Ford Shipping 144,000 Trucks

[GrandpaD]

DETROIT, April 11 (Reuters) - Ford said Thursday it will begin shipping to North American dealers 144,000 of its redesigned F-150 and Ranger pickup trucks that it built but held back until now in an effort to head off quality problems.

Ford said it also is restarting shipments of F-150 Lightning electric trucks which it had halted in February.

The wave of large F-150s, Ford's best-selling model, and mid-size Ranger trucks will be critical for Ford to hit its 2024 pre-tax profit target of $10 billion to $12 billion. The automaker reaffirmed that target last month.

The delay in sending the trucks to dealers could hit the automaker's first quarter numbers due April 24.

Ford Chief Financial Officer John Lawler told investors last month the company had 60,000 F-150s in stock it expected to ship in the current quarter.

The automaker first tried a go-slow approach to vehicle launches last year at its Kentucky Truck complex that builds Super Duty pickups and Navigator large SUVs. Ford paid out nearly $4.8 billion to cover warranty repairs in 2023, according to its annual report.

In the case of the redesigned F-150s, Ford engineers analyzing data from trucks held in stock discovered that certain electronic components did not shut off, or were using more power than expected, Ford said. "Engineers updated the problematic software before any trucks left the plant," the company said in a statement. (Reporting By Joe White, Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Sponsored

 

[HammaMan]

In the case of the redesigned F-150s, Ford engineers analyzing data from trucks held in stock discovered that certain electronic components did not shut off, or were using more power than expected, Ford said. "Engineers updated the problematic software before any trucks left the plant," the company said in a statement. (Reporting By Joe White, Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Could you imagine FDRS'n 140k vehicles, after jumping them of course because the modules ate the batteries. Couldn't imagine the fun involved with that.

Don't worry 2024 buyers, the battery was only completely run dead once and it totally doesn't create battery issues down the line.

 

[elesthree]

They identified a problem where some components didn't turn off... the same components in the 2023 that did turn off...

Great, so 2024s will be running a beta software, and the customers will be the guinea pigs.

Really makes me want to buy the truck that I have waited 6 months for SO FAR!

 

[elesthree]

Thanks for the article Gramps!

 

[Buyer2021]

That's quite a backlog for the train / truck transporters to work through.

 

[Cooter]

Well, that should flood the market a little. I just bought my 2023 in march of 2024 and the dealer had about 80 2023's on hand.

Yikes Dog.

 

[gh8toes]

Ford is celebrating the ramp up of shipments for its lineup of new model year pickup trucks. Too little too late. Will Ford be releasing 60,000 lemons into the wild...?

See article:
Ford spotlights a new lineup of popular trucks

 

[wessermgm]

And if your truck just got built, it is being released at the same time as all of these. Expect significant shipping delays for the next 3 months.

 

[B-real]

Ford is celebrating the ramp up of shipments for its lineup of new model year pickup trucks. Too little too late. Will Ford be releasing 60,000 lemons into the wild...?

See article:
Ford spotlights a new lineup of popular trucks

Ford celebrating FINALLY shipping 24MY trucks is comical. They should start shipping a new MY the fall BEFORE that year.

Meanwhile, Ram will start shipping 25MY 1500s in less than 60 days.

 

[HammaMan]

Meanwhile, Ram will start shipping 25MY 1500s in less than 60 days.

Which is pretty crazy considering they've got nearly a year worth of inventory on lots. Ford has loads of 23 inventory too.

 

[Snakebitten]

Yeah. I changed my mind now.

I'm not going to buy the Ford that I special ordered and waited for.

I'm going to go get me a 25 Ram.

(something that Ford is banking on someone like me not doing. And I gotta admit they know me pretty well) ?

 

[B-real]

Yeah. I changed my mind now.

I'm not going to buy the Ford that I special ordered and waited for.

I'm going to go get me a 25 Ram.

(something that Ford is banking on someone like me not doing. And I gotta admit they know me pretty well) ?

Personally I prefer the interior (especially screen and camera clarity) of the Ram, but the engines and exterior of the Ford. Have a few 25 Ram 1500s that will be delivered in June with the 3.5 TT Hurricane engines so excited to see how those are. Havent heard anything bad about them in the Grand Wagoneers.

 

[SingleSpeed427]

I will concur.. the amount of trains with semi-enclosed rail cars full of F150s moving behind my house (across a park and up a hill) the past week and a half is quite noticeable!

 

[HammaMan]

Have a few 25 Ram 1500s that will be delivered in June with the 3.0 TT Hurricane engines so excited to see how those are. Havent heard anything bad about them in the Grand Wagoneers.

Yet
I'm very skeptical about the claims around those motors especially given the power/boost and longevity. I'm sure they've followed the evolution of the ecoboosts and the issues that have popped up, but new high output motors like that are pretty much guaranteed to have issues pop up. Furthermore the specs seem off for the HO unless they're torque limiting them. (side note: they use 5k psi for fuel pressure vs the 3,500psi the 3.5s -- for gasoline, is the higher pressure diminishing returns?)

420hp/470tq lines up (mostly), but 540hp/520tq for the HO version is off (HO runs forged pistons and reduces the compression ratio of 10.4 down to 9.5).
The 3.5 EB does 400/500tq stock. Tuned it jumps to 540/650tq. Are the 3.0's turbos not able to build enough boost down low -- given it being i6, I'm surprised they didn't use single turbo twin scroll. I'm guessing that they've built the motor to flow up top better / use much shorter intake runners, or they're using engine management to keep the torque out to save the trans. Given they're keeping the 8HP75 trans, and I'm assuming the 75 means 750nm of torque, or 550ftlbs, maybe that's the answer? (though the 3.5 including in the GT magically plateaus at a 550ftlbs rated)

Dunno, just a little skeptical about it being ready for primetime longhaul, and doing so without issue. Rather surprised they went with air/water intercooler though and not air/air. Given intake on one side and turbos on the other w/ straight 6, would have been easy to pipe it. Looks like it's worthy competition. Curious what GM is going to do -- their pushrod V8s have pretty much run their course.

 

[JExpedition07]

Yet
I'm very skeptical about the claims around those motors especially given the power/boost and longevity. I'm sure they've followed the evolution of the ecoboosts and the issues that have popped up, but new high output motors like that are pretty much guaranteed to have issues pop up. Furthermore the specs seem off for the HO unless they're torque limiting them. (side note: they use 5k psi for fuel pressure vs the 3,500psi the 3.5s -- for gasoline, is the higher pressure diminishing returns?)

420hp/470tq lines up (mostly), but 540hp/520tq for the HO version is off (HO runs forged pistons and reduces the compression ratio of 10.4 down to 9.5).
The 3.5 EB does 400/500tq stock. Tuned it jumps to 540/650tq. Are the 3.0's turbos not able to build enough boost down low -- given it being i6, I'm surprised they didn't use single turbo twin scroll. I'm guessing that they've built the motor to flow up top better / use much shorter intake runners, or they're using engine management to keep the torque out to save the trans. Given they're keeping the 8HP75 trans, and I'm assuming the 75 means 750nm of torque, or 550ftlbs, maybe that's the answer? (though the 3.5 including in the GT magically plateaus at a 550ftlbs rated)

Dunno, just a little skeptical about it being ready for primetime longhaul, and doing so without issue. Rather surprised they went with air/water intercooler though and not air/air. Given intake on one side and turbos on the other w/ straight 6, would have been easy to pipe it. Looks like it's worthy competition. Curious what GM is going to do -- their pushrod V8s have pretty much run their course.

The 0-60 runs I’ve seen in the Wagoneer are disappointing at best. I believe Ram (as they typically do) are inflating the factory power numbers. Any typical 5.0, 6.2, or EcoBoost would stomp any of these 3.0s I’ve seen do runs in a straight line (granted not fair to the 3.0 as the Wagoneer is HEAVY). The 3.0 is also in a heavy chassis for the pickup too, albeit less extreme. MotorTrend says they got 4.7 seconds, NOBODY else in the real world has come close to that. Next closest is near 7 seconds in the Waganeer, and that was the HO. I called bullshit on the MotorTrend article the moment I read it, 500 HP doesn’t accelerate 6,300 pounds in sub 5 seconds on planet earth. Total bullshit, and they pretty obviously took Stellantis glazing money when publishing that article. Everyone flat out to the floor on their dragys gets like 7.1 seconds lmao.

The other issue is it’s still backed up by an archaic 8-speed transmission, peak #’s be damned.

Sponsored