Who Killed the Ford F-100?

[RangerM]

Link to article

 

I debated on starting this thread in the "rumor" section, because I don't know how much truth is in it, but it's an interesting read, regardless.

[simplesituations]

Link to article

 

I debated on starting this thread in the "rumor" section, because I don't know how much truth is in it, but it's an interesting read, regardless.

as far as I thought, this was put on hold but for how long is the question

[Edstock]

The used full-size pickup is the real killer, IMHO.

[rmc523]

I thought it's cancellation/hold had to do with the [rumored] fact that they weren't achieving the fuel economy numbers they were looking for?

[jpd80]

I heard the T6 was almost the same size..................

[armadamaster]

Who Killed the normal sized Ford F-150?, How Ford Outsmarted Itself in its bid to Build a Fuel-Efficient Pickup

 

Fixed.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Armada Master

[F250]

I heard the T6 was almost the same size..................

 

From the article:

The T6 Ranger was discounted because it was simply too small. A D4-based unibody truck looked costly and time consuming. That left a lighter truck built around the new F-150 hardware.

 

Cutting the F-150's tow capacity down to 5500-6000 lbs so you can design an almost entirely new lightweight truck (frame included) sounds like a big investment with a low sales return. And mid-size trucks don't provide enough real-world fuel savings to make the compromise worth while.

[armadamaster]

Cutting the F-150's tow capacity down to 5500-6000 lbs so you can design an almost entirely new lightweight truck (frame included) sounds like a big investment with a low sales return. And mid-size trucks don't provide enough real-world fuel savings to make the compromise worth while.

 

Uh-huh.

 

"Hey buddy....you left your little man step down"

Edited January 28, 2009 by Armada Master

[jpd80]

From the article:

The T6 Ranger was discounted because it was simply too small. A D4-based unibody truck looked costly and time consuming. That left a lighter truck built around the new F-150 hardware.

Cutting the F-150's tow capacity down to 5500-6000 lbs so you can design an almost entirely new lightweight truck (frame included) sounds like a big investment with a low sales return. And mid-size trucks don't provide enough real-world fuel savings to make the compromise worth while.

The article is wrong, T6 is larger than the Thai Ranger it was benchmarked against

the Nissan Navara/Frontier and will be a similar size with a cozy cabin.

 

So the Global T6 will be approximately Sport Trac size.

There was a suggestion for T6 use F100 for better world wide penetration.......

[RangerM]

Who Killed the normal sized Ford F-150?

 

Fixed.

 

+1

 

No argument from me on that point.

[battyr]

From the article:

 

Cutting the F-150's tow capacity down to 5500-6000 lbs so you can design an almost entirely new lightweight truck (frame included) sounds like a big investment with a low sales return. And mid-size trucks don't provide enough real-world fuel savings to make the compromise worth while.

 

That's the way I see it. The Truck market has dried up. Little sense in spending hundreds of millions of dollars in building a truck that does the same work that the Ranger does. In todays market, the much smaller ranger with much stronger ability makes more sense. People are no longer buying trucks just to go to the mall any more.

 

Hell, the next FWD Explorer should be able to tow 5500-6000 lbs. So what is the point of the F-100.

[Bored of Pisteon]

That's the way I see it. The Truck market has dried up. Little sense in spending hundreds of millions of dollars in building a truck that does the same work that the Ranger does. In todays market, the much smaller ranger with much stronger ability makes more sense. People are no longer buying trucks just to go to the mall any more.

 

Hell, the next FWD Explorer should be able to tow 5500-6000 lbs. So what is the point of the F-100.

 

Name recognition... Some owners of trucks with the "F-100" designation prior to 1983 will think their trucks will lose value because Ford decided to bring the nameplate back. Which would be the opposite I would think.

 

In fact, I can't understand why they did that back then anyway.

[NickF1011]

Name recognition... Some owners of trucks with the "F-100" designation prior to 1983 will think their trucks will lose value because Ford decided to bring the nameplate back. Which would be the opposite I would think.

 

In fact, I can't understand why they did that back then anyway.

 

I wasn't aware that the value of "classic" F-100's was all that spectacular anyway. I certainly don't see them going for hundreds of thousands of dollars at auction.

[Bored of Pisteon]

I wasn't aware that the value of "classic" F-100's was all that spectacular anyway. I certainly don't see them going for hundreds of thousands of dollars at auction.

 

But if you read some of these classic car books, you would laugh at how much these assholes ask for their cars!

[lfeg]

I do not think the value of someone's 73 F100 figured into Ford's decision.

 

The pickup market is just a big contest of oneupmanship right now. To generate decent sales you have to have something that is bigger or more than the next guy. The automakers know this, and have to live with it.

 

In reality, how many people use a half ton piclup to move 5 ton loads? 80% of the half ton market could be served with a pickup with a 2200 lb payload, 6000 lb trailer capacity, and a 220 hp engine. But the "we need bigger, stronger, more" consumer market would reject such a vehicle. Those who use a pickup as a truck would have no problem, but todays market views the pickup as an aspirational vehicle, hence the need for half ton pickups with the capabilities of one tonners from 35 years ago.

 

With this in mind, the F100 concept is a non starter

[92merc]

I do not think the value of someone's 73 F100 figured into Ford's decision.

 

The pickup market is just a big contest of oneupmanship right now. To generate decent sales you have to have something that is bigger or more than the next guy. The automakers know this, and have to live with it.

 

In reality, how many people use a half ton piclup to move 5 ton loads? 80% of the half ton market could be served with a pickup with a 2200 lb payload, 6000 lb trailer capacity, and a 220 hp engine. But the "we need bigger, stronger, more" consumer market would reject such a vehicle. Those who use a pickup as a truck would have no problem, but todays market views the pickup as an aspirational vehicle, hence the need for half ton pickups with the capabilities of one tonners from 35 years ago.

 

With this in mind, the F100 concept is a non starter

You've pretty much descibed me right there. All those details are just fine for my specs. EXCEPT, I still need a real pickup box that can hold a sheet of plywood. Even if the gate is down. The Sport Trac doesn't do that. Ranger is just too small in the cab. So that basically ends me back to a 1/2 ton truck.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just stating my personal situation and why I have a 1/2 ton.

[lfeg]

Hey, my 60 F100 was a great pickup back in the day. Could carry a load of 4 x 8 sheets of plywood with the tailgate closed, could carry a ton of stone easy, and the straight six had enough power for most occasions. But a truck like that just would not sell today. Too austere with no creature comforts.

[RichardJensen]

One odd thing:

 

The magazine says that the 7500lb tow rating was 'arbitrary'.

 

It's not, though.

 

The F100 would likely end up roughly the same size as the Dodge Dakota, which can tow up to 7,000lbs

Edited January 28, 2009 by RichardJensen

[F250]

One odd thing:

 

The magazine says that the 7500lb tow rating was 'arbitrary'.

 

It's not, though.

 

The F100 would likely end up roughly the same size as the Dodge Dakota, which can tow up to 7,000lbs

 

And the Dakota gets only 15mpg city and 20mpg highway with it's most economical 2wd V6 powertrain. The V8 4wd gets 14 city 19 highway...so why buy a mid size truck when you are giving up all of the towing, payload and interior room of a full size truck with no gain in fuel economy.

[battyr]

One odd thing:

 

The magazine says that the 7500lb tow rating was 'arbitrary'.

 

It's not, though.

 

The F100 would likely end up roughly the same size as the Dodge Dakota, which can tow up to 7,000lbs

 

The F100 would have to beat the Dakota in most truck related areas. Towing any less than 7500lb would be a problem, whether people need it or not.

[blksn8k2]

One attribute that needs to be mentioned is that the F150 is just too big for many people who want/need a truck. I don't need a truck that is too wide to fit in my garage and I certainly could not justify buying a house with a larger garage just so I could fit an F150 in it. I also consider off-road maneuverability as an asset so that is another strike against the F150. I do want at least a 6000 lb tow rating which is not possible with a Ranger sized truck. So I ended up with a Sport Trac even though I would prefer a longer bed. An extended cab Dakota would suit me better but I would never consider a Chrysler product, especially now. A Dakota size F100 would be my choice even if the fuel mileage and price were not that much different than an F150. I certainly could have purchased an F150 for less than my Sport Trac.

[RichardJensen]

For altogether too many people, the fuel economy would be the killer, though. Smaller in size, but roughly same fuel economy as an F150 would leave a lot of people scratching their heads.

[armadamaster]

And the Dakota gets only 15mpg city and 20mpg highway with it's most economical 2wd V6 powertrain. The V8 4wd gets 14 city 19 highway...so why buy a mid size truck when you are giving up all of the towing, payload and interior room of a full size truck with no gain in fuel economy.

 

Bingo.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I wasn't aware that the value of "classic" F-100's was all that spectacular anyway. I certainly don't see them going for hundreds of thousands of dollars at auction.

 

There are next to none of our F-100 (P-100 no it's not a Panther) left on UK roads because that's how many Ford made and sold in the first place here they were more exclusive and rarer than a Ferrari, at least we have the Ranger today that is a much better seller we buy 1,000 Rangers a month in Europe today thats brilliant compared to the piss poor P-100 sales. If anyone could ever find one left, which is very unlikey they would.

 

A P-100's fetch next to nothing at auction you would be better off sell it as scrap metal you would double it's value. Most have more rust left than steel on the bodywork though just make sure you drain the tank of fuel first because you could end loosing out on the deal.

 

 

 

BORING DULL TONY - Very "Unclassic Banger" Tony P-100 wothless junk nobody wanted (It's not a Police Car/Taxi)

Link

 

 

 

Tony used the same trusty very reliable RWD mechanical parts as the Cortina which made a cooler looking pick-up, but to be honest we don't drive pick-ups in Europe we buy van, only a few hot countries like Cyprus buy them in big numbers and suprise, suprise Ford don't sell them there.

 

KOOLTINA

 

Edited January 29, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[NickF1011]

And the Dakota gets only 15mpg city and 20mpg highway with it's most economical 2wd V6 powertrain. The V8 4wd gets 14 city 19 highway...so why buy a mid size truck when you are giving up all of the towing, payload and interior room of a full size truck with no gain in fuel economy.

 

No, you are only demonstrating why you shouldn't buy a Dakota, not all midsize trucks in general. Just because Dodge can't figure out how to make a midsize pickup get better fuel economy than Ford's and Chevy's fullsize pickups doesn't mean somebody else couldn't.

 

I submit for you the Tacoma that gets up to 20/26, and even that could probably be improved.

Edited January 29, 2009 by NickF1011