Future of American small trucks

[68_427]

The new Ram I'm not a fan of the fact that one can't get an extended cab, but the new Hemi and Cummins are top notch and the coil sprung rear 1/2-ton is a foreshadow of things to come.

Yes you can.  The door just opens like a normal door.

[Mustangfan2003]

but the new Hemi and Cummins are top notch

The Hemi is great and all until you need gas

the coil sprung rear 1/2-ton is a foreshadow of things to come.

I hope not.  It's great if you're and urban cowboy but it isn't so great for towing.

When Ford engines aren't WAY outmatched on power (gas engines) they're WAY outmatched in reliability (Powerstroke diesel).

The 6.0 had problems but I haven't heard anything bad about the other engines and I still see many 7.3 engines on the road, besides that is why Ford got out of their deal with Navistar.  As for gas engines the 5.4 makes 310hp and torque is rated at 365.  The 5.3 has 5 more hp and the torque is only rated at 335.  As far as the future goes I look forward to seeing how the 5.0 does.  Oh yeah and the F100 named was dropped in 1983.

[CJ]

Plus, the new 6.2 gas engine is very competitive.

[Mustangfan2003]

Don't think it will be widely available in the F150 though, I think it will only be offered in the Raptor and the Platinum.   The new V6 engines are going to be interesting too.  It will be a big lolz at GM if they get better fuel economy than the Hybrid Silverado.   

[GoCougs]

Huh?  Not been in many trucks have you? 

Ford has been late to the game since '87; Ford's almost always had last-in-class engine power and/or reliability (LOL Powerstroke), and has otherwise never led the charge in any material innovation now (or will be) common place in the segment; from EFI, to V10, to 4sp/5sp/6sp ATs, to true IFS for 4WD, VVT/L, to coil-sprung rear, to fully boxed frame.

[GoCougs]

Yes you can.  The door just opens like a normal door.

Dodge has three variants of "crew" cab, and then a regular cab. There is no extended cab.

[GoCougs]

The new Ford 6.2L is a replacement for the V10; ergo, Ford said it will be used only in the F-Super Duty save for F150 diversions like the Raptor and the like.

[Mustangfan2003]

Ford has been late to the game since '87; Ford's almost always had last-in-class engine power and/or reliability (LOL Powerstroke), and has otherwise never led the charge in any material innovation now (or will be) common place in the segment; from EFI, to V10, to 4sp/5sp/6sp ATs, to true IFS for 4WD, VVT/L, to coil-sprung rear, to fully boxed frame.

Didn't bother reading my other post I see.

[GoCougs]

The Hemi is great and all until you need gas

Uh, and the Ford 5.4L uses less? (No, of course not.)

I hope not.  It's great if you're and urban cowboy but it isn't so great for towing.

Sure it is; coil sprung rear = superior towing, especially when unloaded. Leafs are relatively inefficient, are prone to axle wrap, are inherently stiff, and don't do variable rate so well.

The 6.0 had problems but I haven't heard anything bad about the other engines and I still see many 7.3 engines on the road, besides that is why Ford got out of their deal with Navistar.  As for gas engines the 5.4 makes 310hp and torque is rated at 365.  The 5.3 has 5 more hp and the torque is only rated at 335.  As far as the future goes I look forward to seeing how the 5.0 does.  Oh yeah and the F100 named was dropped in 1983.

The 6.0L has no problems approaching anything remotely close to the 6.4L Power Stroke. The 7.3L gets completely owned in power and/or reliability by both the same year Cummins and Duramax.

The GM 5.3L is the mid-range engine. GM's 403 hp 6.2L embarrasses the 5.4L, and even handily upstages the all-new fancy Super Duty-only OHC 6.2L at 385 hp. I don't know the plan for the 5.0L but that sure doesn't sound like a truck engine to me.

[GoCougs]

Honda's overall sales didn't drop by more than half.  People kept buying Hondas, but not ridgelines  After some initiaL excitement, the ridgeline failed in the marketplace.

Toyota utterly owns 5th and 6th place, with annual sales of the Tundra and Tacoma combined equal to about 40% of the F-series sales, both monthly and YTD.

Ford's ancient Ranger is doing better in 2010 than the Ridgeline did in it's best year.

LOL - F-series sales also dropped by more than 50% over the same period - did it "fail" in the market place???

2005: 901k
2009: 413k

[2o6]

LOL - F-series sales also dropped by more than 50% over the same period - did it "fail" in the market place???

2005: 901k
2009: 413k

Considering how strong of a key player the F-150 is, no.

[Mustangfan2003]

Uh, and the Ford 5.4L uses less? (No, of course not.)

Sure it is; coil sprung rear = superior towing, especially when unloaded. Leafs are relatively inefficient, are prone to axle wrap, are inherently stiff, and don't do variable rate so well.

The 6.0L has no problems approaching anything remotely close to the 6.4L Power Stroke. The 7.3L gets completely owned in power and/or reliability by both the same year Cummins and Duramax.

The GM 5.3L is the mid-range engine. GM's 403 hp 6.2L embarrasses the 5.4L, and even handily upstages the all-new fancy Super Duty-only OHC 6.2L at 385 hp. I don't know the plan for the 5.0L but that sure doesn't sound like a truck engine to me.

Ok we get it you hate Ford for some reason.  All truck sales are down due to a lower demand in fleet sales, something Honda doesn't have.  The 7.3 was a very reliable engine and most diesel mechanics I know agree and they also hate working on the Duramax.  And you want to talk about reliability the old Detroit Diesel trucks were dogs, one of the main reason GM went with the Duramax.  So tell me why the 5.0 doesn't sound like a truck engine?  Care to tell use what a truck engine should be?

[Mustangfan2003]

Anyways back to small trucks, I'd like to see some real compact trucks back on the market.  I find the mid sizers too expensive to be worth buying.

[GoCougs]

Considering how strong of a key player the F-150 is, no.

Yeah, that's a real interesting spin. But that was ETypeJohn's logic, so we'll see how HE responds.

[2o6]

Yeah, that's a real interesting spin. But that was ETypeJohn's logic, so we'll see how HE responds.

The Ridgeline is a bit player and is a mediocre truck........the F-150 is a good truck and a very strong force in the market.


The F150's sales also recovered, the Ridgeline has not.

[Mustangfan2003]

Ah the Ridgeline, the minivan based pick up that tows like a minivan and gets full size fuel economy with a full size price.

[GoCougs]

Ok we get it you hate Ford for some reason.  All truck sales are down due to a lower demand in fleet sales, something Honda doesn't have.  The 7.3 was a very reliable engine and most diesel mechanics I know agree and they also hate working on the Duramax.  And you want to talk about reliability the old Detroit Diesel trucks were dogs, one of the main reason GM went with the Duramax.  So tell me why the 5.0 doesn't sound like a truck engine?  Care to tell use what a truck engine should be?

Not at all hate. I'm talking cold, hard facts when most everyone else is doing the exact opposite. Ford's track record is of Ford's doing.

The operative point being GM did something better (Duramax) not something worse (6.4L Powerstroke). The Duramax is light years ahead of the 7.3L - 4 valve/cyl, common rail injection, etc. - so naturally it's harder to work on.

The 5.0L makes peak power at 6,500 rpm - most anything in the class (381 hp Tundra, 390 Hp Hemi, 403 Hp GM) is making peak power under 6,000 rpm. Ford will need a complete rework of the heads and cams to get peak power RPM down to make it a proper truck engine (with the logical extension that peak power will also decrease). I guess it can still be 5.0L in displacement but it is highly unlikely it will be the 412 hp version found in the Mustang GT.

[GoCougs]

The Ridgeline is a bit player and is a mediocre truck........the F-150 is a good truck and a very strong force in the market.

The F150's sales also recovered, the Ridgeline has not.

Do you people not know how to do the Internets??? It's really easy to research an assertion before making it.

The F-Series through June is at 240k = annualized 480k, so (LOL) not recovered.

[Mustangfan2003]

Not at all hate. I'm talking cold, hard facts when most everyone else is doing the exact opposite. Ford's track record is of Ford's doing.

The operative point being GM did something better (Duramax) not something worse (6.4L Powerstroke). The Duramax is light years ahead of the 7.3L - 4 valve/cyl, common rail injection, etc. - so naturally it's harder to work on.

The 5.0L makes peak power at 6,500 rpm - most anything in the class (381 hp Tundra, 390 Hp Hemi, 403 Hp GM) is making peak power under 6,000 rpm. Ford will need a complete rework of the heads and cams to get peak power RPM down to make it a proper truck engine (with the logical extension that peak power will also decrease). I guess it can still be 5.0L in displacement but it is highly unlikely it will be the 412 hp version found in the Mustang GT.

I'm sure Ford would've liked a better diesel engine if Navistar didn't fuck it up.  As for the 5.0 the engines in the Mustang and the trucks will be different but I don't think the numbers have been released yet. 
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/16/report-2011-ford-f-150-to-get-3-7l-v6-5-0l-v8-and-3-5l-ecoboos/
I'm guessing the engine will be reworked for truck applications. 

[68_427]

Dodge has three variants of "crew" cab, and then a regular cab. There is no extended cab.

Oh please.  You call that a crew cab? 

[68_427]

So tell me why the 5.0 doesn't sound like a truck engine?  Care to tell use what a truck engine should be?

Ford said it won't be going into their trucks.  I don't think most people would consider an engine with 11:1 compression (gas engine), 7500rpm cut off, and max torque at high rpm a truck engine.  It was designed for the Mustang, and that's it.

[Mustangfan2003]

Ford said it won't be going into their trucks.  I don't think most people would consider an engine with 11:1 compression (gas engine), 7500rpm cut off, and max torque at high rpm a truck engine.  It was designed for the Mustang, and that's it.

In case you missed the link above

The current 4.6-liter and 5.4-liter are also expected to be supplanted by the newer, more powerful and efficient engines that debuted in the 2011 Mustang  earlier this year. The F-150's new base engine will reportedly be the 3.7-liter V6 with 305 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque, while the top engine will be the new 5.0-liter Coyote V8. The 5.0-liter will likely be re-tuned from the Mustang's 412 hp and 390 lb-ft to give it more torque and further elevate the model's 11,000+ pound towing capacity. The V6-powered trucks could be the first light-duty full-size trucks to hit 25 mpg on the highway, a figure that's even better than General Motors' hybrid trucks.

[GoCougs]

I'm sure Ford would've liked a better diesel engine if Navistar didn't fuck it up.  As for the 5.0 the engines in the Mustang and the trucks will be different but I don't think the numbers have been released yet. 
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/16/report-2011-ford-f-150-to-get-3-7l-v6-5-0l-v8-and-3-5l-ecoboos/
I'm guessing the engine will be reworked for truck applications. 

Sounds like a complete gossip and misinformed piece; 400hp Ecoboost in an F150? Uh, no. The 305hp version of the 3.7L has the same 6500 rpm at peak power as the 5.0L V8 and would be suitably inappropriate. Power rating is not a factor in tow rating; either before or after the new SAE spec.

[Mustangfan2003]

Sounds like a complete gossip and misinformed piece; 400hp Ecoboost in an F150? Uh, no. The 305hp version of the 3.7L has the same 6500 rpm at peak power as the 5.0L V8 and would be suitably inappropriate. Power rating is not a factor in tow rating; either before or after the new SAE spec.

Could be, who knows until the figures are released but an Ecoboost engine will be offered.  I'm going to say it will have atleast 350hp.

[Nethead]

Sounds like a complete gossip and misinformed piece; 400hp Ecoboost in an F150? Uh, no. The 305hp version of the 3.7L has the same 6500 rpm at peak power as the 5.0L V8 and would be suitably inappropriate. Power rating is not a factor in tow rating; either before or after the new SAE spec.

BlowCougs:  Modern V6s with twin turbos and Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing controlling double overhead cams make offering 400 HP a piece of cake in a better-breathing longitudinal mounting--it only takes an ECU re-flash to soar from 365 HP to well past 400 HP while retaining emissions compliance and great fuel economy.  Technology works, what can we say?  

Luckily, Ford isn't sixty percent government-owned so Ford has more innovation latitude than many car companies--no telling what Ford willl be selling by the time that the government-owned companies finally catch up to where Ford was BEFORE Ford brought out the new EcoBoost engines, the new 6.2L V8, the new Powerstroke, and the new 5.0L V8.  Wasn't it June that the F-Series outsold the Silverado, the Sierra, the Colorado, and the Canyon combined?  Ranger sales were a little bonus on the side--although it is truly neglected just as you say, the Ranger's sales are secured by that lucrative market of those small truck shoppers who drove a Colorado or Canyon beforehand.

But don't worry--GM will remain in the truck business (assuming GM remains in business at all, of course) because Uncle Sam has $60.8 billion sunk into that worthy enterprise and will have to buy their vehicles in vast fleets to keep them afloat until they at least get the taxpayer investment back, right?  Relax, dude--incompetence has been protected by the people, of the people, for the people, on the backs of the people for as long as it takes for GM to repay the taxpayers.  I foresee GM stretching out that free ride as long as possible--unless they can get a better deal off the taxpayers via money from TARP funds or other bail-out bonanza...

[omicron]

For example Fords website list the Ranger XL starting at $17,820 and the F150 XL starts a $21,820 and that is with a standard V8 for 2010.

Ouch. I'd be in the bigger truck at those prices.

[Tave]

The caveat of course is that no one pays that much for a Ranger after factory and dealer incentives. A couple years ago, my Ford dealer was selling a brand new Ranger (single-cab, 2WD, manual) for $4,000. Brand. New.

[2o6]

The caveat of course is that no one pays that much for a Ranger after factory and dealer incentives. A couple years ago, my Ford dealer was selling a brand new Ranger (single-cab, 2WD, manual) for $4,000. Brand. New.

Are you SERIOUS!?


Mahindra is up against some stiff competition, then.

[omicron]

The caveat of course is that no one pays that much for a Ranger after factory and dealer incentives. A couple years ago, my Ford dealer was selling a brand new Ranger (single-cab, 2WD, manual) for $4,000. Brand. New.

$4k! If that man wasn't mobbed by buyers, I don't know what to say.

[Tave]

Are you SERIOUS!?


Mahindra is up against some stiff competition, then.

Yes, completely serious. They also had brand new 4WD SuperCab discounted to $9,000.

My dad was kicking himself for not buying one of each. He was thinking about selling his Durango and buying the SuperCab for himself and the stripper for me. I didn't need a car at the time, though, so he chose not to.


Now obviously, that was inventory the dealer was desperate to move, and of course those types of deals aren't a year-round option, but it's just an example of how cheaply a Ranger can be had. It's obviously the extreme low-end of the discount spectrum, but you can get good deals on a Ranger any time. I'd be surprised if anyone paid close to MSRP on a new Ranger.


The other point here is that Ford and its dealers can't afford to operate like that indefinitely.