Sevensecondsuv

Of which Ford sells plenty of both. There's room for a Ranger. There has been since 1983 and there's still room today. How many years did Ford sell 700,000 F-series alongside 100,000+ Rangers? The truth of the matter is that in the early part of this decade, Ford got obsessed with with breaking the 900,000 / year mark on the F-series and quit investing much of anything in other products. The Ranger was still new enough from it's 98 and 2001.5 minor updates that it wasn't really a problem. Then in about 2006/7, when Ford was starting to realize the error of it's ways, Ford NA started planning a new Ranger and another truck, the F-100, so they didn't jump on the T6 ship which was just getting ready to sail.. Then 2008 happened and Ford nearly went bankrupt and the new Ranger and F-100 projects got canned. Now it's 2010/11, the current Ranger is rotting on the vine and not selling enough to justify it's own plant and parts, and Ford has no viable replacement for it. So, while Ford NA figures out what to do next (CAFE will be a big part of that decision), they send out the executives to proclaim that "There is no market for the Ranger, and those that would have bought one will be more than pleased to settle for an F-150 or Fiesta instead!". Which really means: "We screwed up and don't have anything to offer you right now, please stick with Ford (via F-150 or Fiesta) while we figure out what we're going to do next." Hopefully that works out for them. Toyota, with the Tacoma, certainly won't be complaining.

What kind of mileage does it get? I always thought the 3V 4.6/6 speed did about the same as the SOHC 4.0/5-speed. My current DD Explorer with the pushrod 4.0 and 5M trans does 19 mpg combined day in / day out. I don't want to go to anything less than that. But anyways, the no manual transmission option is a non-starter for me. I have been tossing around the idea of a 2011 Ranger 2wd/2.3/manual supercab though. Just to get a new one before they're gone. I've certaintly owned more than my fair share of used ones.

OK. I'll post pics of the tape measure on my 86/95 (95 with 86 body) and on my brother's 2006. If I get to it, even my dad's 99. The 80-96 trucks were W I D E! Length and height are more subjective based on 4x4/2wd and cab length/bed length configuration. Just have to wait until I get time this weekend.

Yeah, I'm currently in the process of building my "dream" full size truck. I started with a 95 F-150 4x4 with the EFI 300 six, which is my all time favorite truck engine. I just finished swapping the sheet metal from an 86. Now I'm "de-rusting" the frame and recoating it. Next will be axles - I have a D44 TTB and 9" pair from the 86 truck that I'm going to rebuild with 4.10 gears and either a limited slip or locker in the 9", also will get an extra leaf in the rear spring packs and 2" longer springs up front. After that, the truck will get a ZF heavy-duty 5 speed overdrive manual transmission (5.72:1 1st gear) along with a computer for an '89 F-150 4.9L/4-speed, which seem to run alot more timing than the '95 4.9L/auto computer it has now. I also have a fresh rebuilt NP-208 t-case to go in it with the trans. After that, all that will be left is freshening up the interior. I can't wait till it's finished - I've wanted this one for a while now.

Yeah, I've noticed that as well. I guess it's a matter of age. The 80's trucks were the ones I grew up working with. Much like those who had the 60/70s muscle cars when they were in their 20's

In case you can't read, I have a 95 F-150 that I am in the process of putting 3/4 ton transmission and axles in. I tow 8,000 lb trailers with it and put 3000 lbs of dirt/rock/firewood/lumber etc in the bed. It's full size capabilities are excellent for that stuff. I am no stranger to full size heavy duty pickups and using them as such. However, that does not mean that I wish to drive one to my job every day or across the country on vacation. As far as I'm concerned, a brand new heavy duty pickup is next to worthless because it's far too large, expensive and thirsty for daily driving, but too new and valuable to beat it up working it. That is why I prefer to keep my old trusty (not very valuable) full-size HD work truck in the garage and bring it out when it's capabilities are needed. The sport trac with it's ancient V6 powertrain and lack of a manual transmission disgusts me.

80-86 F-Series for me! Back when trucks still looked like trucks:

Exactly! If I could get a crew cab T6 for the same price as a supercab F-150, than it's a no-brainer to get the T6 for daily driving. If I'm buying a truck for it's capabilities, it'd be either an F-150 4x4 regular cab ecoboost, or a 4x4 regular cab F-250 SD. And peoples preferences for huge trucks in the late 90's when gas was a buck a gallon doesn't really mean much today. If Ford offered buyers a well-appointed smaller truck that got 3-5 mpg better and offered a crew cab for the same price as a supercab F-150, but still retained significant truck capabilities (like the current Ranger) I have no doubt that Ford wouldn't have any trouble moving them.

I'm still curious to see how a 6M trans would affect the 3.7's mileage. Just make it optional equipment at no charge. That way Ford could still claim that all F-150s come standard with a 6 speed auto.

Exactly, the Dakota redesigns have been ugly and non-competitive (drivetrains, etc), the Colorados have been junk since the beginning, the Ranger is more or less the same as 1984, whereas the Tacoma has been given competitive powertrains and at least acceptable styling. And guess what, the Tacoma outsells everything else by quite a bit. The Ranger is 2nd in sales because they have the best gas mileage 4 cylinder for fleets, and because the 1984 design was so great that it is still at least marginally competitive 25 years later.

What is that based on? If I get out my tape measure, the current F-150 has pretty much the same dimensions as my '95 F-150. The only difference is that it weighs about 1000 lbs more and just looks bigger - much of which is due to the very high belt-line. The T6 is definitely smaller than the 97-03 F-series (which also happen to be roughly the same dimensions as every other F-150 made in the last 30 years, according to a tape measure.)

I don't think that would happen to very great extent. I doubt any one walking into a showroom looking for a crew cab 4x4 is going to settle for a 2wd regular cab just because it will tow a little more trailer. Besides that based on current F-150 V6 specs and current V6 Ranger specs (which I assume the T6 only improves upon) the V6 F-150 is not rated to tow significantly more than a V6 Ranger. So I don't agree. In order to get an F-150 with significantly more capability than a Ranger, you are looking at some of the more expensive F-150 models. Besides that, probably only a small minority of even full-size truck owners actually have a use for capability in excess of the 6000 lbs the Ranger is rated to tow. Once again, I'm guessing the T6 probably does even better than the current Ranger, probably more like 7000 lbs.

Yeah, and I've daily driven regular cab pickups for multiple stretches of time as well. So long as it's just you, they're great. For a work truck, where I want to haul a huge load of firewood or something, the regular cab/ 8' box is perfect. But now that I have a family, a 2 seater just doesn't cut it. A supercab pickup is not really anymore than a regular cab pickup with some extra dry space to lock up valuables/tools. They work in a pinch for extras passengers, but they're not ideal by any strech of the imagination.

Actually, I've owned and/or driven more full size trucks than I can count. This is precisely why I realize that there is a problem with fuel economy and parking as a daily driver. Yes, it's easy to get a regular (or maybe even supercab) F-150 for under 30K. However, you can't touch a 4x4, crew cab F-150 for 30 grand anywhere around here (actually I just checked Ford's website and the XLT 4x4 supercrew starts at $35.7K). A crew cab is a necessity for a daily driver. Like I said, for work truck duties, I already have a regular cab F-150. I just want a daily driver truck that comfortably seats 4, has 4x4 for winter driving, and still has a outside bed I can throw junk in, for that application, the T6 would be a no-brainer over an F-150.

And what, exactly, is wrong with that. So long as a stripped T6 costs less than a stripped F-150, and a fully optioned XLT crew T6 costs less than a fully optioned XLT crew F-150, the T6 would be, by definition, in a lower price bracket than the F-150. Look at it this way: If I'm going to buy a truck for a daily driver (keep in mind I already have old F-150 that I keep around for full-size duties) would I buy a $35,000, 20 mpg F-150 that is a pain to park, or a $30,000, 25 mpg T6 that is much more friendly to park and manuever? It's a no-brainer. And yes, there are plenty of people like me insist on daily driving a truck of some sort rather than a car. We have a very nice car, and I still prefer my 20 year old trucks.

Wow! Did anybody catch that the model on display was a 4x4 crew cab with a *gasp* .... manual transmission? This is the truck I've been wanting for a while now. Too bad Ford North America only gives me three options: 1) Buy a severly obese and bloated F-150 2) Keep driving my 20 year old, 250,000 mile old Ranger junk I already have 3) Buy the current Ranger that is the same as my 20 year old Ranger junk expect with a shiny new paint job Ford NA better have an Ace up their sleeve with regards to the Ranger - 'Cause their official decisions regarding the current Ranger and the T6 don't make a lot of sense.

The Ranger was the best seller in the compact market for all the years Ford bothered keeping it current and competitive. I'd say Ford was the expert of the compact pickup market until they let it die on the vine.

Fair enough. But I think we could also agree that a V8 RWD/AWD or two in the Lincoln lineup would only be a good thing.

The complaint is that you (and several others) seem very content to happily defend Ford's current devotion to FWD and utter lack of RWD product stateside.

Chrysler's gas mileage problem is a Chrysler problem, not a RWD problem. The RWD 3.7L Mustang get's better mileage than the FWD 3.5L Fusion. There are plently of other examples elsewhere in the market of RWD doing the same or better than FWD. The gas mileage a vehicle gets has everything to do with its weight, engine, transmission, and aerodynamics. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the front wheels or the back wheels are the ones getting power. Also, I've been driving RWDs in the snow for many years without one single issue. It's all in the driver, rather than the driven wheels. Most people get in trouble because of the brakes, which work exactly the same on a RWD/FWD/AWD. The only different between RWD and FWD is if the car's tail will come out during a turn (RWD) vs. the front end not steering when you want to (FWD) when too much throttle is applied. Modern anti-lock and traction control systems solve both problems. Besides, any RWD Lincoln will likely be a RWD-AWD, negating any differences in snow versus the FWD-AWD setup used in the MKS. The only benefit would be better driving dynamics due to a north-south powertrain.

Mustang I don't understand. Even after a huge powertrain update it sells no better than the ancient panthers did - but somehow the Mustang is justafiable (but hey, I'm all for having a halo car and the Mustang is awesome so I won't complain). Falcon, T6, Territory are non-US (if we had them here I wouldn't be complaining about Ford's lack of RWD product). E-Series - Ford is going to replace them with the FWD transit as soon as CAFE forces it. Transit - is FWD, unibody. At least the one the US gets anyways. Ranger, Off-Road SUV (Bronco / Early Explorer). Even panthers to an extent (although the Taurus PI will do most of what the Panther's did, with things like being the King of demo-derbies and engine swaps from an F-250 excluded - but why should Ford care about people want to do with their 20-year old used product?)

Given Fords recent product direction, yes. Why would any logical person expect such a vehicle from a company that (again, based on recent product direction): 1. Wants to have everything but huge pickups riding on a FWD architecture. 2. Tries to put it's entire global vehicle line-up on 4-5 platforms while canceling every product that won't fit on one of those 4 or 5 platforms, claiming that there is no market for the canceled models.

I only hope you're correct here. The problem is that this supposedly came out of the meeting with Lincoln dealers where Ford was "laying it all on the line" for the dealers regarding products for the next five years (the time period for the "re-make" of Lincoln).

No. And I can't say that I blame them for the decisions they've made. (Although I do think there is a reasonable chance they made the wrong call on the Ranger - but only time will tell...) The problem with not having niche vehicles comes when the niche product market becomes the mainstream market. It's happened before (SUVs and CUVs) and it'll happen again. Not necessarily with compact pickups (although CAFE does point towards that), but it shows the importance of not completely abandoning all market segments that you can't make a fortune selling products in.

That's true, the only reason we bought an LS instead of say, a fusion, or camry, or (insert bland, disposable FWD sedan made by company X here) was because it is RWD, not because we necessarily wanted a luxury vehicle. And I've always wanted to put a 6.8L V10 in a Crown Vic. The only thing stopping me is the ignition system. The V8 system won't work on the V10, so you're stuck trying to graft a V10 wiring harness and computer into the chassis harness in the car. That makes for much too complicated of a swap to be worth it when a built 5.4 will put down the same numbers and be a lot easier to swap.