Roush F-150 - dedicated OEM-level LPi, for sale late 2007

Propane, Butane, LPG, GPL, C3H8, C4H10
Post Reply
alehander
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:30 pm
Contact:

Roush F-150 - dedicated OEM-level LPi, for sale late 2007

Post by alehander » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:24 pm

Lenin zhil, Lenin zhiv, Lenin budet zhit'

Like this forum and want to help support it for free?
Please support this forum by giving us a commission on your next Amazon purchase.  It's easy and doesn't cost you a cent.  Just paste the following tag to the end of any Amazon link before you buy:
&tag=rasofuelsforum-20

For example, this link:
https://www.amazon.ca/Chevron-Delo-400-SDE-15W-40/dp/B078H595BN/ref=sr_1_9?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1520262720&sr=1-9&keywords=15W-40

Becomes this link:
https://www.amazon.ca/Chevron-Delo-400-SDE-15W-40/dp/B078H595BN/ref=sr_1_9?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1520262720&sr=1-9&keywords=15W-40&tag=rasofuelsforum-20

Greg J
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:03 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Post by Greg J » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:37 pm

Thanks for the link. It is good to see any manufacturer producing, or other company modifying from new, propane vehicles. The increased price of the truck by $5500 US is more than shocking! You would think that if they were planning on having even a small production run the price could be reduced by quite a bit. In my opinion I think it being a dedicated propane only truck will hurt it a lot. I know there are compromises to dual-fuel vehicles, but if the customer can't get propane at a convenient location and time it would hurt the sales in that area.

franz
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:57 pm
Location: Central Texas
Contact:

costs

Post by franz » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:07 pm

Before the sticker shock, there are considerable rebates being offered by different entities. In Texas, there is almost a full cost rebate making it a no cost upgrade. I think California and a few other states may have it too.

Franz

Albert
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: USA

Roush F-150

Post by Albert » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:18 pm

A good point was raised on whether this Platform should be Bifuel or MonoFuel (or maybe both?). Roush made an interesting choice.

Most, if not all, Aftermarket Conversions in Canada or the USA have a $5000 Plus installed price.

The Roush F-150 would have the support of Roush nationwide and is an OEM Vehicle with the full might of Roush Engineering behind it.

That Roush brings their Expertise, Experiance and Cache to the Propane vehicle Industry with an OEM Propane F-150 is an Excellent marker for the future of Propane Vehicles.

And let us keep in mind Energy Security and Environmental issues, as well as Government Incentives as Franz noted and Fleet Mandates.

Greg J
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:03 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Post by Greg J » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:49 pm

Even if government entities give rebates to the customer for the conversion, the $5000+ still costs everyone. It takes money away that could be used to help homeless people or improve health care. Proper automotive conversions do cost a lot which is too bad. (Most new vehicles are also overpriced when new but that could be a different discussion!) What I am trying to say, is for example, automotive propane tanks have not changed very much over the past 50 years except maybe for tanks that have a pump or liquid return system. I don't think the materials for a tank cost that much, yet some traditional tanks can cost around $1000 or more. Maybe some of the expense is liability insurance for the manufacturer. Is that what makes them cost so much? I understand some items such as electronics for the propane system can cost money to develop, but they have probably been around for ten years already. I just don't understand the $5500 for the production run conversion, which is the very high end that a conversion centre would charge for a one-off conversion on one vehicle. I thought that with a production run, the company could buy the components in quantity and have the conversion well planned after the first vehicle and be able to save greatly on costs.

sleepybu
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:22 am
Location: BC Canada

Post by sleepybu » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:53 am

part of the cost is the name "Roush"

Frank
Site Admin
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Stevensville, ON
Contact:

Post by Frank » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:23 pm

The liquid injection system on this truck was not a bolt-on modification. Very many hours of engineering time went into the development of this fuel system, which should work as well as or better than Ford's gasoline injection system. In the same way the price of an aftermarket intake manifold includes the cost of R&D as well as the cost of aluminum, the price of the Roush LPI system includes a significant amount of engineering in addition to the individual components.

As for the fairness of rebates for alternative fuel conversions, I think we need to look at the overall big picture. The US government subsidizes the cost of petroleum by defending its interests overseas. I suspect that the $5000 rebate is small potatoes compared with per capita cost of running its Middle East military operations. Please start a new thread in one of the General Information forums if you want to further debate this.

alehander
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by alehander » Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:12 pm

Oooh, an invitation to debate! I myself am a little confused by the choice of Roush in this case. I've not heard much about them but from what I understand they are a post-OEM "upfitter", bolting various bling goodies onto otherwise pedestrian vehicles.

Sooo, if you're trying to promote AFVs and bring an affordable propane truck to the masses, Roush in this case seems to be more name than game. The LPi system was developed by CleanFuel USA, as I recall. It is not a Roush product; they are simply performing the retrofit and signing on to do parts & maintenance... maybe. Ford dealers may instead have to pick up that torch.

As for government subsidies, I work for a County-level agency in California, an Air Pollution Control District. We routinely fund the cost differential between a base model and an alt-fuel one, as in the case of GM/Chevy CNG bi-fuel trucks and, more recently, hybrid transit buses.

The money comes from local (our County) DMV registration fees ($2-4) as well as large local development projects which pay into a pot to offset the emissions from their construction and/or operation activities. Is this a good way to spend the money? I think so. The bigger picture of govt subsidies for oil or alternatives to it would make a nice, firebreathing thread. Let's do it!

P.S. Someone mentioned energy security... My understanding is that LPG is derived during either crude- or CNG- refining. The US is a net importer of both, so where's the security in LPG?
Lenin zhil, Lenin zhiv, Lenin budet zhit'

franz
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:57 pm
Location: Central Texas
Contact:

Energy

Post by franz » Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:22 pm

The US exports almost as much processed LPG to Mexico and Canada as it imports in raw crude, so I am not sure how that works in terms of energy dependence. Even if all the vehicles that could be converted to propane were to be converted, there is not enough propane available to propel these vehicles.

Roughly 3% of a barrel of raw crude oil makes it way to LPG, and about 17% of propane makes its way to motorfuel use from total propane sold, the rest going to heating and recreational uses. Almost 90% of LPG is used for commercial uses, primarily propellant gases and industrial product base feedstock for other processes.

Note the difference between the words LPG and propane. Propane is an LPG, and LPG's include propane, propylene, N and I butane, and ethane.

Franz

Frank
Site Admin
Posts: 861
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Stevensville, ON
Contact:

Post by Frank » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:02 pm

I am not sure of the US Government's alternative fuel strategy. They may be trying to reduce the amount of LPG they export to Canada and Mexico to reduce foreign oil imports. I have started a thread entitled US Advanced Energy Initiative & Propane Vehicles to continue this discussion.

Albert
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:00 pm
Location: USA

Roush F-150

Post by Albert » Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:36 pm

Roush is an Engineering Group of World Class Expertise and Experiance as well as a Special Vehicle Platform Developer and Builder.

In addition they have the Pizazz of the Roush Racing Name and the Distribution network of a few hundred Dealers.

Bolting on bling is an unfair and incorrect statement.

sleepybu
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:22 am
Location: BC Canada

Post by sleepybu » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:40 am

Doesn't Roush Engineering do mostly high performance stuff :?

Imperial73
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:59 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Imperial73 » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:21 am

Also, I do not understand the issue regarding the price of the system. High quality LPG-injection V8-conversions cost in the range of 2500-4000 euro (approx $3250-5200) over here (depending on application, hardware, size of tank, etc). So 5000$ doesnt sound outrageous to me for a dedicated setup.

franz
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:57 pm
Location: Central Texas
Contact:

Prices

Post by franz » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:37 am

One thing to add is that due to the earlier Ford LPG vehicle situation (the less said about that the better) is an issue of credibility. Ford selected a premier upfitter with a top level reputation using a premier fuel system. The fuel system is fully emission certified (over $500,000 USD) and will be warranted by Ford. Roush added their packaging and installation refinements, something they have a good reputation for doing.

All of this costs money and Ford is trying to recoup their investment. When you use the best of the best, dont expect discount store parts and installation quality, and from what I've seen of the prototype, its top level all the way.

The days of the $1500 USD "toss the parts on and lets see if it runs" are long over with, and for good reason. The consumer wants totally transparent drivability and equal performance without any significant out of pocket expenses, with expectations of a cost recovery or payback over a vehicles lifetime.

Franz

alehander
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:30 pm
Contact:

Roush F-150 test drive

Post by alehander » Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:19 pm

I had a chance to drive the 2007 Roush F-150 LPi (Liquid Propane Injection) truck today.

This one had the 25-gal toroidal under-bed tank (with the spare in the bed). A 50-gal in-bed tank is available. The engine & intake are stock; the fuel rails and injectors are LPi-specific. The stock ECU is retained but re-programmed by Roush. Power was good, I could not verify economy. The starting is interesting - the key is rotated into the "crank" position, released... and the truck cranks and starts in 2-3 seconds. My guess is that the fuel system is being purged of liquid/vapor slurry in that time. It was 80F today and I did a good bit of idling in traffic with no adverse effects on starting or running.

The truck is ordered through Ford dealers via the usual process - you choose the chassis, bed and cab options, the truck is shipped to Roush sans fuel system and is up-fitted there, then sent to you. It does not require HD-5 and is dedicated LPG, not bi-fuel. The truck costs $6k more than the gasoline equivalent. It's stock in all respects other than the fuel system.

Image

Image

Image

Driver side fuel rail
Image

Driver side fuel rail
Image

Toroidal tank
Image

Toroidal tank
Image
Lenin zhil, Lenin zhiv, Lenin budet zhit'

Post Reply