No SVT Lightning!!!

[tylers65]

From the Car Connection news letter...

Ford Lightning Won't Strike Again

Those patient supertruck fans awaiting a new Ford F-150 Lightning will be upset to learn that Ford has killed plans for a new Lightning based on the new F-150. According to reports from Orlando Sentinel auto writer Steven Cole Smith, Ford is halting work on a new Lightning because the cost of developing the new vehicle was prohibitive. A Ford spokesman said that the vehicle had been "postponed" but that any revival would take until at least 2008. Without the Lightning and with the demise of the SVT Focus, the performance brand will be left with no vehicles to sell in 2005 and with just one for the 2006 model year - an SVT Mustang Cobra.

 

[tylers65]

From Auto Week...

Lightning Struck: Ford decides to shelve SVT Lightning pickup
STEVEN COLE SMITH
Posted Date: 10/20/04
Ford has pulled the plug on the next-generation F-150 Lightning SVT pickup truck, instead putting all SVT's eggs into one basket - the SVT Cobra Mustang, due in 2006 as an '07 model.

"It's a business decision," said Alan Hall, SVT spokesman. The official line is that the Lightning has been "postponed," and not killed, but if it is revived, it will be 2008 or later before we see one. SVT has gone from three vehicles in 2004 - the Lightning, the Cobra Mustang and the SVT Focus - to none in 2005.

Ford had already shown a concept version of the next-generation Lightning in 2003. The concept had a supercharged V-8 engine with more than 500 horsepower, in answer to the Dodge Ram SRT-10, which eclipsed the Lightning as the world's fastest production pickup in a test last winter. Ford was eager to regain the crown, but has decided to deed the performance pickup-truck market over to Dodge and its 500-horse SRT-10, and to a lesser extent, Chevrolet, though the heavy all-wheel-drive Silverado SS is not in the same category.

The Lightning debuted in 1993, with a 240-horsepower version of Ford's 5.8-liter V-8. Cobby and not that attractive, it was only a mild success, and was dropped in 1995. The F-150's redesign led to a handsome new Lightning for 1999, featuring a 360-horsepower supercharged 5.4-liter V-8. A handful of 2004 Lightnings, not much changed from that 1999 model except for a horsepower bump to 380, remain on dealer lots. Base price: $33,560.

Apparently, cost played a leading role in the decision, as the expense involved in developing and certifying a proper V8, and massaging the new-for-2004 F-150's chassis, was deemed prohibitive. Also, the next-generation Lightning's fuel mileage would likely continue to detract from Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy totals: The current Lightning is rated at 12 mpg city, 16 mpg highway.

Even so, this news will not be popular with Lightning loyalists, such as Mike Philpot of Heathrow, Florida, who paid full sticker price for his Lightning in July, 1999. "My '99 Lightning has been a fantastic vehicle," he says. "It has about 54,000 miles on it, and it runs better than new. Never any problems. I bought an extended warranty from Ford, but I could have saved myself the money. It has it all: good looks, comfort, good handling and, of course, all that incredible power. Hardly a day goes by without at least one positive comment on it from someone.

"Hopefully, Ford will change its mind. If they want to keep the F-150 the most popular truck in the world with all the competition that it has now, they had better continue with their halo vehicle."

 

[VOORHEES]

Sounds like for is starting the SVT program back at square one, just like 1993. Cobra for a couple of years, then the Lightning returns. Which I think it will. I'm kinda glad though because I was gonna have a tough time picking the Cobra over the Lightning.

 

[tylers65]

Just remember, SVT did not start with ONLY the Cobra. 1993 had both the Cobra and the Lightning.

But I do see your point. I think that with the cost of developing the Ford GT then the Cobra, SVT ran out of money. After that kick ass Lightning concept and the Shelby twins, it has emptied SVT's pocket book and now they have no money to play with.

'tis a shame...

 

[mustang50v8]

Just remember, SVT did not start with ONLY the Cobra. 1993 had both the Cobra and the Lightning.

But I do see your point. I think that with the cost of developing the Ford GT then the Cobra, SVT ran out of money. After that kick ass Lightning concept and the Shelby twins, it has emptied SVT's pocket book and now they have no money to play with.

'tis a shame...

yes but this could me a bigger more kick ass cobra when it does come out

 

['03 6-Speed]

I completely disagree with this decision. Yes, Ford did spend bookoos of cash on the GT, but look at how much Ford stands to make with the Mustang...the revenue from all the new Mustangs should be WAY more than enough to keep the SVT Lightning project going. Ford already had a very good suspension, chassis, and motor design, what more would the need to research?

 

[RICKS]

I'm sad and glad all at the same time. Sad to see it leave the market, GLAD, because now I don't have to worry about coming up with the dough to replace my current silver '00 Lightning with a brand-new one any too soon!!!! Now I can just keep my '00, be content and happy with it, and keep my money. Thanks Ford! Thanks for not dangling that temptation in front of me until 2008 at least.

 

[tylers65]

[QUOTE='03 6-Speed]I completely disagree with this decision. Yes, Ford did spend bookoos of cash on the GT, but look at how much Ford stands to make with the Mustang...the revenue from all the new Mustangs should be WAY more than enough to keep the SVT Lightning project going. Ford already had a very good suspension, chassis, and motor design, what more would the need to research?[/QUOTE]

If you read the article carefully, your question is answered.

Ford has come under serious attack lately for their low EPA ratings on an average. Every time they introduce a car, the EPA rating is calculated into said average.

Scenario...

Ford has (for ease of discussion) 10 cars/drivetrain combinations.

Car 1 = 25 MPG
Car 2 = 19 MPG
Car 3 = 28 MPG
Car 4 = 16 MPG
Car 5 = 31 MPG
Car 6 = 20 MPG
Car 7 = 24 MPG
Car 8 = 22 MPG
Car 9 = 18 MPG
Car 10 = 26 MPG

This gives an average of 22.9 MPG

If you add one mre vehicle that gets 15 MPG it brings that average 22.1 MPG.

Now, If the industry average is 24, Ford would not be too far behind as it stands. If the Government requires an average EPA of 23, Ford could more than likely get away with 22.9 as it is soo close to the 23 that the Government requires. But by adding this vehicle would drag the average down nearly an entire point, the government and environmentalists would not take to kindly to them.

Now, this was adding one car that gets low fuel economy, we have yet to introduce to the equasion what having 2 high performance vehicles would do to this average.

If Ford adds the new 6.1L Hemi fighter to the line up, along with the SVT Cobra, any Mustang LE (Shelby or other), a Lightning, and a V8 to the Five Hundred, the EPA rating will tank down so far that the government will indeed go after Ford and the environmentalists would be carrying torches to Dearborn like an angry mob.

As Mustang50v8 said, all we can hope for is a better, badder SVT Cobra.

 

[new22003]

I thought CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) was not figured on trucks and cars combines? Trucks have a different standard.

 

[RICKS]

How can you do math like that without factoring production numbers? By your formula, if Ford builds 1,000 15 mpg GT's (the $150K GT) and 200,000 30 mpg Focuses, you would call their industry average 22.5 mpg. Is that truly how they do that? I wouldn't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I would think that 6,000-8,000 Lightning trucks per year wouldn't hardly budge the overall Ford mileage average hardly at all, due to the extremely low production. Each car in your 10 car list should be weighted by production totals.

 

[RICKS]

Oh, and I forgot....Unless the rules have changed, trucks are TOTALLY immune to these government average requirements. That's why the government has been scrambling to change the rules, because full-sized SUV's and trucks fall outside of the regulations. Unless that's changed, and I'm in the dark and stupid (could be).

 

[tylers65]

How can you do math like that without factoring production numbers? By your formula, if Ford builds 1,000 15 mpg GT's (the $150K GT) and 200,000 30 mpg Focuses, you would call their industry average 22.5 mpg. Is that truly how they do that? I wouldn't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I would think that 6,000-8,000 Lightning trucks per year wouldn't hardly budge the overall Ford mileage average hardly at all, due to the extremely low production. Each car in your 10 car list should be weighted by production totals.

I am not sure if they use total production numbers or not. But, if you want to know what the average based off of production number is, feel free to waste the rest of you day doing all of the math and figures.

I simply have tried to shed a little light on a subject to help others better understand the reasoning used by FoMoCo regarding the production and introduction of additional higher performance vehicle.

Production numbers asside from my above averages, we still have to take into account that fact that I used the Lightning as an example. But I also showed that the Lightning is not the only high performance vehicle that is slated to production.

The 6.1L is slated for production in trucks Particularly the F-150 to compete with Dodge. Do you think Ford will only sell 10,000 of these?

SVT is also at work on the Fusion (Formerly the Futura) as a high performance vehicle. Add another 6000 to your production equasion.

The 2005 Mustang is going to sell big in its first 2 years of production. The highest number of orders to date are fot the GT varient. Add another 100,000 to you production numbers for High Performance vehicle

Shelby is indeed in bed with Ford and has his eyes on re-hashing the Shelby SUV. Look for a S/C'd 5.4 in an Explorer. Add 2500 more 15 MPG vehicles to you production list.

Shelby has his eyes on the Focus, the Mustang and the Fusion as well.

The Five Hundred is slated to come out with a V8 to compete with the 300C

Then we add the 2007 Cobra, the 2008??? Lightning, the Shelby Roadster/Dayton looking thing to replace the Ford GT (V-10 Powered and higher volumes than the Ford GT). IMHO this will sell better than the Viper as far as production is concerned. They will be priced similar and have the Shelby name plastered all over them.

I guess what I am trying to say is this...

Production numbers mean little. Because you are going to have to figure out how many F-150's were sold with 4.6L or 5.4L. How many Mustangs sell with V6 or V8 power. How many rangers were sold with a 4 banger or a V6. Etc, Etc, Etc.

There simply is not enough time in my day to put all of this together to pacify your request.

I belive that keeping it a little more simplistic will get the same point accross without wasting half of my natural life.

 

[tylers65]

Oh, and I forgot....Unless the rules have changed, trucks are TOTALLY immune to these government average requirements. That's why the government has been scrambling to change the rules, because full-sized SUV's and trucks fall outside of the regulations. Unless that's changed, and I'm in the dark and stupid (could be).

Read the article again...

particularly this line

"Also, the next-generation Lightning's fuel mileage would likely continue to detract from Ford's Corporate Average Fuel Economy totals: The current Lightning is rated at 12 mpg city, 16 mpg highway."

 

[tylers65]

From the NHTSA website regarding CAFE standards for Light Trucks...

Light truck fuel economy requirements were first established for MY 1979 (17.2 mpg for 2-wheel drive models; 15.8 mpg for 4-wheel drive). Standards for MY 1979 light trucks were established for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. Standards for MY 1980 and beyond are for light trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. The light truck standard progressively increased from MY 1979 to 20.7 mpg and 19.1 mpg, respectively, by MY 1991. From MY 1982 through 1991, manufacturers were allowed to comply by either combining 2- and 4-wheel drive fleets or calculating their fuel economy separately. In MY 1992, the 2- and 4-wheel drive fleet distinction was eliminated, and fleets were required to meet a standard of 20.2 mpg. The standard progressively increased until 1996, when the Appropriations prohibition froze the requirement at 20.7 mpg. The freeze was lifted by Congress on December 18, 2001. On March 31, 2003, NHTSA issued new light truck standards, setting a standard of 21.0 mpg for MY 2005, 21.6 mpg for MY 2006, and 22.2 mpg for MY 2007.

EDIT to add content...

Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans.

A study prepared for the Department of Energy, in February 2002, by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that 521,000 trucks with GVWR from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs were sold in calendar year 1999. The vast majority (82%) of these trucks are pickups and a significant number (24%) were diesel. At the end of 1999, there were 5.8 million of these trucks on the road accounting for 8% of the annual miles driven by light trucks, and 9% of light truck fuel use.

 

[tylers65]

And Finally...

How is a manufacturer’s CAFE determined for a given model year?

A manufacturer’s CAFE is the fleet wide average fuel economy. Separate CAFE calculations are made for up to three potential fleets: domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars and light trucks. The averaging method used is referred to as a “harmonic mean”. The regulatory language describes the calculation as: “the number of passenger automobiles manufactured by the manufacturer in a model year; divided by the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the number of passenger automobiles of each model manufactured by the manufacturer in that model year by the fuel economy measured for that model.” The numerical example below illustrates the process. Assume that a hypothetical manufacturer produces four light truck models in 2004, where MPG means miles per gallon and GVWR means gross vehicle weight rating measured in lbs:

Model MPG GVWR Production Volume
Vehicle A 22 3000 130,000
Vehicle B 20 3500 120,000
Vehicle C 16 4000 100,000
Vehicle D 10 8900 40,000

Because the Vehicle D exceeds 8,500 GVWR, it is excluded from the calculation. Therefore, the manufacturer’s light truck CAFE is calculated as:

View attachment 521471
=Average Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy

View attachment 521472

The 2004 model year light truck CAFE standard is 20.7 mpg therefore the manufacturer is not in compliance.

 

[tylers65]

And you might ask the details about the current lightning

Bore 3.54
Compression 8.4
Cylinders 8
Displacement CC 5410
Engine Name 5.4L V8
Fuel Capacity 25.0
Fuel System SEFI
Fuel Type Gas
GVWR 6050
Horsepower 380
MPG - City 13
MPG - Highway 16
Payload 1400
Stroke 4.16
Torque Feet Per Pound 450
Towing Capacity 5000
Valve Configuration SOHC
Valves 16

And the new body style weighs in at...

GVWR 6650

EPA rating on the Ford GT (this should be a good comparison because the Lightning was slated to get the DOHC S/C'd engine but mildly de-tuned. Factoring in the de-tune and the added weight, this number should remain nearly the same...)

Highest EPA that I could find for this power train was 12 MPG....

Not good.

 

[Z28x]

RIP lightning

I really liked the concept from 2003, If that came out summer '03 I would have bought it over a Cobra, GTO, or Camaro SS. That truck was hot.

Sucks that the Cobra and Lightnings lives ended before the '05 SSR & GTO got the 400HP LS2, those would have been some good auto mag articles

 

[RICKS]

feel free to waste the rest of you day doing all of the math and figures.

LOL!! Why? When you're wasting your afternoon doing it for me?? I'm just kidding, I was just making the point that production #'s are a major factor, and that I didn't think "big picture" that a Lightning model would make much of a blip in those averages. Wasn't trying to be confrontational, just asking a simple question. Obviously I WAS in the dark and stupid regarding most of this, but after a quick scan over all of that detailed info you posted, I think I'll just take the "ignorance is bliss" route and leave it to the manufacturers to sort through all that beaurocratic red tape crap .

 

[RICKS]

A current Lightning with a chip & filter will run fender-to-fender with an SRT-10 anyhow, if not nudge it. Would have been nice to have the new truck available, with all the new styling refinement and interior, but I guess that's that.

 

[351CJ]

Makes me wonder if the delay to 2008 is for the new 6.2L Hurricane V8.