New Ranger or lost buyers what does Ford want ??

[timmm55]

I think we'll find out how well a RWD (all be it a large sedan) does in MPGs with the Ecoboost 2.0 Falcon. How does the 1 series BMW do? Only 28 MPGs freeway. But it's performance tuned, not for high gas mileage.

[ford4v429]

why not just stamp out a 56 F100 body for the existing chassis, and sell it as a F100 entry level only pickup...every college kid out there might just want one, the old fat fendered fords are still one of the most 'cool' of all the pickups ever put out- looks wise... I think if they could offer a classic rebodied/base ranger for 20k it would be a huge hit.

 

true classics never go out of style...56 F100's, 69 Mustangs, 55 tbirds, 55-57 chevies(NOMADS TOO!), 69 chargers, 69 cougars, a lot of others...just go to any car show and see what folks still drool over. any of those bodies if brought back on a affordable platform would sell- as far as affordable, i think the 56/ranger would be the most poised to turn a profit with minimal investment.

[94ranger]

Even if the F150 gets smaller (like back to the size it was 15 to 20years ago) and becomes significantly more fuel efficient, there will still be a market for a smaller Ford truck than that. I may not be in the market for it but a smallish 4x4 truck that can achieve five to ten more mpg than the F150 would be still find a market. It would even it the gas mileage wasn't that much better because it should cost less.

[akirby]

as someone who spends much time pulling parts in Junkyards for a hobby and looks at a lot of wrecked vehicles, those modern unibody platforms might not be as "crashworthy" as the NHTSA crash tests might suggest... (but that's a whole other debate)

 

I think you're confused about what makes a platform crashworthy. Unibodys deform and absorb energy while keeping the passenger compartment intact and passengers safe. Those BOF sedans are tougher and may show less damage but that means a worse outcome for the passengers.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I think you're confused about what makes a platform crashworthy. Unibodys deform and absorb energy while keeping the passenger compartment intact and passengers safe. Those BOF sedans are tougher and may show less damage but that means a worse outcome for the passengers.

 

I have a mechanical engineering degree and fully understand the physics of a collision. The best scenario is that the car absorbs the energy by deforming, but not to the point where the passenger compartment gets crushed. I see lots of unibody cars with one side of the car smashed into within a foot of the opposite side. There is no way passengers could survive that.

 

Crashing two unibody cars of approximately the same mass into each other should turn out fine for the occupants of both cars. But if you crash a unibody car into a significantly heavier pickup/SUV, the car does all the energy absorbing, to the point where the passengers get crushed if either vehicle was going fast enough.

 

The NTHSA crash tests don't take that type of collision into consideration - which is why I don't put much stock in the NTHSA safety ratings. As far as I'm concerned, they're just another number for salesman to blindly quote in an effort to sell a car.

[Krystal Kid]

I have a mechanical engineering degree and fully understand the physics of a collision. The best scenario is that the car absorbs the energy by deforming, but not to the point where the passenger compartment gets crushed. I see lots of unibody cars with one side of the car smashed into within a foot of the opposite side. There is no way passengers could survive that.

 

Crashing two unibody cars of approximately the same mass into each other should turn out fine for the occupants of both cars. But if you crash a unibody car into a significantly heavier pickup/SUV, the car does all the energy absorbing, to the point where the passengers get crushed if either vehicle was going fast enough.

 

The NTHSA crash tests don't take that type of collision into consideration - which is why I don't put much stock in the NTHSA safety ratings. As far as I'm concerned, they're just another number for salesman to blindly quote in an effort to sell a car.

 

Since the rear end collision is the most frequent vehicle accident I went out and got a sparebumper.com. It softens the crash pulse for both vehicles when you're rear ended. Instead of hitting the fixed mounted receiver hitch it will at least absorb some of the crash energy. Great safety product if you have a receiver hitch.

[akirby]

I have a mechanical engineering degree and fully understand the physics of a collision. The best scenario is that the car absorbs the energy by deforming, but not to the point where the passenger compartment gets crushed. I see lots of unibody cars with one side of the car smashed into within a foot of the opposite side. There is no way passengers could survive that.

 

And they probably wouldn't survive that type of crash in a BOF car either.

 

I'm sure the number of head on and offset head on crashes are much higher than side impacts. Everything is a compromise of some kind. BOF sedans aren't a safety improvement overall.

[Sevensecondsuv]

And they probably wouldn't survive that type of crash in a BOF car either.

 

I'm sure the number of head on and offset head on crashes are much higher than side impacts. Everything is a compromise of some kind. BOF sedans aren't a safety improvement overall.

 

The BOF vehicles that have been t-boned usually get pushed into where the frame rail is and then the deformation stops and the vehicle just gets pushed sideways. The moral of story is that if you're going to be in a colision with a large, heavy pickup/SUV, you want to be in the pickup/SUV under almost all circumstances, and let the smaller, "softer" unibody vehicle do all the energy absorbing and deforming.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to argue against unibody construction, those vehicles definately have their place and I own one myself. I'm just saying that a "real" SUV like what the explorer is currently is a vehicle that really should have a frame and be RWD. These are supposed to be capable of anything a comparably-sized pickup would be - minus the bed and with more enclosed volume. If you want an SUV-proportioned vehicle but don't need the truck-like capabilities, buy an Escape, Edge or Flex. There is no need for a unibody, FWD Explorer in Ford's line-up when 3 extremely similar vehicles already exist.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the new explorer should have waited until it could be placed on a new BOF/RWD Ranger platform.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

I'm just saying that a "real" SUV like what the explorer is currently is a vehicle that really should have a frame and be RWD. These are supposed to be capable of anything a comparably-sized pickup would be - minus the bed and with more enclosed volume. If you want an SUV-proportioned vehicle but don't need the truck-like capabilities, buy an Escape, Edge or Flex. There is no need for a unibody, FWD Explorer in Ford's line-up when 3 extremely similar vehicles already exist.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the new explorer should have waited until it could be placed on a new BOF/RWD Ranger platform.

 

The Flex is an urban vehicle - no way you take it camping or riding on dirt/gravel roads. The Edge and Escape don't have a 3rd row. None can tow more than 4500 lbs.

 

BOF SUV buyers have defected to crossovers or cars. Just look at the sales trends. I agree that Ford COULD make a new explorer off of a shared Ranger RWD/BOF platform. The question is whether people will buy it and past history says not so much anymore. The majority of explorer buyers only need a crossover anyway - the hard core offroaders left the explorer in 2002 when they went to IRS.

 

I owned a 93 and 97 explorer and a 99 expedition and 03 Aviator before getting a 08 Edge, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

I do agree that the Flex may be unnecessary after the new Explorer debuts. You can take the Explorer downtown but you can't take the Flex out to the woods.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I do agree that the Flex may be unnecessary after the new Explorer debuts. You can take the Explorer downtown but you can't take the Flex out to the woods.

 

Fair enough. It's just annoying to be part of a market segment [albeit small and getting smaller] that Ford has decided to leave out in the cold.

 

FWIW, I still have my trusty '92 2-door explorer. That's been the best dang vehicle I've ever had. It's getting pretty rusty, but given Ford's apparent neglect of making anything that could replace it, I may just have to fix the body and run it another decade and hope that Ford makes something to replace it some .day

 

In the meantime, D3 is an excellent platform for the Taurus SHO and Flex. I, however, refuse to buy an "SUV" built off the D3 platform.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

It's just annoying to be part of a market segment [albeit small and getting smaller] that Ford almost every mfr has decided to leave out in the cold.

 

Fixed it for you.

 

You can commiserate with the Panther and Mercury lovers (The Grand Marquis fans get double membership).

[Sevensecondsuv]

(The Grand Marquis fans get double membership).

 

lol - that's great!!!

[akirby]

The BOF vehicles that have been t-boned usually get pushed into where the frame rail is and then the deformation stops and the vehicle just gets pushed sideways.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain this one then:

 

http://jalopnik.com/5585735/what-a-police-car-wrapped-around-superman-would-look-like

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

What the heck hit that thing?! A freight train with a solid steel wedge on the front end?

 

Whatever happened had enough energy to cause excessive plastic deformation in 2 very rigid frame rails. My guess is that a unibody car would have been unrecognizeable after that crash (meaning nothing more than parts struen all over the pavement).

[jpd80]

Perhaps you'd like to explain this one then:

 

http://jalopnik.com/...would-look-like

 

 

You might like to add that the officer survived that crash:

 

 

Hours later, Officer Damon Badnell was responding to an officer involved in a foot pursuit of a burglary suspect when he lost control of his vehicle on a slippery road. The momentum wrapped the vehicle around the tree, nearly bisecting the Ford Crown Victoria.

 

 

 

Officer Badnell, who recently was awarded for stopping the most drunk drivers, has a few broken bones but doctors are hopeful about his recovery.

 

 

I hope he makes a speedy recovery.

[akirby]

What the heck hit that thing?! A freight train with a solid steel wedge on the front end?

 

Whatever happened had enough energy to cause excessive plastic deformation in 2 very rigid frame rails. My guess is that a unibody car would have been unrecognizeable after that crash (meaning nothing more than parts struen all over the pavement).

 

Tree.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Yeah I saw it was a tree when I was reading the article on Jalopnik. I wonder how fast he was going.... The tree didn't bring any energy to the collision (i.e. it wasn't moving) so all the energy required to deform that car came from his speed. Given the amount of energy necessary to do that much damage to that car, it would have required excessive speed.

 

Apply that same amount of energy to a unibody car and my guess is that there would only be pieces of the car left.

 

As you stated, unibody cars are designed to absorb the energy of a collision by deforming. As you said, BOF vehicles are much more rigid (meaning it takes more energy to cause deformation). Therefore, the amount of energy necessary to deform that crown vic in that way would have wreaked absolute havoc on a unibody vehicle. The deformation in a unibody vehicle would have been much more severe. Any deformation more severe than that picture = nothing but car parts struen everywhere.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[V8-X]

From what we are seeing, it doesn't look like the new Explorer has lost much of anything in terms of capability. It will still go offroad, likely about as well as the current model. It will be able to tow enough that most owners would ever want to tow with such a vehicle. It will get better fuel economy than the outgoing model. It will have more features. It will handle better. It will be safer. And most importantly, it will cost considerably less for Ford to develop than an all-new RWD BOF platform that would only underpin one other vehicle.

Just as capable as the current model, I doubt it. As even Akirby stated, and I've stated many times in the past in various threads, the Explorer lost a lot of its off-road capability in 2002 with use of IRS and bloated weight. Now you add the fact it'll only be available in FWD and AWD without a true 4x4 option. Sales of the Explorer were great with the Gen I and II designs (of course was the 90s soccer moms), and we've seen sales tank with the Gen III model. Sure some has to deal with the market and people moving to CUVs, but I would also state based on my experience, a lot of the Explorer sales went out the door when it became less capable off-road. Still see tons of Gen I & II models on the trails around CO. Can count on one hand the number of Gen III models I've seen on these same trails. I don't have a problem with the uni body structure for off-road ability, it's the IRS, lack of ground clearance and FWD/AWD applications.

 

It's a no brainer that fuel economy, safety and handling will improve over the outgoing model. With more refined and fuel efficient motors/transmissions, better aerodynamics, new safety features, and the various other improvements made from one design to the next, it's only obvious it will get better mpgs and will be safer. Implement those same exact features into a RWD BOF and you'll bring home nearly if not identical results.

 

Why say it's too much $ simply because the market isn't that large currently? Did people use this mentality when they decided to start building cars like the Stang and Vette way back when? Or how about when they started building CUV's? Sticking with the same old, then being late to the game isn't always the best strategy.

 

I owned a 93 and 97 explorer and a 99 expedition and 03 Aviator before getting a 08 Edge, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

I do agree that the Flex may be unnecessary after the new Explorer debuts. You can take the Explorer downtown but you can't take the Flex out to the woods.

Between my father and I, we owned a '95 Explorer 4.0 OHV 4x4, 99 Explorer 5.0 AWD and '02 EXplorer 4.6L 4x4. The 95 & 99 were clearly better in the overall capability category, while the 02 was a nice boulevard vehicle. The 95 was actually the best off-road of the 3, with the true 4x4, while the 99 was hindered by the AWD.

 

Maybe it should have been the Explorer wasn't necessary because you already had a 3 and 2 row CUV and the money invested into the Explorer could have gone elsewhere. And I'm sure it would have been much cheaper to offer and off-road version of the Flex, with a slightly increased ground clearance (such as the Explorer is receiving), and the traction control settings the Explorer received. Either way, I don't see the new Explorer nor Flex being able to go out to the woods, unless maybe there is a nice dirt/gravel road.

 

Perhaps you'd like to explain this one then:

 

http://jalopnik.com/5585735/what-a-police-car-wrapped-around-superman-would-look-like

 

Like others stated, show me a uni-body in a similar accident that would have done better.

[J-150]

I, however, refuse to buy an "SUV" built off the D3 platform.

 

 

and your thoughts on Jeep?

[NickF1011]

Like others stated, show me a uni-body in a similar accident that would have done better.

 

You can't immediately assume that a unit body vehicle would have done worse either though.

[Sevensecondsuv]

and your thoughts on Jeep?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.....?

 

But my general thoughts on Jeep are the same as my thoughts on Chrysler as a whole... They're owned by Fiat and the US government, and their quality has been bottom-grade for 100% of my lifetime. Therefore I won't buy one. But I do know a lot of people who have Chryslers (Jeeps especially) and like them. I've never been a Jeep guy myself (comes from having to put up with Jeep fanboys when you're wheeling a 1992 Explorer), but I do have respect for them not bowing to the portion of the market whining about how their SUV doesn't ride like a luxury car... (cough, cough - the demise of the explorer, 1st in 95 with IFS, then 98 with optional AWD, then 2002 with pork and IRS, now in 2011 when it gets emasculated completely)

Edited July 16, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[NickF1011]

(cough, cough - the demise of the explorer, 1st in 95 with IFS, then 98 with optional AWD, then 2002 with pork and IRS, now in 2011 when it gets emasculated completely)

 

Demise in whose eyes? It sure sold a lot better after 1995 than it did prior.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The 95 change to IFS wasn't really a big deal. The rest of the vehicle was still the same. It's funny how sales tanked after the 2002 major redesign though.

 

It's just not a mainstream vehicle anymore. I'd love to be proven wrong, but my prediction is that putting it on the D3 platform is not going to make for a substantial sales increase. Any sales gains will be attributable to the Ecoboost 4 banger that gets better mileage. Mind you, that same ecoboost 4 banger could be put in a BOF/RWD explorer and deliver equivalent fuel mileage improvements.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

a lot of the Explorer sales went out the door when it became less capable off-road.

 

Gee, let's think for a minute on what might have happened right after the 2002 model debuted with IRS. I think there might have been a slight problem with tires???

 

The Firestone debacle started it but the move towards CUVs had already started.

 

Yes, a FEW buyers left due to less offroad capabilities. But not enough to make a difference and nowhere close to the number that left for competitor's CUVs.

[akirby]

It's funny how sales tanked after the 2002 major redesign though.

 

Hello? Firestone??

 

Mainstream today are CUVs with mild offroad capability. BOF SUVs are not in high demand.