johnnyb82 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 Was it for safety purposes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted November 3, 2006 Author Share Posted November 3, 2006 It wasn't on the Ranger platform originally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted November 3, 2006 Author Share Posted November 3, 2006 I am still not sure I understand why it needed to be separated. Nissan and Toyota have kept their mid-sized SUVs on the mid-sized truck platforms, right? GM did the same, I guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 I am still not sure I understand why it needed to be separated. Nissan and Toyota have kept their mid-sized SUVs on the mid-sized truck platforms, right? GM did the same, I guess? There's where it gets a bit complicated: The GM SUVs are no longer on the S-10 frame (they switched in about 2000). Nor do they ride on the Colorado/Canyon frame. Like Ford, the GM midsize SUVs are on their own platform. Nissan's Pathfinder is on the Titan frame, as is the Frontier pickup. The Toyota 4Runner is a heavily modified (I think) version of the previous Tacoma frame. I don't believe that it rides on its own platform. The Dodge Durango is based on the Dakota platform, although the current Durango has more differentiation from the Dakota than the previous generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius1701 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 (edited) Back then in a stupor induced by gigantic SUV profits, they thought is was a great idea. :P Actually, everyone above has pretty much nailed it. Edited November 3, 2006 by Tiberius1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swenson88 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 Back then in a stupor induced by gigantic SUV profits, they thought is was a great idea. :P Actually, everyone above has pretty much nailed it. I believe that's a big part of it. At the time Explorer sales were ridiculously high, so the profit was rolling in so fast that they could easily justify having the Explorer on its own platform, same with the Expedition. However, once that came crashing down the folly of those decisions is now apparent - too many platforms and too much expense. Ford needs to learn to be lean even in times of plenty, not just desperate times like now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 The question I have is why is there no other products on the Explorer platform like a sedan (could be a Panther replacement), pickup (either a Ranger replacement or all new mid-size F100), van (an all new Econoline for people that want something bigger than a minivan that can also tow), smaller SUV (2 door 5 seat-er like a Bronco with real off-road capability), etc.? They got it, why not use it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 "The question I have is why is there no other products on the Explorer platform like a sedan" IIRC, the Explorer frame is a ladder-type frame. The body floor-pan rests on top of it. The Panther frame is a perimeter-type frame, with the floor-pan dropped into the space between, for a lower height. It also hides a lot of chassis and running-gear parts, which are desirable to see in a truck/SUV, but not in a car. Ladder frames are stiffer. Perimeter frames, are, in a way, kind of halfway between ladder-frame and monococque, as body stiffness is more important as a support for the frame, than with a ladder-type vehicle. This may explain why the Panthers are as tough as they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoorBob Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 I believe that's a big part of it. At the time Explorer sales were ridiculously high, so the profit was rolling in so fast that they could easily justify having the Explorer on its own platform, same with the Expedition. However, once that came crashing down the folly of those decisions is now apparent - too many platforms and too much expense. Ford needs to learn to be lean even in times of plenty, not just desperate times like now. Actually, I would say that the folly was not upgrading the Ranger to use the new platform when it upgraded the Explorer. If Ford had moved the aging Ranger (no major upgrades in a decade) to the sweet new Explorer platform, small pickup sales might not be so pitiful now. When it was moving 400,000 units a year (2002 and before), having a unique platform was very justified. This year, Explorer will probably move 185,000 units or so. If they migrate the Ranger to that platform, you might get 300,000+ Explorers/pickups per year... enough for a platform. If not, wasteful as swenson said. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 The ranger would be too expensive on the current explorer platform. It would land squarely in the midsized trucks catagory with the current Frontier, Taco and Dakota. Ford wanted it to stay a small pickup both for differentiation and to keep it cheap. By doing that, they orphaned the platform, however, which is daming in the current environment. Going forward, they should take the Escape platform, stretch it lengthwise and stiffen up the back half, and make that a new ranger. Share as much as possible between them, but obviously, make the ranger RWD (there's already provisions in the platform for a rear driveshaft, but longitudinal engine mounting may be a problem). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted November 3, 2006 Author Share Posted November 3, 2006 The ranger would be too expensive on the current explorer platform. It would land squarely in the midsized trucks catagory with the current Frontier, Taco and Dakota. Ford wanted it to stay a small pickup both for differentiation and to keep it cheap. By doing that, they orphaned the platform, however, which is daming in the current environment. Going forward, they should take the Escape platform, stretch it lengthwise and stiffen up the back half, and make that a new ranger. Share as much as possible between them, but obviously, make the ranger RWD (there's already provisions in the platform for a rear driveshaft, but longitudinal engine mounting may be a problem). People seem to be liking the mid-sized trucks as the Ranger has now fallen behind them. Now... think about it, these people might be looking to trade up to a full-size truck once they can afford one and they might start to be impressed with the truck they get from Nissan and Toyota. Maybe Ford will have a tough time attracting these people? If using Explorer's platform gets these buyers before they try Nissan and Toyota, then why is that a bad thing? Also, your solution seems expensive. Yes, there should be a small truck option, but can Ford afford such a complicated solution as working off of the Escape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 The Escape uses a unibody car platform. Just say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphy Posted November 3, 2006 Share Posted November 3, 2006 Why not a single cab Sport Trac with a longer bed to replace the Ranger? That way they would get three models off the same platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 Why not a single cab Sport Trac with a longer bed to replace the Ranger? That way they would get three models off the same platform. Maybe I am misreading how big such a truck would actually be but if it is the same size of the Frontier and The Taco then I don't see why they would bother doing anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bec5150 Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 The ranger would be too expensive on the current explorer platform. It would land squarely in the midsized trucks catagory with the current Frontier, Taco and Dakota. Ford wanted it to stay a small pickup both for differentiation and to keep it cheap. By doing that, they orphaned the platform, however, which is daming in the current environment. Going forward, they should take the Escape platform, stretch it lengthwise and stiffen up the back half, and make that a new ranger. Share as much as possible between them, but obviously, make the ranger RWD (there's already provisions in the platform for a rear driveshaft, but longitudinal engine mounting may be a problem). You don't have to make it RWD on my part. FWD works in a minivan, why not a small truck? Or they could go with a full time AWD system. Whatever way, they really have to go with some platform sharing. Making the Ranger in it's own factory is kind of inefficient. 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.