Harley Lover Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Thank you Austin for the detailed explanation. :shades: x2 Your posts always add to any discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I've said this in other threads and I'll repeat it here, There is, IN MY OPINION, room in the US market for a small city truck. By that, I mean a small pickup with fwd, a bed that is roughly the size of the current ranger's, and based on a car chasis. I believe that the Transit Connect is a great platform te develope that from. If they just went parts bin for proven powertrain bits, the existing Focus I-4/6 speed DCT or current Fusion 2.5L/6AT powertrains are more than sufficient for such a vehicle. It should be an extended cab design, but not a crew cab. Emphasis should be on having a similar payload to the enclosed transit connect while keeping weight down. It needs to have the ability to two a small utility trailer (think single axle 6X6 enclosed as an absolute max with a reasonable load). Anyone needing more than that would probably be best served by a bottom end F-150 for a reasonable price. I suspect that Ford could find a way to get such a small pickup to make 30 mpg on the highway and mid 20s in the city. But, alas, this is all conjecture and pie in the sky thinking on my part. The customer would expect such a vehicle to be priced in line with it's paload and towing capabilites down from the F-150. This would mean that customers would expect to pay in the $16,000 to $19,000 range for such a truck and I don't see ford making a lot of money on a vehicle such as that, priced in that range, selling at existing ranger volume levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I've said this in other threads and I'll repeat it here, There is, IN MY OPINION, room in the US market for a small city truck. By that, I mean a small pickup with fwd, a bed that is roughly the size of the current ranger's, and based on a car chasis. I believe that the Transit Connect is a great platform te develope that from. If they just went parts bin for proven powertrain bits, the existing Focus I-4/6 speed DCT or current Fusion 2.5L/6AT powertrains are more than sufficient for such a vehicle. It should be an extended cab design, but not a crew cab. Emphasis should be on having a similar payload to the enclosed transit connect while keeping weight down. It needs to have the ability to two a small utility trailer (think single axle 6X6 enclosed as an absolute max with a reasonable load). Anyone needing more than that would probably be best served by a bottom end F-150 for a reasonable price. I suspect that Ford could find a way to get such a small pickup to make 30 mpg on the highway and mid 20s in the city. But, alas, this is all conjecture and pie in the sky thinking on my part. The customer would expect such a vehicle to be priced in line with it's paload and towing capabilites down from the F-150. This would mean that customers would expect to pay in the $16,000 to $19,000 range for such a truck and I don't see ford making a lot of money on a vehicle such as that, priced in that range, selling at existing ranger volume levels. My only question is what could you really haul in the bed of a Transit Connect-based pickup that you couldn't already haul inside a high-roof Transit Connect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 My only question is what could you really haul in the bed of a Transit Connect-based pickup that you couldn't already haul inside a high-roof Transit Connect? Pickup beds are better for "dirty" things like fertilizer, rocks, landscaping supplies, etc. I just hauled 800 pounds of flagstone for my father-in-law in my pickup. Could we have put them in the Expedition, sure, but I wouldn't if I had a pickup around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I believe more European auto companies (mostly under VW umbrella) are bringing over more diesel versions later this year. I'm sure Ford will take note of how well they sell and what kind of fuel mileage they do get. Of course most will be luxury nameplates who already spend big money on their vehicles. If anything, it will be interesting to see how the diesel story plays out as far as passenger cars go. I personally would rather have full hybrid than diesel. dont beleive it, ive heard the Euros are going to be FORCED to embrace Hybrid technology....and if they do, there will be less and less diesels...and they sure as hell wont be able to unload them here, and the business case will become ever more fragile... Edited April 7, 2011 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I pulled the Golf TDI numbers from the UK site. After adjusting for imperial gallons, here's the fuel economy numbers for the U.S. vs. the Euro version: U.S. Euro City 30 36.25 Hwy. 42 54.75 If I've done the adjustment correctly, this seems to illustrate the loss of fuel economy 'values' that occurs in the transition from Europe to the U.S.. As others have noted, it's probably attributable to both testing methods as well as equipment differences that are driven by pollution regs in the U.S.. Thanks Harley. Those figures do seem to undercut the case for diesels when you factor in the higher acquisition and fuel costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Okay, first of all, those are Imperial (wine) gallons, not US (beer) gallons. So knock 20% off the MPG right off the bat. 66MPG. Now reduce the total by 15% to account for the difference between EU & EPA test regimens 56MPG Now reduce the total by 15% to account for the difference between EU & EPA emissions regulations 48MPG Now granted that's 20% higher highway mileage than the current Focus, but you'd be paying several thousand more for the privilege, and with significantly less power. Biker's right. You could get similar results with the 3 cylinder, at lower cost. IMO, Ford could get just as much economy out of either a 1.4 or 1.6 Ecoboost, maybe that's the plan.... Surely the baby EB would get pretty close to that diesel figure and be more acceptable to US buyers. Also gas prices are still no where near Europe's high tax fuel - that's the only reason diesel thrives there but that's another subject..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fearley Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 I would hope ford would aggressively develop, smaller EB engine <1.6l. like the 1.0I3, but also develop an engine between the 1.0 and the 1.6, maybe a EB 1.2 I4 or I3. good for 140-150hp. Ecoboost 700cc I2 70-90hp Ecoboost 1.0 I3 90-125hp Ecoboost 1.2 I3 or I4 130-150hp Ecoboost 1.6 I4 150-200hp Ecoboost 2.0I4 200-250hp Ecoboost 2.5-2.7 I4 or V6, 250-340hp Ecoboost 3.5 V6 365-400hp proposed by me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Why? So Ford can have an all turbo lineup? Some people don't want turbos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Why? So Ford can have an all turbo lineup? Some people don't want turbos. you think people will have a choice in the matter? CO2 rules and CAFE may not give them a choice. if that is not enough the price of fuel should. The only reason not to use turbos is cost. It is not expensive to have a non turbo option, if needed, but like the Fusion v6 thread,in time, I think the buyer would prefer the performance of a turbo over that of a NA engine. Edited April 8, 2011 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 The only reason not to use turbos is cost. That's a pretty big reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 CAFE may not give them a choice The FWD V6 Fusion gets roughly 29MPG CAFE equivalent. That's hardly out of bounds for a 35MPG passenger fleet average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 The FWD V6 Fusion gets roughly 29MPG CAFE equivalent. That's hardly out of bounds for a 35MPG passenger fleet average. we will see. in the global context, turbos make sense to develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) we will see. in the global context, turbos make sense to develop. what the heck do you mean "we will see"? CAFE numbers are pretty damn easy to estimate. Current combined mileage / .74 And who is arguing against turbos? Edited April 8, 2011 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 what the heck do you mean "we will see"? CAFE numbers are pretty damn easy to estimate. Current combined mileage / .74 And who is arguing against turbos? EU rules to regulate CO2, are much more severe, than CAFE. the number of non turbo engine ford sell is dwindleing espcially in C-car and above markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) EU rules to regulate CO2, are much more severe, than CAFE. the number of non turbo engine ford sell is dwindleing espcially in C-car and above markets. Do you want me to post that photo of the Eldorado again? The more grandiose and more all-encompassing the prediction, the more likely it is to be wrong, Biker. "No V6 in Fusion" "The days of 300 hp midsize sedans are over." Edited April 8, 2011 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 Do you want me to post that photo of the Eldorado again? The more grandiose and more all-encompassing the prediction, the more likely it is to be wrong, Biker. "No V6 in Fusion" "The days of 300 hp midsize sedans are over." how many 300hp midsize car are sold today? how many V6 fusions are sold vs I4 fusions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 how many 300hp midsize car are sold today? how many V6 fusions are sold vs I4 fusions? Let's go back 35 years: (check out the cool Farrah hair on that horse!!) 1976 Mustang specs 2.3L 4: 88hp 2.8L V6: 105hp 5.0L V8: 140hp Tell me why your predictions should be taken any more seriously than those of mid 70s Cassandras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) how many 300hp midsize car are sold today? Among mass market nameplates in the U.S., zero. how many V6 fusions are sold vs I4 fusions? < 30% of total sales are V6 models (source) Re: the Focus ECOnetic, it's interesting that Ford went with flat disc wheelcovers & steel wheels rather than ultra lightweight aluminum alloy wheels. Edited April 8, 2011 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 Let's go back 35 years: (check out the cool Farrah hair on that horse!!) 1976 Mustang specs 2.3L 4: 88hp 2.8L V6: 105hp 5.0L V8: 140hp Tell me why your predictions should be taken any more seriously than those of mid 70s Cassandras. how many cars today have carburetors vs 30 years ago? how many have catalytic converters vs 30 years ago? How many cars today have I4 engine vs 30 years ago? Think of turbos as simply an efficiency improvement like PFI was, you could see it becoming more and more common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Think of turbos as simply an efficiency improvement The market doesn't see turbos that way, and it may be a long time before they do see turbos that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) And I'm pretty sure every car had a 3-way cat by '81. Edited April 8, 2011 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 The trend is to a more diverse, not a less diverse powertrain environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 The trend is to a more diverse, not a less diverse powertrain environment. maybe, it will not be anything like the last 20 years, where everything got bigger and power grew so much. 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.