Biker16 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think 200K is possible - maybe higher if they export troller and bronco. Could they shift Ranger production from other plants? Could they add products from another platform? Long-Term What Are the prospects For a body on frame platform in a plant that big? unlike GM Ford doesn't have Body of frame Van anymore to build alongside a mid-sized Pickup. It would have made more sense to build a BOF Ranger in Ohio than at MAP. At least we know Ohio assembly has only 200k a year in capacity. The other shoe to drop is what the investment in mexico looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Long-Term What Are the prospects For a body on frame platform in a plant that big? unlike GM Ford doesn't have Body of frame Van anymore to build alongside a mid-sized Pickup. It would have made more sense to build a BOF Ranger in Ohio than at MAP. At least we know Ohio assembly has only 200k a year in capacity. The other shoe to drop is what the investment in mexico looks like. You can build BOF and unit body in the same plant. Not to mention that whatever is built at MAP is just speculation at this point anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustyw85 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Why is Louisville getting $700 million to build the next-gen escape? They spent only $600 million on the renovation that converted a BOF plant to a Unibody plant to build the current Escape. Edited November 12, 2015 by Dustyw85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Why is Louisville getting $700 million to build the next-gen escape? They spent only $600 million on the renovation that converted a BOF plant to a Unibody plant to build the current Escape. GREAT QUESTION? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 You can build BOF and unit body in the same plant. Not to mention that whatever is built at MAP is just speculation at this point anyway. In the same plant? yes, on the same Line? maybe. can it be done effcicenty as it would be if it weren't on the same line? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 In the same plant? yes, on the same Line? maybe. can it be done effcicenty as it would be if it weren't on the same line? I don't think so. How ironic since you're the one advocating for more plant flexibility....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 In the same plant? yes, on the same Line? maybe. can it be done effcicenty as it would be if it weren't on the same line? I don't think so. St. Louis and STAP had no problem doing it 20-30 years ago. And, like I said, BOF Ranger is a guess at this point anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 And, like I said, BOF Ranger is a guess at this point anyway. I think that is the key. We don't know what's going to be there. The next Ranger/Bronco may be Transit Connect - based, and the TC, Ranger, and Bronco may all show up at MAP. I'm still not sure that isn't what's going to happen. Or, could be the MKC. Bottom line, once all these changes are done, we are going to need a sticky thread listing all the products and what plant(s) they are produced at to keep it all straight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) How ironic since you're the one advocating for more plant flexibility....... It's is insane to think that A) Ford has the Ability or the Will to blend BOF and UB one one line at MAP if they cannot blebd the Escape/MKC with the Focus at MAP. B) Ford has any Desire to Split MAP into 2 Plants medium under one Roof which would be what It would take to build 2-4 BOF varaints along with 2-4 UB variants for only 700 million dollars. Again my contention has been that Ford's dependence of on high volume "Long line" plants is not compatible with Medium-low volume Flexible assembly. IF WAP were to house to a medium volume BOF line for Ranger and Bronco, specifically ~ 120,000 units on 2 shifts it could work. Thats great then what do you do with MAP? You have have a factory that nominally has to run 80 JPH to make money, you have to spend money to right size that factory too. In a perfect world would end up with a both plant optimized to build between 40 BOF vehicles per hour and 50 UB vehicles per hours. The simplist option is to fix the known issues At MAP (Lack of build flexibility) and keep it unibody only. Edited November 12, 2015 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think that is the key. We don't know what's going to be there. The next Ranger/Bronco may be Transit Connect - based, and the TC, Ranger, and Bronco may all show up at MAP. I'm still not sure that isn't what's going to happen. Or, could be the MKC. Bottom line, once all these changes are done, we are going to need a sticky thread listing all the products and what plant(s) they are produced at to keep it all straight! We have a thread for that (I made it ) it's just not stickies yet 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 It's is insane to think that A) Ford has the Ability or the Will to blend BOF and UB one one line at MAP if they cannot blebd the Escape/MKC with the Focus at MAP. B) Ford has any Desire to Split MAP into 2 Plants medium under one Roof which would be what It would take to build 2-4 BOF varaints along with 2-4 UB variants for only 700 million dollars. Again my contention has been that Ford's dependence of on high volume "Long line" plants is not compatible with Medium-low volume Flexible assembly. IF WAP were to house to a medium volume BOF line for Ranger and Bronco, specifically ~ 120,000 units on 2 shifts it could work. Thats great then what do you do with MAP? You have have a factory that nominally has to run 80 JPH to make money, you have to spend money to right size that factory too. In a perfect world would end up with a both plant optimized to build between 40 BOF vehicles per hour and 50 UB vehicles per hours. The simplist option is to fix the known issues At MAP (Lack of build flexibility) and keep it unibody only. Unibody small truck plus TC, etc. does make sense from a factory perspective. But it doesn't jive with the other rumors about ROW Ranger, Bronco and Troller. So I guess it all depends on whether you believe the rumors or not. I could see a slightly smaller but much lighter T6 replacement for Ranger, Bronco, Troller, Everest, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Direct Range Rover competetor? Range Rover competitors based on Ranger pickup chassis? Surely you are joking. What will that do to the cost basis of the Ranger program CD6 MKT is a much better candidate for Ranger Rover Sport competitor. It will have IRS already and you can probably share the cost of more sophisticated/expensive subsystems with high end Explorer (e.g. self-leveling air suspension, adjustable/adaptive driving modes etc). Edited November 12, 2015 by bzcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Unibody small truck plus TC, etc. does make sense from a factory perspective. But it doesn't jive with the other rumors about ROW Ranger, Bronco and Troller. So I guess it all depends on whether you believe the rumors or not. I could see a slightly smaller but much lighter T6 replacement for Ranger, Bronco, Troller, Everest, etc. I doubt T7 will be smaller but it's probably safe to assume it will be lighter. Ford can't tailor T7 just for the US market... the overseas markets demands a midsize truck and Ford can't make the next Ranger smaller/less capable than Hilux/Navara/Triton/Colorado/D-Max. That being said, Ford will need both a midsize pickup AND a compact pickup truck for overseas markets. Ford left the compact pickup market a few years ago in both South America and Africa, and competitors immediately filled the void. The Transit Connect pickup truck is going to happen somewhere even if it doesn't land in the US - so Ford has NO incentive to design a smaller BOF Ranger - they'll have a smaller unibody truck to fill that market. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Good point on size for ROW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) The market in North America has changed in the past few years, the relative success of Colorado/Canyon as basically a step below the half ton Crew Cabs proves that buyers want the trucks and are prepared to pay higher prices for them, a big paradigm shift to Ford's stance that "Ranger buyers want a cheap truck". Maybe that gap enables Ford to relaunch Ranger as more like a merge of old Ranger and Sport Trac Ranger and Everest twinned would probably make the numbers work but equally adding a line for TC van and a TC Pick up would completely fill MAP and give Ford more product at good margins. Edited November 12, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 The market in North America has changed in the past few years, the relative success of Colorado/Canyon as basically a step below the half ton Crew Cabs proves that buyers want the trucks and are prepared to pay higher prices for them, a big paradigm shift to Ford's stance that "Ranger buyers want a cheap truck". Maybe that gap enables Ford to relaunch Ranger as more like a merge of old Ranger and Sport Trac Ranger and Everest twinned would probably make the numbers work but equally adding a line for TC van and a TC Pick up would completely fill MAP and give Ford more product at good margins. I think that's also reflective of the market in general. Vehicles have far more features and we see people are willing to pay more for them. And that trickles down to a midsize truck too. Do we know what GM's incentive spending has been on the larger trucks and compared to before the midsizers came out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I think that's also reflective of the market in general. Vehicles have far more features and we see people are willing to pay more for them. And that trickles down to a midsize truck too. Do we know what GM's incentive spending has been on the larger trucks and compared to before the midsizers came out? As best I could tell, GM did not have to increase incentives to keep full size sales up. But I didn't look very closely. I have to give them credit so far, but I'm still concerned they're seeing pent up demand that will drop off in a year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Surprisingly the 6.2 is a big-block motor that can easily be bored to 7.0 . Theoretically the v10 can survive with a big power boost from the 5.0 valvetrain and possibly head configuration but IMO since Ford spent $$$ on the 6.2 program they probably want their ROI off that, so Ford enlarge the Boss for MD use. I was under the impression that the 6.2 had issues in MD applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I was under the impression that the 6.2 had issues in MD applications. You are correct-at least according to some posts we have read here-somethjing about it did not perform well in the "duty cycle" experienced by MD's. Long periods of max full throttle, governed speed i believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) You are correct-at least according to some posts we have read here-somethjing about it did not perform well in the "duty cycle" experienced by MD's. Long periods of max full throttle, governed speed i believe. A V10 off the 6.2 would be interesting.......a lot of shared parts and machining processes.. Edited November 13, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 A V10 off the 6.2 would be interesting.......a lot of shared parts and machining processes.. looking At the bore and Stroke of 102 mm x 95 mm i'd look at a using a longer Stroke V8 before leaping to a V-10. the bore on the 6.2 is huge and looking at the bore to stroke Ratio you can see that this engine is not the torquey long stroke beast that is appropriate for Medium duty use. increase the stroke to 115mm with a 20mm increase in deck height, reduce the keep peak power at lower RPM, and fatten the torque curve at lower RPM. Making a 7.1l engine Look at the Tech specs on the current 6.2 > 10,000 GVWR 316hp @4,179rpm 397lb/ft @ 4179RPM < 10,000 GVWR 385hp @ 5500RPm 405lb/ft @4500RPM It should be obvious that the engine has durability problems under load. Increase displacement, lower the Redline and it should be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 The next Ranger/Bronco may be Transit Connect based, ...It is highly doubtful that Ford would change the worldwide Ranger to unibody ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 It is highly doubtful that Ford would change the worldwide Ranger to unibody ! Not the ROW Ranger, but the US version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) i'd look at a using a longer Stroke V8 before leaping to a V-10.I don't believe Ford will EVER make another production V10 ! the bore on the 6.2 is huge and looking at the bore to stroke Ratio you can see that this engine is not the torquey long stroke beast that is appropriate for Medium duty use. increase the stroke to 115mm with a 20mm increase in deck height, reduce the keep peak power at lower RPM, and fatten the torque curve at lower RPM. Making a 7.1l engine That is the right direction, but is it enough ? To be a real player in the MD petrol market, I think they need to be closer to 8.0L. Any "durability" issues would obviously be addressed in this re-design. Don't count out supercharging or electric turbocharging or EcoBoost (although I think EcoBoost applied to a MD engine is the least likely of the above). Edited November 13, 2015 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 Not the ROW Ranger, but the US version.I guess you haven't heard of "One Ford". A US specific small pickup ? Not going to happen. 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.