Ranger Conspiracy

[whereswaldo]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

 

How about not blowing $1 billion write off on precious metals futures, or billions wasted on the Visteon mess, or Firestone tire/rollover mess , or the millions Jack the Knife is still getting. Etc ETC ETC. It just goes on and on.

[RichardJensen]

How about not blowing $1 billion write off on precious metals futures, or billions wasted on the Visteon mess, or Firestone tire/rollover mess , or the millions Jack the Knife is still getting. Etc ETC ETC. It just goes on and on.

1) That WAS stupid management, but more complicated than just blowing money on futures. They first blew money on unhedged purchases, and then they bought their hedges in gigantic amounts at a sky-high price. Double stupidity there. I remember the WSJ article on that.

 

2) Visteon in bankruptcy does nobody any good. Better to bail them out then let them go Ch. 11

[JW]

Ford will be blessed to sell 100,000 Rangers this year. Toyota is on track to double that. Compare that to a few years ago (before all the import trucks were redesigned) when over 300,000 Rangers were sold (back when Ford had six best sellers - remember those days?). Even at its peak the Ranger never did half a million, and while it may have caniballized some F150 sales at that point, it certainly wasn't enough to knock the F-Series off the perch. I don't buy the argument that Ford is afraid to hurt F-Series sales; they're totally different markets.

[swenson88]

Yes, Ford should have updated the Ranger for sure by now. But, let's not pretend that the Tacoma OVERTOOK the Ranger, it was instead the Ranger's freefall in the marketplace. The Ranger used to sell 300K-350K units a year, a number that the Tacoma is nowhere near reaching. Sure, some people probably switched to other trucks due to the lack of Ranger updates, but overall the market severely dwindled, and it's just that Toyota now has the largest percentage of a much smaller pie. From Ford's perspective they may have saved money overall, who knows. They're selling 100K units with almost no investment in years. Toyota (and others) have invested heavily only to still sell far less than the segment leader used to. I'm not happy about it, and the Ranger shouldn't be kept in limbo, but I don't know the true business case.

[dave9991]

The ranger is going out of production, because there's no way to make a profit on it, period. Not a single cent is made on the Ranger.

 

All this hypothetical talk doesn't take into account the cost-benefit. There's better ways to get into the midsize truck market that doesn't include the ranger. Fords problem isnt not redesigning our crown victoria and or ranger it's sharing platforms that is the issue.

 

Ford has the best designers in the world, but because everyone wants their own focus or small suv we end up with uncompetitive scales of economies. Our concepts in the future are going to look a lot more like the production version, and expect to see only minor differences from region to region.

 

The Ranger, Crown Victoria, x-type, aston martin, freestar, gt, and ls are not part of this future. I'm being a 100% honest with you right now, and don't expect it to differ too much from what I say.

 

Compare the upcoming production Fairlane to the concept and you'll see what I mean.

 

We have the people, engineers, facilities, designers, etc.. but if we cant make a profit on the vehicle there's no point in producing it. For those of you who work for the company, I encourage you to attend the vehicle showing in Cobo later this month.

 

What we need isn't some carguy, we need someone who understands transnational management structures, who can help spread our costs over our large sales centers (N.America, S.America+Mexico+Canada, Europe, Australia, and Asia).

Edited November 18, 2006 by dave9991

[bec5150]

Ford didn't sell more Rangers in 2002 when I bought mine. See, the Edison NJ plant was running at the time and it was cheaper for Ford to lose money on selling the Ranger than laying off all of the workers at the plants making the Ranger. IN other words, what Ford did was GIVE AWAY a lot of Rangers back then. They were selling the XL strippers in 2002 for less than 10K. I got mine out the door for 9200 and that's WITH A/C.

 

Now they dont' sell nearly as many, but I think they are making money off of the truck. At a minimum, they aren't LOSING money.

 

Bottom line. As much as I would like them to continue the truck as it is save for a design freshening here and there, the reason they have to move up to the Explorer size is because they cannot afford to continue using an dedicated chassis and mechanical bits for the Ranger. Ford right now is the ONLY company using a dedicated chassis, interior, etc; for the Ranger. THing is, if they do this, they might very well have to run them off of the same assembly line as the Explorer. Do that and the factory that makes the Ranger right now (St. Louis, right?) would probably close.

 

So maybe Ford is using the Ranger right now to keep the plant running while they decide what their long term plans for the Ranger and the plant making it are.

[RichardJensen]

Do that and the factory that makes the Ranger right now (St. Louis, right?) would probably close.

Wrong Saint.

 

Saint Paul is where the Ranger is assembled.

 

And I'm going to buy dave9991's assertion that the Ranger doesn't make money. He's in more of a position to know.

[Blue II]

Ford didn't sell more Rangers in 2002 when I bought mine. See, the Edison NJ plant was running at the time and it was cheaper for Ford to lose money on selling the Ranger than laying off all of the workers at the plants making the Ranger. IN other words, what Ford did was GIVE AWAY a lot of Rangers back then. They were selling the XL strippers in 2002 for less than 10K. I got mine out the door for 9200 and that's WITH A/C.

 

Now they dont' sell nearly as many, but I think they are making money off of the truck. At a minimum, they aren't LOSING money.

 

Bottom line. As much as I would like them to continue the truck as it is save for a design freshening here and there, the reason they have to move up to the Explorer size is because they cannot afford to continue using an dedicated chassis and mechanical bits for the Ranger. Ford right now is the ONLY company using a dedicated chassis, interior, etc; for the Ranger. THing is, if they do this, they might very well have to run them off of the same assembly line as the Explorer. Do that and the factory that makes the Ranger right now (St. Louis, right?) would probably close.

 

So maybe Ford is using the Ranger right now to keep the plant running while they decide what their long term plans for the Ranger and the plant making it are.

 

 

Last I heard they are still trying to decide on a replacement. Explorer is looking less likely and a Ridgeline type replacement is more likely.

[JW]

Sure, why not make another monumental mistake??

[Watchdevil]

After the car show today I can see why the Ranger is doomed.

 

I examined a new Toyota Tacoma today in base trim. The quality of that truck is outstanding and the dash is very nicely styled and a very sturdy precise quality too. Textures and materials were wonderful. I was so impressed. If I had to choose, I'd take that Toyota at $15,000.

[JW]

That's the frustrating thing, though - it doesn't HAVE to be. There's a damn good reason the Ranger was on top for so long - Ford knows full well how to build a killer compact truck and did it for a long time. Just doesn't seem to be much interest in Dearborn anymore. I'm casually in the market for a 4WD Ranger but I'm holding out hope for a new one. I may end up hunting down another '94 STX to go with the current one.

[630land]

BORG has a valid point, he gets smarter with age. lol, jk

 

Anyway, it is one factor, yes, Ford spends the developement $$$ on the big boys. But, GM and Mopar spent $$ to re-do thier 'compact trucks', and they are flops! The market is geared for bigger trucks. Japanese compact trucks are doing just OK, not selling like Camrys or Corollas.

Edited November 19, 2006 by 630land

[old_fairmont_wagon]

A couple of points that I want to make:

 

1) The 4.0L is FAR from a fuel efficient engine. Its great in the emissions department, but not in the fuel department. To site an example, I used to have a 99 F-150 XLT Extended cab, short bed 4.2L Auto 2wd. Around town, with just me and about 100 lbs of gear, it would make 16 mpg. On the highway, it would make around 21 mpg (depending on how fast I was going). Now, the '01 4.0L ranger that a co-worker of mine had (extended cab, 2wd, auto) would usually do slightly better than me in the city (He'd get 17.5 or so). On the highway, he couldn't break 20, no matter how fast or slow he'd go. He kept it in good repair, fueled up at the same gast station by work that I used, and didn't drive like a maniac. I attribute his better city mpg due to him being lighter than me, but, the highway was just confusing. IIRC, our rear axle ratio was within .2 or so of each other (I had the 3.31, I think he had 3.55) but such a tiny difference shouldn't make that engine that bad.

 

2) The ranger is largely fine for what its used for. I think that it needs to be simplified more than anything right now. As much as I'd like to see something completely different, I know that Ford doesn't have the money for it.

a) Drop the 3.0L V6 and shut the whole vulcan line down.

B) Make four versions of the 4 cylinder, Stripper regular cab, loaded regular cab, stripper extended cab, loaded extended cab. No 4X4 4 cylinder.

c) Make four versions of the 4.0L V6, stripper regular cab 4X4, loaded Extended Cab 4X4, Loaded Extended cab 4X2, and Stripper Extended cab 4X4.

d) Design a new dash shell that will accomodate the new corporate gagues, switches, radios, HVAC, etc. and looks somewhat more modern.

 

3) Long Term, make the plant that produces the Sport-Trac more flexible to make one more version of it. Design and make an Extended Cab (Not full crew cab) for the body and Extend the bed by 18 inches to 2 feet. Once that's done, they should be able to eliminate the Ranger completely. Yes, I know that its not a true spiritual replacement, but, it will be just as capable in towing and hauling, more modern and plush in the process, and more competitive with the other trucks out there. The other option is to make a truck off of the Escape platform. Personally, for the market, I like that idea better.

Edited November 19, 2006 by old_fairmont_wagon

[jpd80]

After the car show today I can see why the Ranger is doomed.

 

As part of the 10-year, billion-dollar investment, and in conjunction with the work on future Falcon and Territory models (codenamed E8), the company will also engineer a new global small truck platform, codenamed T6.

 

T6 is a likely successor to the Ford Courier/Mazda B Series, which currently rack up more than 400,000 sales globally annually off several variants, including 4x2 and 4x4.

 

Although the resulting T6 vehicles will not be built in Australia, it is expected to generate more than $700 million in research and development revenues for Ford Australia.

 

To cope with the extra workload, Ford Australia will add 273 mostly engineering jobs to its product development team, bringing to about 880 the number of engineering staff at Ford’s Broadmeadows and Geelong facilities.

 

Of the government money, $12.5 million will be used to revamp the design and engineering centre at Broadmeadows.

 

The Federal Government also kicked in $52.5 million financial assistance package for the company’s Australian operations to help ensure ongoing manufacturing. Of that money, $12.5 million will be used to develop a new research and development facility for the T6 project.

 

The Ford grants are in addition of any additional money the company may get under the $4.2 billion Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, which is expected to announce a new round of packages next week.

 

Ford's vice-president and president of Asia Pacific and Africa, Peter Daniels, said the announcement "positioned Ford Australia to expand its sphere of influence and importantly its integration into the global Ford world.

 

Above Quotes From This Article

 

 

Ford North America has entrusted Ford Australia to develop the engineering for the T6 Light truck platform, the likely successor to the Courrier/Ranger.

So don't fret, help is on the way. And no, Australia is not building it, we're just doing the engineering work.

 

FORD AUSTRALIA ANNOUNCES MAJOR NEW PROJECTS

Edited November 19, 2006 by jpd80

[bec5150]

A couple of points that I want to make:

 

1) The 4.0L is FAR from a fuel efficient engine. Its great in the emissions department, but not in the fuel department. To site an example, I used to have a 99 F-150 XLT Extended cab, short bed 4.2L Auto 2wd. Around town, with just me and about 100 lbs of gear, it would make 16 mpg. On the highway, it would make around 21 mpg (depending on how fast I was going). Now, the '01 4.0L ranger that a co-worker of mine had (extended cab, 2wd, auto) would usually do slightly better than me in the city (He'd get 17.5 or so). On the highway, he couldn't break 20, no matter how fast or slow he'd go. He kept it in good repair, fueled up at the same gast station by work that I used, and didn't drive like a maniac. I attribute his better city mpg due to him being lighter than me, but, the highway was just confusing. IIRC, our rear axle ratio was within .2 or so of each other (I had the 3.31, I think he had 3.55) but such a tiny difference shouldn't make that engine that bad.

 

2) The ranger is largely fine for what its used for. I think that it needs to be simplified more than anything right now. As much as I'd like to see something completely different, I know that Ford doesn't have the money for it.

a) Drop the 3.0L V6 and shut the whole vulcan line down.

B) Make four versions of the 4 cylinder, Stripper regular cab, loaded regular cab, stripper extended cab, loaded extended cab. No 4X4 4 cylinder.

c) Make four versions of the 4.0L V6, stripper regular cab 4X4, loaded Extended Cab 4X4, Loaded Extended cab 4X2, and Stripper Extended cab 4X4.

d) Design a new dash shell that will accomodate the new corporate gagues, switches, radios, HVAC, etc. and looks somewhat more modern.

 

3) Long Term, make the plant that produces the Sport-Trac more flexible to make one more version of it. Design and make an Extended Cab (Not full crew cab) for the body and Extend the bed by 18 inches to 2 feet. Once that's done, they should be able to eliminate the Ranger completely. Yes, I know that its not a true spiritual replacement, but, it will be just as capable in towing and hauling, more modern and plush in the process, and more competitive with the other trucks out there. The other option is to make a truck off of the Escape platform. Personally, for the market, I like that idea better.

I agree with almost everything you say, especially the shutting down of the Vulcan line. The Ranger does have the new corporate gauges albeit mounted in the same ole dash. Also, I know I am in the very VERY small minority, but if they made a standard cab with a 4.10 gear and the 2.3L Duratec, I would have it.

[dave9991]

edit.

Edited November 19, 2006 by dave9991

[jlsaylor]

As I mentioned in another forum I absolutely believe that Ford's neglect of the Ranger, and more directly their gun-shy attitude toward the mid-size truck market, are each due largely to concerns over what these might mean for the F-150. To be perfectly honest I cannot blame Ford for wanting to protect the F-150 to an extent. But when looked at with brutal honesty what Ford's indecision regarding compact and mid-size trucks really proves, both in relation to F-150 protectionism and the market in general, is that they aren't very good at thinking outside of the box and are suprisingly short-sighted relative to product.

 

I say this for several reasons. First, I have never even heard a rumour of a truly ground-up Ranger replacement that didn't indicate a move to a mid-size platform. Of course, as we all know, this is because nobody wants compact trucks anymore...or so the auto-makers, including Ford, seem to believe. They told us that they, and subsequently we, know this because sales of truly compact pickups declined drastically not too long ago in automotive history, which indicated to the auto-makers that the demand for compact pickups had simply dried up with the market moving on to bigger, and better, things.

 

To be fair low gas prices and trends of the day had prompted a move toward larger vehicles among potential buyers...but did this mean that demand for compact trucks had really dried up? Unfortunately I think what the circumstances above really indicated was that small pickups as a whole had either grown out-dated or were poorly executed which subsequently meant that potential purchasers were driven to vehicles in other segments which were better executed and more closely satisfied their wants.

 

What truly surprises me here is what this implies about those in charge of the auto business as a whole. The only logic that could possibly have prompted these guys to truly believe that the compact pickup market had so fully dried up had to be that a large percentage of people interested in compact pickups would still purchase one regardless of how poor the choices overall were. This leads me to ask a question. Did any of these guys actually graduate from a business school? I'm virtually certain that somebody will want to argue otherwise but the evidence is damning.

 

On the flip said, and again in the spirit of fairness, when discussing the question of wether the product czars could have been correct in their assumption that the small truck market was diminishing, I will admit that they could have been correct. In fact, I have no doubt that the small truck market was going through a period of adjusment given the above mentioned move of the market toward larger vehicles. But there exists a vast gulf between a market shift which leads to an adjustment in production figures, product, and sales expectation and the virtual abandonment of a segment. Put simply there is a big difference between changing the rules of the game and simply taking your ball and going home.

 

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation was and is that, unless you build products that people actually want to buy, there is no way of knowing wether the market had dried up in the first place so I'm still left with the question of how they came to believe that it had. People running out of a building might mean it's on fire, but to assume that it is on fire based on this and nothing else would be ridiculous. Of course you might be correct if you made that assumption, but you might also pick the winning lotto number tonight for that matter as well. What both of these have in common is that they are little more than guesses which don't have enough real evidence behind them to be remotely attached to the word educated. And yet that is exactly what the auto-makers, and Ford in particular, did with this segment.

 

Of course, now we hear that we may be getting a new "small" truck with the possibility of a global, small truck platform. But it also seems that we daily find ourselves waiting on news of wether this will be imported and if so from where, or wether will tariffs be repealed, etc..etc. I have a simpler idea. Why not design a new, small truck platform that takes a simple, back to basic approach to the small truck question? Keep overall size down, making it no larger than the current Ranger in terms of length or wheelbase, or possibly even make it a bit smaller in these respects. Widen the cab enough to make it more comfortable for the American buyer it would be aimed at, and add some length to the cab as well taking length away from the bed and even the front clip where necessary. The use of Boss-base V-4 engines could provide superb truck motivation while allowing for a tidier front clip contributing further to space utlization.

 

The entire theme of the truck could be one of rugged simplicity and value for the dollar. The 4wd could employ SRA front and rear which is simple and archaic to be sure, but alsocost effective, rugged, and among the young folks this would appeal to very cool if executed properly. Simple, hose out interiors that use those spartan, back to basic interiors as an asset would be a welcome change to inexpensive vehicles which are diesnged as if the brands that make them are ashamed to be in the segment. Stand alone gauge clusters similar to thos in the Mini with appropriately rugged execution, tubular door pulls, canvas covered seats.....all of these could be used to advantage, to remind buyers of why small trucks were once cool because of their simplicity. But despite the rubber floors, minimalist trim, etc. give the young buyers this truck would attract the option of easily adding all the features, like MP3 ability, etc, that you know they'll want. Even more ground breaking, don't make them take things like power windows, power locks, or even AC to get those features. Make it so simple that it's cool, let that simplicity reach the level that a 4wd stickers for an unheard of base pricetag (say 12.5-13.5k or so), and you'd make serious waves in the market.

 

Heck, over-design the frame enough and it could also be used to underpin a revived Bronco along the lines of the original. Where the minimalist Ranger represents a budget approach to cool looks and rugged ability the Bronco could take a higher road. In fact, a truly flexible platform could allow the Bronco to occupy the vast kind of market cars like the Mustang do. A base Bronco could offer a supercharged version of the above-mentioned 3.2L V-4 employing a SRA and IFS while the top model could be executed in full Eddie Bauer livery with IFS, IRS, more locking differentials than a baby has rattles, portal axles, and a Boss-based 5.0L V-8 under a longer than Ranger hood. Offer a diesel as well (one for the Ranger might be nice too) as well as 2-dr wagon and 4-dr wagon bodystyles.

 

I have no question the above trucks would be quite popular anywhere in the world market, even if they aren't truly global offerings. They would be very American in design and execution, and I have little doubt they would be better loved for it. Add a Mustang based-Ranchero to the lineup in two and four door trim and all of a sudden you have the entire "pickup market" below the F-150 covered with none of these products posing a serious threat to the same no matter how you look at it and yet all of them would employ massiv platform and component sharing without being global monstrosities. Another benefit of the above could be the importation of the Pacific rim Ranger/B-Series as a mid-sized Mazda offering allowing that brand a measure of individuality on our shores through a unique truck offering that is well suited to the brand.

 

The above is entirely doable, but instead we'll likely get a semi-competent, global effort that meant well but didn't perform in the market

 

As for the comments in this thread about Mulally, and the benefit of him not being a car guy...I am still on the fence over this and will remain so until I see what he intends to do and how he intends to do it. I am skeptical due to years of experience in the auto business, with two different companies both of which are well known and are now, or in one case were, very profitable.

 

First let me say that I had very good experiences with both companies, left each on good terms, and can return to either any time I choose. At both companies I had the good fortune, as I am sure many of you have had as well, to work under men who were in prominent positions making decisions that had benefits, or consequences, for the company as a whole.

 

My affiliation with the most recent of these was only ended, by me, within the last six months. The company had recently gained a new CEO who was brought in to increase the profits of an already profitable and strong corporation. I was initially optimistic about the move even though I was unfamiliar with our new boss, and despite the fact that he wasn't a "car guy". The company had consistently made good decisions regarding changes in high level positions, and I saw no reason to question their ability to do so here...initially. I am also a true believer in the idea that things can always get better so I welcomed the possibility of moving forward with teh company.

 

Unfortunately, the decline wrought by our new found "wonder of supply and strategy" was quick and devestating. I'm certain that in another type of business his skills apply beautifully, but he displayed no appreciation for the significance of image, brand identity/distinction, or customer perception within the auto industry in any of his decisions and the company paid for it in spades.

 

Even worse, in his attempts to cut costs under his tenure, virtually every truly visionary member of management I had ever worked with was terminated. Why? Pick your poison. The reasons ranged from income which was simply too high (it usually wasn't) to what could most accurately be called rocking the boat. Ironically, what I mean by the latter of those is that virtually everyone who warned this guy of the impending disaster his decisions had set underway were tossed aside since they obviously didn't understand his visionary approach.

 

Subsequently, my job description quickly changed and I found myself tasked with addressing disasters which his decisions had wrought in various areas. Ironically, although my role was supposedly to implement his policy since any problems must have been caused by a lack of the same, the truth was virtually always that his policy was the problem and I was left with the complex task of figuring out how to fix said problem without tipping off my recently appointed boss, who believed in our new CEO's vision lock, stock, and barrel, that I hadn't used the new policy to do so.

 

I soon left since I saw little reason in sticking around to polish the brass on a sinking ship. And, given the fact that this is the second disaster I have endured due to the installation of a business genuis who isn't a "car guy" in a major, automotive corporation's hot seat I've moved on to my other major area of interest leaving the car business behind, possibly for good this time. It isn't all bad, since I am getting a significant pay raise I really didn't expect, will be working for a much smaller company where I hold a position much less likely to be compromised, and still get to do something which I enjoy.

 

But I will ever remain skeptical of people placed in prominent positons within the automotive world who have no experience in the same. Since my days in business school I have resisted the notion that "managers are managers" and that their skill-sets transfer neatly accross the board. Each business is unique to some extent, some moreso than others. In the auto industry things like brand indentity are to be toyed with only by those who understand the great care that this requires. I will wait and see if Mulally understands. If Mulally does not understand this, the damage could be fatal.

 

edit: added content about a back-to-basics compact pickup.

Edited November 19, 2006 by jlsaylor

[RichardJensen]

If the compact truck market were expanding while the fullsize truck market contracted, belief that Ford is neglecting the Ranger to protect the F150 would, IMO, be justifed.

 

However there simply is no evidence over the last 5-6 years that the fullsize truck market has been encroached upon by compact/midsize trucks, when it comes to new truck purchasers. Nor is there any evidence that fullsize truck owners are abandoning the segment for midsize trucks.

 

At present the compact/midsize truck market is substantially smaller than it was 5-6 years ago, while the fullsize truck market is larger.

 

----

 

Ford still has controls and managment philosophies in place from the Ernie Breech/Whiz Kid days: vehicle programs have to pay their own way. If the Ranger doesn't generate enough 'operating' profit to set aside funds to perform a substantial upgrade, it will not receive it. This is the reason why so many Ford products have had a 'long tail', a long slide into oblivion (Taurus, Ranger, Panthers, Escort, Tempo, Windstar). Past a certain point, the platform no longer generates enough money to pay for an update.

 

Sure, you could argue that updates would increase sales volume, but in shrinking segments (e.g. compact trucks), you're unlikely to find a lot of managers willing to bet on increased volume.

 

However, with increased platform sharing, the cost of keeping a single model up to date drops significantly, so it becomes easier to avoid the 'launch and abandon' approach while keeping sound fiscal discipline.

 

Also, please note: There is a difference between requiring a vehicle program to pay its way (smart), and having product development structures that are so bloated/inefficient that it becomes difficult or impossible to justify upgrading 'marginal' vehicles (stupid). Ford has half of the right idea here.

[630land]

One other thing to consider, there are no "V-4" motors made by Ford! Nor are any planned, ever!

 

Everytime I see someone put "V-4" when they mean an I4, it shows that someone never has opened a hood.

[jlsaylor]

One other thing to consider, there are no "V-4" motors made by Ford! Nor are any planned, ever!

 

Everytime I see someone put "V-4" when they mean an I4, it shows that someone never has opened a hood.

 

I thought that putting the term "90-degree" in front of my initial mention of a V-4 would clarify to all what I meant, but apparently I was wrong and some still couldn't figure it out. I said V-4 because I mean V-4. The fact that Ford does not currently build one and does not plan to indicates little more to me but that this is another area of missed opportunity and short-sightedness on their part. Given the fact that I was discussing vehicles and drivetrains that I believe Ford should build in contrast to what they are, or will likely be, building I fail to see where the confusion stems from.

 

As for never opening a hood. I'm not certain what you mean here. Are you implying that V-4's are impractical because they are currently not in production by any major manufacturer? The fact that the concept of a V-4 seems so odd to you tells me your knowledge of engines is pretty superficial at best and that you don't know enough to discuss anythin but what you have seen under a hood.

 

For your benefit here is a list of V-4 advantages and/or benefits.

 

1: Perfect primary balance in 90-degree trim, just like a V-8 (yes an I-4 has perfect primary balance as well, but so many people believe that a V-4 cannot achieve primary balance that I feel the reality of this situation needs to be made clear)

 

2: Superior secondary balance relative to a comparable I-4, particularly large displacement I-4's, for various reasons. An I-4's second order imbalance tends to show up in an up and down motion which makes it both more noticeable and more difficult to quell. The V-4's second order imbalance, in 90-degree trim, is typically much less noticeable due the nature of the imbalance and the fact that each bank assists in cancelling out the imbalance in the other, which is obviously something that the I-4 cannot do. A V-4's crankshaft provides yet another area of advantage due to it's very short nature and lower likelihood to flex relative to an I-4's crankshaft. This further widens the NVH gap between these two designs.

 

3:A V-4 offers a design which is obviously quite compact in length, offering better packaging in vehicles like...small trucks. A V-4 can also be expected to be shorter top to bottom than would an I-4 of similar displacment, yet another packaging advantage in favor of the V-4.

 

4: V-4 engines are, by design, inherently torquier with a broader power band accross the rpm range when compared to their I-4 counterparts. Yet they give up virtually nothing in terms of peak power in the trade. This improved power band means that these engines typically deliver similar performance to an I-4 earlier in the power band, which also has the advantage of, yet again, further widening the gap in real world NVH characterisitics in the V-4's favor.

 

5: A V-8 based V-4 could employ parts from the V-8 program, as could an I-4, but unlike that I-4 the V-4 could also make use of the same NVH research, etc since a V-4 can be expected to act like exactly what it is....one half of a V-8. Despite the fact that the comparison has been made before an I-4 acts in no way like half a V-8. All the benefits a 90 degree V brings to the table simply don't apply to an engine that doesn't have one to begin with.

 

There are disadvantages to a V-4 as well. These include the ability to stuff an inline engine is a narrower space than a 90-degree V could be expected to fit. In fwd vehicles this poses a problem, but in the rwd vehicles which I mention above, and in rwd applications in general for that matter, this is a minor issue at best. Put simply the V-4's packaging is infinitely superior to that of an inline in a rwd vehicle offering a more compact package in every way but width.

 

The other inherent disadvantage to a V-4 is that it must use twice as many heads and cams as an I-4 would. Realistically this isn't the issue it first seems to be since each of these is effectively half as long as those employed on an I-4. The V-4's shorter crank and other items also serve to make up this gap. In reality this area is virtually a wash when looking at each design objectively, but it is an area of concern for some so I felt compelled to mention it.

 

But perhaps I really did waste my time with the above and should have simply "looked under a hood" instead.

Edited November 21, 2006 by jlsaylor

[JETSOLVER]

Of course, now we hear that we may be getting a new "small" truck with the possibility of a global, small truck platform.

 

The entire theme of the truck could be one of rugged simplicity and value for the dollar. The 4wd could employ SRA front and rear which is simple and archaic to be sure, but alsocost effective, rugged, all of these could be used to advantage, to remind buyers of why small trucks were once cool because of their simplicity. Make it so simple that it's cool, let that simplicity reach the level that a 4wd stickers for an unheard of base pricetag (say 12.5-13.5k or so), and you'd make serious waves in the market.

 

I have no question the above trucks would be quite popular anywhere in the world market, even if they aren't truly global offerings. They would be very American in design and execution, and I have little doubt they would be better loved for it. Another benefit of the above could be the importation of the Pacific rim Ranger/B-Series as a mid-sized Mazda offering allowing that brand a measure of individuality on our shores through a unique truck offering that is well suited to the brand.

 

The above is entirely doable, but instead we'll likely get a semi-competent, global effort that meant well but didn't perform in the market

 

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Much CONTENT here, and one of the reasons I bother to read through the mountains of blather, is the rare gem like this.

 

I just wanted to comment on the fact that as I read this, several lights went off in my head.

 

Ford, build this sucker in China. Several factors lead to this, such as

 

1. You have a very small presence in the dragon right now, but this would allow you to do a relatively low cost and fairly simple program(its not like it would have to meet Lincoln/Jag NVH targets among others) with existing and well known engineering premise(who does trucks better than Ford?). Thus limiting your exposure to an unknown but increasingly important and neccesary talent pool until proven.

 

2. Do the engineering in Australia as suggested elsewhere. Close proximity(travel and time zones) keeps your resources in Aus. capable and current with the global parent, and minimizes your risk in country as far as China's admitted risky downsides(engineering, resource and political, let them play to each others strengths)

 

3. Build the factory in China as green as Kermit. You have a low cost entrance to a virtually limitless workforce, building a non competing product(you don't sell into the UAW's back yard now, so they really don't have a beef with your creating a niche market) and the chance to score points iwth a billion or so underconsumers by not taking advantage of their failings, but using their strengths. Make this sort of program the sort of statement Bill has attempted for years and Ford can be that green oval to consumers who have no historical baggage to refer to.(jeepers, wouldn't that be nice)

 

4. You have another billion or so underconsumers in that region of the developing world who have nothing but a crying need for a small hyper fuel efficient truck. Again, a simple way into untapped markets(India, Indonesia among others), markets that are ready for the right kind of commitment to blossom. I ask you, what is the economy of scale on a few hundred thousand units?( A recent trip to New Dehli taught me that the potential and need are on a collision course, soon)

 

I'm sure I have missed something, and I fear I will get flamed for something obvious I have overlooked, but I have to tell you, this makes more and more sense and has been fermenting for a while now.

[RichardJensen]

I think the primary argument against the V4 is its odd shape for transverse engine mounting. High parts count is a problem, but not as much as packaging for FWD use.

 

Since it can be assumed that the 4-cylinder engine is, for all intents and purposes, an economy car engine, and since most economy cars will be FWD from now on, it would seem that the V4 is ill-suited to the task that it would be most often called upon to perform: propelling an econobox.

[Edstock]

[bec5150]

I think the primary argument against the V4 is its odd shape for transverse engine mounting. High parts count is a problem, but not as much as packaging for FWD use.

 

Since it can be assumed that the 4-cylinder engine is, for all intents and purposes, an economy car engine, and since most economy cars will be FWD from now on, it would seem that the V4 is ill-suited to the task that it would be most often called upon to perform: propelling an econobox.

Completely off the top of my head, the only V-4 I can think of in an automobile are some early Saabs. Honda has used V-4's on some of their motorcycles, the most recent being the current ST1300 sport-tourer.

[RichardJensen]

some early Saabs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Sonett

 

That was a Ford engine!

 

And it went through a variety of permutations to turn into the 4.0L Cologne V6.... (two cylinders added, shared crankshaft journals for opposing pistons, increase in displacement, and then addition of OHC gearing).