Bob Rosadini Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 From time to time, I and a few others have commented on the need to perhaps once again go back to ONE light duty line as existed prior to the advent of Super Duty with a separate cab structure for 150. The driver for such a move would be to capitalize on the efficiencies of having ONE platform vs. two distinct trucks. In this age of “One Ford” and the need for synergisms in everything the Company does, the benefit of such a move should be obvious. Since the advent of Super Duty, I think it is safe to say that the distinction between the two lines has blurred. Looking at 150 and 250 from strictly the cab perspective, I note the following numbers, with respect to 150/250: Head Room, 41.0/40.7 Shoulder Room, 66.6/68.0 Hip Room, 60.5/67.6 Leg Room, 41.4/41.1 Int. Vol., 64.8/65.9 Thus from a cab perspective, with the exception of hip room, a reasonable person could conclude the differences are insignificant. This then brings us to the drivetrain and chassis issues. Again, that should not be an issue as components can be easily lightened to satisfy the lower GVW rating. And while utilizing the same cab structure, I can’t imagine it would be too difficult to come up with a unique “150” front clip that would not need the larger frontal area that would be dictated by the need to cool the 6.7 which would not be a 150 option. This would further benefit the 150 platform by not saddling it with the extra bulk associated with accommodating a 6.7 diesel. Whenever we have come close to having this discussion, it usually revolved around the need to come up with a smaller vehicle such as the T-6. While this move would make that all the more likely, its not my intent to drag that can of worms out again. I don’t want to go through the litany of ...”150 top seller, fuel economy delta only means 200 bucks a year blah blah. Lets just talk about the justification for having two truck cabs which to simplify the discussion, are within 1.1 cu. ft. of interior space. And as another interesting comparison, the 150 has .2 cu. ft. more that Silverado and over a cu. ft. more than Dodge. Fire away! I think this makes a ton of sense. The biggest headache I would see, could be just how do you realign existing production capabilities between KTP, Dearborn, and KCAP. And might as well throw Avon into that mix as well. And above all, I'm suggesting this would only be done in conjunction with the next major redesign of both series. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Car Examiner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Each is such high-volume that it surely justifies the cost of dedicated platforms for different needs. It would be like trying to put the Focus and Fusion on the same platform -- when Chrysler tried to combine its compact and midsize cars it ended up with a compact with lousy gas mileage and a midsize that was too small. There's just no need to compromise and risk losing customers for something as important as the F-Series. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Each is such high-volume that it surely justifies the cost of dedicated platforms for different needs. It would be like trying to put the Focus and Fusion on the same platform -- when Chrysler tried to combine its compact and midsize cars it ended up with a compact with lousy gas mileage and a midsize that was too small. There's just no need to compromise and risk losing customers for something as important as the F-Series. But it's clear that F-150 is the priority and receives significantly more investment. Edited March 5, 2012 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I would contend that F250 be moved down onto the F150 series frame and cab. F150 chassis can easily be strengthened even further to give F250 a 15K tow rating....leave F350 and up on Super Duty chassis... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 so maybe the split might be better if not drawn exactly where the F150/SuperDuty line is now? there's this modular idea that might apply & maybe there could be 3 frontends? or maybe hybrid has to come into this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think the idea of splitting the F-150 from the F-250 and larger trucks is valid. The F-150 is optimized for the private light truck user, the F-250 and larger for commercial market. I think GM may actually have the best solution, in that their 1500's share only sheetmetal and interiors with the HD models. They are really different platforms with substantial parts commonality. As for a F-250 based on the F-150, remember that was tried in the 1997-2003 models, and not too successfully, I might add. We had a lot of them in the fleet, and when loaded to near max. GVW, they did not hold up well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Didn't the old 80/90's F-150, F-250, F-350 all share the same everything just about? Except for the progressively heavier duty components as you move up from the 150. Why not repeat? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) If the rumors about what the next F-150 are true, in respect to what the frame is going to be constructed from, there is no way the Super Duty will be built on it. Edited March 5, 2012 by Pioneer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Rather than platform, my opinion is that they should move to a common cab structure (like pre 97). The basic structure of the cab being common could offer some economies. And different radiator header, grille, hood, and such for accomodating the 6.7 would not derail things. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 .........As for a F-250 based on the F-150, remember that was tried in the 1997-2003 models, and not too successfully, I might add. We had a lot of them in the fleet, and when loaded to near max. GVW, they did not hold up well. If I remember that era of trucks...there were two distinctly different F250s back then and sold simultaneously. F250 Regular Duty was built on a beefed F150 and as far as it goes, was not a bad idea. But Ford also had F250 Super Duty that was more in line with commercial fleet buyers, but some fleet buyers saw "F250" and figured they could get away with buying a cheaper truck that really wasn't designed for commercial fleet use in the realm of what true fleet operators expect and F250 Regular Duty eventually succumbed to market pressures.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Why would Ford want to do this? The last sales break down I saw of the F-150 vs the Super duty was the SD sold something like 200K units in a year and the F-150 sold about 250-300K units in the same year (not sure, but do def remember the SD numbers...so might be higher for the F-150)...Given that the SD starts at $29K and goes up to stupid amounts above and well beyond that...I really don't see the business case for joining the two of them together, if both of them are profitable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Why would Ford want to do this? The last sales break down I saw of the F-150 vs the Super duty was the SD sold something like 200K units in a year and the F-150 sold about 250-300K units in the same year (not sure, but do def remember the SD numbers...so might be higher for the F-150)...Given that the SD starts at $29K and goes up to stupid amounts above and well beyond that...I really don't see the business case for joining the two of them together, if both of them are profitable... Because you can increase your profit in the long term- forget about what they sell for- what can you make out of the same animal with minor changes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Didn't the old 80/90's F-150, F-250, F-350 all share the same everything just about? Except for the progressively heavier duty components as you move up from the 150. Correct Why not repeat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 I would contend that F250 be moved down onto the F150 series frame and cab. F150 chassis can easily be strengthened even further to give F250 a 15K tow rating....leave F350 and up on Super Duty chassis... TT--That works too! I like that but would take it one step further- 150-250-350, same animal. Then take 450, and 550 and utilize the cab structure that would be used for the 650, 750 and talked about 850 "baby 8". This would be similar to what GM did when they used the class 6/7baby 8 cab for their 4500/5500's 7M3-you like that right. In any case, that accomplishes what I say makes a lot of sense- the two big volume classes (1, 2) -or make that 1, 2, 3. utilize same structure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Why would Ford want to do this? The last sales break down I saw of the F-150 vs the Super duty was the SD sold something like 200K units in a year and the F-150 sold about 250-300K units in the same year (not sure, but do def remember the SD numbers...so might be higher for the F-150)...Given that the SD starts at $29K and goes up to stupid amounts above and well beyond that...I really don't see the business case for joining the two of them together, if both of them are profitable... Super Duty is ancient; it's going to have to be redesigned soon. Sharing a cab with F-150 means you don't have to duplicate effort on the interior or safety systems. It also lets Ford offer all the latest F-150 interior goodies at loaded diesel dually prices. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Each is such high-volume that it surely justifies the cost of dedicated platforms for different needs. It would be like trying to put the Focus and Fusion on the same platform -- when Chrysler tried to combine its compact and midsize cars it ended up with a compact with lousy gas mileage and a midsize that was too small. There's just no need to compromise and risk losing customers for something as important as the F-Series. ^^^^ This! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Because you can increase your profit in the long term- forget about what they sell for- what can you make out of the same animal with minor changes. I think Ford has obviously done the business case for having two "different" trucks and apparently both models can support themselves and make Ford lots of money. Shrinking just to shrink something is stupid. I can see a case for having the F-250 being based on the F-150 and splitting off the 350 and up into the SD, but hasn't that been tried before... unsuccessfully? What about the fitting of the 6.7 Powerstroke or even the V10 Mod engine? I don't think its going to fit into the F-150 frontend without alot of modifications....which can be handled by the SD with no problem or after spending $$ to make it fit, you still have justification to make the different SD cab. Super Duty is ancient; it's going to have to be redesigned soon. Sharing a cab with F-150 means you don't have to duplicate effort on the interior or safety systems. It also lets Ford offer all the latest F-150 interior goodies at loaded diesel dually prices. Huh? The SD has only been around since 1999 and has been updated 3 times since then....this is ancient? Are you kidding me? As for sharing a cab...how much is it going to really save money? I see the differences between the sheetmetal on the SD and F-150 the same way I see the Explorer and Flex...its a different top hat...more or less. As for those interior goodies...thats a issue of wiring harnesses not shared interiors or whatever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Each is such high-volume that it surely justifies the cost of dedicated platforms for different needs. It would be like trying to put the Focus and Fusion on the same platform -- when Chrysler tried to combine its compact and midsize cars it ended up with a compact with lousy gas mileage and a midsize that was too small. Well if you believe Biker, the Current Focus and 2013 Fusion are more or less identical from the firewall forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 If the rumors about what the next F-150 are true, in respect to what the frame is going to be constructed from, there is no way the Super Duty will be built on it. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Each is such high-volume that it surely justifies the cost of dedicated platforms for different needs. It would be like trying to put the Focus and Fusion on the same platform -- when Chrysler tried to combine its compact and midsize cars it ended up with a compact with lousy gas mileage and a midsize that was too small. Chrysler was run by a bunch of morons. you can say to a certain extent that the focus and the fusion are on the Same architecture. there are many under the skin systems that are shared between both cars, Chrysler was trying to share too much and they ended up with garbage. there is no reason to believe that It cannot be done right. remember GM and Dodge share cabs between there light and heavy duty trucks. There's just no need to compromise and risk losing customers for something as important as the F-Series. put this in perspective, ford has 2 pick up truck with a combined volume of 600k per year. in reality it is really ~400,000 F150s and ~200,000 SDs you can reasonably ask the question When will the Twin I beam front suspension be but put to pasture? Me being me, I would ask how much SD volume could be better served by Variants of the Transit Van? what effect could the availability of the I5 in the F150 and Transit have on SD volume? what effect could the Avon medium duty have on SD volume? how long until ford completely redesigns the SD from stem to stern? would it be worth the investment, if we expect the market to continue to downsize? I would say there is no reason the SD should have a different Cab than the F-150. I would say that the true difference between the F150 and the SD should be the frame, and frame Changes can be done independently of the cab, it is the cab that has changed the most in the last 15 years. It shoudl be posible to share cabs between the F150 and the SD going forward, while maintianing the varetiy of frames and capability between the SD and F150. the real issue is will ford take that risk? Edited March 5, 2012 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Well if you believe Biker, the Current Focus and 2013 Fusion are more or less identical from the firewall forward I will say that they are not the same they do not share any major strutural compenents, but in the abstract they have common design and structural philosophies that allow for ideas in one architecture to be more easily carried over to the other. I consider both the C and C/D architectures to be legacy architectures, I.E. they will be around for decades, they will be constantly evolving and changing little bits at a time. you won't see an entire floorpan being replaced, but a constant tweaking of what was. this is the pattern totoyta has been using for over a decade, every new product is an evolution of the previous. they don't change for change sake they only change what needs to be changed. another reason is that the " Top hat" stategy relys on commonality, if the base architecture changes too much you not only lose the commonality from old to new but also from all the top hats based on the previous architecture. it is enivitable that you will have new top hats adopted late in the archtecthtures life cycle, like the B-max and Explorer, if you allow large changes to base architecture you will loose the ecnomies of Scale for new products on older archtecthures. so they try to avoid that where possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I think Ford has obviously done the business case for having two "different" trucks and apparently both models can support themselves and make Ford lots of money. Shrinking just to shrink something is stupid. I can see a case for having the F-250 being based on the F-150 and splitting off the 350 and up into the SD, but hasn't that been tried before... unsuccessfully? What about the fitting of the 6.7 Powerstroke or even the V10 Mod engine? I don't think its going to fit into the F-150 frontend without alot of modifications....which can be handled by the SD with no problem or after spending $$ to make it fit, you still have justification to make the different SD cab. Huh? The SD has only been around since 1999 and has been updated 3 times since then....this is ancient? Are you kidding me? As for sharing a cab...how much is it going to really save money? I see the differences between the sheetmetal on the SD and F-150 the same way I see the Explorer and Flex...its a different top hat...more or less. As for those interior goodies...thats a issue of wiring harnesses not shared interiors or whatever... Obsolete front suspension and C-channel frame. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 What about the fitting of the 6.7 Powerstroke or even the V10 Mod engine? I don't think its going to fit into the F-150 frontend without alot of modifications....which can be handled by the SD with no problem or after spending $$ to make it fit, you still have justification to make the different SD cab. No You would not put the 6.7 or the V10 in the 150-same slate as current 150 offerings As for sharing a cab...how much is it going to really save money? I see the differences between the sheetmetal on the SD and F-150 the same way I see the Explorer and Flex...its a different top hat...more or less. I have to believe that designing one new cab and PRODUCING one cab structure has to be a very significant savings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 the real issue is will ford take that risk? Biker16, Your last statement says it all. To those who disagree with this thought of eliminating the two cabs, I say it's a political football. Who has the stones to put forward this argument and to tackle the job of restructuring the existing manufacturing slate by plant? If you believe in elimination of duplication, if you buy into the whole concept of synergism, AND if you believe that what worked with 2 buck gas won't work with 4 buck gas, this has to make sense. I better be careful here-next thing you know I'll be talking about a slightly smaller, lighter 4 banger BOF truck! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I would say there is no reason the SD should have a different Cab than the F-150. 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.