck motors 4.6&5.4 to their new truck motor, the 3.5 specifically. As in now the truck motor has turbos, which brings a bunch of extra lines and fitting which leak and are expensive, and a normal NA V8, like the 4.6 and 5.4 specifically dont have.

ShinnyGroove: Im with you. I can also do the job. I drive an 6th gen camaro, and Im not worried about valvetrain failure because Ill just put a cam in it, but we are enthusiasts and have a higher threshold for pain. These type of things are huge deals for most people. Thats just one of the relatively common problems that's expensive to repair.

I still think for most manufacturers peak reliability was about a decade or two ago.

In reply to Opti :

There is a 5.0l NA motor for the F150.  There used to be an NA 3.7, but I see that is gone, too.

(my editorial- it's nuts to me that there are so many engines in the portfolio.  Why does the F150 need a 2.7, 3.3, AND 3.5l turbo V6????  Stupid)

In reply to Opti :

Oh okay. I think reliability is a subjective term depending on the user. The 3.5 from my research and personal experience seems like a reliable platform to me. EVERYTHING has its issues, and almost anything done at the dealer will be expensive. And it's been that way forever. 

alfadriver said:

In reply to Opti :

There is a 5.0l NA motor for the F150.  There used to be an NA 3.7, but I see that is gone, too.

(my editorial- it's nuts to me that there are so many engines in the portfolio.  Why does the F150 need a 2.7, 3.3, AND 3.5l turbo V6????  Stupid)

Don't forget the 3.0 turbo diesel they had. 

In reply to alfadriver :

I kinda like the 5.0 and think its probably their most reliable engine right now, but its not their "premier" engine option, stuff like the expedition and raptor dont even offer it. Im pretty sure the general concensus is the Gen 3 coyote is a step back in terms of reliability over the Gen 2, things like the liners and ticking.

In reply to yupididit :

I never really counted that, but you are right.  

I also know that there's a 3.0l V6 turbo in the total family.  Not sure why there needed to be that fine of displacement granularity- especially since the engines are really different from each other- some are super clean, others are a real PITA to emissionize.   And the package space is really different- so much so that the bad engines can't be replaced by the good ones.

A decade and a half ago, we were supposed to be reducing the engine count, and instead it's expanded a LOT.  Massive waste of money and efficiency.

Opti said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I kinda like the 5.0 and think its probably their most reliable engine right now, but its not their "premier" engine option, stuff like the expedition and raptor dont even offer it. Im pretty sure the general concensus is the Gen 3 coyote is a step back in terms of reliability over the Gen 2, things like the liners and ticking.

It's only not the "premeir" engine because back in 2011, our customers shocked the world in choosing the turbo V6 is much higher numbers than expected.  I'm still kind of blown away by that.

In reply to alfadriver :

I was pretty surprised by that, and it was pretty apparent from the beginning, everyone loved the ecoboost. Im not a ford guy and I like them, I probably wouldnt own one, but I do like the way they drive and make power.

I think the most promising thing coming out of Ford right now is the 7.3, Ive been seeing some conversions from diesel guys, not DieselBros but people that use diesels for truck stuff.. Its interesting that when they wanted reliability and low running costs for fleets, the changed course and built a simple (in architecture) NA V8.

alfadriver said:

In reply to Opti :

There is a 5.0l NA motor for the F150.  There used to be an NA 3.7, but I see that is gone, too.

(my editorial- it's nuts to me that there are so many engines in the portfolio.  Why does the F150 need a 2.7, 3.3, AND 3.5l turbo V6????  Stupid)

The 3.3 is non-turbo isn't it?

So in the trucks it's NA 3.3V6 and 5.0V8, then 2.7T and 3.5T

The 3.0T was because Lincoln needed a unique offering I think. People were complaining about them just being fancy Fusions, so the thought was they needed to differentiate themselves with unique powerplants to better compete in the luxury segment.

In reply to STM317 :

What kills me is that the 3.0l it a totally different engine than either the 2.7 or 3.5.   And IMHO, the whole "Lincoln needs different" is kind of BS.  It sounds a lot like Jaguar in the late 90s, when it really didn't matter.  

But one is better than the other, and they can't be swapped due to package reasons.  Even if it ends up being $500 cheaper due to reasons.  

Honesly, the next 2.5 months could go faster.

In reply to Opti :

The thing behind the 7.3 isn't cost, but it makes power at low speeds.  Which is important for HD certification.  And because how it's made, it actually ends up getting a LOT better fuel economy than the smaller engine it replaces, since it can get away with almost no enrichment.  Fleet owners will really love that feature, as will motorhome drivers.

alfadriver said:

But one is better than the other, and they can't be swapped due to package reasons.  Even if it ends up being $500 cheaper due to reasons.  

As the owner of a 2.7 and 3.5 Ecoboost, and one who is kind of considering a 3.0 (Exploder ST), I'm curious to hear which ones you like best or worst?

As an aside, I'm digging this "I'm about to retire and don't give a E36 M3" version of you. 

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

For what people here notice, I don't think there's anything noticeable.  But we have new LEVIII rules that are rolling in now, and there's an ACC2 update coming in 3-5 years, so having one significantly cleaner than the other is a really big deal.  I'm not quite going to be specific, yet.  But soon enough.

Oddly enough, that also brings up another rant that actually dates back almost 20 years.  Back when the basic 3.5l Cyclone was one of the very easiest engines to make PZEV I've worked on- at least back then.  And yet there's still massive struggle to repeat that.  grrrrr.

In reply to alfadriver :

At least they are not concurrently making three 5.8l engines from three different families, three 7.0l engines from two different families...

docwyte said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :

Your people and dog are clearly smaller than my people and dog.  Or something.  Not sure.  My son is 8 and not a particularly large kid, I've been skiing all my life and have the gear we need down, we don't bring extraneous stuff.  The cargo area of the R was *stuffed* and that was with my clothes and my sons clothes sharing one gear bag.  While I could carry another person in the front seat, fitting their stuff would be a serious stretch.  Them and the dog?  No freaking 

People ranged from 7 to 52.  Three adults. 5'8", 5'10", and 6'.  52 lb Samoyed and 12lb mutt.  Only thre sets of ski gear though.  
Summer of 2020 we took five people, luggage and the 12lb dog from Michigan to Montana and back for two weeks in a MINI Clubman.  Actually two of us flew home so only three for the return trip.  Yes that was tight, but we put the bony ass tween in the middle for  that trip.
 

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

I guess one thing is consistent, history does repeat itself.