mackinaw Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 This is from today's Detroit News about Chrysler considering a car-based Ranchero-type vehicle. I found this one passage very interesting. Apparently the new CAFE laws, as currently written would penalize, and potentially eliminate, small pick up trucks. "Moving customers into full-size trucks could prove necessary, Hall said, because changes to CAFE would spell the end of small trucks if they must meet drastically different standards. Among the proposals for calculating fleet fuel-efficiency in the future is the idea of measuring a vehicle's "footprint" by multiplying its wheelbase (length of the vehicle as measured between the center of the front and rear wheels) by its track (width as measured between two front or two rear wheels). This would force a higher-percentage improvement on small vehicles, Hall said. If the new standard allows for lower fuel economy for large vehicles, there's no incentive to do a small one, Hall said. "If footprint stays in there the small trucks are dead," Hall said. Automakers would have to equip a smaller pickup with such a small engine to meet CAFE that it would lack the power to function as a working truck, Hall said. Heres' the link to the full article: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0362/&imw=Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksheep Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 God, I hope that this is not the final nail in the F-100's Coffin, I was really looking forward to it squashing the Tacoma in a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 God, I hope that this is not the final nail in the F-100's Coffin, I was really looking forward to it squashing the Tacoma in a couple of years. Would a 2.0 to 1.5 EB I4 make it feasible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Would a 2.0 to 1.5 EB I4 make it feasible? my thought exactly....but hey...a 2.5 eco please.....250hp.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Perhaps, if Ford were to do a hybrid Ranger with Fusion (AWD) mechanicals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 No great loss. Since the fuel economy of the compacts is very close to a 6 cylinder full size, what is the point? Small trucks sales continue to slide for all manufacturers, as I think the consumers have for the most part discovered there is very little advantage to a compact truck. What this new CAFE standard may do to minivans is probably more of an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WC-MAN Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The exploding weight of trailers and vehicles have rendered small trucks poor choices for towing much, and UB vehicles can probably be outfitted to haul a reasonably good load (although I don't think they can do this without a solid rear axle). That does not defend how unbelievably stupid the government's definition is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 People who used buy small dual cab pick ups were obviously looking for a vehicle with utility, perhaps modern car based CUVs offer the same or better utility/versatility with better gas mileage? As for an efficient 1 ton pick up, I tend to agree with others here who say that the F150 single cab probably offers a great balance between price, fuel economy, comfort and buyer satisfaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock07 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 God, I hope that this is not the final nail in the F-100's Coffin, I was really looking forward to it squashing the Tacoma in a couple of years. Haven't heard of an F-100 coming out soon. Which plant is going to build it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Haven't heard of an F-100 coming out soon. Which plant is going to build it? Dearborn was supposed to, but I think it was put on hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 God, I hope that this is not the final nail in the F-100's Coffin, I was really looking forward to it squashing the Tacoma in a couple of years. In today's economy, it is better to put money into the Asian Ranger and the F-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 my thought exactly....but hey...a 2.5 eco please.....250hp.... The 2.5 L EB might be closer to 280 hp. But I have not heard anything about any work on it. Don't expect anything like it for atleast 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Well lets also think, if they are wanting to come up with numbers, basing it on the length of the wheelbase and tracks, then it's safe to say that manufacturer's will be looking at ways to shorten them. In other words, you'll have GM FWD-like front overhangs, or LHS-like rear overhang, and Corolla like tiny track widths. Just horrible actually....Lookes like BMW"s would be hit hard, then again they have been telling the Feds to F-Off and been paying CAFE penalties for years lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN12Fan Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 How about a new Ranger based on the Panther platform? A car-based truck that's still on a rugged body-on-frame platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 you know, I seem to remember reading that the F-100 weight-savings were going to be applied to the nextgen F-150 instead of being a separate model & How about a new Ranger based on the Panther platform? A car-based truck that's still on a rugged body-on-frame platform. I also remember a speculation that T6 could be used for BOF sedans as well as trucks which made me wonder if perhaps the GRwd platform might be able to 'cross-breed' with the T6 (a bit like the Australian Utes have a version that's BOF for the rear half) also wouldn't a possible loophole for small/light trucks be to INCREASE their footprint to match the 'fullsize' ones? (they're really not that much smaller now, are they?) ...just keeping everything else about them as a light & lighter-duty structure and drivetrain... so "small" trucks may end but a new Light-Truck category would develop. 'course I could be all wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 How about a new Ranger based on the Panther platform? A car-based truck that's still on a rugged body-on-frame platform. this just in......your application to the "Panther Mafia" has been approved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 God, I hope that this is not the final nail in the F-100's Coffin, I was really looking forward to it squashing the Tacoma in a couple of years. Reports I heard on the F-100 (P-515 or 525?) is that it's almost a carbon copy of the 150 but made of composite material making it extremely lighter allowing for smaller engines with significantly reduced cargo capacity while still allowing bed space etc. Maybe the ecoboost would be a good fit for this style truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 you know, I seem to remember reading that the F-100 weight-savings were going to be applied to the nextgen F-150instead of being a separate model & I also remember a speculation that T6 could be used for BOF sedans as well as trucks which made me wonder if perhaps the GRwd platform might be able to 'cross-breed' with the T6 (a bit like the Australian Utes have a version that's BOF for the rear half) also wouldn't a possible loophole for small/light trucks be to INCREASE their footprint to match the 'fullsize' ones? (they're really not that much smaller now, are they?) ...just keeping everything else about them as a light & lighter-duty structure and drivetrain... so "small" trucks may end but a new Light-Truck category would develop. 'course I could be all wrong I think you're more right than wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Well lets also think, if they are wanting to come up with numbers, basing it on the length of the wheelbase and tracks, then it's safe to say that manufacturer's will be looking at ways to shorten them. In other words, you'll have GM FWD-like front overhangs, or LHS-like rear overhang, and Corolla like tiny track widths. Just horrible actually.... You got that backwards -- a longer wheelbase and wider track would allow a vehicle to consume more fuel (hence the reason why large trucks would be able to survive, but not small trucks). Which could push manufacturers to eliminate the overhangs you so hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 How about a new Ranger based on the Panther platform? A car-based truck that's still on a rugged body-on-frame platform. How about a new Ranger based on the old Ranger platform? A truck based truck that's still fuel effiecent on a more rugged body-on-frame platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Reports I heard on the F-100 (P-515 or 525?) is that it's almost a carbon copy of the 150 but made of composite material making it extremely lighter allowing for smaller engines with significantly reduced cargo capacity while still allowing bed space etc. Maybe the ecoboost would be a good fit for this style truck. Interesting. I was going to suggest cancelling the F-100 and rolling the technology into the F-150. But it sounds like that could have been part of the plan already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 Reports I heard on the F-100 (P-515 or 525?) is that it's almost a carbon copy of the 150 but made of composite material making it extremely lighter allowing for smaller engines with significantly reduced cargo capacity while still allowing bed space etc. From today's Detroit News, "Ford had planned to build an F-100, a scaled down F-150, but scrapped the program. Maybe it's time to bring it back." The column by Scott Burgess is here: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../901100382/1364 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) if a carmaker could build a family hauler that pushed 35 mpg on the open road, it would catch consumers' attention. Hall said this type of vehicle might be the most difficult to build because the space and size requirements work against efficiency. Still, it's not impossible. Sure, when the next Taurus weighs 3,000 pounds or a new kind of powertrain appears. Getting the weight out while meeting collision regs and price-points/production practicality is the challenge. As I've posted before, there's a whole raft of stuff like nanofiber materials, but they're a decade out. It may be a while until normal price Taurus-size sleds are 35-40mpg real-world. Edited January 10, 2009 by Edstock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Sure, when the next Taurus weighs 3,000 pounds or a new kind of powertrain appears. Getting the weight out while meeting collision regs and price-points/production practicality is the challenge. As I've posted before, there's a whole raft of stuff like nanofiber materials, but they're a decade out. It may be a while until normal price Taurus-size sleds are 35-40mpg real-world. The 2010 Fusion I-4 is 21% more fuel efficient. It has no real change in weight, is faster and has a larger, more powerful engine. The results are mostly from Fine tuning. Just think what could be done with an all new platform, major weight reduction, use of an all new small EcoBoost engine, DCT and other technology. IMHO they can make huge improvements without even using hybrid technology. Hybrid technology could be cheap in 5 years if the new battery technology works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 The 2010 Fusion I-4 is 21% more fuel efficient. It has no real change in weight, is faster and has a larger, more powerful engine. The results are mostly from Fine tuning. Just think what could be done with an all new platform, major weight reduction, use of an all new small EcoBoost engine, DCT and other technology. IMHO they can make huge improvements without even using hybrid technology. Hybrid technology could be cheap in 5 years if the new battery technology works. so out of the gate, the Fusion I4 could power the Ranger effectively and efficiently. The new CAFE measurement makes sense but is also short sighted in some ways. A SMALL V6 in a compact truck is still using less fuel than a full size pickup. Period. Many, many moons ago I had a Ranger with the 2.9. That little engine and the springs on the back could haul a lot of weight in real world situations. And it used a lot less fuel than the 4.9 and 5.0 in the F150 of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.