ghstwolf

Other than a hint of how to "use" brands like AM, LR, and Jag to pioneer emerging options (ie materials, processes and certain parts), you hit all the bullet points. Selling to everyone (as Ford has done for decades) means targeting no one, and in the end no one is who you have left. Having 10 customers you can close the deal on everytime is much better than 100 customers you can only close 10% of the time. Sure you're selling the same amount, but the guy on the sales floor is working 10x harder. That's fucking discouraging, and their service will suffer (unhappy people sell less). Beyond that it's easier to design, sell and advertise to a select group. Easier in this case means both quicker and cheaper. In design it means fewer compromises and fewer focus groups, and in the end a product that should be far more desirable to a slightly smaller group of people. Then you advertise in smaller venues that coincide with your mark (target consumer). From the sales end, you're gonna see a lot more people that actually want what you're selling. Since it's built for "them" advertised to "them" and in pretty short order the brand would have the image they want. This is a big deal, there is too much competition in every segment, and from a purely "performance" side most cars are pretty similar (ie not a huge difference in 0-60, braking, handling, MPG, or space) . From a purely utilitarian side, from point A to point B cars differ mostly in style and the buying demographics.

I think you miss the point that "image" falls under that "needs" catagory too. Maybe someone has a more universal analogy, but: it's the difference between Dunkin' Donuts vs Starbucks. They both have coffee (the principle need), but with Starbucks you pay a bit more (for some unexplainable prestige). Now I said that, to lay the foundation of why Ford shouldn't shutter brands, especially if they intend to be consumer driven. If they are serious about really pushing their brands to different types of people, more brands= better. A well targeted brand strengthens it's appeal to "its" group. Being able to have 4-8 groups "locked down" would be as good as it gets in todays market. And it doesn't have to be expensive at all to do this, nor would it be half-assed. You've said it's expensive to maintain brands, and it is. However, styling/tuning a developed platform isn't nearly as expensive when you give up the rediculous notion you can/should be everything to everyone. I'm not going to pretend Ford has completely figured out how to use it's brands correctly. We haven't really seen a truely single group focused car, but the triplets are a real good step in that direction. Beyond that though is more trickle down tech and parts, like the LR diesel eventually being in the F-150. AM, LR, Jag, Volvo, and even to an extent Mazda all offer a good place to roll out new gear. They offer lower volume "venues" for new stuff (drivetrain and certain processes), most with the benefit of a premium price tag. AM, LR, and Jag allows you to make full production runs with techniques and materials that you could never try in a Ford. In a better world that experience (and hopefully volume) leads to lowered costs that make it practical to move it to higher unit volume lines.

Getting anything but the stripped model with a stick (with a few "special" cars the exception) is not an easy thing. Best bet is to go to a dealer make the deal, and let them search the entire system for you. They'll pull cars from 6-700 miles away, if they need to.

With the exception of NAV not one of those is software based. Nav systems in many ways are just dumbed down GPS units, something well developed outside the auto industry. Everything else is either PLCs, ICs, or other simple electrical components (LEDs for example). I'm not even sure where Chiltons even fits in this. Funny thing is I agree that Ford has a problem with intragrating "cool" features and gizmos into their line-up. Knowing a bit about the underlying tech, it's not a technical issue (all of them being pretty easy to do). There are 3 reasons for it not happening: 1)Distraction- the engineers responciple are kept busy on other things (this is the best case scenereo) 2)Vision- the engineers don't have it 3)Managment obstruction- pick either of the above or a host of other rationals not to make it happen.

Dodge... no. But I'm sure they can find something in the corp parts bin.

The problem with the first line, a focus on HP. Torque is much more important, as is real world MPG (and for a truck that means loaded up). Toyota failed on the last Tundra, in part because it was rated low (payload and towing) and didn't offer much better MPG unloaded (and by the nature of the engine was likely worse for the same load). Are the Big 3 trucks in trouble, not really. Toyota and Nissan cannot produce enough of them to make a major dent. Both still have a long way to go on configurations. And I'm not sure how much resale really matters to the heart of this market (yup still contractors), most of them run their trucks into the ground.

As best I've seen (yeah I actually spent some time looking for an answer), sort of. From a distillation standpoint, it's basicly aviation fuel (same range). While it may not be required by law, it is a likely result if the sulphur is removed prior to the detergents (and other chemical treatments).

The belt is about $15-20, and it's very easy to change. It could be that a bearing is gone, the idler arm ones are known to go. It can cause the issue without other problems appearing (like the alternator not charging, or losing AC or power steering). So it is too early to rule it out, but definately try the belt first.

No and Not really. It does save money, but only by having fewer vehicles on the lot. Ford would do much better having 4-6 standard configurations, plus a rapid Custom order system (no reason it would take more than 3 weeks), but I just think like that. Someone had counted it up, I think it was 27 configurations before color was considered. That's just too many, I can see how it would cause analysis paralysis for many perspective buyers. It hurt dealerships too, as they should have at least one of every configuration. Under a custom order program, they could offer hundreds of colors then (that would actually be cool and help sales), plus some configurations they do not offer now. A 4 banger with 4wd, for example, or whatever else you cannot put together now. It would be like the old slogan for BK, have it your way. It's something you can actually put a premium on, I don't think there is a line of vehicles that you can do this with (certainly not a mainstream brand), plus there is also room in such a program for an accessory up sell. Done right, there's a goldmine in this, but it won't happen.

RPS= Ranger Power Sports (page here), I haven't been over there for a while, but there was always a bunch of helpful people on there (really I just got sick of the 1/4mile talk a while back). IIRC- If I Recall Correctly, pretty common board speak (right up there with LOL and ROTFLMAO) damn newbies For the bumper, take some pics to a local welding shop, or draw your own and do the same. Even when you can find a company that sells them, a setup like that ends up $1000+ (before the winch). Hell, you can buy everything you need to build one for about the same (including most of the tools).

Not to be an asshole, but are you sure it is pinging. Let me finish, IIRC the earlier SOHC 4.0L (why it was only on the ranger I don't know) had a problem with the timing chain, the symptoms were very similar. There is a fix for this, you might do better on RPS. The aftermarket: it is out there, but for some reason it takes a load of work to find the products. Depending on what you're looking (specifically) for I might be able to point you in the right direction (fellow dirt junkie).

Amen (IMO, the fake cab extenders are second only to running boards on a truck for the Ugly factor). Personally, I like a bumper that looks like one (instead of blended in look that Ford used) or perhaps a safari bar.

I figure someday Ford will get around to redesigning/replacing the ranger, so as a public service, how about we help them out a bit. So what would you change?