Mackintire

Yep I'm still in the same boat. Next year I need to buy something. I park in the city. Luckily an F150 will fit in my parking garage, but my wife does not want a full size truck. At the moment I 'm considering either buying a low mileage Explorer Sport Trac or leasing a honda accord for $110 a month and placing my 11 year old ranger on life support for another 3-5 years and hope that it doesn't fall completely apart. A T6 ranger would be idea, but I have little faith in Ford doing anything of the sort until fuel prices start heading towards $4.50 a gal. Unfortunately I need a truck that fits child safety seats in the back. So I'm stuck looking at Quad or crew cabs. Even if Ford sold an F150 with a $7000 rebate and I used my X-plan pricing I 'm not sure I can afford a crew cab F150.

DI 5.0 is expected for 2014, expect +1 mpg and a very minor power change. Start/Stop with an integrated starter Generator should show up about the same time. That feature alone may add 1-2 mpg city to the F150.

Maybe a Excursion based on the 2014 SD chassis with an 8 speed auto, 6.2 liter DI V8 or 6.7 liter Turbo Diesel could offer something original to the market.

Why? All you would get would be 5.0 liter like fuel economy when unloaded and V8 diesel like power when loaded, but you would also see 4-8 MPG while loaded and towing anything significant. If that is what you want either get a 6.2 liter or the 6.7 liter diesel. Or... Wait until 2014 and you'll have the 6.2 liter DI engine which should have an additional +50 HP and +50 lbs or torque with a possible 8 speed automatic and 5.0 type fuel economy. Keeping in mind that the inline 5 cyl diesel may be an option for the F150 in the future. 220HP+ 350 lbs torque in us trim with 25+ mpg fuel economy..

Not going to happen. As an alternative, You should ask for Ford to fix their select shift so that it works as expected when you choose individual gears ala manual style. Ford's current implementation, just feels cheap and has a lethargic feeling that kills owners expectations of what a real "manual select" automatic should perform like. Mazda's newest version in their skyactive series is an example of manual shift automatics done right. Quick, uneventful shifts with no excess slushbox feel.

Nothing new here.... The T- series is now getting the 3.5 liter inline 5 cyl Diesel. The F150 will get the 3.5 5 cyl diesel next. The 2.7 liter Eco boost V6 is 18 months away still. The DI version of the 6.2 will probably be here in 2014. The addition of DI should be a fairly significant gain in HP and torque.

"and which won't be dramatically more fuel efficient" I'll argue this statement until the cows come home. 2.0 liter Eco-boost T6 4x4 should have near 27 MPG or almost a 100 additional miles on 19.5 gallons of fuel than a EB 3.5 liter F150. Not dramatic you say? "I believeT6 is too close to the F150 to sell here, and not really what Ranger buyers wanted anyway. . " Too close in price, YES Too close in capability, probably Too close in size, what are you smoking? Here's my reasoning: The 2010 American Ford Ranger was 88% the size of the 2010 F150. The 2013 T6 is 90% of the size of the 2013 F150. I'm guessing that the 2% size increase is too overwhelming for you? :wacko: Everything else akirby said, is for the most part true. The T6 is a very capable truck, unfortunately its also an relatively expensive truck. I'm very bitter on the "no T6 topic" and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

That's funny because I was pricing one today. A 2012 quad-cab LE, Auto, 4x4 with the sport package. Either way, I'll be buying something next spring.

I would have figured the +4-5 MPG better fuel economy or the fact that it has a higher weight bedload capability than the F150 might be something US buyers may be interested in. Although the pricing is the biggest sticking point. That T6 is not cheap.

Not accounting for US emissions. 28 mpg for the 3.2 diesel in 4x4 trim (7300lb tow capable) 34 mpg for the 2.2 diesel in 2x4 trim.

There is light at the end of the tunnel. The domestic Transit Connect is intended to be updated with the 1.6 liter Ecoboost engine along with a 6 speed automatic. Fuel economy is expected to jump 3 mpg when that occurs. I would also expect the 0-60 to drop under 10 seconds too.

Lol......

Citation I would have to go dig for. I like pickuptrucks.com or leftlanenews.com Toyota believes that they won't loose significant market share between now and 2014, which makes sense considering the Tacoma's present position. I 've spent time at multiple dealerships talking to salesmen and have been present in the small truck online communities since 1994. There is a market there, of that I have no doubt.

your logic = fail Thanks for making my point for me. Ford's midsize truck is already developed and was built and tested to pass US standards. Toyota has their upgraded power train to fall back on, in case they need to compete quickly with someone else. But for the moment they don't care as they are the market leaders. Take notice of who has a midsize truck developed, who has a midsize truck in development, and who does not. Toyota isn't nervous, the Tacoma's drive train upgrade can be done at any time if needed. The new Tacoma is scheduled for 2014. Nissan is scrambling to finish their full size truck for 2014, The frontier will be built on a shrunken version of that platform. ETA of 2015. They could drop the 6 speed auto into the frontier, as that work is already finished, just not implemented. GM is bring the midsize Colorado. The chassis will be the same as the international model, but the power train options are all speculation. RAM is building a midsize unibody Dakota. It looks like there's a midsize market revival coming to me. Only Ford decided not to show up to the beginning of the party.

Ifa unibody dakota is more comfortable has a decent payload, the same fuel economy and better equipment options at the same price point as the F150. They will probably sell. Getting over the concept that unibody is terrible for a truck is something that they will be up against. Now if RAM has an option for a Fiat built 4 cyl or a high fuel economy diesel....that brings other possibilities. I'm mentioning it because Ram is committed to offering the diesel in the grand Cherokee and Durango...and since the new Dakota is expected to be created from the same platform it too could receive a diesel.

You caught me. Lol!

I'm going to disagree on the successful because its the smallest argument. It was successful due to being cheap, reliable and for its size capable. If you dig into my old posts you'll see my listing for the perfect Ranger replacement. Its the same size as the 2002-2006 explorer. That is smaller than the T6 folks. Ford needs to have Cheap, reliable and capable for its size. It also needs to fit into the family lifestyle and be able to be optioned up into a platinum trim level. It needs to be a one size fits most under $30k, as opposed to the F150 one size fits most over $30k. Small FWD truck is coming via Toyota A-bat. Midsize unibody truck is coming via Ram Dakota. The point is If Ford reenters the market, they will be competing with someone else whom is already established. The opportunity is almost passed.

Tacoma is already #1 in sales. Injecting cash into improving the tacoma is not needed as they are #1 already. As soon as a threat or competition exists we will see improvements. Toyota could just drop in the drive train improvements in the current 4 runner and the Tacoma would gain 30HP and 2 MPG. Done with no other changes. But it would hurt their profit margin. Why invest when you already are the best and you KNOW competition is coming in a year or two. Nissan builds the Frontier on a shrunken version of the full size platform. They were going to build something based on the RAM, but that deal fell apart and now Nissan is 3 years behind on their new truck. As soon at the new titan gets here we will have a new frontier. Ford did not let the colorado die..... or as the common MEME states "Y U make no sense?" Umm... Dodge did reinvent the durango.... its unibody now, released in 2011. They intend to build and release a unibody Dakota within the next 24 months. Where have you been? "Is every automaker incompetent for overlooking such an obviously easy opportunity to gain market share and make money?" See above. "Why do you think you know more about the new truck market than all the people at all of the automakers who make their living and bet their careers on making the right product decisions?" I obviously know more than you. I am not complaining about other manufactures, I am complaining about what FORD is doing. Or in this case, not doing.

Its called make it a hybrid. And YES it costs an additional $4000. Apply that to an F150 and its probably + $6000 That's completely out of my price range.

Yes, exactly.

I 'm still waiting for Ford to either break the laws of physics or make an internal combustion engine that is over 40% efficient and give that technology away below cost. Short of the two possibilities above...it ain't going to happen. A vehicle with the frontal area of the F150 is NOT going to make the over 28 MPG and stay under $20k.

You're leveraging facts based on wrong assumptions. You are correct, Previous fuel spikes did not boost smaller truck sales....mostly because the price difference between a small and a big truck was $2000 due to huge rebates at that time. As history shows it small truck sales increased slightly during that time and full size truck sales tanked over 15%. The reason small truck sales didn't seem to increase was size. The Tacoma had a sales increase of almost 30% during that time. It was the ONLY truck with increased sales. It kind of figures as its the only choice that can fit a family of four comfortably and retain halfway decent fuel economy. The Tacoma's sales increase shows up as a 8% gain for the small truck market. Again I bring it back to....where are the higher trim better built midsize trucks.......they don't exist. Ask any sport Trek owner, He can go full size or lose equipment options and downgrade.

2.7 liter Ecoboost is a DI 3.7 liter replacement. Expect roughly 290HP and 310lb of torque with that wonderful mesa-like torque curve. It should get the F150 to 24mpg. The EB 2.7 is supposed to used by Lincoln first for (2014-2015), and the F150 second (ETA 2015-2016) and much later on Mustang and everything else. ETA 2016?

I think you missed the part where I said "a quality midsize would probably take the lower 10% of F150 sales". That's a sizable market increase for midsize trucks, but NOT in itself conducive to being more profit for Ford Motor Company.

Here are my assumptions with no supporting facts. My facts will reveal themselves within the next 24 months. Approx 10% of F150 owners would rather puchase a smaller vehicle with equal or better equipment options, IF the build quality was the same and fuel economy was no worse. There are approx 250k potential midsize truck owners out there. This bucket includes everyone who wants a 30MPG truck all the way up to and including the current midsize "Sport Trek" owners. If there was a quality truck that had good fuel economy, 10-20k new buyers would join that market. As fuel prices increase, assuming first point is available for purchase, more buyers would purchase such a truck. As the F150's price increases, as Ford tries to meet CAFE, some will not be able to afford a expensive fullsize truck as easily and will be looking for more affordable choices I see a market of 270K potential buyers in 2013 that will grow significantly in 2017 and become the highest selling truck category by 2022.