Why is the F150 so big?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The light duty F-250 package ended in the 1998 model year. In 1999, it change to the "increased GVW" package. It offered the same capabilites and strengths as before, but now, Ford didn't have to carry two different batches of decals for the LD bodyshell.

 

FWIW, I've driven the 1998 F-250, and it really doesn't feel much different from the 1999 F-150 that I used to won. Yeah, its got the 4.6L v8 where my truck had the 6 cylinder, but, aside from that, and a lightly rougher empty ride, its about the same.

[calypsocoral]

This is the first I have heard of an F-100 program. Does anyone have any details or is this all just speculation?

 

This is the first I've heard it as well. But, it shouldn't be too hard, since the long wheelbase Explorer platform debuted on the Sport Trac. They pretty much have their work cut out for them...

 

In regards to the broader topic of the thread, yeah, I think Ford is caught in a bit of a bind-- damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

I think the F-150, along with the Ram 1500 and Sierra/Silverado 1500, have all out-grown the needs of the average 1/2-ton buyer. This is why a mid-size truck, like the proposed F-100, would be a great idea, especially if it offered a stroked Duratec 35 (any word on a 4.0L variant?). Perhaps a 4.6L MOD as a step-up engine?

 

In regards to the Ranger, I'm not sure there's still a market for a compact pickup. This would be a VERY interesting "wait and see" sort of scenario...

 

A 2.5L four-banger as a base engine, with perhaps a Duratec 35 as a step-up engine would be ideal for that segment. You probably wouldn't need more than 260 lb-ft for a compact. It would certainly be ideal for a Lowe's or Home Depot run...

[lfeg]

Hey, pickups have just suffered from the typical american disease - if big is good, bigger is better.

 

The recent bulking up of half ton pickups is not all that much about capabilities as it is about image. In the last 20 years the pickup market has exploded, and the one thing that has sold many pickups is the image, they were in many cases sold as "lifestyle" vehicles. And to maintain the image, you just could not provide an adequet package, it had to be above and beyond all else out there. My last half ton pickup was a 1960 F 100 4x4. With all of my tools and other junk onboard it hit the scales at about 3800 pounds, and had (if I remember right) a 5600 pound GVW (regular cab, 8 foot bed). Ever since that one, I have had 3/4 ton pickups so that I could have payloads of 3600 to 4000 pounds. The current F 150 is a pretty capable pickup, but it is way beyond what a 1/2 ton pickup needs to be, although it is where the marketers want it to be.

 

Ideally, in my view, Ford should have this piclup line up -

 

Ranger - Same size range it now has, updated in looks and space efficiency with about 400 pounds removed on the average unit. It should have 2 4 cyl gas engines offered (120 to 140 hp range and 150 to 170 hp range) and a 4 cylinder diesel. Regular cab (5.5' and 7' beds), extended cab (4.5' and 7' beds), and 4 door cab (4.5' and 5.5' beds).

 

F 100 - A "downsized" (lighter frame, debulked) F 150. Cut the weight by at least 1500 pounds. Max payload of 2000 pounds. Regular and extended cabs (no crew cab). 6.75' and 8' beds. 3 engines, V6 gas(180 to 200 hp), V8 gas (230 to 250 hp), and V6 diesel (220 to 230 hp). A true half ton pickup.

 

F 150 - Pretty much as it is, with at least an 800 pound weight cut. Regular, extended, and crew cabs. 5.5', 6.75', and 8' beds. Payloads from 1500 to 2800 pounds. 5 engines - large V6 gas (200 to 220 hp), small V8 gas (250 to 260 hp), large V8 gas (280 to 300 hp), V6 diesel (220 to 230 hp), and V8 diesel (250 to 260 hp). The mass market pickup that covers the half, heavy half, and light 3/4 ton market.

 

F 250 - the true 3/4 ton pickup. Regular, extended, and crew cabs. 6.75', and 8' beds. Payloads from 2800 to 4300 pounds. A reg cab long bed 4x4 should not have a curb weight over 5000 pounds. 5 engines to cover a wide range of uses - small V8 gas (250 to 260 hp), large V8 gas (300 to 320 hp), small V8 diesel (250 to 260 hp), large V8 diesel (300 to 320 hp). This truck will cover the heavy 3/4 to 1 ton SRW market.

 

F 350 - The true 1 ton pickup. Mostly DRW applications with limited SRW models. As it is now, many configurations. Payloads of 3800 to 5200 pounds. Same engine offerings as F 250, with one addition - an "enhanced performance" large V8 diesel with up to 350 hp.

 

I am not including the F 450 and up, as I consider those medium duty trucks beyond the consumer market.

Edited May 7, 2007 by lfeg

[falconman13]

I think you may be a bit optimistic on the weight reduction. It would be hard to trim 400 lbs out of a ranger and I think next to impossible to trim 1500 from any vehicle.

[igor]

F100 is being developed off of the F150 frame ... projected debut is next fall. the Explorer/SportTrack frame was the original plan, but it would be a dead end at this point, since Explorer is going UnitBody in 2010. Sport Track will either move to the new Explorer platform or to the F100 frame.

 

Ford will have a utility VAN in place of the Ranger this fall, but probably not a true truck replacement for a couple of years if ever.

 

Igor

[lfeg]

I may be optimistic on weight reductions, but given fuel price trends and the regulatory/environmental hue and cry in Washington and on the coasts, Ford may need to do better than that. The easiest way to increase fuel economy is to reduce weight and the easiest way to increase payload is to reduce curb weight. Given the new types of steel available today and new forming/processing technologies developed to take advantage of their properties, it can be done. If Ford wants to be the market leader in this area in the future, they may need to do it.

[falconman13]

I am not faulting your logic, I agree with your reasoning. However, the only way currently to eliminate that much weight would be to switch to more exotic materials such as carbon fiber or aluminum. Both of which would add significantly to the cost. So although its a good idea to trim weight, I don't think the vehicle could absorb the cost and stay competitively priced.

[lfeg]

Carbon fiber is not needed. Aluminium could be used for some exterior panels such as the hood. You, along with many others may not know what is going on with steel today. There is a great opportunity to significantly cut weight by using some of the newer steels along with newer forming technology. Then there are other items that can be made lighter such as engine blocks, suspension items, and so on. And this can be done without reducing strength. Ford (and everyone else) has significantly increased the weight of their pickups since the early 90s, without a whole lot of benefit. Mostly becaust it was easier than to find ways to increase content and capability and just neglect the increase in weight. This is what has gotten us pickups that weigh more, have higher GVWs, but end up with lower payloads.

Ford is in crisis now, and with the costs of fuel going up due to increased worldwide demand and the push to reduce carbon emissions it can get much worse. Since the mid to late 90s Ford in North America has become primarily a truck company that also sells some cars. Because of this, to get back to solid profitibility in North America they need the truck side to bring in serious profits. This cannot be done by maintaining the status quo,, Ford needs to be the leader in using technology to produce and sell the trucks that the market is looking for with the economy and emissions that will be better than required by upcoming regulations. The danger is that if Ford does not take leadership in this area, someone else will. If Ford ends up with an overweight, overwought lineup of trucks in a few (think 3 or 4) years they will be in bigger trouble than now.

[NickF1011]

This is what has gotten us pickups that weigh more, have higher GVWs, but end up with lower payloads.

 

I don't recall any "1/2 ton" pickups in the 1990's or earlier with 3200 lb payload capacity. All of the added weight is what has made these "1/2 ton" pickups capable of now towing 10,000+ lbs and hauling more than a ton in the bed. Sure, we can look for exotic materials and processes that will jack the prices up, but I think the better solution is just building a smaller pickup alongside the current ones and letting consumers choose which one they want.

[silvrsvt]

With all this talk of smaller trucks, once you go up to a 4L V6 in the Ranger, your getting the same MPG as a V8 in the F-150..so whats the point?

[NickF1011]

With all this talk of smaller trucks, once you go up to a 4L V6 in the Ranger, your getting the same MPG as a V8 in the F-150..so whats the point?

 

The point is in your words. 4L V6. That engine is a pig on fuel and is on the way out. A 3.5 or 3.7 in the Ranger would probably offer more power and far better fuel economy. We have to stop using the thoroughly outdated Ranger as a basis for decision-making on future small pickups.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Under new US legislation future passenger automobiles & light trucks will be classified as the same, ALL new SUV vechicles will have to average 29.5 MPG if they want to sell in the US market, so the SUV will be getting a lot smaller in the future whether you like it or not, the SUV loophole will be closed by law.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-357

[NickF1011]

Under new proposed and not yet approved US legislation future passenger automobiles & light trucks will be classified as the same, ALL new SUV vechicles will have to average 29.5 MPG if they want to sell in the US market, so the SUV will be getting a lot smaller in the future whether you like it or not, the SUV loophole will be closed by law.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-357

 

Fixed your omission.

[lfeg]

I don't recall any "1/2 ton" pickups in the 1990's or earlier with 3200 lb payload capacity. All of the added weight is what has made these "1/2 ton" pickups capable of now towing 10,000+ lbs and hauling more than a ton in the bed. Sure, we can look for exotic materials and processes that will jack the prices up, but I think the better solution is just building a smaller pickup alongside the current ones and letting consumers choose which one they want.

 

OK, but this gets back to the original topic. We have a half ton pickup that can do the job of a 3/4 ton pickup. It is just so heavy and bulked up that it is overkill for those who want a half ton pickup. This is marketing driven, so that Ford can state that they have a half ton that has more, is bigger, and so on. The current F 150 is a great truck, but is it the right truck for the half ton market in the nest 4 or 5 years?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I'm not saying that the weight gain hasn't come with a comensurate increase in capabilities. What I'm asking for is some research into replacing one key component with aluminum, the frame. With a fully boxed aluminum frame, the weight savings would be tremendous. It would more than make up for any increase in weight that a different fastening technology would bring to bond other components to said frame. Yes, the aluminum might cost a bit more than steel, but in the bulk that Ford buys the stuff, would it really be that much more per unit? I'm obviously no expert on this, but I'm willing to believe that about 1/3 the mass of a pickup is the frame ( the next biggest item would be the cab, then the drivetrain...). Given that the F-150 tips the scales at around 5000 lbs, around 1500-1800 lbs of that is the frame. If you switched to aluminum, then allowed for some increase in fastener weight, you'd have shed 750-900 lbs right there. That's enough for several mpg city and highway. That weight savings means that you don't have to kill yourself trying to squeeze blood from a turnip to get a factory ford engine to make competitive power to see the same performance numbers as the competition.

 

So, yes, aluminum would be pricey and include a costly development curve, but, I think it could be done in large scale and would give whoever does it first a competitive edge.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

QUOTE(Ford Jellymoulds @ May 8 2007, 09:22 AM)

Under new proposed and not yet approved US legislation future passenger automobiles & light trucks will be classified as the same, ALL new SUV vechicles will have to average 29.5 MPG if they want to sell in the US market, so the SUV will be getting a lot smaller in the future whether you like it or not, the SUV loophole will be closed by law.

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-357

 

Fixed your omission.

 

If the legislation does get passed Nick, how many SUV's are 29-MPG average capable, if not what size/weight would they have to be to achieve the mandatory law.

[NickF1011]

If the legislation does get passed Nick, how many SUV's are 29-MPG average capable, if not what size/weight would they have to be to achieve the mandatory law.

 

That is a BIG "if". Our government tends to be a lot less stringent about such things compared to the Europeans, thank God. If you looked at all of the legislation introduced in our Congress and worried about all the "ifs" in those proposed laws, your head would explode.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

That is a BIG "if". Our government tends to be a lot less stringent about such things compared to the Europeans, thank God. If you looked at all of the legislation introduced in our Congress and worried about all the "ifs" in those proposed laws, your head would explode.

 

Thanks for that Nick -US government sound a bit more practical, Europeans are bordering on dam vicious towards car owners at the moment.

[NickF1011]

Thanks for that Nick -US government sound a bit more practical, Europeans are bordering on dam vicious towards car owners at the moment.

 

I don't think practical is the word for it. The US has always been a lot more business-minded than most other nations though. For the most part, the government is hands-off and says "let the consumers decide what they want". I hope they don't stray too far from this formula, as it has, for the most part, worked very well over the past century.

 

If the auto industry keeps selling big honkin fuel thirsty SUV's, let them. If consumers no longer want the crappy fuel economy associated with them, they'll stop buying them.

[JM.]

I made a similar reply in one of the other sub-forums, but if Ford REALLY reads this, maybe it bears repeating.

 

Why is the F150 so damn big?

 

Am I so out of the majority in this opinion that no manufacturer will make something?

 

Until then, I'll live with my Ranger, and pine for something bigger....just not that big.

 

I don't think the F150 is too big, maybe you are just too small, j/k. But seriously, the great thing about the F150 is it comes in sooooo many varieties, is you don't want a ibg one with a lot of hp/torque you can buy a base model.