The new Bronco/Ranger/MAP thread

[Sevensecondsuv]

My 2011 2.3/5 spd was 22/27. I still have the window sticker.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Do keep in mind that MPGs aren't just weight alone...frontal area has more to do with it in highway mileage.

Exactly - and frontal area is not a strong function of BOF vs unibody.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Also, if you want to see some crazy Ranger mpg numbers, look up a 1983 with the 59 hp non turbo Perkins diesel....

[bzcat]

Exactly - and frontal area is not a strong function of BOF vs unibody.

 

Actually, weight has the biggest factor on MPG. And generally speaking, BOF is heavier than unibody. Everything else (aerodynamics, gearing) only nips at the margin. A new BOF compact truck will also need to pass the latest crash safety standards so it's doubtful that Ford could ever re-create the Ranger in its exact size and form factor (steel frame and body and size) and not see weight go up several hundred lbs. The decision to go BOF on a compact truck (like the size of old Ranger) will need to be accompanied by extensive use of light weight material, thereby pushing up the costs.

 

Least that I be accused of talking down the Ranger... I actually think there is a small window for T6 or T7 midisze Ranger in the US market. It has to probably hit all these parameters:

 

1. Large-ish footprint - extra cab and crew cab only for sure. It may need to be bigger than the current T6.

2. Meaningful MPG advantage over F-150 2.7 EB with 10 speed auto. 10% over F-150 will be a nice place to start.

3. Lower marginal costs vs. F-150 (it cost Ford less to churn out a Ranger than F-150).

4. Ability to achieve certain MSRP to maintain positive marginal revenue vs. F-150 (it makes Ford same or more profit than selling a F-150).

 

If Ford can't hit all 4 parameters, it is better to forget the whole thing, or to focus on making a true compact unibody truck.

Edited September 14, 2015 by bzcat

[rmc523]

 

Actually, weight has the biggest factor on MPG. And generally speaking, BOF is heavier than unibody. Everything else (aerodynamics, gearing) only nips at the margin. A new BOF compact truck will also need to pass the latest crash safety standards so it's doubtful that Ford could ever re-create the Ranger in its exact size and form factor (steel frame and body and size) and not see weight go up several hundred lbs. The decision to go BOF on a compact truck (like the size of old Ranger) will need to be accompanied by extensive use of light weight material, thereby pushing up the costs.

 

Least that I be accused of talking down the Ranger... I actually think there is a small window for T6 or T7 midisze Ranger in the US market. It has to probably hit all these parameters:

 

1. Large-ish footprint - extra cab and crew cab only for sure. It may need to be bigger than the current T6.

2. Meaningful MPG advantage over F-150 2.7 EB with 10 speed auto. 10% over F-150 will be a nice place to start.

3. Lower marginal costs vs. F-150 (it cost Ford less to churn out a Ranger than F-150).

4. Ability to achieve certain MSRP to maintain positive marginal revenue vs. F-150 (it makes Ford same or more profit than selling a F-150).

 

If Ford can't hit all 4 parameters, it is better to forget the whole thing, or to focus on making a true compact unibody truck.

 

Bigger than the current T6, and you're getting very close to F-150 size already...

 

I see them trying to skirt the line between compact and midsize. That way, it'll offer the benefits of a compact vehicle (good mpgs, etc) but not be too large to compete with F-150.

[akirby]

Ford marketing said it needed to get 6-8 mpg better than F150

[Sevensecondsuv]

I'm not convinced BOF really has to weigh more. Remember when the D3 explorer came out and ended up weighing more than the outgoing BOF? I'm not saying they didn't gain some advantages with D3, but the old BOF version was more or less the same size, weighed less, and met the crash standards of only one model year older.

 

I'm not saying it's viable in 2015, but the old BOF Ranger weighed a good ton less than the '14 F150 and met crash standards less than a half decade ago.

 

In short, I don't believe BOF necessarily weighs more than a unibody, all else being equal. That's not to say there aren't other advantages to unibody though, like platform sharing and reduced manufacturing cost.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

I thought D3 explorer was larger than the old ranger based Explorer?

[RichardJensen]

the old BOF version was more or less the same size

 

2007 Explorer: 193.4 x 73.7 = 98.98sf footprint

2013 Explorer: 197.1 x 78.9 = 107.99sf footprint

 

= ~10% larger footprint.

 

2007 Explorer curb weight: 4,632

2013 Explorer curb weight: 4,534

 

10% larger, essentially equivalent weight.

 

BOF tends to weigh more, "all things being equal" because all things are not equal. There is some duplication of structure w/BOF that does not occur with true unibody.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I thought D3 explorer was larger than the old ranger based Explorer?

It is larger than the 91-01 Ranger based Explorer. The 02-10 Explorer was significantly larger, a lot heavier, and not Ranger based in any meaningful sense other than they shared the 4.0 SOHC cologne engine. IMO that is precisely when the Explorer lost its mojo - it was no longer the nimble little tough-as-nails 4wd people hauler millions loved.

 

As for the footprint change from BOF 2010 to D3 2011, the 10% increase in footprint area is deceptive. The D3 has got a lot more taper in the sides and is also significantly shorter (height, not length). In fact, I would wager that frontal area and total volume are very close between the two.

 

Again, I'm not convinced BOF is necessarily heavier. Yes there is some unavoidable structure duplication in the floorpan on BOF, but much of the remainder of the body panels can be lighter as they don't have to provide the longitudinal modulus that they do on a unibody. This is especially true on a pickup where there is very limited body panel area to carry the loading in the critical cab to bed transition region.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[rmc523]

It is larger than the 91-01 Ranger based Explorer. The 02-10 Explorer was significantly larger, a lot heavier, and not Ranger based in any meaningful sense other than they shared the 4.0 SOHC cologne engine. IMO that is precisely when the Explorer lost its mojo - it was no longer the nimble little tough-as-nails 4wd people hauler millions loved.

 

As for the footprint change from BOF 2010 to D3 2011, the 10% increase in footprint area is deceptive. The D3 has got a lot more taper in the sides and is also significantly shorter. In fact, I would wager that frontal area and total volume are very close between the two.

 

Again, I'm not convinced BOF is necessarily heavier. Yes there is some unavoidable structure duplication in the floorpan on BOF, but much of the remainder of the body panels can be lighter as they don't have provide the longitudinal modulus that they do on a unibody. This is especially true on a pickup where there is very limited body panel area to carry the loading in the critical cab to bed transition region.

Let's not pretend that it's move away from being Ranger based caused the Explorer to decline.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Let's not pretend that it's move away from being Ranger based caused the Explorer to decline.

I'm not pretending, I'm dead serious. Sales were increasing right up to the point they moved it off the Ranger platform and started declining almost immediately afterward. Just one of several extremely short sighted decisions Ford made between about 1995 to 2005 that almost did the company in by 2008.

 

Most Explorer buyers ended up moving down to an Escape, as it was essentially the same size and price as the old Ranger based Explorer. Ford basically took one platform (Ranger) and replaced it with three (Ranger, 02+ Explorer, and Escape). Had they just left Ranger and Explorer together they could have modernized and developed them jointly and capably served 95% of the market served by the three separate platforms. That would have saved a ton of money, not to mention the Ranger itself. Again, there was some extremely short sighted decisions made in that time frame.

 

What evidence can you provide that making them separate platforms was a good idea?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[silvrsvt]

Seriously?

 

lets not discount the Firestone tire debacle nor the increased competetion in the marketplace because of its gangbusters success.

 

as for your claims about the Ranger MPG ratings...I put the EPA ratings and it tops out at 26 mpg

[Sevensecondsuv]

Sticker from my actual 2011. I'll trust this over the epa site any day of the week. FWIW my best mileage has been just shy of 30. My daily average is about 25 doing my typical rural/minor suburban driving.

[jpd80]

There is a small envelop of CAFE window for midsize truck. I think we already discussed that many times. The problem with 28 MPG T6 (or T7) Ranger is that Ford can probably achieve something similar with F-150 2.7 EB and 10 speed auto (the 2.7 EB 2WD crewcab returns 26 MPG highway EPA right now). So the only reason to do the Ranger would be for the size... how many customers will not buy a F-150 no matter what due to dimension? And what does the marginal profit (loss?) of that Ranger look like vs. if Ford just forgo the enterprise and focus on F-150. My guess is the only way T6/7 Ranger is CAFE positive is to offer it with only (and mainly) diesel engine(s), which means it will likely be less profitable than F-150 2.7EB. That's a tough sell in the US.

 

The alternate approach is to really make a compact truck that fleet buyers would buy based on a car chassis that can really exceed F-150 MPG... something like 30+ MPG highway, that will truly be CAFE positive.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35918&id=35753

Looking at the track width of Focus//c1 based products and they're around 60" or 5 feet, so if that truck had a wheelbase

that was greater than 99" (just over 8 feet), it would fall into the mid size range and above the tight CAFE regs below 41 SQFT.

 

$20 million federalization of Ranger is a lot less costlier than developing a new Compact truck from scratch.

In the past Ford has dismissed the mid sized truck but now a lovely price gap is opening just below Crew cab F150,

I think Ford has a sniff that the market is warming to the "right" types of Mid sized trucka and will pay premiums for them.

[RichardJensen]

As for the footprint change from BOF 2010 to D3 2011, the 10% increase in footprint area is deceptive.

 

2015 Explorer interior volume: 151.7

2008 Explorer interior volume: 145.4

http://www.cars.com/ford/explorer/2009/expert-reviews

[RichardJensen]

started declining almost immediately afterward.

Sales peaked in 2000.

[jpd80]

Footprint is based on track x wheelbase, not outer dimensions

so the BOF and D3 Explorers may be a lot closer in terms of CAFE.

 

BOF: 61/62 x 114 = 48.3-49 Sq ft

 

D3 67" x 112.8" = 52.48 Sq ft

 

I just did a work up on Fiesta and the footprint for it is ~38 Sq ft, below the 41 Sq ft limit for Compact trucks

So that's about the size of vehicle you'd need to qualify as a Compact Ute or Truck.

 

I'm thinking that if Ford was going to create a truck smaller than T6, it would be on Fiesta but with a longer wheelbase:

A Small Mid Sized truck: 57" x 104" still puts it just over that 41 Sq ft delineation point..... that's almost like a C170 Focus footprint..

 

I think Ford now wants Crew cab Ranger and Everest to fill in the price niche just below the Crew cab F150,

the Everest renamed as a "Bronco" would probably drag enough combined sales to make the project viable.

Done right, it could be a way of adding another 15,000-20,000 sales per month of valuable product,

the T6s are anything but the cheap Rangers Ford used to sell..

Edited September 15, 2015 by jpd80

[Moosetang]

Just for fun, since there's not much real news at the moment, I'm sitting here wondering what a Ranger+Bronco duo would look like if they were essentially the Falcon Ute and Teritory on a new platform and with more truckish looks.

[jpd80]

Just for fun, since there's not much real news at the moment, I'm sitting here wondering what a Ranger+Bronco duo would look like if they were essentially the Falcon Ute and Teritory on a new platform and with more truckish looks.

Would you go a smaller version of F150's front end style or more like Edge diamond shaped grille front?

[RichardJensen]

Just for fun, since there's not much real news at the moment, I'm sitting here wondering what a Ranger+Bronco duo would look like if they were essentially the Falcon Ute and Teritory on a new platform and with more truckish looks.

 

See, I'm thinking smaller than that, but along that idea.

 

What you'd do is you'd have an integrated ladder frame so you can have multiple cab sizes, wheelbases and box sizes, and on one of those combinations, you'd do a SUV body & call that the Bronco.

[RichardJensen]

Would you go a smaller version of F150's front end style or more like Edge diamond shaped grille front?

 

I'm thinking definitely truck.

[rmc523]

 

I'm thinking definitely truck.

Definitely, especially if you're tying Bronco into the program.

[Moosetang]

I'm picturing truck like but not a smaller version of the current F-150. I don't think the Tonka/SD look can scale down that far without loooking too exaggerated. I'm thinking more along the lines of the F-100 sketches that were going around a couple years ago.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Moosetang

[Bob Rosadini]

Footprint is based on track x wheelbase, not outer dimensions

so the BOF and D3 Explorers may be a lot closer in terms of CAFE.

 

BOF: 61/62 x 114 = 48.3-49 Sq ft

 

D3 67" x 112.8" = 52.48 Sq ft

 

I just did a work up on Fiesta and the footprint for it is ~38 Sq ft, below the 41 Sq ft limit for Compact trucks

So that's about the size of vehicle you'd need to qualify as a Compact Ute or Truck.

 

I'm thinking that if Ford was going to create a truck smaller than T6, it would be on Fiesta but with a longer wheelbase:

A Small Mid Sized truck: 57" x 104" still puts it just over that 41 Sq ft delineation point..... that's almost like a C170 Focus footprint..

 

I think Ford now wants Crew cab Ranger and Everest to fill in the price niche just below the Crew cab F150,

the Everest renamed as a "Bronco" would probably drag enough combined sales to make the project viable.

Done right, it could be a way of adding another 15,000-20,000 sales per month of valuable product,

the T6s are anything but the cheap Rangers Ford used to sell..

I haven't been following this long thread that closely but are you alone in your suggestion that the Everest is a possibility? Hope you are right but I'm afraid we won't see that great vehicle-and I say "great" just on pix and Ford ads I've seen posted. A true SUV IMO.

 

By the way, is Everest in fact built on T-6 platform?