2019 Ford Ranger Interior, Engine: Spied

[jpd80]

We just sold our last fleet panther..800bux...new owner was happy to get it...our explores have been ok..they do not get quite as stuck in the snow..maintenace is about the same as with the panthers...door skins peeled, awd clutch pack blew out on our 16....water pump failure hits about 50k miles.....compared to our charges the explorers are far less likely to be pulled....the charges are a very comfy ride but they seem to have a much higher failure rate.....best fleet we ever had was the lt1 caprices...i cried the day we had to turn those in

I think the fact was that Mulally wanted as many platforms and excess production capacity as possible eliminated

and encouraged engineering to find solutions within existing vehicle types and platforms.

 

In those days, it was all about right sizing the company and ending perceived duplication of products,

My only disappointment was that they chose FWD/AWD D3 over evolving the Aussie RWDs.

Falcon, Fairlane and Territory could have and should have evolved into your next gen T'Bird / CV

while Territory could have been adopted for the Edge and a LWB version for the Explorer.

 

Alternative reality stuff for sure but it was as simple as D3 already developed and in production that

ruled out switching to RWD. Had that simple change been done, we would have seen even more

scales of efficiency with F150 and Mustang power train usage with even less need for FWD AWD

beyond compact and mid sized vehicles for Europe.

 

Once again Ford thought the world was ending and decided to overly compact its production capacity

and eliminate any chance of growing its buisness with increasing SAAR. I can't begin to imagine

how much revenue has been lost over the past five years due to Ford being overly risk averse.

 

In the past four years it has been GM that took the initiative and invested in mid sized trucks and

ful sized SUVs, both of which have added considerably to GM's bottom line. During that time,

GM managed to turn the adversity of a massive ignition switch recall into a huge selling opportunity

that absolutely beguiled its critics, it actually improved nett profit while taking charges on other areas

of it business run with utter incompetence.

 

Such a surreal situation tells me that auto making is a license to print money and that Ford has been like

a taxi driver asleep during the peak hour rush ...

 

and that IMO, is why Fields was fired,

he missed too may glaring opportunities to improve revenue and pay for the future and electrification.

Edited October 2, 2017 by jpd80

[2b2]

imho someBODY pushed the D3 idea & won ...over who-if-anyone pushed a GlobalRWD to incorporate Panther,Falcon,Ranger, etc

quote Jpd:

...Alternative reality stuff for sure but it was as simple as D3 already developed and in production

that ruled out switching to RWD. Had that simple change been done, we would have seen even

more scales of efficiency with F150 and Mustang power train usage with even less need for

FWD AWD beyond compact and mid sized vehicles for Europe.

thinking Map coulda built them with Chicago then Focus woulda stayed in Mex along with Escape overflow

and preventing C-Max

:clap:

Edited October 2, 2017 by 2b2

[Sevensecondsuv]

Why do you think all mfrs went to unibody cars? Weight, stiffness, handling, nvh - no comparison.

Weight is about even. Stiffness depends upon which axis you're speaking of, handling is just a matter of how it's set up, nvh may be an advantage.

 

The last panther I had (an '02 mercury) made a better highway cruiser than the current LS (an '05). The Merc was just smoother and quieter at 90 mph. I think it's just a matter of how well it's designed. A bof car can be as smooth and quiet as anything. The panthers didn't last 35 years because they were noisy and annoying to drive. If you want try a Ford with nvh problems, look no further than the 1st gen Escape. Every one I've ever ridden in sounded like all four wheel bearings were shot, even brand new ones did it. The point is that unitized construction doesn't guarantee anything.

 

My theory is that manufacturers have switched to unitized wherever possible because they're a lot cheaper/easier to assemble. The body and structure gets stamped out all as one unit, powertrain is bolted to front subframe, and then lifted into the car from underneath and bolted together. BOF has significantly more operations during assembly.

[2b2]

it's like how every 2-to-5 years Medicine decides whatever they've been saying has be wrong

I expect electrification will wind-up better as the basis for a FRAME

:clap:

[jpd80]

imho someBODY pushed the D3 idea & won ...over who-if-anyone pushed a GlobalRWD to incorporate Panther,Falcon,Ranger, etc

quote Jpd:

...Alternative reality stuff for sure but it was as simple as D3 already developed and in production

that ruled out switching to RWD. Had that simple change been done, we would have seen even

more scales of efficiency with F150 and Mustang power train usage with even less need for

FWD AWD beyond compact and mid sized vehicles for Europe.

thinking Map coulda built them with Chicago then Focus woulda stayed in Mex along with Escape overflow

and preventing C-Max

:clap:

FoA made the proposal through the beginnings of FAPA design hub.

It was Mulally that killed off the idea of GRWD, the US execs couldn't give him a satisfactory reason to change from what they already had.

He simply couldn't see the value in switching to a RWD architecture when D3 could deliver everything they wanted right now.

 

I suspect that there was an element of NIH in the decision as was the case with Global Ranger, remembering that FNA wanted

to do their own local Ranger vehicle but had no regional knowledge of what was required in other areas of the world.

Edited October 2, 2017 by jpd80

[2b2]

yeahBut I meant before Mulally's Fall'06 starting date;

before the mid-2004 D3:FiveHundred-Montego was greenlit...

...so turn of the millennium? or earlier = could be Nasser or

even Trotman (that they/we are still paying for)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CEOs_of_Ford_Motor_Company

Edited October 2, 2017 by 2b2

[jpd80]

yeahBut I meant before Mulally's Fall'06 starting date;

before the mid-2004 D3:FiveHundred-Montego was greenlit...

...so turn of the millennium? or earlier = could be Nasser or

even Trotman (that they/we are still paying for)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CEOs_of_Ford_Motor_Company

Ah, that was Bill Ford who had taken over a lot of Nasser's duties by then,,,,

 

FoA had offered the Falcon platform for use by Ford NA as next gen Mustang with control blade IRS

but that offer had been rejected, the concern was that there was so much tear up and redo that they

just wanted their own design... we now know that Ford spent a bomb on S197 doing IRS and then

changing to 3-link SRA. (Remember, that was when Ford was trying to foist DEW onto all divisions)

Edited October 2, 2017 by jpd80

[akirby]

Weight is about even. Stiffness depends upon which axis you're speaking of, handling is just a matter of how it's set up, nvh may be an advantage.

 

The last panther I had (an '02 mercury) made a better highway cruiser than the current LS (an '05). The Merc was just smoother and quieter at 90 mph. I think it's just a matter of how well it's designed. A bof car can be as smooth and quiet as anything. The panthers didn't last 35 years because they were noisy and annoying to drive. If you want try a Ford with nvh problems, look no further than the 1st gen Escape. Every one I've ever ridden in sounded like all four wheel bearings were shot, even brand new ones did it. The point is that unitized construction doesn't guarantee anything.

 

My theory is that manufacturers have switched to unitized wherever possible because they're a lot cheaper/easier to assemble. The body and structure gets stamped out all as one unit, powertrain is bolted to front subframe, and then lifted into the car from underneath and bolted together. BOF has significantly more operations during assembly.

 

Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it's true.

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it's true.

Now here we were having a good debate about technicalities of vehicle design and manufacture, and you resort to personal insults.

[akirby]

Now here we were having a good debate about technicalities of vehicle design and manufacture, and you resort to personal insults.

 

That's not a personal insult at all. If you're going to insist that BOF cars can perform just as well as unibody cars with regards to nvh and handling then there is no need to continue debating the issue.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Question, when was the last time you rode in a panther? 800,000 mile taxi cabs / livery vehicles excluded.

 

I'm sincere when I say I've found them smoother than most other stuff on the road.

[akirby]

Question, when was the last time you rode in a panther? 800,000 mile taxi cabs / livery vehicles excluded.

 

I'm sincere when I say I've found them smoother than most other stuff on the road.

 

If by "smoother" you mean they handle like you're sitting on a couch on a land yacht then I agree.

 

Unibody cars can be just as "smooth" - look at Continental or S-Class or 7 series, etc. etc. - but they also handle 100 times better. Did you ever go around a curve in the LS vs a Panther?

 

BOF works for heavy trucks and utilities but not for cars.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The late panthers handled as good as anything. There's some heavily banked 90 deg curves on a rural road I drive to work every day. Over the years I've had an opportunity to test several vehicles on those curves. I've come up with a method to compare cars against each other - basically just see how fast I can go around the curves without feeling like I'm going to lose control. Here's a summary of what I've found, worst to best:

 

1995 F250 4x4 - 48 mph

2000 Excursion 4x4 - 50 mph

1992 Explorer 4x4 - 55 mph

1990 Ranger 2wd - 58 mph

2011 Ranger 2wd supercab - 60 mph

2006 Escape AWD - 61 mph

1999 Pontiac Bonneville - 65 mph

2001 Ranger 2wd, upgraded sway bars - 65 mph

2002 Grand Marquis - 68 mph

2005 Crown Vic (03+ had hydroformed frame) - 70 mph

1987 Camero RS - 72 mph

2005 Lincoln LS V6 - 72 mph

 

As you can see, the panthers hold their own just fine. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised if you tried one some time.

[akirby]

[jpd80]

What was said earlier regarding unitary construction being more efficient to build rings true

and unitary construction is probably better at distributing crash force through the rest of the body..

 

One thing is for certain BOF, cars and their big steel frames are not coming back, they're gone and done.

Edited October 2, 2017 by jpd80

[T hawker]

The best handling car I've owned was my 01 CrownVic, it was a fully loaded LX with the handling package. It came with the larger sway bars and air bags for the rear. I put the Michelin X-One's on it rightaway and I could fly around curves and on/off ramps. Had a lot of fun with that car, just wish it had another 100 hp though. Even my C350 could not handle the curves like the Vic.

 

Steve

[SoonerLS]

Well, all of the Highway Patrol Troopers I've known were, ahem, underwhelmed by the Vic's handling.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Well, all of the Highway Patrol Troopers I've known were, ahem, underwhelmed by the Vic's handling.

my border patrol friend prefers the CV to anything else they currently have in service

[silvrsvt]

my border patrol friend prefers the CV to anything else they currently have in service

 

 

People don't like change...Cops always say oh I like the Diplomat, Caprice or whatever else was in service before whatever they are driving now.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

 

People don't like change...Cops always say oh I like the Diplomat, Caprice or whatever else was in service before whatever they are driving now.

he's tried driving the charger and Taurus. It's not that he doesn't like change, he legit prefers the CV over the other two.

[tbone]

he's tried driving the charger and Taurus. It's not that he doesn't like change, he legit prefers the CV over the other two.

I imagine it has to do with interior space and ingress/egress.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I imagine it has to do with interior space and ingress/egress.

he is 6'4" but that's actually not his complaint. Can't see shit in the Taurus and the Charger is fast until you have to turn are his main complaints.

[silvrsvt]

he is 6'4" but that's actually not his complaint. Can't see shit in the Taurus and the Charger is fast until you have to turn are his main complaints.

 

That I have to agree with, I can't see shit behind me, outside of using the camera to back up and I'm 6'2.

 

Its due to seating position...the roof was too high on the Five Hundred along with the seats (My parents 07 Sable felt like I was in a high chair) and the 2009 refresh dropped the seats and roof for better styling.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

That I have to agree with, I can't see shit behind me, outside of using the camera to back up and I'm 6'2.

 

Its due to seating position...the roof was too high on the Five Hundred along with the seats (My parents 07 Sable felt like I was in a high chair) and the 2009 refresh dropped the seats and roof for better styling.

It's a real problem when 75% of your job is literally parking somewhere and watching the area.

[blksn8k2]

Not to change the subject, but I saw these pics on another site of a different rear axle assembly. Looks more like an 8.8 than what I recall seeing on other ROW Rangers.

 

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201b7c928e234970b-800wi

 

http://blogs.cars.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e201b7c928e239970b-800wi