Who Killed the Ford F-100?

[soupy]

The future 3.5 V-6 in the 150 and it's fuel econemy probably gave the 100 a whammy. Now Echo-boost the 3.5 and double-whammy.

[Devodev]

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.

 

 

I think you're just the person they were looking for but maybe they were just worried that there isn't enough of you out there. I know someone else in the market for a pickup that feels the same way and would love a truck slotted between the Ranger and F150.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I also submit the Chevrolet Colorado 2.9L I4 equipped crew cab with auto. 18 city, 24 highway with 185HP/190 Tq. For a light truck, those are wholely reasonable numbers. As far as I can determine, that is the best fuel economy that can be had in any crew cab truck on the market. The tacoma crew cab and the frontier are currently unavailable with their 4 bangers.

[Tornado]

I think you're just the person they were looking for but maybe they were just worried that there isn't enough of you out there. I know someone else in the market for a pickup that feels the same way and would love a truck slotted between the Ranger and F150.

 

Add me to that list, but I think I'll end up with a '07+ Sport Trac and a 8'-10' trailer.

[theoldwizard]

While I do believe that Ford needs a replacement for the Ranger (probably upsized a bit), but the whole concept of using parts off of a bigger truck (F150) to make a medium size truck always sounded kind of screwy to me. Either the component was going to be too big for the F100 or it was going to be "compromised" in the F150.

 

For example, front spindles and brakes. F150 parts would be much too heavy for the F100. Another example, rear axle. Do you really think they would put a full size F150 8.8 rear axle in a mid size pickup ? Maybe you could use the 3.7L engine and transmission, but the drive shaft would probably be too long.

 

The idea sounded like one of those corny things some Product Planner with no engineering experience dreams up and sells to marketing before anyone with real sense wakes up (Like in the early days of the Fiesta when the assumption was that they could use the identical non-OBD injection system from EU in the US.)

[lfeg]

The idea of a "trim full size pickup" may make sense in 5 or 10 years when the whole macho pickup capacity fervor dies down due to fuel economy/govt regs/sanity reasons. Look back to the 1974 F100. Reg cab, long bed or short bed - weight was just below 4000 lb, and that was with a durable front suspension and a 9" rear end. And the weight is a big issue in fuel economy.

[F250]

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.

 

The only Tacoma that gets that mileage is the 4-cyl 5-speed manual trans 2wd that nobody buys and it's tow rating of 3,500 is less than half that of the planned F-100. And the Toyota Taco has a plastic bed...ok for something like the SportTrac but not for a mid-size pickup.

[F250]

Back on topic:

Who Killed the Ford F-100?

 

Ford did...in 1983 because of lack of sales.

 

Ford introduced the F-150 in 1975 with a higher GVWR than the F-100 so it could run on leaded or unleaded fuel according to the emission laws of the time. And the F-150 gave Ford a competitive advantage over the GM half ton trucks. The following year F-Series began it's best selling truck record.

 

From 1975 to 1983 both the F-150 and F-100 were offered and in the end the light duty F-100 was dropped. The final year for the F-100 was the year the new compact Ranger was introduced.

 

In those years pickup trucks were almost always work vehicles. Even though they were available very few were super or crew cab, by far the most popular model was the regular cab 8ft bed Custom.

[twintornados]

Uh-huh.

 

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

Thought the ad was funny.....but, thinking about it....how did the guy get up into the bed in the first place.....classic example of leaving out some info....the people that get the "man step" usually deploy it while entering the bed, so it isn't so clumsy looking to deploy it while you are in the bed of the truck already....and my prediction is that the "man step" will quietly appear in competing brands as more people buy it.....except Toyota, unless they redesign the tailgate first to keep it from collapsing

[NickF1011]

The only Tacoma that gets that mileage is the 4-cyl 5-speed manual trans 2wd that nobody buys and it's tow rating of 3,500 is less than half that of the planned F-100. And the Toyota Taco has a plastic bed...ok for something like the SportTrac but not for a mid-size pickup.

 

If you need more than what the Tacoma can deliver, you'd probably better off than an F-150. I'd rather just see a new Ranger with similar specs to the Tacoma than an F-100 at this point.

[Pioneer]

I'd rather just see a new Ranger with similar specs to the Tacoma than an F-100 at this point.

 

Ford, if ever built, will never call a midsize pickup anything but F-100. They will worry about it stealing sales away from the F-150 and it losing it's sales crown.

[NickF1011]

Ford, if ever built, will never call a midsize pickup anything but F-100. They will worry about it stealing sales away from the F-150 and it losing it's sales crown.

 

Yeah, but would they be willing to surrender the crown of "best-selling truck" if it means overall they sell more total trucks? Tough call.

[TomServo92]

Yeah, but would they be willing to surrender the crown of "best-selling truck" if it means overall they sell more total trucks? Tough call.

 

Isn't it the F-series that's the best selling truck. Doesn't that include the SD? If so, why couldn't it include F-100, especially if it's F-150 based.

[NickF1011]

Isn't it the F-series that's the best selling truck. Doesn't that include the SD? If so, why couldn't it include F-100, especially if it's F-150 based.

 

That's another good question. Would Ford even be allowed to include F-100 in that tally? I mean the F-150 and Super Duty can sort of be explained because they are all full-sized trucks, but you can't make that argument with the F-100.

[Pioneer]

That's another good question. Would Ford even be allowed to include F-100 in that tally?

 

Why not? All three would be "F-series". Basically, the only thing the light and super duty share right now is the 5.4 and a Blue Oval, and Ford groups their sales together.

[NickF1011]

Why not? All three would be "F-series". Basically, the only thing the light and super duty share right now is the 5.4 and a Blue Oval, and Ford groups their sales together.

 

The F-150 and Super Duty also both share a size class of fullsize truck. The F-100 wouldn't have that distinction.

 

I mean what then would stop an automaker from calling every one of their vehicles the "Car-Series" and instantly taking the sales crown.

 

Not really sure who regulates that sort of thing, but I'm sure it would be considered a deceptive sales practice.

[Pioneer]

Not really sure who regulates that sort of thing, but I'm sure it would be considered a deceptive sales practice.

 

 

I don't see how. You have Dodge selling a station wagon that is classified a truck. Hell, my BOF V8 4X4 Explorer is classified a station wagon, basically a car. It was classified that when it was being built off the Ranger frame too.

[jpd80]

I don't see how. You have Dodge selling a station wagon that is classified a truck. Hell, my BOF V8 4X4 Explorer is classified a station wagon, basically a car. It was classified that when it was being built off the Ranger frame too.

SUVs and CUVs all come under the Truck CAFE list

[armadamaster]

That's another good question. Would Ford even be allowed to include F-100 in that tally? I mean the F-150 and Super Duty can sort of be explained because they are all full-sized trucks, but you can't make that argument with the F-100.

 

So the pre-2003 F-150's that this F-100 is more in line with weren't/aren't fullsizes? (Sorry, gotta play white devil's advocate.)

[twintornados]

I am going to ring in on Armada Masters' side on this one (god help me....) In the early 90's, I had a 1981 F100, it had stamped steel twin I beams, a smaller diameter bolt pattern on the wheels and a lot less content compared to a F150, it was however a full size truck. It was phased out when Ranger hit the scene. It was included in F-Series brochures and was surely counted in annual F-Series sales.

Edited January 31, 2009 by twintornados

[whereswaldo]

....... 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.

I agree. I would be interested in a mid size. Ford is only going after the business/construction market with the new F150 and if everyday Joe wants the good stuff, they better be able to afford a Lariat or Platinum AND not need be worried about gas mileage.IMO...

[rmc523]

The F-150 and Super Duty also both share a size class of fullsize truck. The F-100 wouldn't have that distinction.

 

I mean what then would stop an automaker from calling every one of their vehicles the "Car-Series" and instantly taking the sales crown.

 

Not really sure who regulates that sort of thing, but I'm sure it would be considered a deceptive sales practice.

 

I think Nick is right. I don't think you could pull the F-100 into F-series sales, even though it's technically an "F-series". The F-150 and Super Duty are able to pull it off b/c as Nick said, they're both classes of fullsize trucks. Look at Dodge or Chevy, they have Ram 1500-3500 and Silverado 1500-3500. Their higher-capacity vehicles share the same body with the 1500 counterpart, whereas Ford decided to use a different body for their upper trucks. I think something along those lines is why F-series is lumped together.

 

When/if an F-100 came to market, even though it may be dimensionally the same size a fullsize truck was years ago, in today's market it wouldn't be considered fullsize just because of how the other trucks have grown.

[F250]

This new F-100 is not a light weight or de-contented F-150 (as it used to be) it is a smaller vehicle overall so it should have been a Ranger replacement and not included with the full size F-Series.

 

It seems Ford is considering moving the Ranger up to mid-size like GM,Dodge,Toyota, etc, instead of remaining the only true compact pickup truck in the U.S. market. That gets back to the argument of why buy a mid-size truck with less capability only to achieve little or no MPG gains over a full size truck. The EcoBoost engines may help but let's wait to see their actual price and performance in a heavy truck that gets a lot heavier when loaded or towing.

 

The full size F-150 and SuperDutys are all considered F-Series because of their size and capability. The towing specifications of a high eng F-150 excede those of the lower F-250s and the F-150s cargo box actually has more volume than any of the SuperDutys.

 

F-150 8ft cargo box volume = 81.2 cu.ft

SuperDuty 8ft cargo box volume = 77.4 cu.ft

 

F-150 6.5ft cargo box volume = 65.5 cu.ft

SuperDuty 6.7ft cargo box volume = 64.4 cu.ft

[twintornados]

Just a thought here, but the F100 could be F150 sized, but with a lighter duty frame, coil spring rear suspension, and an AWD setup as opposed to a 4WD two speed transfer case....Ford could really send the likes of Dodge, Chevy and most notably Toyota crying for market share with a setup like that. It would not cannibalize F150 sales, and give Ford yet another market outlet for such things....

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, if you're going to have a truck that has the same overall dimensions as the F-150, you are going to want to build it on the same line and parts share as much as possible. My current suggestion for an F-100 is the following...

 

Start with the short bed (6.5ft) F-150 cab and frame. shorten the rear half of the frame to use the 5.5 ft bed. Basically, make it look like the short segment from the Supercab 5.5Ft combo.

 

Second, replace the steel bed that exists now with a lighter, but still quite sturdy plastic and composite bed.

 

Replace the hood with the same type of light-weight construction. Replace the body work on the front of the truck with an eye for increasing aerodynamic efficiency while sacrificing a bit of the family look.

 

Go with the light duty, low rolling resistance tires from the XFE.

 

Examine the rear suspension setup, if it is possible to build said truck with a coil spring and offer a better ride experience than the existing truck while also reducing total vehicle weight, then go ahead and do it.

 

Since this is a lighter duty truck, attempt to source more suspension parts as aluminum instead of iron or steel.

 

Make the standard engine the D35, offer a 2.0LEB or 2.5L EB engine as soon as it is ready to go.