Ford undecided on Ranger replacement?
#126
02-01-2010
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lehi, Utah
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTFO. Now.
If you're gonna make such a dumbfounded remark as "The boost level is so low that the wastegate lines don't even come clipped onto the actuators from the factory" then back it up with proof, other wise you sound like an idiot.
You've owned "nice" cars, but I generally think you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to turbo's and performance; a ricer.
You apparently have no clue what the Ecoboost engines are about. They are about small turbo's. They are about "not feeling the effects". They aren't designed so once you floor it and wait for the boost lag that you're then thrown back into your seat. The Ecoboost engine is designed to be a small displacement engine for fuel economy couple with forced induction to up the power output so you can have the V8 power with the gas sipping advantages of low displacement.
#127
02-01-2010
GTFO. Now.
If you're gonna make such a dumbfounded remark as "The boost level is so low that the wastegate lines don't even come clipped onto the actuators from the factory" then back it up with proof, other wise you sound like an idiot.
You've owned "nice" cars, but I generally think you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to turbo's and performance; a ricer.
You apparently have no clue what the Ecoboost engines are about. They are about small turbo's. They are about "not feeling the effects". They aren't designed so once you floor it and wait for the boost lag that you're then thrown back into your seat. The Ecoboost engine is designed to be a small displacement engine for fuel economy couple with forced induction to up the power output so you can have the V8 power with the gas sipping advantages of low displacement.
If you're gonna make such a dumbfounded remark as "The boost level is so low that the wastegate lines don't even come clipped onto the actuators from the factory" then back it up with proof, other wise you sound like an idiot.
You've owned "nice" cars, but I generally think you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to turbo's and performance; a ricer.
You apparently have no clue what the Ecoboost engines are about. They are about small turbo's. They are about "not feeling the effects". They aren't designed so once you floor it and wait for the boost lag that you're then thrown back into your seat. The Ecoboost engine is designed to be a small displacement engine for fuel economy couple with forced induction to up the power output so you can have the V8 power with the gas sipping advantages of low displacement.
i don't fully agree with what you said either, while i am not familiar with the ecoboost engines, i highly doubt they were built to compete with the v8's... the rest of what you said, about it not having turbo lag because of the small turbo, and having the small turbo so it doesn't have turbo lag, i agree fully with... i more think that they put a smaller engine in and added the turbo to compete with larger motors of the same style (ie small v6 turbo to compete with a large v6) the only time i believe ford has produced a motor, with a turbo, intended to compete with a N/A motor of a significant size difference was the SVO mustangs, which were actually faster than the 5.0 LX mustangs of the same year (i use LX because the LX 5.0's were actually faster than the GT, due to not having the ground effects package, and being able to get the LX in a coupe, rather than the hatch back, which weighed approx 200lbs more)
#128
02-01-2010
i agree with you on the aspect of weight vs wind, however, weight in a collision is all relitive... your vehicle's weight doesn't mean ****, without something to compare it to... now the most obvious, and accurate thing would be what it is hitting, if you have a 2000lb truck hitting a 2000lb car (net weight, inc gas cargo and passengers), both vehicles will absorb the same amount of energy, now you take the exact same colision, but you drop them down to 700lb cars, like a smart car, for instance... 700lbs is a large motorcycle... mine weighs almost that, regardless though, it's for demonstration purposes only... if it hits another vehicle that is 700 lbs, each vehicle is going to absorb an equal amount of the energy, again... so the fact that a lighter weight vehicle is not as safe, is not necissairly true, in a collision aspect...
back to the wind issue, this is only an issue comparitvely to surface area, AND aero dynamics... however, aerodynamics generally don't take into consideration cross winds... this would be a factor that the engineers would look at, if building a light weight vehicle though... and aerodynamics was already mentioned that it would be improved
so really the only time that these smaller vehicles would become an issue for safety is in the transition period of going from the large heavy vehicles we have now, to the smaller lighter ones... and the simple solution to that is the average weight of a vehicle drop by 30-40 lbs each year, across the board, all manufactures... in 10 years time, the average vehicle will be 350 lbs lighter, which is equal to an extra 35 hp (roughly) and thus a savings of probably 10-20% in fuel, with the same motors, not taking into consideration the aerodynamics... as this transition takes place, the older, heavier vehicles will naturally depreciate and end up in junk yards, as is the life cycle of a vehicle...
so 20 years from now (provided these events i mentioned, were set in motion today) we would be looking at an average vehicle weight of roughly 700 lbs less than what we have today... and in the advances of technology, it would be significant!
however, i can now bring up the case of oil companies being the largest corparations world wide, and controlling most other industries, and the case that every time a revolutionary new design or idea, which would drasticly reduce fuel consumption, the oil companies buy the patent and bury the design, this can be seen in severl examples. first was a revolutionary design of a motor using 2 combustion chambers in an internal combustion motor, i believe it was designed by honda, the top chamber would contain a rich fuel mixture, ignited by a spark, this would then ignite the lower, and larger combustion chamber, containing next to no fuel, much too low for a spark plug to ignite, however, open flame (upper combustion chamber) can ignite it... the design was patented and before release on any vehicles, was purchased by an unsurmountable amount of money, by the oil and gas industry, and was never heard of again...
more recently, within the past 5-7 years, there was an inventor, i believe from canada. who designed a welding system (arc type) which ran on water, ordinary tap water, it was cold to the touch, it projected a small cold water vapour stream, and when it contacted metal (to which i assume the machine was grounded) it would cause a very hot flame or arc, not entirely sure, and thus welding was created, the man had a patent on it, and this was being shown on the tv show "daily planet" which is seen on discovery channel. The man went on to explain that he had converted his car, which i think was a taurus, to run on water, showing a quick shot of the motor, which was completely different than stock (i assume ground up home made motor) and explaining that he had been in contact with several of the major car manufactures, who were anxious to see the design and put it into production... i have heard nothing from this since... when i talked to my dad about it, shortly after seeing it, he even agreed that it would disappear, due to oil and gas companies...
now i'm not trying to say that exxon and the other majors are in control of the entire world, all i am saying is they want what they need...
even if one of the above ideas did survive, and cars were more fuel efficent than ever, what do you think would happen? do you think that the gas price, right now, is higher than it ever has been before, because of the recession? doesn't that sound a little bit counter productive? the gas prices are high because newer models are more fuel efficent than ever before, which means the oil and gas companies aren't making as much... they have to charge more, they want the average person to be shelling out a certain percentage of their yearly income to gas... if the average fuel economy goes up, the gas price will follow suit... so in a way, it's these people driving hibrids and smart cars that are making us die with prices... the only real benifet to having cars that do 50mpg and up, is the change of our environmental impact... we are doing the world a solid, but i doubt that even at our peak of emissions, this giant mass of rock and water would really care how much polution comes off of it... after all if in the grand scheme of things, we were not ment to burn gas, dead dinosours would not turn into gas...
sorry for the ridiculiously long post, but i have a lot of time on my hands at work here...
water car seen here:
Water Powered Car | Free Technology Videos - Watch Technology Videos Online | Veoh
back to the wind issue, this is only an issue comparitvely to surface area, AND aero dynamics... however, aerodynamics generally don't take into consideration cross winds... this would be a factor that the engineers would look at, if building a light weight vehicle though... and aerodynamics was already mentioned that it would be improved
so really the only time that these smaller vehicles would become an issue for safety is in the transition period of going from the large heavy vehicles we have now, to the smaller lighter ones... and the simple solution to that is the average weight of a vehicle drop by 30-40 lbs each year, across the board, all manufactures... in 10 years time, the average vehicle will be 350 lbs lighter, which is equal to an extra 35 hp (roughly) and thus a savings of probably 10-20% in fuel, with the same motors, not taking into consideration the aerodynamics... as this transition takes place, the older, heavier vehicles will naturally depreciate and end up in junk yards, as is the life cycle of a vehicle...
so 20 years from now (provided these events i mentioned, were set in motion today) we would be looking at an average vehicle weight of roughly 700 lbs less than what we have today... and in the advances of technology, it would be significant!
however, i can now bring up the case of oil companies being the largest corparations world wide, and controlling most other industries, and the case that every time a revolutionary new design or idea, which would drasticly reduce fuel consumption, the oil companies buy the patent and bury the design, this can be seen in severl examples. first was a revolutionary design of a motor using 2 combustion chambers in an internal combustion motor, i believe it was designed by honda, the top chamber would contain a rich fuel mixture, ignited by a spark, this would then ignite the lower, and larger combustion chamber, containing next to no fuel, much too low for a spark plug to ignite, however, open flame (upper combustion chamber) can ignite it... the design was patented and before release on any vehicles, was purchased by an unsurmountable amount of money, by the oil and gas industry, and was never heard of again...
more recently, within the past 5-7 years, there was an inventor, i believe from canada. who designed a welding system (arc type) which ran on water, ordinary tap water, it was cold to the touch, it projected a small cold water vapour stream, and when it contacted metal (to which i assume the machine was grounded) it would cause a very hot flame or arc, not entirely sure, and thus welding was created, the man had a patent on it, and this was being shown on the tv show "daily planet" which is seen on discovery channel. The man went on to explain that he had converted his car, which i think was a taurus, to run on water, showing a quick shot of the motor, which was completely different than stock (i assume ground up home made motor) and explaining that he had been in contact with several of the major car manufactures, who were anxious to see the design and put it into production... i have heard nothing from this since... when i talked to my dad about it, shortly after seeing it, he even agreed that it would disappear, due to oil and gas companies...
now i'm not trying to say that exxon and the other majors are in control of the entire world, all i am saying is they want what they need...
even if one of the above ideas did survive, and cars were more fuel efficent than ever, what do you think would happen? do you think that the gas price, right now, is higher than it ever has been before, because of the recession? doesn't that sound a little bit counter productive? the gas prices are high because newer models are more fuel efficent than ever before, which means the oil and gas companies aren't making as much... they have to charge more, they want the average person to be shelling out a certain percentage of their yearly income to gas... if the average fuel economy goes up, the gas price will follow suit... so in a way, it's these people driving hibrids and smart cars that are making us die with prices... the only real benifet to having cars that do 50mpg and up, is the change of our environmental impact... we are doing the world a solid, but i doubt that even at our peak of emissions, this giant mass of rock and water would really care how much polution comes off of it... after all if in the grand scheme of things, we were not ment to burn gas, dead dinosours would not turn into gas...
sorry for the ridiculiously long post, but i have a lot of time on my hands at work here...
water car seen here:
Water Powered Car | Free Technology Videos - Watch Technology Videos Online | Veoh
#129
02-01-2010
Baiscly I think we all can agree on one thing. Ford, GM and Chrysler need to listen to the public more often and take a good long hard look at the Hotrodding Industry for some input on how they can redesign some of the popular models and se what changes they can make for the better. GM royally screwed up when they got rid of the S10's, Cavaliers, The Buick grand nationals and we can add Oldsmoblie, Saturn, and Pontiac to that list. Oldsmobile has been gone for years now. GM is now in the process of "phasing out" Saturn and Pontiac. Pontiac I really could care less about because they really haven't made a decent car in years. The only thing that they really produced that may have been worth buying is the GTO, but they fouled it up when they didn't go with the old body styles. They're really about to get rid of the only brand that seems to do pretty decent and that's Saturn. I consider that a huge mistake that they'll regret later on down the road in a big way. Ford has pretty much stayed with their truck lines for many years and come up with some new designs for the fullsized F150. The only thing that Ford has that I would buy that I can afford would be either a Focus or the Fusion. The taurus is pretty kool but I really can't afford that model of car unless it's used. Chrysler is pretty much DEAD. Fiatt bought them out and they're still struggling to get ahead. They should've kept the neon and redesigned it. The new chargers are a terd and doesn't even look right to me. The new challenger looks good but who can afford the damn thing. The only brand that chrysler seems to sell is their Jeep line and the fullsize trucks. Ford also still has the Ranger which is pretty decently priced but it's OUT OF DATE. I want the Ranger to survive but with some changes and different engine and drivetrain options like AWD with limited slip diffs. All you really have is 2 engine choices and 4WD and that's really just about it. Not many choices in that area. Now you still have quite a few trim choices (XL,XLT, FX4 etc.) but it's not enough.
Last edited by knightmare1015; 02-01-2010 at 01:31 PM.
#130
02-01-2010
#131
02-01-2010
No but I was talking about my area. Here in VA it's a different story. This area has been hit pretty hard. We lost TRW who made the suspension systems for Chrysler. our unemployment rate is over 10 %. Alot of people around here just can't afford the new challengers. It might be a different story in NC yes, but not here. Chrysler and GM are just too expensive comapred to Ford. which would you pay? $25,000 plus for a car or truck that doesn't have a radio or CD player or about the same price for a Ford that's damn near fully loaded. That was the senario that I encountered when I bought my current ranger. get what I'm saying? they're too greedy (GM and Chrysler that is).
Last edited by knightmare1015; 02-01-2010 at 01:44 PM.
#132
02-01-2010
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PBG, FL
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#133
02-01-2010
I agree with some of what you said but not all. The gas and oil companies control the auto and transportation industries completely. The dependance of foreign oil and our addiction to it is indeed off the page. The other thing I disagree with is your senarios concerning collisions I mentioned in my earlier post. That's if they hit a vehicle the same size and weight but what are the odds of that happening? Slim to none. lets say that a smart car was sitting at a traffic light and a SUV wasn't paying attention and nails that smart car. Chances are the SUV will probably be able to drive off (although it's unlikely). The smart car basicly becomes a death trap in that senario. If the situation was reversed the outcome would most likely be just about the same due to the fact that an SUV weighs 10 times more than a smart car. Now do you get what I'm saying? It's really a matter of STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY and on how well the vehicle is constructed. The best way to construct a vehicle is to look at the chassis that NASCAR and Factory Five Racing manufactures on a consistant basis. The big 3 are just out to make a profit. The federal government mandates the safety aspect of their products. David Smith (president of Factory 5 Racing) said it best and I quote: "this is where we are completely different from any auto maker. We all understand that a soul travels in our cars and if the big 3 took that approach the cars and trucks they produce would be alot more reliable and safer than they are today". That was a quote from their new video which is free by the way and you can request their literature from their website. here's what's kind of strange. Their products are at least 20 % cheaper than a brand new midsized sedan off the lot.
#134
02-01-2010
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lehi, Utah
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
woah, i can appreciate your passion, but we are all friends here... no need for calling someone out because the posted, what you believe to be false information... he made his post in good faith, about the information contained therein...
i don't fully agree with what you said either, while i am not familiar with the ecoboost engines, i highly doubt they were built to compete with the v8's... the rest of what you said, about it not having turbo lag because of the small turbo, and having the small turbo so it doesn't have turbo lag, i agree fully with... i more think that they put a smaller engine in and added the turbo to compete with larger motors of the same style (ie small v6 turbo to compete with a large v6) the only time i believe ford has produced a motor, with a turbo, intended to compete with a N/A motor of a significant size difference was the SVO mustangs, which were actually faster than the 5.0 LX mustangs of the same year (i use LX because the LX 5.0's were actually faster than the GT, due to not having the ground effects package, and being able to get the LX in a coupe, rather than the hatch back, which weighed approx 200lbs more)
i don't fully agree with what you said either, while i am not familiar with the ecoboost engines, i highly doubt they were built to compete with the v8's... the rest of what you said, about it not having turbo lag because of the small turbo, and having the small turbo so it doesn't have turbo lag, i agree fully with... i more think that they put a smaller engine in and added the turbo to compete with larger motors of the same style (ie small v6 turbo to compete with a large v6) the only time i believe ford has produced a motor, with a turbo, intended to compete with a N/A motor of a significant size difference was the SVO mustangs, which were actually faster than the 5.0 LX mustangs of the same year (i use LX because the LX 5.0's were actually faster than the GT, due to not having the ground effects package, and being able to get the LX in a coupe, rather than the hatch back, which weighed approx 200lbs more)
The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
#135
02-02-2010
I couldn't stand to read anymore of his posts in this thread, they contained a lot of nothing, just BS posting.
The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
#136
02-06-2010
FAIL!
no, i don't think you fully understood what i was saying about the weight thing, you need a slow transition to smaller vehicles... the average vehicle needs to get smaller, progressively over a long period of time... this will allow the smaller vehicle, 20 years from now to be much safer, as it is closer to the top of the food chain than it is right now... most of the 09 models and 2010 models, won't be on the road in 2030, i mean lets face it, how often do you see an 87-92 average vehicle on the road? most of them have met their demise...
no, i don't think you fully understood what i was saying about the weight thing, you need a slow transition to smaller vehicles... the average vehicle needs to get smaller, progressively over a long period of time... this will allow the smaller vehicle, 20 years from now to be much safer, as it is closer to the top of the food chain than it is right now... most of the 09 models and 2010 models, won't be on the road in 2030, i mean lets face it, how often do you see an 87-92 average vehicle on the road? most of them have met their demise...
#137
02-06-2010
I couldn't stand to read anymore of his posts in this thread, they contained a lot of nothing, just BS posting.
The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
The power of a V8 was a generalization. Sure there are V8's out now producing massive HP/TQ numbers that the Ecoboost's can't make. But the fact is, the Ecoboost's are designed and intended to be high HP/TQ, small displacement engines. That way you get great fuel efficiency with the power to actually get-up-and-go. Unlike the Duratec 2.3 in the Ranger that manages a meager ~155HP. Sure it gets great gas mileage, but wouldn't you like the ability to get that same (if not better) mileage with 100 more HP to use?
#138
02-06-2010
I do understand better than you know. And to answer your question, I see alot of older vehicles on the road pretty frequently now adays. Mainly because people in my area really can't afford to buy a new vehicle in my area. But you are correct about a slower transistion to a smaller vehicle. I wouldn't own a smaller vehicle unless it had V8 stuffed in it then maybe just maybe. And I'm not talking about the scale of the vehicle either. I'm talking about the overall weight of the vehicle. Your typical Ranger weight is around 4,500 lbs (depending on which model such as the super cab etc.). I want to keep it the same size that it is only around 1,900 lbs. That's virtually no weight. You combine that with a small block american V8 and you'll have something that will flat out scream when you want or need it to and because of the low overall weight the engine will get excellent fuel economy to boot. The V6 is decent but it's "pushing" too much weight and putting a real strain on the engine because of it. Now do you get what I'm saying?
#139
02-06-2010
BINGO, i wasn't priticularly meaning that they should stay the same size, but that wouldn't cause any problems, other than surface area causing wind resistance, and reducing aero dynamics... but we are totally on the same page! some of the lincoln cars had a 4.0L v8 in them in the early 2000's, and apparenly they were just AWESOME! i don't see why they can't use them now...
The Ecoboost engines are primarily meant to give the power of a premium engine offering in a line, while giving the fuel economy of a V6, 4 banger or whatever. The SHO 3.5 is a 'replacement' for the need of a V8 in that car while still giving V6 MPGs. IIRC, the SHO engine gets the same fuel milage as the comprable NA model (AWD 3.5 Taurus) but it delivers another 100hp and a ton more torque. The 3.5L of course puts out 355hp in its current 'weakest' iteration, and it has a ridiculously flat torque curve. It is basically flat from 1500rpm to 5000 or so. An NA V8 can't even do that.
#140
02-06-2010
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Temperance Mi
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
* I only skimmed through the last 8 pages so I havent read everything in this post*
That said I figured I would just share some info with everyone. I work for Ford at the Saline Plastics plant building F-150 dashboards. A few days ago I was talking with a Ford Process Engineer that was trying figure out a way for our operation to increase produtcion 50,000 units per year. When I asked why he said because Fords is almost certain they are dumping the Ranger and will be adding a stripped down Ecoboost 4cyl to the F-150 lineup as a replacement.
There must be some truth to this because we have had Ford engineers up our asses for two weeks now tryin to figure out how to change our floor plans and our essembly process.
That said I figured I would just share some info with everyone. I work for Ford at the Saline Plastics plant building F-150 dashboards. A few days ago I was talking with a Ford Process Engineer that was trying figure out a way for our operation to increase produtcion 50,000 units per year. When I asked why he said because Fords is almost certain they are dumping the Ranger and will be adding a stripped down Ecoboost 4cyl to the F-150 lineup as a replacement.
There must be some truth to this because we have had Ford engineers up our asses for two weeks now tryin to figure out how to change our floor plans and our essembly process.
#141
02-06-2010
#142
02-06-2010
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#143
02-09-2010
A new direction...
Well guys it seems that Ford Motor Co. is indeed going to get rid of the Ranger. It's not a question of if but when. There's also a new engine in the works as well. I forget where I saw it listed but apparently Ford has a new version of the 2.3 I4 getting ready to be released. A twin turboed ecoboost I4. I think I heard about it while watching the Arca Remax series races at Daytona. I also heard someone say that the mustang is running in Nascar this year for a selected number of races too. I say it's about time for the mustang to enter Nascar considering that paticular car has been around for over 40 years in many different versions. they're also getting rid of the "wing" and going back to the spoiler they've had for many years. But other than employees at assembly plants Nascar will have a heads up as to what's going on to an extent.
#144
02-09-2010
BINGO, i wasn't priticularly meaning that they should stay the same size, but that wouldn't cause any problems, other than surface area causing wind resistance, and reducing aero dynamics... but we are totally on the same page! some of the lincoln cars had a 4.0L v8 in them in the early 2000's, and apparenly they were just AWESOME! i don't see why they can't use them now...
That was a Jag sourced engine and it was rather troublesome and EXPENSIVE to produce. Good engine though overall, but it just is not economically feasable with the options available now.
Yeah but Ford "outsources" their engines now. On the new Ranger in the driver's side window you'll find a parts of origin sticker. The negine is from Germany and the transmission is from Japan. If I ever get a chance i'll sneak on the lot and snap a photo for proof.
The Ecoboost engines are primarily meant to give the power of a premium engine offering in a line, while giving the fuel economy of a V6, 4 banger or whatever. The SHO 3.5 is a 'replacement' for the need of a V8 in that car while still giving V6 MPGs. IIRC, the SHO engine gets the same fuel milage as the comprable NA model (AWD 3.5 Taurus) but it delivers another 100hp and a ton more torque. The 3.5L of course puts out 355hp in its current 'weakest' iteration, and it has a ridiculously flat torque curve. It is basically flat from 1500rpm to 5000 or so. An NA V8 can't even do that.
Yeah but Ford "outsources" their engines now. On the new Ranger in the driver's side window you'll find a parts of origin sticker. The negine is from Germany and the transmission is from Japan. If I ever get a chance i'll sneak on the lot and snap a photo for proof.
The Ecoboost engines are primarily meant to give the power of a premium engine offering in a line, while giving the fuel economy of a V6, 4 banger or whatever. The SHO 3.5 is a 'replacement' for the need of a V8 in that car while still giving V6 MPGs. IIRC, the SHO engine gets the same fuel milage as the comprable NA model (AWD 3.5 Taurus) but it delivers another 100hp and a ton more torque. The 3.5L of course puts out 355hp in its current 'weakest' iteration, and it has a ridiculously flat torque curve. It is basically flat from 1500rpm to 5000 or so. An NA V8 can't even do that.
* I only skimmed through the last 8 pages so I havent read everything in this post*
That said I figured I would just share some info with everyone. I work for Ford at the Saline Plastics plant building F-150 dashboards. A few days ago I was talking with a Ford Process Engineer that was trying figure out a way for our operation to increase produtcion 50,000 units per year. When I asked why he said because Fords is almost certain they are dumping the Ranger and will be adding a stripped down Ecoboost 4cyl to the F-150 lineup as a replacement.
There must be some truth to this because we have had Ford engineers up our asses for two weeks now tryin to figure out how to change our floor plans and our essembly process.
That said I figured I would just share some info with everyone. I work for Ford at the Saline Plastics plant building F-150 dashboards. A few days ago I was talking with a Ford Process Engineer that was trying figure out a way for our operation to increase produtcion 50,000 units per year. When I asked why he said because Fords is almost certain they are dumping the Ranger and will be adding a stripped down Ecoboost 4cyl to the F-150 lineup as a replacement.
There must be some truth to this because we have had Ford engineers up our asses for two weeks now tryin to figure out how to change our floor plans and our essembly process.
Nope. No hatred just exchanging opinions and ideas as to what can be done with the Ranger and the direction of where Ford can go instead of where they are.
#145
02-09-2010
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#146
02-10-2010
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: spindale, NC
Posts: 1,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking to a FORD dealer yesterday about the ranger....He said basically they've "was gonna kill it for 2 years now"....but he thinks they are going to fuse the sport trac and Ranger together he said....I mean basically the sport trac is a 4-door ranger.....He was saying the sport tracs are too high compared to rangers and arn't selling well.....
He's heard of the T6, and has high hopes as well... We'll see
He's heard of the T6, and has high hopes as well... We'll see
#147
02-12-2010
I was talking to a FORD dealer yesterday about the ranger....He said basically they've "was gonna kill it for 2 years now"....but he thinks they are going to fuse the sport trac and Ranger together he said....I mean basically the sport trac is a 4-door ranger.....He was saying the sport tracs are too high compared to rangers and arn't selling well.....
He's heard of the T6, and has high hopes as well... We'll see
He's heard of the T6, and has high hopes as well... We'll see
It's alright we all have mistyped or misread info at one time or another.
#148
04-10-2010
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: River Falls, WI
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market is saturated and very competitive. It amazes me how many options we have when buying a vehicle. Has to be expensive to make so many different vehicles. I can understand why Ford would want to eliminate some models. Would like to see them put a 6 speed under the Ranger in the future. Would hate to see uni-body construction. Rust eats though them fast where I live. I use my 94 Ranger for work. Does well to tow small loads. Much easier to maneuver in tight spots than a full size. I could care less about styling or amenities. I just need something simple, functional, and easy to work on. The Ranger has it all in that regard. Can't stand the thought of it being axed.
Last edited by Rob K; 04-10-2010 at 11:31 PM.
#149
04-11-2010
Redesign it....
I think that Ford needs to redesign the ranger in a bad way. Offer more options and engine choices and you're looking at the Ranger dominating the midsize and mini truck markets. The Canyon, Colorado are GM's replacement for the old S10's. I drove one of each and the first one didn't have enough power to amount **** and the other basicly fell apart (interior wise) even on a smooth road. The Dakota from chrysler offers a V8 but has been known to have alot of electrical problems and really isn't that reliable to me anyways. The Ranger is in my book a smarter investment, and much more economical to operate on a daily basis than the others. Plus I really don't need the size of an F150. The F100 would be the size I'd go with that's a touch bigger than the Ranger.
#150
04-16-2010
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Ford needs to redesign the ranger in a bad way. Offer more options and engine choices and you're looking at the Ranger dominating the midsize and mini truck markets. The Canyon, Colorado are GM's replacement for the old S10's. I drove one of each and the first one didn't have enough power to amount **** and the other basicly fell apart (interior wise) even on a smooth road. The Dakota from chrysler offers a V8 but has been known to have alot of electrical problems and really isn't that reliable to me anyways. The Ranger is in my book a smarter investment, and much more economical to operate on a daily basis than the others. Plus I really don't need the size of an F150. The F100 would be the size I'd go with that's a touch bigger than the Ranger.
