Sevensecondsuv Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) i think a small number of tributes as well, I think an even smaller number wound Up in the first few model years of the escape too. Not possible. The Escape/Tribute were fwd east-west architecture. The M5ODs are rwd north-south architecture. They'd stick out the drivers side fender by a foot if you tried to put them in an Escape. Edited March 21, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT90SC Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Mazda has sold manual transmissions to Ford since before they were married. Toyo-Kogyo = Mazda. You forgot the best M5 variant.. the M5R2-RKE. It wasn't best because of its attributes... It was best because of where it lived. Oh and yes, Mazda sold Ford a few front driver manuals too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Those were just rebranded Rangers and Explorers made on the same Ford assembly lines as the Ranger and Explorers. Yes, but your post said as follows....... What's the story with the Mazda transmissions that Ford was using in the Ranger/Explorer (M5OD-R1) and F150 (M5OD-R2)? Where were they made and why are they called "Mazda" when they were apparently never put in a Mazda product? There seem to have been several bazillion produced, especially of the Ranger variety. A large percentage of Rangers were manual even right up the end. Fact is....they may have been made by Ford, but they were sold, serviced and recognized as Mazdas....AND, they also had Mazda transmissions.... The "peanut gallery" steps off now...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 Yes, but your post said as follows....... Fact is....they may have been made by Ford, but they were sold, serviced and recognized as Mazdas....AND, they also had Mazda transmissions.... The "peanut gallery" steps off now...... I meant Mazda specific products. Where was the M5OD used that wasn't a Ford application? I can't find any evidence that it was ever used in anything that didn't come off a Ford assembly line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 It's possible they made it just for Ford or modified an existing Mazda design to handle the extra torque. Don't forget ford owned 33% of Mazda at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I meant Mazda specific products. Where was the M5OD used that wasn't a Ford application? I can't find any evidence that it was ever used in anything that didn't come off a Ford assembly line. Well, seeing as Mazda designed the BT-50 truck that they sell in other parts of the world and Ranger is a derivative of that truck, I guess there is your answer....While both trucks share design features, it was Mazda that was the lead designer of this truck and chassis. Gets kinda blurry about who builds what for whom, but these days there are plants that churn out BT-50 and then there are plants that churn out Ranger... I am actually quite surprised that with the partnership pretty much ended, Mazda doesn't perform a re-design and bring BT-50 into the US market to compete with Colorado/Canyon.....sans the bed so a locally built truck bed could be installed to avoid the dreaded "Chicken Tax". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Well, seeing as Mazda designed the BT-50 truck that they sell in other parts of the world and Ranger is a derivative of that truck, I guess there is your answer....While both trucks share design features, it was Mazda that was the lead designer of this truck and chassis. Gets kinda blurry about who builds what for whom, but these days there are plants that churn out BT-50 and then there are plants that churn out Ranger... I am actually quite surprised that with the partnership pretty much ended, Mazda doesn't perform a re-design and bring BT-50 into the US market to compete with Colorado/Canyon.....sans the bed so a locally built truck bed could be installed to avoid the dreaded "Chicken Tax". Because that latest BT-50 is now based on T6 Ranger and built in the same Thailand plant. That plant was gutted to build T6 so there's no chance of going back.. Edited April 13, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastTaurusSHO Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 The SHO guys often retell this story: When one of the Marketing/Engineering Ford people responded to an inquiry about manual transmissions in the all new 1996 SHO, he said "If you want a manual transmission, keep what you've got" Many of us took that to heart and the 96-99 SHO was a sales failure and was killed off. I drove a SVT focus for a while, but eventually needed more room. When I went shopping again, Ford had a 4 cyl n/a fusion that was the closest thing to what I wanted. 4 door sporty sedan with a manual trans and some power. But the fusion didn't have any power. For the first time in my entire driving career, I am driving a non-FoMoCo product. And really I owe it to Ford for opening my eyes to their competition. I'm enjoying my daily commute to work while rowing my own gears. As long as a manufacturer continues to sell a sports sedan with a manual transmission, it's what I'll buy. So I feel for ya OP, I too couldn't imagine driving anything but a Ford, but while the grass may not be greener on this side of the fence, there are plenty of sticks still out there...at least for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 ....the 96-99 SHO was a sales failure and was killed off.... Understand that the reason why it was a sales failure had nothing to do with the "no manual" option...it was a failure because at the point, Taurus as a line of cars was an "also ran"...dated chassis design....Camry was taking the lead sales position...and Ford was pouring all their effort into trucks, Explorer, and the debacle known as PAG....Taurus was withering on the vine..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Understand that the reason why it was a sales failure had nothing to do with the "no manual" option...it was a failure because at the point, Taurus as a line of cars was an "also ran"...dated chassis design....Camry was taking the lead sales position...and Ford was pouring all their effort into trucks, Explorer, and the debacle known as PAG....Taurus was withering on the vine..... That and the fact that the '96 Taurus was too ovoid and, well, just damned ugly! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT90SC Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 The third gen SHO was a failure because there was a huge premium for what you got. In the GEN 1 and GEN 2 days the little Yamaha was a cosmic leap in power over the 2.5 HSC, 3.0 Vulcan and 3.8 Essex's. Not to mention that it would rocket along to that glorious redline.... In Gen 3, the Duratec 3.0 was good enough that most decided that the slight bump in power to the Yamaha V8 (with increased weight) wasn't worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.