Ford Ranchero

[rmc523]

The new 2010 Ranchero, Taurus X based, with a mid-box type storage area below rear windows. The mid-box door also allows access into the bed.

 

Thoughts?

Edited August 4, 2007 by rmc523

[twintornados]

great job ....I would buy one.

[Traveler]

That is a very good rendering that I would have thought came out of a showroom catalog. Of course, the only thing about it is the Holden VE reportedly a possibility for sale in the U.S. would devour it. If Ford were to do something like this, they'd better offer a lot of power...something to make it appealing, because I don't think anybody is going to buy a vehicle like an "El Camino" or "Ranchero" nowadays when there are better options.

 

This is DEFINITELY a guy vehicle; really always has been for the most part and its got to appeal to men. If it doesn't have a lot of power or a bed that is reasonably useful, it will fall flat on its face in 6 months. I'm not even sure if the Holden could maintain consistency in sales over here. It's just a different market.

 

My dad had a '73 Ranchero. It did have a good size bed (like a Torino with a truck bed) on it and had power from its 351C 4-barrel carburator. The Ranchero has to be marketed directly at guys.

 

A 'car-truck' has to have mucho power to be appealing and only guys are going to get it.

[timmm55]

The back window looks a little awkward, and would you need a separate door for that small of a back storage space? Maybe just a locking compartment in the bed? (I rechopped my idea, but didn't want to post it w/o your permission 1st)

 

One of the appeals of a Ranchero is that it's less truck-like, drives like a car, better gas mileage and would therefore be MORE appealing to women. It would probably have to be 4WD...IMHO FWD trucks are too front end biased for braking/handling.

 

A 3.5/3.7 would be more than adequate for light duty runs to Home Depot, picking up antiques, etc. A 351C in a 73 Ranchero isn't exactly "mucho" HP (no offense, I have a 72 Montego with a 351C, hardly a muscle car) a 3.7 TF would make a nice modern "guy's" version of the GMCSyclone/Typhoon.

Edited September 25, 2007 by timmm55

[rmc523]

The back window looks a little awkward, and would you need a separate door for that small of a back storage space? Maybe just a locking compartment in the bed? (I rechopped my idea, but didn't want to post it w/o your permission 1st)

 

One of the appeals of a Ranchero is that it's less truck-like, drives like a car, better gas mileage and would therefore be MORE appealing to women. It would probably have to be 4WD...IMHO FWD trucks are too front end biased for braking/handling.

 

A 3.5/3.7 would be more than adequate for light duty runs to Home Depot, picking up antiques, etc. A 351C in a 73 Ranchero isn't exactly "mucho" HP (no offense, I have a 72 Montego with a 351C, hardly a muscle car) a 3.7 TF would make a nice modern "guy's" version of the GMCSyclone/Typhoon.

 

Go ahead and post it, I'd like to see what you're talking about.

 

Now that I look at it the rear window is awkward. The rear door is supposed to open up to BOTH the bed and that small storage space. I didnt think about where the window would go w/ this door open though. I suppose theoretically it could remain attached to the rear door and just be like a normal window, opening with the door. That would then allow even greater access to the rear storage compartment.

A locking bed compartment could work too I suppose, maybe have this storage area be accessable from both the cab and bed sort of like Avalanche, but that brings up the point about structural rigidity, etc.

As you said, it'd have to be an AWD/4WD model.

I'd think the 3.5 would work, possibly the 3.7 as you said, if necessary.

[Traveler]

Oh, no...no offense taken. The Ranchero was more offensive than your statement. I really didn't mean to imply that by today's standards or even during the sixties, the 351C 4V was a wicked powerplant...but, the year is 1973. By those standards, it was pretty good. A lot of horsepower was cut out of everything then. Top end was non-existent in most vehicles of that vintage. Heck, even the L82 Corvette only made 250 horsepower and the 351C was making comparable horsepower to that. Still, they did have relatively good torque, often due to a low ring and pinion ratio and they did sound pretty quick and relative to their day, were about as strong a Ford motor as most would care to have.

 

My point was that this type of vehicle has almost always appealed more to men. A good example would be when the El Camino was based on the Malibu/Chevelle SS. Guys could by the El Camino, get the hotter engines and save on insurance because the El Camino was cheaper.

 

If Ford put a 263 horsepower Ranchero up against a 400+ horsepower Holden "El Camino", few men are going to go for the Ford, unless its significantly cheaper and even then I think most men would pass on it. These cars are different than they used to be. They lack practicality and most people have "family" and "safety" in mind. A two-three seater just isn't what people buy much of for personal use. Few families are going to use a standard cab F-150. They're going to buy the CrewCab.

 

Both represent a minute niche market and both would struggle unless limit-production is counted on and production/import costs are justified. Ford isn't likely to do this vehicle based on the Taurus because it would represent too much investment. Now they might would look to Ford of Australia to import their competition for the Holden VE.

 

In short, the only way that the Taurus Ranchero could appeal to women is if it were to be solely aimed at a vehicle like the Honda Ridgeline and include four doors. Women aren't going to buy a vehicle with no backseat. This is a very tough segment. Remember the Subaru Baha? Very similar case AND had four doors and floundered. This type of vehicle I feel just has a better audience with men and most men, given the opportunity, want horsepower in such a vehicle. Its a play toy...not a grocery getter for empty nesters.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Traveler

[timmm55]

If (and I doubt it) Ford ever made a new Ranchero GT with the (TF) Twin Force would be at least 350HP. Not all Holdens are 400+ either.

 

I imagine it with a small jump seat/parcel shelf.

[Traveler]

If (and I doubt it) Ford ever made a new Ranchero GT with the (TF) Twin Force would be at least 350HP. Not all Holdens are 400+ either.

 

I imagine it with a small jump seat/parcel shelf.

 

I can't really see GM offering the Holden over here with multiple engine options. I imagine that the 6.0L is probably all that would be offered, similar to the GTO offering. Any two door (even with smaller access doors) vehicle like this will most certainly be passed over my families. Not too many parents would put their kids in jump seats. The parcel shelf would probably be a better idea. Really, I could see this vehicle possibly replacing the Ranger standard cab as a fleet vehicle primarily, but I'm not sure the bed would be big enough for some applications.

 

I see the Holden being exclusively offered with the 6.0 over here...if at all. If Ford were to counter and wanted to use the Taurus X as a platform, it would have to offer the Twin Force or be a lot cheaper. From the PUTC article, the Holden costs about $35,000 in U.S. dollars in Australia. So, basically its like a GTO without a backseat and a bed instead. I don't think that GM will import it myself because I believe sales will be more dismal than the GTO could muster. I just don't see a market for it.

[falconman13]

I would prefer a Fusion based version. More like the Falcon sized Rancheos

[rmc523]

I would prefer a Fusion based version. More like the Falcon sized Rancheos

 

to each his own.

[694doorbird]

to bad ford didn't bring this up from the land of down under!!

http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServ...4&c=DFYPage

[Traveler]

I think this should be a consideration for a Ranger replacement if Ford isn't willing to do build a new standard cab/extended cab off the existing Sport Trac frame. Clearly there is a lot of veratility in this Australian vehicle.

[Tico]

Look better than the Pontiac GM is thinking of bring from Austrialia. Based on the Taurus Ford would have AWD already built in. A V8 option would be good though...

[rmc523]

Look better than the Pontiac GM is thinking of bring from Austrialia. Based on the Taurus Ford would have AWD already built in. A V8 option would be good though...

 

I dont think a V8 would be possible with it using Taurus' D3 architecture.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I dont think a V8 would be possible with it using Taurus' D3 architecture.

 

It should be possible since the Volvo has a 4.4 V-8

[rmc523]

It should be possible since the Volvo has a 4.4 V-8

Isn't the new S80 EUCD now?

[MERKURXR4Ti]

Nice picture, but that car would need to be body on frame to maintain any kind of rigidity especially with those rear doors (which seems like a cool idea though)

 

The whole car based truck thing can't work for Ford since people will try to use it as a 150 and smash it all to bits imo.

[twintornados]

Isn't the new S80 EUCD now?

 

I believe it is on a D3 platform

[shadowcat]

to bad ford didn't bring this up from the land of down under!!

http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServ...4&c=DFYPage

 

I think ford should bring the falcon to the us as a ranchero.

[Furious1Auto]

The new 2010 Ranchero, Taurus X based, with a mid-box type storage area below rear windows. The mid-box door also allows access into the bed.

 

Thoughts?

That actually looks great if yo subtract the the two rear doors, it is only a two seat vehicle!

[2003F250]

Who has time for this crap... if you're gonna Photoshop something, at least make it cool. And umm.. remove the rear door handles... it's called the clone tool.

 

[rmc523]

Who has time for this crap... if you're gonna Photoshop something, at least make it cool. And umm.. remove the rear door handles... it's called the clone tool.

 

 

if you read the post, you would understand that those door handles serve a purpose, access to the bed and a small post-seat storage area.

[RangerM]

The new 2010 Ranchero, Taurus X based, with a mid-box type storage area below rear windows. The mid-box door also allows access into the bed.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm not really big on the only current unibody truck; Ridgeline = fugly.

 

I really like the direction you've taken with the "aero" pickup. Perhaps I need to reconsider unibody as it relates to trucks.

 

The rigidity would seem to be lost with the access doors and to retain it would require a lot more metal and thus lower MPG. (I would think)

 

Give me this vehicle with a back seat, rear-wheel drive (or at least a heavy bias), and a 6' bed, and you've given me something to want.

(Getting pretty long here, but it has to serve as a truck and a family hauler in my case)

[rmc523]

If (and I doubt it) Ford ever made a new Ranchero GT with the (TF) Twin Force would be at least 350HP. Not all Holdens are 400+ either.

 

I imagine it with a small jump seat/parcel shelf.

 

I like what you've done to it. Your right, that b/c-pillar looks better than the one I put on. Those wouldn't have to be the angle of the window either, it could be like the Avalanche, w/ a striaght up/down window and those side things.

[rmc523]

I'm not really big on the only current unibody truck; Ridgeline = fugly.

 

I really like the direction you've taken with the "aero" pickup. Perhaps I need to reconsider unibody as it relates to trucks.

 

The rigidity would seem to be lost with the access doors and to retain it would require a lot more metal and thus lower MPG. (I would think)

 

Give me this vehicle with a back seat, rear-wheel drive (or at least a heavy bias), and a 6' bed, and you've given me something to want.

(Getting pretty long here, but it has to serve as a truck and a family hauler in my case)

 

First of all, I'd like to say thanks for the compliment.

 

I agree, the Ridgeline is ugly. I believe that if done right, a uniobody truck can look good (new Avalanche isn't too bad).

 

I see what you're saying about the access door and overall rigiditiy. To be honest, on a vehicle like this, w/ how low it is, you probably wouldn't need an access door, on a truck like F-150 or Super Duty, maybe, but on this, probably not, it was just an idea though.