bzcat Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) It would be C3 not C2 right? But yea, basically the same thing. Further thought on Bronco rumors... Escape/Kuga is getting a little big and Ford is probably looking at something a little smaller to compete with C-segment Jeep Compass, Subaru XV, Hyundai Tucson, Nissan Qashqai etc. If MAP stays unibody C-car plant, then this Bronco is probably something alone the lines of those cars I mentioned... shorter than the Escape, but longer/wider than the EcoSport. Edited August 26, 2015 by bzcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 As someone in the employee forum noted early this morning, they are installing a Box line in the body shop. I trust him, he works in MAP body and he's not one who is normally just trolling people. He always has good solid info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Let see... 1. It won't be T6 Ranger or Everest - that boat has sailed isn't everest going the way of the dodo anyway? 2. Seems unlikely that Ford will rip out C-car production line in MAP to build BOF trucks... unless there is room to add another final assembly line HAHAHAH yeah no. there's no room for any new lines in Final. 3. One would assume that Ford has bigger plans for Troller... it's a candidate for joining the T7 Ranger program. But not sure how relevant that is to Bronco rumors. Likely extremely relevant. Part of the platform consolidation plan from earlier this year. T7 will likely be much more flexible than T6 is if I had to guess 4. T7 Ranger still won't address Ford's previous concern that the truck be CAFE positive - how do you make it get 30 MPG and cheaper (but still profitable) vs. F-150. by then they will have had enough experience in mass production with aluminum from F-150 they can use aluminum to build it. Remember, this is likely going to be the next-gen Ranger, not the current one. My guess is aluminum body on a high strength steel frame. We don't really know anything about T7 right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Q: Is a separate box still compatible w/the frequently repeated rumor of a Transit Connect derived Ranger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 As someone in the employee forum noted early this morning, they are installing a Box line in the body shop. I trust him, he works in MAP body and he's not one who is normally just trolling people. He always has good solid info. So what is a box line??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 So what is a box line??? uh, a line where they stamp/build truck beds....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Q: Is a separate box still compatible w/the frequently repeated rumor of a Transit Connect derived Ranger? Wasn't that supposed to be more of a Ranchero/El Camino type of "truck"? either way, if they can attach a frame to the back of the full size Transit cab, why couldn't they hypothetically do the same with TC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Wasn't that supposed to be more of a Ranchero/El Camino type of "truck"? either way, if they can attach a frame to the back of the full size Transit cab, why couldn't they hypothetically do the same with TC? Well, the old one was. But I could see that presenting issues in the US where buyers may want a variety of cab/bed sizes. Also, apparently, Ford used to build the Escort & panthers in STAP. And MAP might be big enough to do separate BOF and unibody assembly with a shared final line? It just doesn't seem like there's a whole other plant's worth of BOF vehicles to sell in this market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Also, apparently, Ford used to build the Escort & panthers in STAP. And MAP might be big enough to do separate BOF and unibody assembly with a shared final line? no. There's not nearly enough room for that as its currently laid out. Even if the place were gutted and they started from scratch, I don't think they could pull that off. Even if this Ranger thing comes to fruition, there is still going to have to be MAJOR work done in there to accommodate it. For one, I don't know where there is room for a frame line, box line, and still have enough room for the trim lines and final (post marriage) lines, and that's not even factoring in dynos and the CAL line. Edit: Now that I think about it, about the only way I could see that happening is if they start using space in the old Wayne Assembly building. Most of it is empty, I don't know if it would be an option to put a couple of new lines in there and send them over to MAP final once those assemblies are completed. That would work particularly well with engines and frames. Maybe a few other parts that don't need to come from the paint shop. Edited August 26, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 If they are building a separate box line at MAP for T6 Ranger, then Ford could import the truck without a box to avoid the Chicken Tax and install the bed either dock side or have the truck brought to MAP, install the bed and then ship it from there as a finished vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Wasn't MAP the one they retooled with the government loans (that some folks like to claim is Ford's 'bailout') to produce higher fuel economy vehicles? Were there any stipulations that it had to continue producing 'green' vehicles for a certain length of time? Could that have an effect on what Ford can produce there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Wasn't MAP the one they retooled with the government loans (that some folks like to claim is Ford's 'bailout') to produce higher fuel economy vehicles? Were there any stipulations that it had to continue producing 'green' vehicles for a certain length of time? Could that have an effect on what Ford can produce there? That's a good question, one that I don't know the answer to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 If they are building a separate box line at MAP for T6 Ranger, then Ford could import the truck without a box to avoid the Chicken Tax and install the bed either dock side or have the truck brought to MAP, install the bed and then ship it from there as a finished vehicle. That was a valid loophole until about 1980. The Feds closed it. The old Datsun & Toyota pickups took advantage of it & Detroit squawked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 That's a good question, one that I don't know the answer to. The requirement was 25% better FE: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091220_doe-reboots-advanced-auto-tech-loan-program-that-funded-ford-nissan-tesla-fisker If there were covenants, I'm guessing they last the length of the loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The requirement was 25% better FE: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091220_doe-reboots-advanced-auto-tech-loan-program-that-funded-ford-nissan-tesla-fisker If there were covenants, I'm guessing they last the length of the loan. And I thought the loans had already been paid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 But this isn't supposed to happen until 2018 - why would they be building a bed line now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) But this isn't supposed to happen until 2018 - why would they be building a bed line now? this is the direct quote taken from the topic in the employee forum The only reason why I put "is" because a box line is going in, in North body. now that sounds like they're building it now on the surface, but they probably are just doing the preliminary measuring and planning now. It was reported by people working there that right after the shift reduction in June, there were engineers taking measurements in paint and body. This is likely why. Edited August 26, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I'm waiting to see, tonight...when some of you all can focus, whos going to put a chart together of possible platforms, wheelbases, capacities, etc. whether its B or C based, etc. Seems to be that most are going with the notion it'll be C2/3 based. The clue is MAP and 8-9MPG improvments, and prices under an F-150. I would agree though, just to keep the title of best-seller, name it F-100, maybe throw in "Ranger" as a Trim level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I think the need to call it F-100 to keep the sales crown is unnecessary. Even with the F150 taking a big hit this year, the F-Series is handly outselling the Silverado. You'd probably get some squawking from GM by including everything from tiny through gigantic in the F-Series sales. The F6/750 aren't included in F-Series numbers IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Seems to me this is a trial balloon by Ford's PR dept. This does a couple of things...gets some buzz on 2 products that have a following, and puts some distance on Donald Trump's Ford bashing on his stump speeches. Edited August 26, 2015 by ironhorse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 If we get solid confirmation on this possibility some time in the next several months I will hold off on buying a truck until the Ranger arrives. I would like to get some time behind the wheel of the current global Ranger and if Ford sells it here I suspect it would be high on the list of potential buys. But if they hem haw around and don't make a definitive decision I'll just get a full size GM. The Ranger is a nice looking truck and from what I've read it is quite the capable truck as well. The midsize market is heating up with the all new Tacoma and GM twins. Ford might be wise to get in on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 It won't be T6 Ranger - read the quotes from Ford marketing. And if you like a T6 Ranger, why would get a full sized GM and not a Canyorado? Or vice versa - if you would buy a full sized GM why not a F150? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 It won't be T6 Ranger - read the quotes from Ford marketing. And if you like a T6 Ranger, why would get a full sized GM and not a Canyorado? Or vice versa - if you would buy a full sized GM why not a F150? I like the Canyon / Colorado but I just like the look of the full size GM more. Either option would be more than capable for what I would need them for. I don't believe in relegating myself to a specific vehicle for some obscure reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) The midsize market is heating up with the all new Tacoma and GM twins. Ford might be wise to get in on it. I don't think this is going to be a midsize. If for no other reason than the CAFE footprint requirements. Compare the footprint of the Colorado & its MPG with the footprint of the 2.7L F150 and its MPG. Edited August 26, 2015 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I don't think this is going to be a midsize. If for no other reason than the CAFE footprint requirements. Compare the footprint of the Colorado & its MPG with the footprint of the 2.7L F150 and its MPG. As of yet we don't know what engine would be in a US Ranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts