Mackintire

The CX-9 is supposed to be sporty and the suspension is tuned that way. If Ford Vanilla'd the CX-9 I am sure that Fords (whatever vehicle) would ride softer than the CX-9.

All 2007 Ford Fusions that are Job 2 are 6 speeds. That includes the 4 cyl engine Peak torque is useless, total useable area under the curve is the most important value. Direct injection can be used to increase fuel economy or give max HP. Doing it for max HP this is what you end up with. Keep in mind we most likely will not see Direct injection tuned for max HP in the fusion. This info was pulled from Ford's concept cars spec sheets. DI-3.0 can put out 250HP DI-3.5 was measured at 285HP DI-3.7 was measured at 300HP

repost deleted

As a truck Ford will have to keep a larger engine available for heavier load capability. The only way they could get around this would be offering a small diesel. Ford leaked infomation has made it known that Ford does not intend to bring a small diesel to the US market untill sometime after 2013 at the earliest. Ford Austrialia is designing the truck as you read this. Here are some givens :reading: The powertrain is set (see above posts or below notes for the future) higher beltline (deeper box) multi-platform chassis / pickup truck and small cargo van compatible chassis aka T6 raked windshield / better aerodynamics 1500lb+ bed capacity maybe more volume profitable.....Ford is counting on 400K volume world wide in the first year Guesstmated fuel milage ETA 2011 20/26 MPG 4 cyl 2.5ltr 165 HP 6 speed 18/24 MPG V6 Cyl 3.7ltr 265 HP 6 speed auto And later if there is a demand a hybrid 25/28 160HP + 40HP electric Later replaced by Twinforce 2.0 and DI37 with power shift transmissions ETA 2015 22/30 MPG 2.0ltr turbo 170 HP 7 speed autostick power shift 19/26 MPG 3.7ltr DI 285 HP 7 spped autostick power shift Lithium powered 2 mode hybrid? 28/35 (wild guess) 2018 major redesign again.....

The Ford Ranger/ F100 replacement will be a world truck and is being designed in Austrailia based on a Modified T6 platform. The T6 platform is based on the transit platform. The US should see the truck in the 2010-2011 time frame.

1. Ok I 'll bite and agree with you here. 2. Um Fusion, nah that was 2006 how about CV (Do I get a prize?) 3. Yep Ford played the name game and loss, as expected. 4. True it went to fleet only, but I remember Ford saying that was becuase of poor sales, AND NOT because Ford has produced a viable replacement. 5. And you believe what a saleman at a dealer tells you? Wow, I am not going to touch that one. 6. Hey look theres a blue bird...since I see no other birds in the area I will decree all the worlds birds are now blue at this very second. Prove me wrong. Come on... I know what you are saying, but you are jumping to a semi-reasonable conclusion with your reasoning. Said another way, You are presenting an argument that sounds reasonable. But if you have all the facts, the conclusion is not what you make it out to be. I am 100% positive if we all posted lots of pics and searched and dug up all the press releases we could eventually convince you that your perspective is askew. But since I have niether the time nor the patience to. I will present my final thoughts on the matter. Arguing on the internet is like willing the special olympics, in the end you're still retarded.

If you hold your breath.... You may be unconscious but not dead when 2012 rolls around, Something is on its way hang tight.

You got a message.

If you leave the US you will find plenty of quad cab rangers. None of them are the US model we know as the sport trac. Our future midsized truck replacement will most likely come from the Austrailian developed T6 platform currently being developed. Who knows what they will call it at this point. Igor let it slip in one of his posts that Ford intends to make an announcement at the end of the summer. I hope that he's right. :happy feet:

I remember that problem..... The rubber tube that feeds the gas tank is a double walled tube. If the inside tube kinks the filler can not expel the air inside the tank. That causes the pump to pop and stop fuel because it is trying to keep you from spilling gas all over the ground and the side of the truck. I ended up replacing that hose assemble twice on my old ranger. Its a PAIN in the rear to drop the tank to replace it. Watch out for the 10mm nuts on the gas tank straps, they like to break. ALSO do not underestimate the weight of that gas tank even IF you think it is empty. Darn near crushed myself once doing that. Later, Mackintire

Ford did some development for a large hybrid, but most of the tech was shelved. That system used a charged nitrogen tank to provide thrust assistance to 35mphs and recharged slowly at highway speeds and faster when braking. The system weighed about 400 lbs. For now Ford intends to use the 4.4ltr Diesel to gain economy in their large trucks. ETA 2013 Look for displacement on demand to be added around 2015. The hurricane engine series was designed with direct injection and displacement on demand in mind.

Intersting idea but..... I d bet theres a few reasons Ford wouldn't do that. First being the truck import tarrift, thats 30% on any truck inported into the US Second the old F150 doesn t have the fit and finish of the newer truck (F150). They would have to spend money on it to get it up to the expected levels of ride and comfort. Third, It would tank their CAFE rating; right now Ford is very fuel economy concious.

Ford already publically stated that we are not going to get the european ranger. There is a rumor that Ford will build a new global truck platform that will include a midsize truck for the US, but it is not scheduled to be put into production until 2012 at the earliest.

FX6 ....was just a number. The Mercury SUV/(truck in a quad cab only) would have different sheet metal, only available in the higher trim classes and would offer an independant rear suspension. The Mercury truck 3.7ltr would be similar to the current Sport Trek Limited and in a 4x4 trim be priced to start around $29k The Ford truck quad cab 3.7ltr version with a solid axle and XL trim again in a 4x4 trim would likewise be priced starting around $21,500 The Ford truck non quad cab 7' bed 2.5ltr XL trim in 2x4 would be priced around $16,500 Add the 3.7ltr for $2000 more Add 4 wheel drive for $1500 more switch to a quad cab for another $1500 more Remember, all the available truck configurations would be able to be built on ONE frame.

If you want to add fuel to the fire, start here: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...showtopic=19522

Ford has a new V8 diesel ready to go. Just wait till 2012.

Since this is a wish list thread, that Ford occasionally reads.....I am going to make a wish. My idea of a perfect ranger would have to be profitable and practical and be able to support other vehicles.....Otherwise I figured my wish would never come true. Start with a platform similar in width to the 2003-2006 Explorer. Anything bigger and you're almost the size of the old F150. Anything smaller and your back to the 2008 Ranger size, which is too small to arranged for comfortable seating for 4 adults in a quad cab configuration. The length for the truck should be figured out from 2 basic configurations. The standard cab and the quad cab versions. The standard cab should be built like the new F150 which includes a significant amount of room behind the driver and passenger seats for storage but not so much room as to defined as an extended cab. I spent some time looking at the Nissan Frontier and found the extended cab not so extended. I found it more closely related to some sort of sick joke. The standard cab should come with either a short 5' or a long 7' bed. The quad cab should come with a 5' bed and should incorperate the extra 2' into the cab. The engine lineup should be the 3.7ltr V6 with 270HP+ and an 2.5ltr 4cyl being 165HP+ The transmission should be a 6 speed+ either in automatic or manual. Gear the tranny correctly and you can lose low range on the 4x4s. It will save weight and design costs. But we still need manual control over the lower gearing. We still need to be able to creep a boat out of the water or engine break at low speeds. The first gear in my wife's fusion has convinced me losing the low range may be possible. One more pet peeve...do something with the overdrive button. How about making it more useful, like changing it to a true tow/haul button like chevy has with the allison. Change the shift patterns and shift firmness for towing. It cost nothing but programming time and shows attention to detail. We will notice as would Motortrend. The Nissan Frontier should be the performance target. If Nissan actually optioned the frontier correctly they would have dominated the small truck market. Nissan seems to not know what they have, take advantage of this fact. The truck needs to be able to outclass the old ranger in almost every performance figure. The bed capacity should be 250lbs higher in carrying capacity, the tow capacity also needs to be 500lbs higher. The ranger missed the mark at being able to tow 3000lb trailers comfortably. We understand that you would rather sell us a F150 to tow a 3000lb trailer and we would also rather have one....but unless you can get the F150 to fit into our sub 6' garages and achieve 21+MPG we will be forced to look elsewhere. Coil spring over shocks seems to be the best option for the front and modified leaf springs with outboard shocks may be the best option for the rear. The V6 4X4 quad cab configuration needs to make 22MPG by 2010. You need to be more competitive and give us the vehicles we want. I always wondered why Ford didn't ever standardize on things like wheels? 5x4.5 is a normal bolt pattern for ford. But how about sticking to the 40-45mm offset. You have to retool and change things everytime you change your design. As my employer is always telling us " Change costs money" Don't change the backspacing on every vehicle. Keep the configurations as follows for the opening year: XL (Your normal work truck, basic interior vinyl flooring) XLT (The normal options) Limited (Upscale options, including most everything available on the current sport trek, it is VERY important to have this option) FX6 (Upgraded for off Road includes a real low range transfer case) FX6a (Looks like FX6 but with no real low range or other hardened improvements) Ford should offer all 4 packages Mercury should offer 2 packages.....something like the XLT and something similar to the limited.. but with an independant suspention. This will give those who wanted a newer sport trek something to look at. Expanding this platform would be the following vehicles. Bronco....... Solid rear axle offroad machine, styling and price will be the biggest items with this choice. This could be Ford's entry into the H3 lovers market. ??????........ Something Mercury like the bronco with softer sheetmetal and the independant rear suspension. No more V8 Explorers, no more V8 sport trek, no more 4.0 Rangers no more 3.0 rangers. Significantly lower parts costs and platform costs. Your CAFE milage should show significant improvement based on my suggestions. As a customer I am dissapointed that there are no real viable options for a quality midsize truck today on the market. The Frontier is closest to being the right basic design, but the options and packages are terrible. The Tacoma is a little big, the seating position is terrible and the frame strength is questionable at best. The Colorado, Hmmm I wonder if GM had Big Lots design this truck. I think it suffers from build quality and fit and finish issues more then anything else. Usually GM designs their vehicles to be cosmeticly pleasing and funtional, something definately got lost when they designed the colorado. The Dakota is now a half-ton in scale and size. I just want something that can double as a daily driver and a utility vehicle. Sadly, no one yet makes something I would buy. FORD, Its time to start leveraging your strengths. The midsize truck platform IS your next F150. Design it correctly and I can promise you will sell at least 70k on the first sales month.

I have many solid ideas for your midsized pickup truck. Unfortunately your public relations department informed me that all good ideas must come from inside Ford for copywrite reasons. "Dear *******, Thank you for contacting the Ford Motor Company Customer Relationship Center regarding your interest in sharing your ideas. With surprising frequency, a suggestion offered by someone not connected with our company is the same as, or very similar to, an idea developed by the people we employ for that purpose. Ford’s sales, advertising, marketing and business personnel are constantly working on ideas and programs to market our products effectively and to hold and increase our good will. Many of these ideas are not used immediately, but are put aside for possible use in the future. In an effort to avoid any misunderstanding concerning the source of material used by us, we have found it best to adopt the policy of only considering or reviewing suggestions related to marketing, advertising, product names, business practices, sales promotions, or vehicle designs from persons employed or retained by us. However, we appreciate your interest in affecting the direction and improving the quality of Ford products and services. If you have any other inquiries, please feel free to contact us and we will be happy to address them for you. " Although I can understand this stance to some degree.... I find it somewhat unfriendly and inefficient use of freely given resources. Given no other choice and the fact that I am ready and willing to take on a new challenge, I have come to realization that the only means to effectively communicate with you is to be hired by you. I have strong skills in design implimentation, creative thinking and customer service. My background includes education in informational technology, business economics, electrical engineering. I am no stranger to non-disclosure agreements and have been owned 4 pickup trucks all of which were fords. I have been a proud member of the rangerpowersports web site for over 13 years. With all the problems Ford Motor Company has been experiencing I strongly urge you to hire myself or more people like myself whom have a passion to make Ford Motor Company the best it can be. Since this is not the proper place to leave a phone number. You can best reach from the e-mail I previously sent you, which was responded to by: Iris Camille Customer Relationship Center Ford Motor Company 19 Sep 2007 22:57:07 -0400 THREAD ID:1-3OWH58

5R55E in the ranger usually blows up around 130-160K. If you tow it will granade around 80k. The sad thing is Ford does not advertise that there are band adjustments on the tranny, which there are. If owners knew about this and readjusted the bands the tranny would probably last a bit longer. My truck is at 100k now. I put $700 into my 5R55E last year, including the band readjustment. It works now except for the sloppy 3rd gear shift. Hopefully it will survive another 2-3 years.

What about a 3800lb truck called the F100 that features a 6 speed auto and a 3.7ltr V6 260HP 270lb torque on 87 octane. Coming to a dealer ship near you ...circa 2009 as a 2010 model. It should tow as well as the current ranger, possibly a bit better from the extra control that the vehicle weight gives it. If you have ever driven a new fusion you know what a difference that new 6 speed makes in the overall feel of the vehicle. I'm just hoping ford doesn t bore us to death with the interior...Oh wait was that an oximoron? Wait till the tuners get ahold of this one.

Ford has a CAFE rating to maintain. So even if they build the F100 they will work to equal or improve the avg CAFE rating for F100's gas mileage. My guess is that the 4 cyl (I'm hoping for a stroked 2.3 DOHC up to 2.5L) (About 160HP in truck tune) will get equal gas mileage on the highway and slightly worse mileage in the city. If should also have a 6 speed automatic. The top engine which is currently guessed to the 3.7ltr Duratech (265HP in truck tune) mated to the same 6 speed auto should get 2 mpg better than the 4.0 SOHC did across the board. The 3.0 Duratech (200HP in truck tune) should get a slight milage improvement about 1 mpg. Overall this lineup should improve Fords CAFE rating for the Ranger/F100 by about 1.5 mpg. From what I understand, if Ford does what Ford usually does.... The F100 should be alot like the Nissan Frontier. Except instead of having the 4.0 VQ engine and a ok 5 speed. The F100 should have the 3.7L and a 6 speed. At first I was annoyed at this, but I look at it this way. We will have reprogrammers available within a year. The 6 speed auto should have performance parts available a year from NOW. So what ever Ford released , if it matches what I layed out above, should be able to be retuned with an additional 20HP along with tranny performance mods. A 280-285HP 3.7L doesn t look so shabby in my book again assuming that the truck is similar in weight to the Frontier.

Most likely you will see: The 3.5L V6 (with more HP) The all wheel drive version New 17" Rim Design It seems like quite a few people are asking for the manual shift mode, considering that the mazda 3 and 6 both have it, There is no reason Ford couldn t do it.