Jump to content

Plant details behind Ford's $9 billion spending spree


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 by Biker16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct Range Rover competetor?

 

Range Rover competitors based on Ranger pickup chassis? Surely you are joking. :headspin:

 

What will that do to the cost basis of the Ranger program :spend:

 

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 by bzcat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by theoldwizard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...