Sevensecondsuv

Remember you're talking to a guy who prefers driving his turbocharged 1990 regular-cab Ranger pickup to the Lincoln LS parked next to it....

That was my original point.

And this is why I don't buy products from Ford in tight times! I won't spend a thin dime on a vehicle I don't want! Instead, I'll just wait until they build something I do want. Which, in Ford's case, looks to be "not in the forseeable future". Too bad, since I bleed Ford blue...

Funny how you can take a "tractor" motor (5.4 V8 / 6.8L V10, which are identical except for cylinder count) and change the bore spacing and stroke a little to acheive 6.2L and add VI-vCT and all of a sudden have a "Best in it's Class!" engine to end all engines. I just find it amusing how the old stuff gets ridiculed around here just because something "newer" replaced it. On a second note, all I have to say is: One man's tractor engine is another man's luxury sedan dream engine!

What!? That doesn't make any sense at all. Ford doesn't even offer a V8 in a Lincoln sedan/CUV... (that was my original point). They'd be one step closer to competing with the Germans if they put a V8 in something other than the Navigator. Now an EcoBoost V8 (I guess it really wouldn't be Eco anything at this point) - Now we're talking!!! And for the record, I'm all for resurrecting the 6.8L V10 with VI-vCT and direct injection (or making a 7.8L V10 by adding two cylinders to the 6.2L V8) and then dropping it in a RWD Lincoln!! :happy feet:

So the "remake" of Lincoln is going to consist of refreshes of the MKS, MKT, MKZ and a new small CUV and possibly a Lincoln SuperDuty? Seriously? That's it? No V8 or RWD sedan? (nothing wrong with Ecoboost, but luxury HAS to have an available V8) Looks like the replacement for our LS isn't going to be a Lincoln! I'm really shocked. I mean, I thought Ford was really committed to turning things around at Lincoln. If this is all they have planned for the next five years, they may as well not even try - 'cause it isn't going to work. Also, Ford can actually consider a Lincoln Superduty, but tell us there is no need for the Ranger? Just when I was starting to believe Ford really had cleaned up it's house and knew what they're doing, these horrific decisions start coming out... Let's just hope Ford has more planned for Lincoln than they are letting on about yet. Otherwise, just forget about Lincoln for good.

That must be why I'm not a Fiesta buyer. And I'm only 24. But then again my opinion is that all the FWD stuff everyone is selling these days is just disposable econo-box junk. This fact sort of limits the amount of Ford's product range that appeals to me.

Good to see Taurus doing so well. For the first few years I was afraid it'd never break 5000/month. Also noticed that Ranger was up 86% for the month and 40% YTD.

Exactly. Putting a computer in control so the driver doesn't has to be will probably help in some situations, but the only sure-fire solution is to take the car away from someone who can't (or wont) be a good driver.

Don't get me started on the merits of leaded gasoline (like the fact that regular pump gas was 100+ octane - think of the compression ratios possible!!!) and asbestos brakes pads and clutch discs (asbestos is one of the best materials known to engineers for a lot of applications, it's just too bad the stuff causes cancer!). I could go on and on. If performance was the only design criteria, we'd still be using a lot of the old stuff. I do, however, like fuel injection. A computer can be so much more accurate with fuel/air ratio and spark timing than a carb and points ever could. Only EFI reached it's peak usefulness sometime around 1995 before OBD II kicked in. It's been an increasingly steep downhill slide into computer controlled brakes, throttle, steering, roll-stability-control (i.e. anti-fun control) etc., ever since.

And some of the know-it-alls here at BOF wonder what is wrong with us "anti-next-greatest-feature" types when we complain about things like electronic steering and fwd, unibody SUVs... My thoughts are that this issue will be solved like every other problem arrising out of trying to modify a computer-controlled vehicle - The aftermarket will solve it, but they are usually about a decade behind because nobody (very few anyways) want to take a brand new very valuable car and start hacking up the electronics. After said car has depreciated about 10 years, owners are much more willing to start messing with them.

Good for you. I've driven plenty of 3/4 and 1 tons trucks as well. I'm currently building a 95 F-150 specifically to haul big loads. I love full-size trucks. But not for daily driving. For that, I much prefer something the size of the 1st and 2nd generation Explorers (my current daily driver) or the current Tacoma, or the T6 Ranger. However, I would pick an F-350 over a front wheel drive anything, any day of the week. Agree 100%. It doesn't need to have "Ranger" badges on the fenders and tailgate. F-100 badges would do just as well.

I do. That's who. No, it's not the name I care about - IT'S THE SIZE!!!! The F-150 is just too dang HUGE! Ford has solved the fuel efficiency aspect of the "truck for everyday driving" issue. Now if only they'd turn their attention to the size.

I'll admit it, I'd be plenty happy with the fuel efficiency of the 3.7L V6 and 3.5L EB V6 F-150. However, the thing I can't accept is the F-150's size. It's just too dang huge in crew cab congifuration. I just don't have any interest in driving something that large around all the time. Than the there's the issue of no available manual transmission, which is somewhat of a deal breaker for me (for those about to comment, I already realize this isn't an issue for 99% of the buying public!)

Wow! Those new powertrains are sounding better by the day. Especially the 3.5 EB! It makes you wonder what Ford could do with an Ecoboost Ranger. 30 mpg highway combined with 6000 lbs towing capacity certainly seems possible. Hopefully we'll see such a truck some day...

The test I'd be interested in is the 3.7 vs. the old 4.9 inline six dragging a large trailer around. I know that the 3.7 makes double the power, but loses the torque battle big time to the 4.9 up to probably 1800 RPM. Than again, the 4.6 is no match for the 4.9's low-end grunt either. The interim 4.2L V6 was basically no more than a bad joke when it came to towing something. The engine that's looking like it's going to be a total monster in the towing department is the 3.5 EB. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes up equal to the 6.2L.

That wasn't my point. They still slip (by design they have to in order to work correctly) during any operation except cruising and mild acceleration at speed. Taking off from a stop or heavy acceleration causes the torque converter to unlock. I realize that. But I think this is way more of an issue on diesels where they are already going to great lengths to meet emissions standards. I mean, some gas engines still come without EGR (I've seen a few recent models without it anyways). This tells me there's probably plenty of margin with gasoline engine emissions to allow for a manual transmission. It doesn't seem to be a problem on Ranger, Mustang, Focus, and Fiesta.

That's always been my experience as well. I still think there's a chance they could eek out one addition highway mpg with a manual just by making the 6th gear cruise ratio a touch [numerically] lower. It would also go a long ways towards convincing those of us who prefer manuals (however few we may be) that Ford is committed to trying to offer something for everyone.

Some, but definitely not all. Take a look at the Mustang for instance: The v6 does better with an auto while the V8 does better with a stick. Theoretically, as long as it has a torque converter, which the 6-spd auto in the F-150 still does, a manual transmission with the same number of gears and the same or better final drive ratio will get a least marginally better. This is because with a torque converter, you never have a no-slip coupling between the engine and drive wheel(s). A dual clutch auto (which doesn't have a torque converter) erases this difference. However, I've only seen automatics doing better on MPGs in cars. Trucks (the ones still available with a manual anyways) still seem to do at least 1 mpg better. The extreme case being the 4-cyl Ranger where the manual offers a 2-3 mpg difference. Manuals also seem to help gas mileage the most on the smallest engine available in a product. This is why I think it makes sense to offer it on the 3.7 at least. As for take rates, I bet they'd sell quite a few (enough to pay for the engineering, tuning, and assembly costs anyways) 3.7s with the manual trans to people and fleets looking for the cheapest Ford truck possible. Obviously there wouldn't be much point to offereing it on the Ecoboost or big 6.2.

While 23 mpg is certaintly impressive for moving a 5000+ lb truck around while still maintaining decent acceleration, I sure hope Ford has plans for a either a new smaller truck offering (Ranger, F-100, whatever) or a plan to put the F-150 on a serious diet. Because come 2012, Ford's best mpg truck will go from 27 mpg to 23 mpg. Now, if Ford is being conservative and the thing will actually get 25 mpg, then a smaller truck offering might not be so necessary. Also, I don't understand why they don't offer the F-150 with a 6-speed manual transmission with the 3.7L? That'd be a sure-fire way to pick up a mpg when every one counts. It's not like a stick-shift would be a bad thing in the regular-cab 3.7L trucks they'll be selling for fleet/commercial use. It would also allow them to get a slightly better price for an automatic-equipped truck, while allowing them to sell the absolute base model with a manual trans maybe $500 cheaper. As we all know, each additional mpg is a huge difference when it comes to advertising. I understand that they quit putting manuals in the diesels because diesel engine emissions are a lot harder to control with a manual transmission. But with the gasser trucks, it seems that MPGs are the more important target since gas-engine emissions targets are much easier to meet (than diesel-engine emissions anyways)

That reminds me: Dang you Ford for canceling the Aerostar! Now where the heck am I suppose to get a BOF, RWD Minivan with a manual transmission????!!!! Well??? Where!!!!??? (just kidding) Although those Aerostars were pretty dang tough little vans. I still see lots of them with 300,000 plus and still going strong. Then again, they were Ranger-based.

Yep, for a lousy old product that nobody but fleets are interested in, any thread with the word "Ranger" in it's title sure gets a lot of attention here at BOF.....

Eh. There is no point in losing sleep over Ford's latest decision. Let Ford do what they want. I see it going one of two ways: 1) Ford never again (in the next decade anyways - pickup trucks as we know them may not exist after that for all we know...) offers a smaller pickup. In that case, there are plenty of suitable candidates on the road now for me to buy used if and when my Explorer ever gets to the point where rust makes it unfit for the road (no mechanical issue will ever stop it). No, they won't have the fuel economy or features a new Ranger would, but I'll be paying a lot less for it in the first place than I would a new truck. 2) Mulally is speaking the truth when he refers to a 'New Ranger" for US markets and Ford is just being tight lipped about it and leaving us Ranger fanatics in suspense. If, in fact, Ford does make a new Ranger, I'll be first in the showroom looking at it. It'll probably just be another no-starter, however, since I doubt it will be available with a manual transmission in a crew cab 4x4 configuration. If they even dare make it unibody, FWD or some other nonsense, I won't even bother going to look at it. Either way, I'm going to drive what I want to drive.

According to the dimensions akirby posted, the T6 is the same width, heigth, weight, and only 4" longer than the current Ranger. And that is 90% of the F-150. That tells me two things: 1) The current Ranger isn't making good use of its exterior dimensions. 2) The current Ranger doesn't need to get bigger, only make better use of its current dimensions 3) The F-150 is loaded full of lead as it's inches dimensions are only 10% greater than the current Ranger that weighs 20%-30% less. Driving a current F-150 feels like a bus compared to the current Ranger (it literally feels twice as big to me). That tells me the Ranger feels small for how large it actually is, and the F-150 feels much bigger than it actually is. I measured my 1995 F-150 next to my brothers 2006 F-150 the other day. Externally, the dimensions (Length, Width, Heigth) are very similar. The rear axle weight ratings are virtually the same at 3800 lbs (1995) and 3850 lbs (2006). The front suspension on the 2006 is rated about 700 lbs greater. Apparently the 2006 isn't actually any bigger (going by the dimensions) than the 1995. It just weighs nearly a half-ton more and feels huge compared to the 1995.

That used to be the case. Not so much any more. Given the mileage ratings coming from Fords lastest powertrains in other models, a 3.7L should get upper 20s and a 2.0 EB should best 30 in the current sized Ranger. Either of those powertrains should easily handle the 1500 payload / 5000 trailer rating of the current Ranger platform. Now if Ford switches to a unibody or FWD platform, then I have my doubts about those payload ratings.