Whats going on with the Ranger?

[Bluecon]

What's wrong with this statement?

 

Our friend Pioneer has decided to make unsubstantiated assertions about groups of people based exclusively on where they fit in the "Work For Ford" "Carry a Union Card" matrix. If you do both, you have 'ambition to show up for work each day and put in an honest days work'. If you only "Work for Ford", you have shown no ambition.

 

Most of the white collar employees at Ford, the salaried engineers, plant supervisors, etc., have the ambition to show up for work each day, put in an honest days work and do their best to design and oversee production of a quality product.

 

Many of Ford's "C" level officers, wanted to do a good job too.

 

What was the problem?

 

The entire structure was warped, and the last guy but one knew it was, and did nothing about it.

 

Rag on Bill Ford all you want, at least he tried to implement change. Nasser KNEW things had to change and he didn't even bother.

Pioneer is exactly right. The majority of the union people on the floor do their best to produce the product and are the backbone of the company. My experience at Ford is that the majority of managemrnt does not know how to do their job.(although there is still a minorituy that is very competent--like 10% provide 90% of the results) If i am working on a job to get it running I would not waste time with the engineers but use the knowledge of the trades people. Very few of the engineers understand the actual fine details. That said the problem with the union is that they protect the unproductive problem people to the detrimante of the others.

[therealmrmustang]

Let's see if we can come to some conclusions here. I'm gonna discuss one vehicle component: The Ford 9" rear end. Here Ford had a design that was second to none. Still is in the after-market.

 

What caused Ford to replace it with the 8.8"? My opinon is that someone said, "why are we making this piece this good, we could make a copy of the Dana-44 and save 47 cents per unit".

 

The 8.8 is "good enough" but it's not "the best".

 

This is the state of Ford now, "GOOD ENOUGH" This has impacted design, materials, outside suppliers, warranty....... everything.

 

How did Ford get here. Let's trace back to the decision to cancel the 9". Can anyone who knows shed some light on this.

 

Thanks

 

While the Ford 9" is 'the best' and darn near bullit proof, it's not efficient. It takes more power to turn the 9" design as opposed to the more efficient 8.8 (...has to do with pinion placement in relation to the ring gear). And... a benefit of the 8.8 design is that it's also cheaper to produce.

Edited March 1, 2007 by therealmrmustang

[Hemiman]

While the Ford 9" is 'the best' and darn near bullit proof, it's not efficient. It takes more power to turn the 9" design as opposed to the more efficient 8.8 (...has to do with pinion placement in relation to the ring gear). And... a benefit of the 8.8 design is that it's also cheaper to produce.

 

 

Yes, I've heard that. The pinion placement gives it better tooth contact than even a Dana 60. However, this comes at a 3% efficiency loss @ full load. At cruise the efficiency is no worse than the 8.8. I'd have to study the physics of this to determine what full load means though.

 

Good start!

Edited March 1, 2007 by Hemiman

[RichardJensen]

Personally, I would have guessed Friday, but whatever. :D

 

I can only get an image of upper management by the decisions I see at my plant, and from the observations my father has told me from what happens at his plant, and he is salaried. I see stupid decisions that not only take it's toll on morale, but cost more money in the long run.

The big question that should be asked is "Why do smart people make stupid decisions?"

 

It is not reasonable to assume that 'management is incompetent'--that past a certain layer of management, you run into a total intelligence vacuum. Regardless of what you may say about MBAs and college degrees in general, like getting a journeyman's license in a trade, a fair amount of effort motivation and capability are required.

 

So the question becomes, once again, "Why do smart people make stupid decisions?"

 

If you start trying to find the answer to that question, you'll make way more headway than you will by assuming that everyone past the VP level is running on one braincell, with that one fading fast.

Edited March 1, 2007 by RichardJensen

[LincolnFan]

Who made this Thailand Ranger? I rode in that thing and let me tell you the American outdated Ranger kicks it's butt HARDCORE STYLE.

[bolita]

Who made this Thailand Ranger? I rode in that thing and let me tell you the American outdated Ranger kicks it's butt HARDCORE STYLE.

 

The Thai Ranger was "made" or engineered mostly by Mazda.

 

The Argentinean Ranger, which is pretty much the same as the American outdated Ranger may be some what more robust but IMHO does not kick but in regards to the Thai Ranger. I've been in both and find the Thai Ranger (latest one) much more refined, especially ergonomically speaking.

 

I was sure that the next T6 Ranger would be offered globally - pretty much like the Toyota IMV project.

 

The Toyota IMV project produces the HiLux, Fortuner and, if not mistaken the Innova in Thailand and Argentina (minus the Innova). AS far as I know, the Tacoma is pretty much based on the same platform, only refined for the US consumer. I really believe that Ford should do the same, a basic Ranger/Everest type plaform for emerging markets, produced principally in Thailand and Argentina and a more refined Ranger for the US produced either in the US or Mexico (yeah, I know I'll get cloberred regarding Mexico).

 

I just hope that the T6 program incorporates some decent 4 and 6 cylinder gasoline engines as the current gas engines suck in the Thai Ranger (they are old, both the G6 2.6L Mazda and the 4.0L off the Explorer which is only available from the South African CKD plant).

 

Finally, I wanted to bring up the volume issue. AAT Thailand has right now a capacity of 250K units per year split pretty much 66/33 Ford/Mazda. Argentina I believe has a capacity of 50K units/year with one shift, maybe up to 100K/yr at full capacity which would not satisfy the projected global demand for the T6 - obviously not enough to cover the US. The AAT figures include CKD kits that are used in South Africa and Vietnam (maybe Phillipines too?) so a third source would need to be included.

[jpd80]

Who made this Thailand Ranger? I rode in that thing and let me tell you the American outdated Ranger kicks it's butt HARDCORE STYLE.

 

 

MAZDA - It's a BT50. They compete with Toyota Hilux - I think thye call 'em Tacomas over there.

 

Anyway, That's why Ford Australia is designing the replacement -T6.

The T6 project will develop a platform that is to be sold in over 80 countries at an expected 400K/year.

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=23353

 

It is not a straight substitution with the size of the American Ranger.

 

Less confusing when our Truck was called Courier.

Edited March 1, 2007 by jpd80

[matthewq4b]

Yes, I've heard that. The pinion placement gives it better tooth contact than even a Dana 60. However, this comes at a 3% efficiency loss @ full load. At cruise the efficiency is no worse than the 8.8. I'd have to study the physics of this to determine what full load means though.

 

Good start!

 

The 9" Ford does have more frictional loses than the 8.8. When the 9" was dropped Ford was looking for every single MPG they could get outta the vehicals.

Just by changing to a different and exsisting axel design was no brainer.

 

There is also the durabilty factor. Now this is not in the sence of being stronger. But the 9" Ford does have a tendancy to lose axel seals once you get some miles on them. And unlike the 8.8 you have to press off and replace the axel bearings to change the axel seal. I know I have had to replaced an axel seal-s in every single 9" equipped Ford I have owned. To date I have only had to do one in a 8.8 and that was at some 500k in the GM.

The 8.8 does not suffer this issue nearly as much as the 9"

 

Also the 8.8 is a lighter axel assembly, pounds saved in unsprung weight.

 

And the biggest factor the 8.8 is it is way way cheaper to build. There is no where near as much machining needed on the 8.8 pumpkin. There are fewer bearings in the 8.8. The axel bearings are a fraction of the cost in the 8.8 compared to the 9"

The gear sets in the 8.8 do not have to be laped in and tooth matched as on the 9"

And there are way less parts in the assembly as a whole.

 

With the modest efficiancy savings (IIRC frictional losses can be as much as 15% lower in the 8.8 compared to the 9" in some gear ratios, Not sure how accurate that is)

Lower unsprung weight. And cost savings (again IIRC the 8.8 was about 30% cheaper to build).

These factors pretty much doomed the 9" and By 87 or so it was gone from production.

 

The 8.8 has been around for decades it is basically just the old WER (8.7" ring gear) intregal carrier axel assembly used in the 351cui, 400cui mid sized and the 302cui, I6 full size Fords from the 60's on up.

 

But If you need a meduim weight auto axel assembly that has to absorb huge amounts of abuse there is no better candidate than the 9" Ford.

 

Matthew

Edited March 2, 2007 by matthewq4b

[LSFan00]

Matthew,

 

Don't go adding reasoned explanations behind Ford product decisions to a perfectly good rant, that's not how things work around here. We all know management just screwed the pooch killing off the greatest axle ever purely in the interest of saving 20 cents per vehicle, dammit. Please edit your post to reflect something like;

 

"Yeah, my dad, who also worked at a Ford plant, loved the old axle but told me the 8.8 is cheaper, and I hate that POS."

 

Thanks. :happy feet:

[Hemiman]

The 9" Ford does have more frictional loses than the 8.8. When the 9" was dropped Ford was looking for every single MPG they could get outta the vehicals.

Just by changing to a different and exsisting axel design was no brainer.

 

There is also the durabilty factor. Now this is not in the sence of being stronger. But the 9" Ford does have a tendancy to lose axel seals once you get some miles on them. And unlike the 8.8 you have to press off and replace the axel bearings to change the axel seal. I know I have had to replaced an axel seal-s in every single 9" equipped Ford I have owned. To date I have only had to do one in a 8.8 and that was at some 500k in the GM.

The 8.8 does not suffer this issue nearly as much as the 9"

 

Also the 8.8 is a lighter axel assembly, pounds saved in unsprung weight.

 

And the biggest factor the 8.8 is it is way way cheaper to build. There is no where near as much machining needed on the 8.8 pumpkin. There are fewer bearings in the 8.8. The axel bearings are a fraction of the cost in the 8.8 compared to the 9"

The gear sets in the 8.8 do not have to be laped in and tooth matched as on the 9"

And there are way less parts in the assembly as a whole.

 

With the modest efficiancy savings (IIRC frictional losses can be as much as 15% lower in the 8.8 compared to the 9" in some gear ratios, Not sure how accurate that is)

Lower unsprung weight. And cost savings (again IIRC the 8.8 was about 30% cheaper to build).

These factors pretty much doomed the 9" and By 87 or so it was gone from production.

 

The 8.8 has been around for decades it is basically just the old WER (8.7" ring gear) intregal carrier axel assembly used in the 351cui, 400cui mid sized and the 302cui, I6 full size Fords from the 60's on up.

 

But If you need a meduim weight auto axel assembly that has to absorb huge amounts of abuse there is no better candidate than the 9" Ford.

 

Matthew

 

Matthew,

 

Good info!

 

Why the problem with seals? I've not experienced the same, but most of the 9" I've dealt with over the past 20 yrs have been in race cars or off road Jeeps, niether of which could be called high milage vehicles.

 

The highest frictional loss I've heard of for the 9" was 3% @ full load. This is compared to the GM 12 bolt. This is why in lower HP drag cars, where durability isn't an issue, many will choose the 12 bolt over the 9" in an attempt to get all availible HP to the pavement. Again I'd like to get a definition of "full load".

 

Now, if they were going to redesign the 9", this loss could have been eliminated by moving the pinion closer to the center. Yes you would have lost some of the tooth contact that makes the 9" so strong, but you would have retained the third pinion support bearing wich accounts for much of the strength. However, if the 8.8 is just an evolution of an existing design then I guess this is all moot as it wouldn't have paid to redesign the 9".

 

As for unsprung wieght, the removable 3rd member would have made it easy to change to aluminum. Much easier than with the Dana 44 aluminum center.

 

So, I guess the answer is: Cost savings are greater than 47 cents per unit & a 3-15% efficiency gain.

 

 

Thanks,

Edited March 2, 2007 by Hemiman

[Hemiman]

Matthew,

 

Don't go adding reasoned explanations behind Ford product decisions to a perfectly good rant, that's not how things work around here. We all know management just screwed the pooch killing off the greatest axle ever purely in the interest of saving 20 cents per vehicle, dammit. Please edit your post to reflect something like;

 

"Yeah, my dad, who also worked at a Ford plant, loved the old axle but told me the 8.8 is cheaper, and I hate that POS."

 

Thanks. :happy feet:

 

 

LSFan,

 

Some real heplful thoughts. Really cleared up some misconceptions!

 

Thanks for adding to the discussion!

[Meelaan]

The Ranger is a fossil.

 

Perhaps this has been mentioned, but what would be so difficult about taking an Explorer, chopping the back end off, and throwing a truck bed on it? Just a two door Sport Trac, ya know? (SEE PROVIDED PHOTOCHOP)

 

Thoughts???

Edited April 4, 2007 by Meelaan

[PolarBear]

Hmmm. My big thing about the Ranger is that the darned thing is tougher than nails..... something I'm not sure i'd say about the Explorer. IRS has no business on the back of a truck. Hell, I'm not even sure it belongs on the front of a pickup either.

 

I came across this, though, and it annoy's me mightily. I would've bought that instead of the Silverado in a heartbeat. Made in Brazil, as I understand it, with a turbo-diesel.

 

Edited April 8, 2007 by PolarBear

[Meelaan]

Hmmm. My big thing about the Ranger is that the darned thing is tougher than nails..... something I'm not sure i'd say about the Explorer. IRS has no business on the back of a truck. Hell, I'm not even sure it belongs on the front of a pickup either.

 

I came across this, though, and it annoy's me mightily. I would've bought that instead of the Silverado in a heartbeat. Made in Brazil, as I understand it, with a turbo-diesel.

 

 

 

Yeah, seen that a few years ago. We get the fluffed up Sport Trac thing with half a bed and the rest of the civilized world gets a crew cab Ranger.

 

What a brilliant decision, Ford.

[jonas1022]

Yeah, seen that a few years ago. We get the fluffed up Sport Trac thing with half a bed and the rest of the civilized world gets a crew cab Ranger.

 

What a brilliant decision, Ford.

Brazilian Ranger with the diesel is bog slow. Like Molasses in January during a hard freeze. You would not like it unless you lived and worked it on a farm, stayed away from freeways, and accepted a very noisey, buzzy engine that stinks. But, if you do live on a farm, stay off freeways and didn't give a hoot about the engine cacaphony. It would be for you! At least that is my recollection of the article in Motor Trend, Automobile, or Car And Driver just before the Sport Trac came out. As a comparison, Chevy brought the S-10 four door from Brazil without the noisey engine that they use and they had a hard time giving the things away in most states.

 

Remember, more women than men buy cars and trucks in the US of A, and they want comfort! Having said that, I would buy the four door Ranger with a diesel as well. It just makes too much sense to pass up. Then again, I'm an old dude!

Edited July 29, 2007 by jonas1022

[sargranny]

Remember, more women than men buy cars and trucks in the US of A, and they want comfort! Having said that, I would buy the four door Ranger with a diesel as well. It just makes too much sense to pass up. Then again, I'm an old dude!

 

 

I am a woman - a mother of 2 and a grandmother of 2, and I am not sure what you mean by "comfort" - I am looking for durability, reliability, something easy to clean inside, and something that will go offroad but still have good fuel economy on the highway.

 

Really what I want is leather or durable vinyl seats just because cloth ones always get nasty and go south eventually and I tend to get 10 years and 200K + on any vehicle I own. And I often get in the truck with mud all over me. The other thing I want is SAFETY - I am old enough to realize that nimble driving skills can't get you out of everything and my grandkids are precious cargo to me.

 

Not looking to climb rocks or do crazy stuff and would rather not have a truck that is marketed to the kid crowd because it drags up insurance rates, but I regularly drive on dirt roads, up powerline clearcuts, across fields, and in mud near lakes. I have seen enough 2WD vehicles get stuck to want to stay with 4WD.

 

The durotorq diesel or some other turbo diesel sounds great to me. A 4 door vehicle with a back seat would be nice cause of the kids.

[jonas1022]

I am a woman - a mother of 2 and a grandmother of 2, and I am not sure what you mean by "comfort" - I am looking for durability, reliability, something easy to clean inside, and something that will go offroad but still have good fuel economy on the highway.

 

Really what I want is leather or durable vinyl seats just because cloth ones always get nasty and go south eventually and I tend to get 10 years and 200K + on any vehicle I own. And I often get in the truck with mud all over me. The other thing I want is SAFETY - I am old enough to realize that nimble driving skills can't get you out of everything and my grandkids are precious cargo to me.

 

Not looking to climb rocks or do crazy stuff and would rather not have a truck that is marketed to the kid crowd because it drags up insurance rates, but I regularly drive on dirt roads, up powerline clearcuts, across fields, and in mud near lakes. I have seen enough 2WD vehicles get stuck to want to stay with 4WD.

 

The durotorq diesel or some other turbo diesel sounds great to me. A 4 door vehicle with a back seat would be nice cause of the kids.

Sort of, most of the women around here buy em with power everything. Golly gee whiz anything that hangs on it! And buy that too! I don't understand. I drive a 94 std. cab XL with six cylinder and auto. The gals I know, including my wife want power to make sure they get acroos the intersection. So they order up a 5.4L V-8. She also wants a leather interior for reasons you stated. Ummm, we don't have kids. It's hot here, and I want to be cool. So the truck has the upholstered fabric. Just a matter of what's important to the buyer. But I don't see making it a car just because... And the diesels do not get any better mpg than the gas engines. Just a fact of life. Check out the mpg ratings in Consumers Reports this month. I also had a Ranger( at work, not mine) with a 4.0 L engine. It's mileage was worse than the 4.2L engine in the replacement F-150.

 

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it and it won't be what you thought it was.

[sargranny]

And the diesels do not get any better mpg than the gas engines. Just a fact of life. Check out the mpg ratings in Consumers Reports this month.

 

OK so I don't have a subscription to consumer reports - I have sure read a lot that common rail diesels are doing well. I know a straight old fashioned diesel did not have the zing a gas vehicle did but that turbo diesels did. I drove an old Volvol 240D Wagon for years - got decent fuel economy and that was on old design / no turbo - main issue was parts availablility for repairs. Yes, I did learn to drive like a trucker and came to appreciate the high speed downhill runs and being in the right line with flashers going up mountain grades......................