New Expedition, Navigator greenlit

[jpd80]

I'm sure that pragmatic engineering will win the day and Ford will provide what right for each market.

Ford is about to change the game with the next F150, so ruling out possibilities is a bit premature...

Edited August 25, 2012 by jpd80

[twintornados]

Let me ask this again - what problem would switching to coil springs be solving on the new F150 exactly?

 

F150 should remain as is (leaf spring rear)....with that being said, Ford needs to address the "sub F150" market and they can do it with an F100 which would then be counted in overall F-Series sales....Dodge has come along way in burnishing their image by doing the unexpected in the light truck market.

[kstwister]

If the F150 and Expy will be roughly identical on the front half, including frame and powertrain, I hope they can maintain turing radius. Our 08 Expy turns tight, not Focus tight, but for typical town and neighborhood driving, it's great. Now my 02 F150 Supercrew has a turning radius just slightly smaller than that of a 379 Pete semi......

[NLPRacing]

 

Understanding that the Expy & the F150 are going to be basically the same to the B pillar, I don't see how you can do anything past that that makes a meaningful difference between a short box F150 crew and your proposed vehicle.

 

The Expedition EL has a shorter OAL and wheelbase than an F150 Supercrew. An F100 based on an Expedition EL with a 4-1/2 to 5 foot bed and IRS would get better gas mileage & tow more than a Ridgeline, but look much better and still fit in most garages. It could be as big of a game changer as the 2001 F150 SuperCrew.

[papilgee4evaeva]

The Expedition EL has a shorter OAL and wheelbase than an F150 Supercrew. An F100 based on an Expedition EL with a 4-1/2 to 5 foot bed and IRS would get better gas mileage & tow more than a Ridgeline, but look much better and still fit in most garages. It could be as big of a game changer as the 2001 F150 SuperCrew.

 

What about the other dimensions (mainly width and height) that people may value in a smaller truck?

[RichardJensen]

The Expedition EL has a shorter OAL and wheelbase than an F150 Supercrew. An F100 based on an Expedition EL with a 4-1/2 to 5 foot bed and IRS would get better gas mileage & tow more than a Ridgeline, but look much better and still fit in most garages. It could be as big of a game changer as the 2001 F150 SuperCrew.

I doubt that the 10" (~4.5%) difference is sufficient to justify a 100% unique bed, and the significant changes to the assembly process, required to prep the Expy's C pillar aft stampings for assembly into either an Expedition or a cab & box truck.

[jasonj80]

Ford needs to bring back the extended cab F-150 with the 5.5ft bed (133wb) for the F-150 (in all Styles) and use that 133wb for the next Expediton. I don't understand why is was pulled for the 10+ models and now only available for the Raptor, you could get it with the redesigned '09 style for one model year. It would have at least satisfied some Ranger customers.

[NLPRacing]

I doubt that the 10" (~4.5%) difference is sufficient to justify a 100% unique bed, and the significant changes to the assembly process, required to prep the Expy's C pillar aft stampings for assembly into either an Expedition or a cab & box truck.

 

It wouldn't be as special or one off as you would think. It would use a standard F150 Crew Cab with a fully composite (inside & out) bed with the bed being the only unique part. The IRS on the Expedition will allow a deeper bed and lower load height than an F150 with a leaf spring SRA which means it would retain nearly the same bed volume despite being shorter. Plus it will be lighter than an F150 bed.

 

What about the other dimensions (mainly width and height) that people may value in a smaller truck?

 

If people really did value a smaller truck, the Sport Trac would have done better. It was much narrower than an F150, but it didn't weigh much less and had the same MPG rating. Plus, it's price was too high for those who "valued" a smaller truck and it was too narrow for other truck buyers. When an F150 and Ram 1500 can get better gas mileage with 350+ HP than the Tacoma & Frontier with less than 300 HP, why would an automaker (other than GM) chase after a dwindling market? The rumors about the 2015 F150 is that it will shrink dimensionally a bit, similar to the size of the 97-03. If so, Ford won't need to sell a trucker any smaller as it won't be much bigger than most mid-size trucks and should should get considerably better gas mileage.

[RichardJensen]

The F150 frame is probably different from the Expedition frame aft of the firewall, which means you'd need to engineer the F150 S-Crew floorpan to interface with both frames, not just the F150 frame, and then you're still talking about a 100% unique bed.

 

And all to save, basically, my hand span and a thumb width off a vehicle that is nearly 19 feet long.

Edited August 27, 2012 by RichardJensen

[2b2]

It wouldn't be as special or one off as you would think. It would use a standard F150 Crew Cab with a fully composite (inside & out) bed with the bed being the only unique part. The IRS on the Expedition will allow a deeper bed and lower load height than an F150 with a leaf spring SRA which means it would retain nearly the same bed volume despite being shorter. Plus it will be lighter than an F150 bed.

ALL of ^that^ sounds really good imho...

 

 

...why would an automaker (other than GM) chase after a dwindling market? The rumors about the 2015 F150 is that it will shrink dimensionally a bit, similar to the size of the 97-03. If so, Ford won't need to sell a trucker any smaller as it won't be much bigger than most mid-size trucks and should should get considerably better gas mileage.

and ^that^ :D sounds like it'd make GM's fullsizers look like they practically duplicate most of their heavyduties (reminiscent of the last Impala/Malibu)

while their middies just aren't enough...

 

...even tho I'm not a truckguy

[RichardJensen]

similar to the size of the 97-03

The biggest difference in size between the '97 & '04 generations was the box depth and, later, the length of the S-Crew (after Ford became the smallest S-Crew in the segment)

[papilgee4evaeva]

If people really did value a smaller truck, the Sport Trac would have done better. It was much narrower than an F150, but it didn't weigh much less and had the same MPG rating. Plus, it's price was too high for those who "valued" a smaller truck and it was too narrow for other truck buyers.

 

Yeah, I would actually venture that the people who valued a smaller pickup went for the Ranger which was on the same lot for much less.

[theoldwizard]

The F150 frame is probably different from the Expedition frame aft of the firewall, ...

Why would you say that ?

 

I could expect the F150 SCREW and the Expedition frames to be common up to the C pillar.

[RichardJensen]

Why would you say that ?

Because I expect the Expy will have shorter framing to provide a lower ride height, since it will not be subject to similar payload/towing demands.

[NLPRacing]

Yeah, I would actually venture that the people who valued a smaller pickup went for the Ranger which was on the same lot for much less.

 

The biggest problem with the Sport Trac was it was too close in price to the F150. For the "smaller pickup" shopper, they weren't going to spend that kind of money and the other truck shoppers opted for the F150 at a similar price. The Sport Trac proves why a mid size truck is a failing proposition in this market and why the T6 will never be sold here. It would have to sell for considerably less than a full size, which is not going to happen.

 

Why would you say that ?

 

I could expect the F150 SCREW and the Expedition frames to be common up to the C pillar.

Because I expect the Expy will have shorter framing to provide a lower ride height, since it will not be subject to similar payload/towing demands.

 

The current Expy frame is very similar to the current F150 frame all the way up to the c-pillar and the 97-01 Expy was basically identical to the 97-03 F150 up to the c-pillar. I don't see Ford merging the Expy & F150 back to one platform to make them completely different aft the firewall. The SuperCrew cab and Expedition & Expedition EL should be able to share many stampings including A & B pillars, roof supports and floor pans.

[RichardJensen]

Even if the Expy & F150 share framing up to the C pillar, I still see absolutely no business case for a Expy with a truck bed. We're talking about minimal weight savings, minimal fuel efficiency gains, expensive unique bed design (possibly including unique side stamping if it's an unusual length), and all in an effort to save 10.5" of length on a 221-231" long truck? Just not seeing any sort of business case whatsoever for that.

 

And especially when the counterexamples are "Like the Ridgeline, but.." and "Like the Avalanche but.."

 

Both of those vehicles are such failures as to make any 'like...but...' proposal subject to a presumption of failure (point being: if the Avalanche were a 'but' away from being a rousing success, it wouldn't have been such a failure).

Edited August 27, 2012 by RichardJensen

[92merc]

Ford has a lot of marketing value in the F150 name. No reason to call the SuperCrew anything but that. Kinda of like the Hummer that had that tiny bed. Had the extra T in the name. Big deal.

[LSchicago]

Ranger buyers do not want an F150. They bought Rangers because they are cheaper, smaller (easier to park in cities) and cheaper to drive overall. Lots of 18-25 buyers, and small fleets like Orkin. Orkin is not going to switch to F150 either. Ford should consider a new Ranger type vehicle for those who need a small truck, not a smaller F150 or expedition with a bed. They should think down the lines of a Transit connect based truck (next version), or a Focus based pickup. (even if it was a ranchero style) Something with a 1.6 Ecoboost, that can get 32-40 MPG. That would sell great, and not take F150 sales.

[akirby]

Ford should consider a new Ranger type vehicle for those who need a small truck, not a smaller F150 or expedition with a bed.

 

And we're reasonably sure that's exactly what Ford is working on - a small truck built on a shared platform that gets great fuel mileage. We just don't think that T6 fits the bill.

[LSchicago]

And we're reasonably sure that's exactly what Ford is working on - a small truck built on a shared platform that gets great fuel mileage. We just don't think that T6 fits the bill.

I hope so I'd like to see that market filled. Due to a business change, I may be able to use one myself. I won't buy an import, and as much as I love the F150, it's too large for my needs. I already have 2 F550's if I need a bigger truck.

[SoonerLS]

Orkin is not going to switch to F150 either.

Seems to me I read somewhere that Orkin (or one of the big extermination companies) is planning on switching to the TC. But maybe I'm mis-remembering...

[Edstock]

Seems to me I read somewhere that Orkin (or one of the big extermination companies) is planning on switching to the TC. But maybe I'm mis-remembering...

Orkin's Ontario Canada division, PCO, has switched to TC's.

[NLPRacing]

Even if the Expy & F150 share framing up to the C pillar, I still see absolutely no business case for a Expy with a truck bed. We're talking about minimal weight savings, minimal fuel efficiency gains, expensive unique bed design (possibly including unique side stamping if it's an unusual length), and all in an effort to save 10.5" of length on a 221-231" long truck? Just not seeing any sort of business case whatsoever for that.

 

And especially when the counterexamples are "Like the Ridgeline, but.." and "Like the Avalanche but.."

 

Both of those vehicles are such failures as to make any 'like...but...' proposal subject to a presumption of failure (point being: if the Avalanche were a 'but' away from being a rousing success, it wouldn't have been such a failure).

 

That 10-1/2" is the difference between fitting in a garage and being parked outside. That's a pretty big deal when you just dropped $40,000 to $50,000 on a new truck and a hail storm is coming.

 

What I've described (an all new F100 SuperCrew using an F150 crew cab on an Expedition frame with the only unique part being a shorter bed) is NOT "Like the Ridgeline, but.." and "Like the Avalanche but.." It would be a unique, new vehicle that would contribute to F-Series sales numbers and has the possibility of being a game changer. Should Ford build it? I don't know. Would I like Ford to build it? Yes and I would be first in line to buy one like I was in 2000 when Ford first introduced the all new F150 SuperCrew.

 

Speaking of Avalanche, it actually sold in decent numbers until the GMT900 Silverado came out with basically the same interior at a much lower price. Why would you drop $37K to $50K on an Avalanche when a comparable Silverado Crew Cab was about $25K to $35K? And the Ridgeline, a minivan based 1/2 ton "full size" pickup with half the capacity, nearly as heavy, nearly as big, half the horsepower and similar or less MPG's as Ford, GM and Dodge's half tons, what could go wrong. It's a Honda, everybody will buy one!

[RichardJensen]

That 10-1/2" is the difference between fitting in a garage and being parked outside.

For how many prospective customers? And for how many of those prospective customers is the question of fitting into the garage one of too much crap in the garage already, as opposed to the dimensions of the garage?

 

I mean the target audience is: "people with small garages, that aren't too small." Because, it's still going to be 221" long, and the width and height of a conventional F150.

Edited August 30, 2012 by RichardJensen

[blazerdude20]

I've been wondering...

 

Do most people in your neighborhoods park in the garage?

 

We only have one car garages in our neighborhood so only a couple people park inside.