Just to beat the horse one more time

[armadamaster]

Why would any automaker want to make, of all vehicles, a pickup easy to use? Get with the times man...it's cool to need a staircase to get into a truck.

 

Slab-sided, too tall beds are the future.

 

Good post and right on the money.

 

Yeah. Who cares if the capability has to be sacrificed. Who cares if Ford is trying to keep ahead of the market. Who cares if such a huge number of buyers have spoken and bought the truck.

 

Um....weren't they buying the trucks in abundance previously with the non-superhuman sized bed height? I'd even go as far to say those sales of those older models warranted the redesigned current gigantoid bodystyles gracing today's declining truck market.

 

I think the current Tacoma is damn near the size of my old 1997 T-100, Toyota's first "fullsize" truck.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Armada Master

[RangerM]

Um....weren't they buying the trucks in abundance previously with the non-superhuman sized bed height?

 

Yes, and you didn't need one of these.

[suv_guy_19]

Yes, and you didn't need one of these.

 

 

And now, Ford is going to have them as an option right on the truck. It's a good thing Most people needed more capacity and that is what they are getting with the newer trucks. I know the higher bed hight helped us a great deal.

[RangerM]

And now, Ford is going to have them as an option right on the truck. It's a good thing Most people needed more capacity and that is what they are getting with the newer trucks. I know the higher bed hight helped us a great deal.

 

Just curious, but exactly WHAT and HOW MUCH are you carrying that requires such gargantuan dimensions?

 

.....and based on those needs, what makes an F-150 the better solution compared to an F-250 (SD)?

[suv_guy_19]

Just curious, but exactly WHAT and HOW MUCH are you carrying that requires such gargantuan dimensions?

 

.....and based on those needs, what makes an F-150 the better solution compared to an F-250 (SD)?

 

 

Because a super duty actually is too big. They are still a great deal bigger. They're ride is harsher, they are not the same truck. The deep box is good because many people use toneau covers. It allows for tall items to be loaded while still being covered and out of the elements. A great deal of the many people who buy the F150 need capability (if only occasional) in their truck.

[FordBuyer]

Because a super duty actually is too big. They are still a great deal bigger. They're ride is harsher, they are not the same truck. The deep box is good because many people use toneau covers. It allows for tall items to be loaded while still being covered and out of the elements. A great deal of the many people who buy the F150 need capability (if only occasional) in their truck.

 

 

I'm really surprised pick up owners don't see all the advantages of a deeper bed with the higher sides. The neat, little side step takes the one disadvantage of it away. Many Ford pickup buyers use their trucks for work and need that advantage over other trucks. Half the Ford pickups around here seem to have their bed loaded with all sorts of stuff and much of it is bulky. The high sides are an advantage to us car drivers who have to drive behind them also.

[RangerM]

I'm really surprised pick up owners don't see all the advantages of a deeper bed with the higher sides. The neat, little side step takes the one disadvantage of it away. Many Ford pickup buyers use their trucks for work and need that advantage over other trucks. Half the Ford pickups around here seem to have their bed loaded with all sorts of stuff and much of it is bulky. The high sides are an advantage to us car drivers who have to drive behind them also.

 

Then if you are ever given the choice you should drive behind an F-150 rather than an F-250

 

Here are the dimensions for the F-150 (Ext Cab Short Bed):

Cargo area dimensions: length (inches): 67, front width (inches): 65.2, width between arches (inches): 50, height (inches): 22.3 and loading floor height (inches): 32

Link

 

And now the F-250 (Ext Cab Short Bed):

Cargo area dimensions: length (inches): 82.4, front width (inches): 64.6, width between arches (inches): 50.9, height (inches): 20 and loading floor height (inches): 33.9

Link

 

Interesting how the F-150 bed is actually LARGER than the 250 in width (65.2>64.6), and height (22.3>20).

 

Based on those dimensions, 33.9+20 = 53.9 (F-250) vs. 32+22.3 = 54.3 (F-150), I'd have a higher reach over the bed.

 

We should also start telling those contractors to buy nothing but F-150s from now on because the bed volume isn't much different. (I'm assuming the wheel arches are roughly equivalent)

 

(82.4*64.6*20)/(12*12*12) = 61.6 cubic feet for the F250

(67*65.2*22.3)/(12*12*12) = 56.4 cubic feet for the F150

 

How about the overall size of the trucks?

 

F-150 (Ext Cab Short Bed)

External dimensions: overall length (inches): 217.8, overall width (inches): 78.9, overall height (inches): 73.7, ground clearance (inches): 8, wheelbase (inches): 132.5, front track (inches): 67, rear track (inches): 67 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 43.6

 

F-250 (Ext Cab Short Bed)

External dimensions: overall length (inches): 231.2, overall width (inches): 79.9, overall height (inches): 77, ground clearance (inches): 8.5, wheelbase (inches): 141.8, front track (inches): 68.3, rear track (inches): 67.2 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 49.1

 

The footprints are as follows:

(217.8*78.9)/(12*12)= 119.3 sq ft for the F-150

(231.2*79.9)/(12*12)= 128.3 sq ft for the F-250

 

A 7.5% difference. Seems to me the F-250 is not MUCH larger, but if that is enough, then your requirements for a 1/2 ton pickup are mighty specific. As for ride quality, that is subjective.

 

Just for grins here are the same dimensional parameters for the (extended cab) Ranger:

Cargo area dimensions: length (inches): 72.7, front width (inches): 54.3, width between arches (inches): 40.5, height (inches): 16.5 and loading floor height (inches): 33.5

 

Reachover = 33.5+16.5 = 50 inches (Less than 10% difference from the 150, but for me it makes a difference, also bear in mind that the 33.5 is at the rear of the truck, the cab end is closer to the ground)

Volume = (72.7*54.3*16.5)/(12*12*12) = 37.7 cubic feet (31% smaller)

 

External dimensions: overall length (inches): 203.7, overall width (inches): 69.4, overall height (inches): 69.4, ground clearance (inches): 7.7, wheelbase (inches): 125.9, front track (inches): 58.5, rear track (inches): 57.3 and curb to curb turning circle (feet): 43

 

Footprint: (203.7*69.4)/(12*12)= 98.2 sq ft (17.7% smaller)

 

I suspect making this a crew cab would would add 8.7 sq ft (based on 18" added to the overall length of the extended cab), making the Ranger still more than 10% smaller in footprint.

 

I fully admit that the masses have spoken, and for those that like the F-150's size, you have won. Congratulations, suv_guy_19 and FordBuyer

Edited November 23, 2007 by RangerM

[J-150]

Just curious, but exactly WHAT and HOW MUCH are you carrying that requires such gargantuan dimensions?

 

.....and based on those needs, what makes an F-150 the better solution compared to an F-250 (SD)?

 

 

ummm... how about that 5.5 bed you hate so much... the bed that carries more than your current Ranger.

 

The bed that's not too big, but can still carry 8' sheets

[atomaro]

Glad to hear that the Panther crowd has posted. Insightful as ever.

[P71_CrownVic]

Glad to hear that the Panther crowd has posted. Insightful as ever.

Common sense is a very hard thing to come by (just look at the "yes-crew"). Thats where we come in. We inject the very badly needed dose of common sense into a lot of these threads.

[RangerM]

ummm... how about that 5.5 bed you hate so much... the bed that carries more than your current Ranger.

 

The bed that's not too big, but can still carry 8' sheets

 

???????????

 

</I'm really trying to understand the point>

[RichardJensen]

Couldn't help but notice the 1800lb difference in GVWR between the F250 & F150; is there any reason why you left that off the comparison you posted above, RangerM?

[RangerM]

Couldn't help but notice the 1800lb difference in GVWR between the F250 & F150; is there any reason why you left that off the comparison you posted above, RangerM?

Yes. I am comparing physical size, not capability. (remember, there is such a thing as a one-ton Ranger Link to article about Ranger capable of a one-ton payload)

 

If it requires a step to reach into the bed from the side of the truck, the truck is too big for personal use (IMO).

Edited November 24, 2007 by RangerM

[RichardJensen]

Yes. I am comparing physical size, not capability.

Of course. Of course the market has also spoken, and compact truck sales haven't seen an uptick with higher fuel prices.

[RangerM]

......the market has also spoken, and compact truck sales haven't seen an uptick with higher fuel prices.

 

A point that I freely admit. See post 32.

 

My question in post 6 was whether or not there is lack of demand, or lack of product.

[ANTAUS]

The Minivan market was/is shrinking as well, but Ford and GM decided to just give up...and it wasn't on just about giving up on providing a competitive product, rather, just giving it up to the competitors instead...handing it over.

 

Yes, the small truck market is shrinking as well, but that doesn't mean Ford needs to give up and hand over 200-300K sales over to the competitors either, specifically to Toyota and Nissan which had a small share of that segment before Ford GAVE up.

 

It just shows me incompetence within the business when a competitor can offer a better executed vehicle and increase it's sales and share of the segment.... If they can do it, and post a profit, there's no reason why Ford can't. And if they can't figure out how to, then instead of just giving up on the product, give up on those making those decisions and hire people that can.

 

And the same can be said about other segments where Ford doesn't offer a vehicle, like RWD luxury coupes. Gee, Inifiniti can do it, Lexus can do it, Ford CHOOSES not to...It seems those companies can make a viable business case to do so, unfortunately Ford doesn't know how to....

Edited November 24, 2007 by ANTAUS

[RichardJensen]

A point that I freely admit. See post 32.

 

My question in post 6 was whether or not there is lack of demand, or lack of product.

Lack of demand.

 

Compact truck w/fullsize truck capacity gets fullsize truck gas mileage, and compact trucks that are truer to the compact truck model of old are simply not useful to most people. They are tiny on the inside and not particularly useful on the outside.

 

CUVs offer comparable cartage ability under most circumstances (fold flat 2nd row & c. 1500lb payload holds most stuff you can fit in a compact truck), while also offering accomodations for 5. About the only stuff you can't haul with it (garbage, dirt, rocks) you can have delivered.

 

CUVs are, for most things, more practical than compact trucks (ditto minivans).

[suv_guy_19]

About the only stuff you can't haul with it (garbage....

 

 

I think that would be a strange and unwanted delivery Richard. :lol:

[RichardJensen]

I dunno. It was par for the course at the elementary school kitchen.

[Furious1Auto]

Link

Ok Ford, any plans for keeping me as a truck customer considering how utterly underwhelmed I am with the (November 20) "spy-photo" F-150?

Fuel economy is killing the ranger market, the only ones still buying trucks are doing so for business reasons and a compact truck is not practical for this application. This would be a good global introduction for the U.S. market, Ford has been building Falcon UTE's for years now in Australia, but this Cobra is a nice package!

Edited November 24, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[P71_CrownVic]

Link to article about Ranger capable of a one-ton payload)

Diesel Ranger...

 

If it requires a step to reach into the bed from the side of the truck, the truck is too big for personal use (IMO).

 

Using common sense here will get you into a lot of trouble.

[P71_CrownVic]

[suv_guy_19]

Using common sense here will get you into a lot of trouble.

 

No, but pretending you have common sense and ignoring facts will get you no where....and laughed at.

[FordBuyer]

The Minivan market was/is shrinking as well, but Ford and GM decided to just give up...and it wasn't on just about giving up on providing a competitive product, rather, just giving it up to the competitors instead...handing it over.

 

Yes, the small truck market is shrinking as well, but that doesn't mean Ford needs to give up and hand over 200-300K sales over to the competitors either, specifically to Toyota and Nissan which had a small share of that segment before Ford GAVE up.

 

It just shows me incompetence within the business when a competitor can offer a better executed vehicle and increase it's sales and share of the segment.... If they can do it, and post a profit, there's no reason why Ford can't. And if they can't figure out how to, then instead of just giving up on the product, give up on those making those decisions and hire people that can.

 

And the same can be said about other segments where Ford doesn't offer a vehicle, like RWD luxury coupes. Gee, Inifiniti can do it, Lexus can do it, Ford CHOOSES not to...It seems those companies can make a viable business case to do so, unfortunately Ford doesn't know how to....

 

 

So tell us why Toyota ended the Celica, their two seat sports car, Tercel, Echo, and there were some others that I forget the name of. All the manufacturers have ended lots of vehicles over the years.

[Furious1Auto]

No, but pretending you have common sense and ignoring facts will get you no where....and laughed at.