Jump to content

2019 Ford Ranger Interior, Engine: Spied


Recommended Posts

The 6.0 was in my opinion an example of this. Half the owners said this is the best truck I've ever owned, the other half this truck spends more time in the shop than it does on the road. Lack of consistent build quality?

 

Perfection may not be possible, but they can at least try to aim for it.

From what I've heard and read, the problems with the 6.0 were basically caused by Navistar making the wrong bet on diesel emissions technology and Ford having to work around the problems, not build quality problems. I know that my dad's 6.0 gave him fits until Ford finally got it together, but they didn't do any mechanical work, it was all programming. Once they got that straightened out, he didn't have any more trouble with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is poor management. All the down weeks over the year, build and stockpile and changeover yesterday. Better yet, kill it with fire since they all have crap transmissions anyway and start retooling now.

 

Ford is screwing themselves front and back. They keep producing product that is costing them money and customers because of their incompetence and poor engineering, and delaying a product that will generate revenue.

 

I don't think its as easy as that..the biggest issue is the Focus offsetting CAFE for other products. You can't just kill off a car that sells in the numbers the Focus does just to fast track another product that might be more profitable.

 

As for Ford turning to shit over the past 24 months or so since Mulally left...I'm starting to think people where in CYA mode while he was there and everyone regressed to "Old Ford" after he left and whatever processes where in place went to shit. There is no other explanation for this, because it takes at least 24-36 months to develop MCE's etc that would be launching in the past 12-18 months...which where all under Alan's watch.

 

Outside of the F-series and 2018 Mustang (which has had its own launch issues), every thing else has been a slight dud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think its as easy as that..the biggest issue is the Focus offsetting CAFE for other products. You can't just kill off a car that sells in the numbers the Focus does just to fast track another product that might be more profitable.

 

 

 

I don't buy it. FCA hasn't had a problem with killing cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow-after reading some of these posts I would have to say "depressing" is the best word I can think of. And I have to say that some of Hackett's objectives don't strike me as being too consistent. Cut engineering and lower material costs?? Good trick if you can do it.

 

I heard a Boston radio/tv commentator talking about a Sunday NY Times piece by some guy who was claiming we are being led down the wrong path by the high tech industry-the Googles, Amazons, Silicon Valley in general etc who have no concern for anything but their respective bottom lines.

 

Hacketts love for Silicon Valley is troubling to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a Boston radio/tv commentator talking about a Sunday NY Times piece by some guy who was claiming we are being led down the wrong path by the high tech industry-the Googles, Amazons, Silicon Valley in general etc who have no concern for anything but their respective bottom lines.

 

Hacketts love for Silicon Valley is troubling to me.

The hair was just as infatuated. I don't like it at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow-after reading some of these posts I would have to say "depressing" is the best word I can think of. And I have to say that some of Hackett's objectives don't strike me as being too consistent. Cut engineering and lower material costs?? Good trick if you can do it.

 

I heard a Boston radio/tv commentator talking about a Sunday NY Times piece by some guy who was claiming we are being led down the wrong path by the high tech industry-the Googles, Amazons, Silicon Valley in general etc who have no concern for anything but their respective bottom lines.

 

Hacketts love for Silicon Valley is troubling to me.

 

 

What it really boils down to is that its an investor's problem vs a real problem. Ford isn't an attractive investment outside of the dividend they pay out and the stock price has been languishing because of that to a point, even though the company is "healthy" financially.

 

Looking back at my almost 20 years in IT...in the past 7 years or so Silicon Valley or just the IT industry itself has matured to the point that you're not going to see the meteoric growth rates that you saw in the late 1990s/mid 2000s.

 

The manufacturing industry doesn't move like the IT industry does, which often just comes out with a new product that is only 5% faster then last years old and barely different from it, but charges premium pricing on it. Much of the industry is moving to a subscription based model so they have $$$ coming in. Just as an example, if you already have Office 2010...is there really a huge increase in productivity using Office 2016? Not really-just a bunch of pissed off users that are used to doing someone one way and are forced to relearn something because it's "better".

 

As for the bottom line thing- what company ISN'T like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow-after reading some of these posts I would have to say "depressing" is the best word I can think of. And I have to say that some of Hackett's objectives don't strike me as being too consistent. Cut engineering and lower material costs?? Good trick if you can do it.

 

I heard a Boston radio/tv commentator talking about a Sunday NY Times piece by some guy who was claiming we are being led down the wrong path by the high tech industry-the Googles, Amazons, Silicon Valley in general etc who have no concern for anything but their respective bottom lines.

 

Hacketts love for Silicon Valley is troubling to me.

Seriously, Hackett was on the Ford board and instead searching for a qualified CEO, he decided

that being CEO was not that hard.... but here's the thing, he's never run a P & L the size of any in

Ford and his glib cost cutting message is just MBA crap that's likely to do a lot of harm to Ford

 

He looks to be settling in for a long stay and the roblem is who's gonna tell him when it's time to leave?

her really doesn't have a clue. and that's the kindest thing I can say..

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only own a little over 100 shares of F stock. I'm down about 5% on it, which is a wash with the dividends. So,its basically flat. I hold it for the dividends (repurchase) and X plan.

 

Mind you it is less than 0.25% of my portfolio, so at this point it isn't hurting anything and who knows, it may go up at some point?

 

post-6726-0-27587300-1508416173.png

post-6726-0-27587300-1508416173_thumb.png

Edited by Anthony
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think its as easy as that..the biggest issue is the Focus offsetting CAFE for other products.

CAFE doesn't work like that anymore, you actually do better to have fewer small cars, and the small cars you do need to be Hybrid/Electric. CAFE now deals with wheel base, internal volume, as well as credits, and things such as Cooled seats get you more MPG because the argument was made that you will use the A/C less.

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160814/OEM11/308159946/is-cafe-making-cars-bigger%3F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAFE doesn't work like that anymore, you actually do better to have fewer small cars, and the small cars you do need to be Hybrid/Electric. CAFE now deals with wheel base, internal volume, as well as credits, and things such as Cooled seats get you more MPG because the argument was made that you will use the A/C less.

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160814/OEM11/308159946/is-cafe-making-cars-bigger%3F

 

Things like that just prove that CAFE is a huge farce! Seriously, using the A/C less with cooled seats? In actuality, with auto temp control, you would use it more since the process for the cooled seats using more energy, and produces more net heat than not having it. Freaking ridiculous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's like when people say Ford can't use anything bigger than a 3.7" bore on their passenger vehicle V8s because "emissions!" Yet GM continues to sell millions of those LS motors with their gigantic bores every year. And somehow they meet emissions regs. It's obvious to me that Jack Nasser screwed Ford big time when he ditched the "trucky" windsors and 385 bbf engines in favor of the much more "refined" modulars. Ford has been cursed with that tiny bore ever since.

 

As great as the coyote is, the coyote heads on the 6.2 block would blow the pushrod competition away. But as usual, Ford comes within inches of greatness, and then settles for good enough.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's like when people say Ford can't use anything bigger than a 3.7" bore on their passenger vehicle V8s because "emissions!" Yet GM continues to sell millions of those LS motors with their gigantic bores every year. And somehow they meet emissions regs. It's obvious to me that Jack Nasser screwed Ford big time when he ditched the "trucky" windsors and 385 bbf engines in favor of the much more "refined" modulars. Ford has been cursed with that tiny bore ever since.

 

As great as the coyote is, the coyote heads on the 6.2 block would blow the pushrod competition away. But as usual, Ford comes within inches of greatness, and then settles for good enough.

20 to 30 years ago there was an issue with large bore emissions but that was cured with a lot of

development and engine modelling that showed how it could be overcome.

 

It's from a time when Ford made the wrong bet on technology direction with FWD cars

but ultimately, the solutions worked for them and gave us the 4.6 V8, 5.4 V8 and 6.8 V10.

 

Had the MODs been so terrible as made out Ford would have axed them years ago.

Ford chose a different direction to GM and that hurt their performance side a bit

but where GM failed spectacularly with the NorthStar, Ford succeeded with Coyote.

 

As more gears have been added to transmissions, I think Ford's smaller V8 has come back

into prominence and I'm betting that the 10AT will be just the thing F150 V8 & Mustang buyers

need to get them back into the showroom.

 

And now that the 10R140 is being confirmed for 2019, I think Super Duty and Medium Duty trucks

will gain a lot more performance and efficiency where it counts

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this rendition of the upcoming Ranger and I kinda like it....

 

2019-ford-ranger-rendering.jpg

 

 

Bad Photoshop...doors from a F-series, Headlight/grill from Expedition. I don't think the Expedition look is going to the Ranger...I'm expecting it to mirror the F-series look and the next gen Explorer looks like the Expedition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...