Anthony Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) I'm picturing truck like but not a smaller version of the current F-150. I don't think the Tonka/SD look can scale down that far without loooking too exaggerated. I'm thinking more along the lines of the F-100 sketches that were going around a couple years ago. What are you talking about, it scales down great! Edited September 15, 2015 by Intrepidatious 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Looking at the track width of Focus//c1 based products and they're around 60" or 5 feet, so if that truck had a wheelbase that was greater than 99" (just over 8 feet), it would fall into the mid size range and above the tight CAFE regs below 41 SQFT. $20 million federalization of Ranger is a lot less costlier than developing a new Compact truck from scratch. In the past Ford has dismissed the mid sized truck but now a lovely price gap is opening just below Crew cab F150, I think Ford has a sniff that the market is warming to the "right" types of Mid sized trucka and will pay premiums for them. The compact truck will be a worldwide product... Ford needs a replacement for Bantam and Courier. All of Ford's competitors in South America and Africa has a product in this class and Ford wants back in. So development costs is relative... we are not talking about an unique US-market only truck. I'm on the fence about this. I would guess there is 40% chance Ford is going to T6 (or T7) Ranger with Everest rebadged as Bronco, and 60% chance that Ford is doing the compact C-platform truck and SUV with integrated frame at MAP. I haven't been following this long thread that closely but are you alone in your suggestion that the Everest is a possibility? Hope you are right but I'm afraid we won't see that great vehicle-and I say "great" just on pix and Ford ads I've seen posted. A true SUV IMO. By the way, is Everest in fact built on T-6 platform? Everest is T6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 The compact truck will be a worldwide product... Ford needs a replacement for Bantam and Courier. All of Ford's competitors in South America and Africa has a product in this class and Ford wants back in. So development costs is relative... we are not talking about an unique US-market only truck. I'm on the fence about this. I would guess there is 40% chance Ford is going to T6 (or T7) Ranger with Everest rebadged as Bronco, and 60% chance that Ford is doing the compact C-platform truck and SUV with integrated frame at MAP. Everest is T6 thx Bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) The compact truck will be a worldwide product... Ford needs a replacement for Bantam and Courier. All of Ford's competitors in South America and Africa has a product in this class and Ford wants back in. So development costs is relative... we are not talking about an unique US-market only truck. I'm on the fence about this. I would guess there is 40% chance Ford is going to T6 (or T7) Ranger with Everest rebadged as Bronco, and 60% chance that Ford is doing the compact C-platform truck and SUV with integrated frame at MAP. As i was explaining before, once the footprint goes above 41 sqft, the vehicle is then classified under CAFE as a Mid size. For a Fiesta based product with 57" track, that would mean the 111" wheelbase Bantom "Bakkie" is well above that limit and actually mid sized..... even at 104: wheelbase the vehicle would be classed as a Mid Sized pick up for CAFE purposes. It also shows just how much Courier & Ranger have grown over the years... Not against the idea, simply showing that the terminology may be a little off....does Ford want a Classic Mid sized truck? Edited September 16, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Well, by what you're saying, in order to not have a classified "midsize" truck, they'd have to have something absurdly small (sub Fiesta???) that, let's be honest, nobody would buy. Unless you're trying to say they can make something at the smaller end of the midsize classification that gets great fuel economy that doesn't have an issue with the cafe standards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Well, by what you're saying, in order to not have a classified "midsize" truck, they'd have to have something absurdly small (sub Fiesta???) that, let's be honest, nobody would buy. Unless you're trying to say they can make something at the smaller end of the midsize classification that gets great fuel economy that doesn't have an issue with the cafe standards? The wheel base and track would have to be about Fiesta sized. Depends on the overhangs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 The wheel base and track would have to be about Fiesta sized. Depends on the overhangs. The thing is going to look ridiculous to make it long enough to be semi-practical while maintaining that tiny footprint. If seriously question viabity (at least here in the U.S.) with such a product Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Correct, the vehicle grouping would still be Mid-Sized, not Compact which aligns with what Ford previously wanted, a Mid Sized Truck that was smaller than the T6 Ranger....(not necessarily a tiny trucklet). The vehicle still needs to be usable and something on a Fiesta footprint with tiny wheelbase doesn't have. I keep getting visions of either Escape or TC based single and Double cab based truck or tray back. Edited September 16, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I'm not pretending, I'm dead serious. Sales were increasing right up to the point they moved it off the Ranger platform and started declining almost immediately afterward. Just one of several extremely short sighted decisions Ford made between about 1995 to 2005 that almost did the company in by 2008. Most Explorer buyers ended up moving down to an Escape, as it was essentially the same size and price as the old Ranger based Explorer. Ford basically took one platform (Ranger) and replaced it with three (Ranger, 02+ Explorer, and Escape). Had they just left Ranger and Explorer together they could have modernized and developed them jointly and capably served 95% of the market served by the three separate platforms. That would have saved a ton of money, not to mention the Ranger itself. Again, there was some extremely short sighted decisions made in that time frame. What evidence can you provide that making them separate platforms was a good idea? This the the evidence I can provide... Although Nasser would never admit it at the time there is a reason why the Explorer became wider along with IRS in 2002. I am not saying that the old Ranger based Explorers were dangerous because driven properly they were fine for most people, but the old Ranger chassis was just not a good fit for the much larger and heavier SUV body that was bolted on it. The fact is most people were using Explorers differently then they used SUVs in the past. Of course when the Escape was introduced it pulled a lot of Explorer sales with it. Remember for the first few years of the Explorer's life it along with the 2 door Bronco were the only SUVs offered by Ford. Later Ford introduced the Escape and Expedition below and above it. One thing that did help stability somewhat was the introduction of a modern IFS in 1995 replacing the old Twin Traction Beam that was known to "jack up" when cornered hard, but because the new front end was lighter the vehicle actually became more top heavy. By 2001 the Ranger chassis which was developed in the late 70's early 80's just become too outdated and limited to re-design an all new Explorer on. D3 is actually a few good fit for the Explorer right now. It is not as off road worthy, but does fine for the light off roading that most Explorer owners do. It's strong and safe and it's only draw back is somewhat poor space utilization for the size of the chassis. With so many SUV choices like the Escape, Edge and Expedition (not to mention all the other brands) I don't think we will ever see the Explorer selling like it did in 2000, but the D3 Explorer is selling VERY well right now. I'd say Ford got it right. I do wish it had a little more ground clearance so it was better in off road situations, but when compared to every other SUV/CUV in it's class (minus the Grand Cherokee and 4Runner) it is pretty capable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Leaked image of the new Fiat Toro... roughly the same size as the possible unibody Ranger we've been talking about... and magazine rendering... And official FCA teaser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Wow.... and I thought the old plastic Chevy Avalanches were ugly....... Bleh Shoulda been the new Subaru Baja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Like most FCA product, there will be first time buyers with few repeat buyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Like most FCA product, there will be first time buyers with few repeat buyers I can't speak to any Fiat-branded products, nor ownership of an FCA vehicle, but I was able to drive my uncle's new Grand Cherokee last weekend, and I was actually pretty impressed. I thought it drove rather well. It appeared to have most of the options too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Grand Cherokee is one of the few non-Ford vehicles I would consider buying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Grand Cherokee is one of the few non-Ford vehicles I would consider buying. Same here...its just about the only non-German car I'd buy if I didn't buy Fords Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Same here...its just about the only non-German car I'd buy if I didn't buy Fords Yeah - my other short list is a couple of MBs, a couple of Audis and anything built in Stuttgart with 2 doors and the engine behind the driver. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 ...anything built in Stuttgart with 2 doors and the engine behind the driver. So, you're into those high-octane VWs, eh? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I can't speak to any Fiat-branded products, nor ownership of an FCA vehicle, but I was able to drive my uncle's new Grand Cherokee last weekend, and I was actually pretty impressed. I thought it drove rather well. It appeared to have most of the options too.After the bills of 5 years of ownership, let's talk. I have a friend that bailed on their Journey as soon as the warranty expired. It was in the shop too often. Edited October 1, 2015 by J-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 To be fair, that's a rental mobile Journey that dates back how many years. I imagine they'd do better with the Grand Cherokee, which is their highlight vehicle....but maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) To be fair, that's a rental mobile Journey that dates back how many years. I imagine they'd do better with the Grand Cherokee, which is their highlight vehicle....but maybe not.I know lifelong truck owners buy one Ram and quickly return to Ford or GM after the experience. Driving them is one thing. Owning one and paying for a new engine or tranny while still making payments is another. Edited October 1, 2015 by J-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I know lifelong truck owners buy one Ram and quickly return to Ford or GM after the experience. at tr Driving them is one thing. Owning one and paying for a new engine or tranny while still making payments is another. At looked at a Ram before buying my F250. I could have bought a comparably equipped NEW 2011 Ram for the same price I paid for my '08 F250 with 26k on it. One grab of the Ram door handle and I knew it was a bad idea. It felt like it was going to break off in my hand. I never did actually sit in that truck... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 But Sam Elliot says it's a man's truck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 But Sam Elliot says it's a man's truck! Well I'm not a 'man!'. I'm a damn sissy and I don't want to push my truck home! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Back to the Ranger - Bronco issue, new Autoweek has an article on....."if you build it, here are two we would like to see Ford make happen". They go on to a positive discussion on the Ranger and state.."A revived US Ranger is likely going to be based on the overseas model but built here to avoid the 25 % import tariff. Wonder were they get their info?? They then go on to quote Automotive News ....."a new Bronco would probably be based on the Everest, a body on frame SUV designed in Australia and built in Thailand" I wish on both counts but I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 If the Ranger and Bronco are indeed separate.... then the Bronco could be a 2-door version of the Raptor 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.