Ranger T6, EcoSport Spied In Denver

[twintornados]

Can't really make out from the photo, but I think I see a line across the rear quarter up near the roof line extending along the upper edge to the rear of the car....possibly a hatchback version??

[akirby]

Ha ha...no, it flew right over my head!

 

:hysterical2:

[Bob Rosadini]

I think there will be a smaller pickup from Ford, when they feel the time is right and they have the other, more important, pieces taken care of.

 

As far as the common cab between F1,2,350, I just don't see it happening. With the next redesign of the F150, the largest engine you will see will be the 5.0 (at least, that's what I'm betting). To enable the 6.7L diesel to fit under the hood, you have to have a much larger overall size. It just does not make sense, as far as fuel economy improvements for the F150 go, to have a cab that large, just so you can share the cab with the F250-F350 trucks.

 

I don't think the "cab" structure itself needs to be any different for a 6.7 vs. a 5.0-or a 3.7 EB. The "front clip"-fenders, hood, cooling system etc. different story. Just like the Super Duty cab is used on a 250 and a 750. Could you fit a 6.7 Cummins and an Allison 3000 series in a 250?- no Just like you could not fit a 750 radiator in a 250- but the cabs are the same. Front clip-totally different.

 

And by the way, I can't find them now but the 150 and Super Duty internal dimensions are very close.

[fordmantpw]

I don't think the "cab" structure itself needs to be any different for a 6.7 vs. a 5.0-or a 3.7 EB. The "front clip"-fenders, hood, cooling system etc. different story. Just like the Super Duty cab is used on a 250 and a 750. Could you fit a 6.7 Cummins and an Allison 3000 series in a 250?- no Just like you could not fit a 750 radiator in a 250- but the cabs are the same. Front clip-totally different.

 

And by the way, I can't find them now but the 150 and Super Duty internal dimensions are very close.

 

Not specifically the cab, but so many pieces are inter-connected between the cab, the front clip, etc. The 6.7L is a lot larger than the F150 engines, and what changes are going to need to be made to the firewall to fit it back far enough? How much is the dash going to have to change to accommodate it? I just don't think the ends justifies the means. Plus, keeping them separate allows Ford to tailor the F250 to the more "rough and tumble" crowd.

 

The difference with the Super Duty cab being used on the F6/750 is that the cab sits up a lot higher and behind the engine more-so than in the F2/350 trucks. At least, it seems that way. You don't have that luxury with the F150.

 

Yes, I think the F150 and Super Duty internal dimensions are very close...within a couple inches all around I believe (I'm too lazy to look it up ).

[jpd80]

And by the way, I can't find them now but the 150 and Super Duty internal dimensions are very close.

And exactly why Ford is looking to "adjust" F150 to reduce overlap and capture more of the sub SD Truck market,

All without F150 actually becoming a mid sized Truck..

Edited December 8, 2012 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

And exactly why Ford is looking to "adjust" F150 to reduce overlap and capture more of the sub SD Truck market,

All without F150 actually becoming a mid sized Truck..

 

Not sure I'm following you, but if you are saying this makes the case for the T-6 coming to the US, I agree. the 150/Super duty cab internal dimensions are so close, the 250 CAN fill the role of 150-just like it did "pre Super Duty" days. You would jiust have what amojnts to a 250 without the 6.7 option and other appropriately lighter components. It to me is an absolute "no brainer".

 

And Fordmantpw- I think I've confused you on which cab structure survives. I'm saying the Super Duty cab evolves to cover 150-thus the Power Stroke accomodation is not an issue. The T-6 stands on its own-covering the Ranger market and a huge percentage of current 150 owners who really don't need the size/capability of a 150. Tom those whom truly need a "heavy half ton", the new 150-with the SD cab, covers them.

[jpd80]

Not sure I'm following you, but if you are saying this makes the case for the T-6 coming to the US, I agree. the 150/Super duty cab internal dimensions are so close, the 250 CAN fill the role of 150-just like it did "pre Super Duty" days. You would jiust have what amojnts to a 250 without the 6.7 option and other appropriately lighter components. It to me is an absolute "no brainer".

Not exactly, what I'm saying is that if Ford changes F150 to a slightly smaller truck, it will have the dual benefits of

repositioning the truck away from SD while picking up more of the mid sized Truck market without having to import Ranger.

Edited December 8, 2012 by jpd80

[Mark B. Morrow]

You didn't get the Monty python reference...

 

 

You have to know these things when you're a King

[Bob Rosadini]

Not exactly, what I'm saying is that if Ford changes F150 to a slightly smaller truck, it will have the dual benefits of

repositioning the truck away from SD while picking up more of the mid sized Truck market without having to import Ranger.

10-4-and my point on the T-6 is regardless if the import regulations/economics don't make it work, the design/engineering is done. That in itself is a huge cost that does not get duplicated-that I think is what "one Ford is all about.

[2005Explorer]

Not exactly, what I'm saying is that if Ford changes F150 to a slightly smaller truck, it will have the dual benefits of

repositioning the truck away from SD while picking up more of the mid sized Truck market without having to import Ranger.

 

After reviewing the current F-Series sales compared to the competition I would be very careful in downsizing the F-150 and changing what makes it the F-150. Remember going smaller does not automatically mean better fuel economy. Case in point the Explorer V6 gets about the same fuel economy as the current Edge V6. I don't understand the calls for radically changing the character of the F-150. A more aerodynamic design and some material and power train changes could go a long ways to improving the fuel economy without making it smaller or taking away capability. You don't want to go from having the most capable 1/2 ton to having the least capable one. Don't think that those customers will just go to a SuperDuty. Drive both of them and tell me which one rides and drives much better. There is no comparison. If Ford feels a need to slot a compact to midsize truck under the F-150 that is fine, but I would not go about radically changing one of the most popular vehicles in North America just for the sake of change.

[jpd80]

After reviewing the current F-Series sales compared to the competition I would be very careful in downsizing the F-150 and changing what makes it the F-150. Remember going smaller does not automatically mean better fuel economy. Case in point the Explorer V6 gets about the same fuel economy as the current Edge V6. I don't understand the calls for radically changing the character of the F-150. A more aerodynamic design and some material and power train changes could go a long ways to improving the fuel economy without making it smaller or taking away capability. You don't want to go from having the most capable 1/2 ton to having the least capable one. Don't think that those customers will just go to a SuperDuty. Drive both of them and tell me which one rides and drives much better. There is no comparison. If Ford feels a need to slot a compact to midsize truck under the F-150 that is fine, but I would not go about radically changing one of the most popular vehicles in North America just for the sake of change.

And this is why I and others like me have to be very careful discussing the future F150, Ford is making changes to maximize the market they know so well,

so rather than putting to much stock into my ramblings, it's better to trust the company that knows the F150 market better than anyone and let's see how

Ford changes the formula ever so slightly to 1) improve fuel economy, 2) cover the market much better and 3) reduce overlap with Super Duty.

 

I'm feeling that the dimensions would only need to be changed fractions, perhaps more efficeint framing to allow better space utilization

on a slightly narrower truck but not significantly so, more than just an Explorer Sport Trac copy but more svelte than the existing f150.

I tstill needs around that 60-61" shoulder width, and sufficient rear leg room in the double cab versions, something Ranger can't match..

Edited December 9, 2012 by jpd80

[2005Explorer]

And this is why I and others like me have to be very careful discussing the future F150, Ford is making changes to maximize the market they know so well,

so rather than putting to much stock into my ramblings, it's better to trust the company that knows the F150 market better than anyone and let's see how

Ford changes the formula ever so slightly to 1) improve fuel economy, 2) cover the market much better and 3) reduce overlap with Super Duty.

 

I'm feeling that the dimensions would only need to be changed fractions, perhaps more efficeint framing to allow better space utilization

on a slightly narrower truck but not significantly so, more than just an Explorer Sport Trac copy but more svelte than the existing f150.

I tstill needs around that 60-61" shoulder width, and sufficient rear leg room in the double cab versions, something Ranger can't match..

 

Spend some time in an F-150 and then a SuperDuty. There is no overlap. I can assure you of that. Both vehicles have a VERY different character and different capabilities. The F-150 is a much more refined vehicle and definitely lighter duty. The thing is that unless they are going to somehow make the SuperDuty become more refined, handle better and get better fuel economy then they probably should not be downsizing the F-150 and putting even a larger gap between them. The problem with making those changes to the SuperDuty is that you then reduce the capability of that vehicle.

 

I honestly think Ford is going to make a lot less changes to the next F-150 then you think they are going to. They will be watching what GM and Chrysler do before they go and just change everything. We have seen fuel economy improvements going from the old 4.6 and 5.4 to the 3.7 5.0 and EB 3.5 and I think they could easily coax a couple more MPGs out of improved power trains and aerodynamic improvements. Case in point my Dad had a 2005 Ranger 4x4 SC with a 4.0 Automatic and his 2011 F-150 SC 5.0 4x4 6 1/2 box gets 2-3 MPG better. Just think about that for a second. Size made no difference at all and we are talking a BIG difference in size and weight.

 

There may very well come a time when the F-150 should be made smaller and less capable, but when you are number 1 you don't start messing with success. I bet the next F-150 won't change much in size or capability. As we get closer to 2020 a change might happen, but a major downsizing on the next revision would be a mistake IMHO.

Edited December 9, 2012 by 2005Explorer

[jpd80]

Spend some time in an F-150 and then a SuperDuty. There is no overlap.

Edit,

The towing capacity does overlap significantly but the perception is that f150 is still a little close to the size of SD.

And as you say the SD is a very capable tower especially in the areas between F150 and F250 so that is what Ford

looking at, without compromizing all that's good about the current trucks design and success..

 

 

Again, you're reading way too much into my posts.

 

The next F150 is different enough that Ford intends building it alongside the existing F150 for a while until people are comfortable with it.

The opinion is that the new Truck will be love at first sight and the overlap period reduced accordingly.....

Edited December 9, 2012 by jpd80

[Mackintire]

I know you're just stirring the pot a bit, but what is the fuel economy difference between a T6 and a 3.7L F150?

 

4-5 MPG, but you are comparing:

 

A 3.7 Gas F150 at 23MPG

 

against

 

A 3.5 turbo diesel powered T6 at 27 MPG

 

Never mind the 32MPG 2.2 liter turbo diesel option.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Mackintire

[Mackintire]

I've mentioned this before but Ford has one BIG card they can still pull out.

 

Create an F100 that is based on a slightly narrowed and lightened F150 chassis. Offer the 2.7 liter V6 Ecoboost engine and the 5.0 liter(25MPG and 22MPG)

 

Beef up the F150 slightly and make a F200 (Needs things like the F250's axle bearings, splines, brakes, transmission and a power steering unit that can be used when plowing)

 

Combine the F250 and F350 into a F300

 

Get rid of the super heavy duty F350 package and combine it with the current F450.....call it a F400

 

For towing your choices would be as follows:

 

F100 6,800lbs

F200 12,500lbs

F300 16,500lbs SRW

F400 24,000lbs DRW only

 

If the new F200 costs roughly the same as the old F150, as equal or better equipment, ride and fuel economy no sales should be lost.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Mackintire

[silvrsvt]

The one thing I think that is overstated is the demand for a smaller pickup vs the F-150...I think a lot of the complaints are people just bitching to bitch about things...it's not like F-150 sales are suffering because people want Rangers instead.

[twintornados]

The one thing I think that is overstated is the demand for a smaller pickup vs the F-150...I think a lot of the complaints are people just bitching to bitch about things...it's not like F-150 sales are suffering because people want Rangers instead.

Honestly, I would love to have a pickup truck, but Ford does not build one that fits my needs...Ranger was never available with a quad-cab configuration in North America and for my need F150 has just grown to gargantuan proportions that is too large for my taste...I have found myself looking at Titan only because it is smaller in size to F150, but I cannot bring myself to buying a (shudder) Nissan....Ford CAN make a truck that is not the size of a "Gerald R Ford-class" aircraft carrier and they do...just, we cannot buy it here because the thought in North America is...."You will buy it anyway, so suck it!!"

 

Well, I am not buying into that ideal, so here I wait.....maybe Mazda will bring their truck into the North American market...and here is to hoping they put the new Skyactiv-D motor in it too....

Edited December 9, 2012 by twintornados

[Pioneer]

Just a few random responses for a few posts.

 

Nobody has said the next F-150 will be smaller than the current one.

 

Ford is not waiting to see what Chevy and Dodge produce as far as their redesigns. The next gen 150 is pretty much set. There might be some minor changes, but styling, design, materials being used, is already worked out. The only thing we are waiting on now is for tooling for it to be produced.

 

Ford is not shutting only one plant down for retool because it is is trying to see public reaction to the redesigned model. They have been doing it this way since PN96. When you have two plants producing the same product, you always have a "lead" plant that goes first. You have one set of engineers working on a specific model change and they can only be in one plant at a time. They get the product launched then move on to the next plant.

[silvrsvt]

Honestly, I would love to have a pickup truck, but Ford does not build one that fits my needs...Ranger was never available with a quad-cab configuration in North America and for my need F150 has just grown to gargantuan proportions that is too large for my taste...I have found myself looking at Titan only because it is smaller in size to F150, but I cannot bring myself to buying a (shudder) Nissan....

 

Just a quick look at the sizes of the F-150 vs Titan...depending on the bed and cab, The F-150 might be only 6 inches or so bigger then the Titan, but the Titan doesnt offer a 8ft bed either...is an extra 6 inches really going to make that big of a difference in a full size pickup? I know the F-150 "looks" bigger, but its not really that much "bigger" when it comes down to it.

 

Well, I am not buying into that ideal, so here I wait.....maybe Mazda will bring their truck into the North American market...and here is to hoping they put the new Skyactiv-D motor in it too....

 

Never going to happen....it will get hit with the Chicken tax...

[jpd80]

Instead of thinking size change, could we be looking at a more efficient F150?

One that's still is the same size and abilities as now but with more features, less weight, better fuel economy,

a new full sized truck that makes better use of smaller engines to exact outstanding fuel economy.

[Biker16]

Instead of thinking size change, could we be looking at a more efficient F150?

One that's still is the same size and abilities as now but with more features, less weight, better fuel economy,

a new full sized truck that makes better use of smaller engines to exact outstanding fuel economy.

 

That sounds very expensive, there is no free lunch.

[Bob Rosadini]

That sounds very expensive, there is no free lunch.

Agree for sure-and as many of us have said-its not just the MPG-its the size. I don't want to battle for parking spaces.

Just a few random responses for a few posts.

 

Nobody has said the next F-150 will be smaller than the current one.

 

Ford is not waiting to see what Chevy and Dodge produce as far as their redesigns. The next gen 150 is pretty much set. There might be some minor changes, but styling, design, materials being used, is already worked out. The only thing we are waiting on now is for tooling for it to be produced.

 

Ford is not shutting only one plant down for retool because it is is trying to see public reaction to the redesigned model. They have been doing it this way since PN96. When you have two plants producing the same product, you always have a "lead" plant that goes first. You have one set of engineers working on a specific model change and they can only be in one plant at a time. They get the product launched then move on to the next plant.

 

Now this is interesting. I can't believe that this is not an "all or nothing" decision. Is it known which 150 source goes down first? Also what was PN 96. In any case IMO this is a good thread- many good points raised and the stakes are huge. I can't help but feel that the success of the ciurrent 150 hangs like a huge cloud over the decision.

[Captainp4]

I never understand the parking space argument. Maybe because I've been driving pickups since I could legally drive (any many years before that), and I've never had an issue parking. I even find it easier to parallel park a pickup because you can see better. Once you've driven it for a little while, you get used to it. Especially if you're talking F150. F350s are "huge" but I've never had an issue parking them.

[Bob Rosadini]

I never understand the parking space argument. Maybe because I've been driving pickups since I could legally drive (any many years before that), and I've never had an issue parking. I even find it easier to parallel park a pickup because you can see better. Once you've driven it for a little while, you get used to it. Especially if you're talking F150. F350s are "huge" but I've never had an issue parking them.

I guess I should have been a bit clearer- parking as in parking garages-tight spot in a shopping center-I might squeexze my Ranger in, but I would not squeeze my son's 150 Super cab.

 

I also have a class 1 license and own a class 8 - 56 years old but it has commercial plates and I use it.

[Biker16]

When is Ford going to give up some capability to have a real increase in fuel economy?

 

If you are going to continue to push the half ton pickup further into the 3/4 ton market. Yet expect fuel economy to increase while adding more capability.

 

to maintain capability while reducing weight require the use of expensive materials like aluminum and composites, to save 500-600lbs and increase the cost per unit by $1000-2000 forcing a reduction in margins or and increase in price, both prospects are not good for Ford long term. but Ford has to much capacity invested in the F-series (status Quo) to risk sales volume by sacrificing some capability

 

going forward it just makes too much sense to realign the F series (F-150 to F550) in a way that allows for the truck to downsize and open up the possibility for a F100.