Mackintire

Probably not possible.... see here for a more detailed discussion http://w11.zetaboards.com/Motorsports_Mayhem/topic/8199296/1/

But you'll probably get a... 2019 Ranger Supercab, 4WD 2.3L Ecoboost, 6 speed auto, buckets, front facing, but flip up / Bench seat tow package, hard folding tonneau cover, reverse sensing system, power rear window.

As I understand it the 6.2 liter V8 is ending up a bit underwhelming when used in the F350 and larger trucks. This is part of the reason the retired V10 was brought back into service. My suggestion is based on: need, cost, inventory and serviceability. Make a taller stronger block based on the current coyote 5.0 and adjust the stroke as needed to gain the additional cubic inches. The current 5.0 heads meet the flow requirements and the 7000 RPM headway could be dropped some in exchange for the additional stroke. Peak power output should be approx 400HP with 460lbs of torque, but the widened power band would be optimized for HD truck applications. Common parts keeps the price low and you may find that you are able to improve parts that are applicable to both motors. The new motor should offer better fuel economy, significantly more area under the curve in regards to power, and be cost effective to produce.

2.7L Eco-boost Fusion SHO AWD might be the sweet spot.

You're sounding rather anti-ranger these days akiby. It's a little depressing. We all know how far hope and change can get us, but this is the rumor mill section of the forum, so please smoke a little with us as we hope and dream.

https://www.google.com/search?q=S5+wagon&client=opera&hs=lfV&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mdP0U8CXF5aryATI_4DgCw&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1064 https://www.google.com/search?q=S5+wagon&client=opera&hs=lfV&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mdP0U8CXF5aryATI_4DgCw&ved=0CCgQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1064#q=Mazda+3+wagon&tbm=isch

I know I will. SUVs are the new wagons, wagons currently don't have the cool factor. Well maybe the Madza 3 and the S5...

I disagree, Akirby. It's the same as the current midsize argurement, is 85% of a 1/2 ton truck enough. I sure know that if it's the difference between being able to own a truck or not, THAT will drive sales. If you work in the city, have a smaller garage, or forced to park inside due to a HOA. It also helps that full size trucks are becoming more capable and the entry price is continuing to climb. For some of us the difference between a full size and a midsize is a body covered in dents when you park in the city. I'll settle for what one considers to be required capabilities. For me it's hauling lumber, mulch, furniture, and being able to tow 4000lb loads comfortably. But an F150 is huge. I can fit it in my garage, but can't walk around it. There's no significant room around it in the smaller parking spots in the city garage, the total cost to own is higher, in a quad cab it costs $6-7k more than a midsize after discounts. If it was a work only truck I could write it off, but I'm not going to buy a SUV as a family vehicle only to trash the interior hauling stuff. The switched to other vehicles comment is amusing as well, as there are plenty of us that are holding onto our old rust buckets, purchased tacos or frontiers. 170,000+ in yearly sales for an outdated platform isn't too shabby.

A midsize truck or smaller will come back as soon as either: A. Fuel prices permanently appear to impact F150 sales B. The chicken tax goes away and Ford thinks it can improve its CAFE rating by biulding one or make a profit by building one. There has been some talk about creating another World Ranger in 2017 that is a little wider than the current one. That one might be made out of a Narrowed F150 frame and if designed that way would open up the doors for a smaller F100 in the US. Such a truck would be aluminum skinned and weight 500lbs-700lbs lighter than the 2015 F150 and leverage the 2.0 and 2.7 liter Eco-boost as the engines. Think 28-34 MPG midsize truck. I don't plan on waiting that long, my 2001 ranger is almost a flintstone vehicle. Assuming its not junk I 'll be driving a loaded Colorado in the spring.

The 6.2 liter or a slightly longer stroked variant (up to 6.6 liter) after DI has been introduced along with a transmissions with 8+ gears to back it up.

The Nano series Eco-boost engines should make that possible. I'd expect the 2.3 liter version (est. 275HP) to replace the 2.0 in the explorer and its Lincoln counterpart as the 2.0 is a little anemic in that vehicle.

A couple of interesting comments Ford has said in the past: They had considered developing a smaller truck based on the F150 platform. But was not able to figure a profitable business model for such a vehicle. This vehicle was still bigger than the T6. The T6 was too expensive to bring to the US. The T6's frame will be widened on the next major refresh, specifically the bed WILL be able to hold a standard size pallet after the next major refresh. To me, it looks like Fords may consider converging the F100? and the T6 projects at the next major refresh. 2016-2018?

The new Mazda 6 has no issues making it stated fuel economy numbers when driven normally, the new fusion in practice only makes them when driving very gently. Reviewers and owners unilaterally agree that this appears to be the new norm for the Fusion and many of Fords other eco-boosted vehicles. Having driven the spent some time in the new 2013 Fusion, I only saw a couple of issues that are deal breakers. The trunk egress is terrible compared to the earlier model. I could easily place office chairs in their new boxes into the trunk of the 2006-2012 Fusions. The opening is too small on the 2013 to do this. The older fusion has the same trunk utility as a full size, the new fusion not so much. The other gripe is that the radio buttons have no sense of texture feel. If I choose to use physical controls, I actually have to look at the radio to use it. Other brands are smart enough to add braille-like markings or raised lines on the buttons so you can feel a differnce between buttons. Ford did not. IMO that was a very poor design decision.

I've mentioned this before but Ford has one BIG card they can still pull out. Create an F100 that is based on a slightly narrowed and lightened F150 chassis. Offer the 2.7 liter V6 Ecoboost engine and the 5.0 liter(25MPG and 22MPG) Beef up the F150 slightly and make a F200 (Needs things like the F250's axle bearings, splines, brakes, transmission and a power steering unit that can be used when plowing) Combine the F250 and F350 into a F300 Get rid of the super heavy duty F350 package and combine it with the current F450.....call it a F400 For towing your choices would be as follows: F100 6,800lbs F200 12,500lbs F300 16,500lbs SRW F400 24,000lbs DRW only If the new F200 costs roughly the same as the old F150, as equal or better equipment, ride and fuel economy no sales should be lost.

4-5 MPG, but you are comparing: A 3.7 Gas F150 at 23MPG against A 3.5 turbo diesel powered T6 at 27 MPG Never mind the 32MPG 2.2 liter turbo diesel option.

I found this: http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2012/10/26/breaking-news-ford-f150-ecoboost-shudder-fix-confirmed/ Can anyone confirm the details beyond what this article states?

I'm convinced 2015 we'll either see the T6 Ranger (I doubt it) or the F100. Either way unless the F150 loses over 1000lbs its not not going to make the 2016 fuel economy goals. F100 with 2.0 and 2.7 liter ecoboost anyone?

2000 Ranger's with standard cab 5 speed 2x4 3:73 geared driving at 50 Mph with bed cover often made 28MPG......30 MPG isn't that far of a reach.

Technically I don't think that there's much stopping Ford from making a Excursion-like vehicle on the F250 platform. If they change the game like I suggested in another post and kill the F150, F250 and F350 and replace them with an F100, F200 and F300 an excursion-like vehicle could be built on a newer hypothetical F200 platform. Short version: The F150 is almost as capable as the F250 and the F250 is too close in ability to the F350. In 2016 Ford could shrink the F150 7/8ths and make an F100, beef up the F150 into a F200 and make the F350 into a F300. F100 would tow approx 8500lbs, F200 would top 12,500, and the F350 22,700. If the F200 could achieve 23 MPG with an Eco-boost 3.5 or even higher fuel economy with a 3.5 liter diesel, I suspect owners who wanted that want that level of capacity would move from the F150 to the newer F200 regardless of pricing. If the F100 had the (Nano) Ecoboost 2.7 liter engine making 26 MPG or 5.0 liter making 22 MPG. You'd have an option for those who wanted a smaller/lighter truck while helping to achieve CAFE mandates.

The tune is different so that the engines longevity is intact while under heavy load. I think this is similar to the idea that you can retune a diesel, but can not tow as much when the power is cranked up on the diesel due to the EGT overtemping under load.

I'd accept $2-3k cheaper for a 4WD CrewCab model and 4-5 mpg more efficient. Which should also be possible.

Yeah, that motor is pretty crappy, Luckily the new scorpion 6.8 liters don't have those issue.

They probably tested a model with 22" rims. Yes it rides like crap...when the rubber is spray painted on your wheels and the suspension is not designed for it. Swap their model out for one with 18" wheels and see what the results are. Also they did the same thing to the 2006 Mazda CX-9 they drove the version with the 20" wheels and hated it. Later on they drove the lower trim class with 18" wheels and said it rode sporty but not punishing..

This is why I am still under the impression that Ford will do this by 2016. Only they will not bring the T6 here, they will probably make a modified and lightened F100 and strengthen the F150 and call it the F200. Get rid of the F250 and F350 and make an F300. With Ecoboost engines sized at 2.7 liter, and 3.5 liters, Normally aspirated DI 5.0, DI 6.2 and Diesels in 3.5 liter and 6.8 liter you can cover your market fairly well.

It could be a Eco-boost 2.7 liter V6 test mule. Although it is a little early, we are not supposed to receive that engine until the 2015 release.