The new Bronco/Ranger/MAP thread

[fuzzymoomoo]

why is it so hard to accept that SOME tradespeople like fwd TCs? Good grief.....

 

I think its less that, and more of the FWD vs RWD debate that was somehow brought into the conversation.

[Bob Rosadini]

In my primary job I work on construction sites most days. On larger jobs you see a lot of TC for electricians and plumbers. Plenty of room for tools but not materials. On larger jobs the contractors have larger box vans that deliver materials and jobox's. Very few electricians or plumbers bring their materials to the job site on large commercial projects. Cheaper to pay a shop helper $10 an hour to get materials and needed items.

No argument-like I said, in a lot of cases the vehicle is paid transportation- and I agree that a jobox, storage trailers etc negate the need for tradesmen to be carrying stock- I think we are talking about two different kinds of applications- the big commercial job and the say smaller commercial job or residential job. again- there is a good case for both vehicles- the TC at the light end and the big Transit/E cut away for those who do carry stock, ladder racks etc. In my life I had one operation that did store/service station maintenance. we had E-350 boxes that had full platforms over the box. Mechanic would drive in to a station and if he had bulb replacements for example in the canopy, drive under climb up stand on truck, do his work -done- no ladders. we also did not have a good parts inventory program-so these guys would leave with what stock they thought they would need- did they return to stock at end of day? no way- talk about some high gvw units!

[J-150]

why is it so hard to accept that SOME tradespeople like fwd TCs? Good grief.....

They probably like Mustangs and Fusions too. If a contractor could, they would have a fleet of 4 cyl C class cars to save on cost, fuel and insurance.

 

Reality is, light duty vehicles have a much shorter lifespan when worked hard.

[jpd80]

They probably like Mustangs and Fusions too. If a contractor could, they would have a fleet of 4 cyl C class cars to save on cost, fuel and insurance.

 

Reality is, light duty vehicles have a much shorter lifespan when worked hard.

No one disputes that but when the loads are lighter but too bulky to fit in a car, then a small van is ideal.

It's about choosing the right vehicle for the right application. TC has its place.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I just don't understand how the TC gets by with the little NA 2.3. I have one in my Ranger and with the manual it does ok with a driver in an empty truck. Add a passenger and you notice it when going up a hill. Put a thousand lbs in the bed and it'll go 80, but forget about any kind of acceleration to merge. Those TCs aren't any lighter, have more frontal area, and come with a slushbox only. Trying to accelerate up a hill with some junk in the back has to be an exercise in futility. I would think that it probably gets to be quite annoying if you're stuck with it as a company car.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[blazerdude20]

I just don't understand how the TC gets by with the little NA 2.3. I have one in my Ranger and with the manual it does ok with a driver in an empty truck. Add a passenger and you notice it when going up a hill. Put a thousand lbs in the bed and it'll go 80, but forget about any kind of acceleration to merge. Those TCs aren't any lighter, have more frontal area, and come with a slushbox only. Trying to accelerate up a hill with some junk in the back has to be an exercise in futility. I would think that it probably gets to be quite annoying if you're stuck with it as a company car.

The previous generation TC was anemic at best using he 2.3L and a 4-speed auto. The new generation with the 1.6 ecoboost and six speed is much better for drivability.

[jpd80]

And let's not forget that the European and ROW versions are mostly diesel.

[RichardJensen]

Reality is, light duty vehicles have a much shorter lifespan when worked hard.

 

Well, fleet operators are buying plenty of TCs, so the math must work out.

 

Would a sole-prop electric contractor buy *just* a TC? Probably not.

 

But my *general* experience around *this part* of the country is that sole-props and very small businesses that would only have one or two vans out aren't making enough to buy new.

 

And any electrical contractor, especially one that does low-voltage, could probably replace part of its fleet w/a Transit Connect.

 

Also, while in terms of weight, you could pretty much put anything in a Transit Connect in a car, you're not going to be putting an eight foot step ladder in a car

[fuzzymoomoo]

The previous generation TC was anemic at best using he 2.3L and a 4-speed auto. The new generation with the 1.6 ecoboost and six speed is much better for drivability.

I never really had an issue with it. The trans tended to downshift a bit too much for my liking but it wasn't ever really that big of an issue to me

 

I am curious to drive a new one with the 1.6, just to compare the 2

[MKII]

Isn't the engine the 2.5L ? Never heard of a 2.3L in the TC.

Edited September 13, 2015 by MKII

[J-150]

 

Also, while in terms of weight, you could pretty much put anything in a Transit Connect in a car, you're not going to be putting an eight foot step ladder in a car

 

 

I've seen this too.

[J-150]

 

Well, fleet operators are buying plenty of TCs, so the math must work out.

 

Would a sole-prop electric contractor buy *just* a TC? Probably not.

 

But my *general* experience around *this part* of the country is that sole-props and very small businesses that would only have one or two vans out aren't making enough to buy new.

 

And any electrical contractor, especially one that does low-voltage, could probably replace part of its fleet w/a Transit Connect.

 

r

 

I never said they are not being purchased nor that they are useful and suited to some tasks.

 

I'm saying they are not the manna some claim them to be.

 

Unless your experience is actually within construction and working for a contractor and being on job sites firsthand, I think I will make my conclusions off of what I'm experiencing first hand working for a large construction company.

[akirby]

I never said they are not being purchased nor that they are useful and suited to some tasks.

I'm saying they are not the manna some claim them to be.

Unless your experience is actually within construction and working for a contractor and being on job sites firsthand, I think I will make my conclusions off of what I'm experiencing first hand working for a large construction company.

Where did anyone say they were manna? All that was said was they are used in some cases for some trades and that was confirmed by someone who does actually work at a job site.

[sullynd]

Unless your experience is actually within construction and working for a contractor and being on job sites firsthand, I think I will make my conclusions off of what I'm experiencing first hand working for a large construction company.

Where does your company fall in the ENR top 400? All the contractors I work with are in the top 100.

 

I'm an Architect. I do all the site observation on my projects. My projects range from $50-$150 Million dollars, and sometimes much larger.

 

Here's the list: http://enr.construction.com/toplists/Top-Contractors/001-100.asp

[jpd80]

Transit Connect is selling at around half the rate of Transit, last month's sales were 4,700 and 8,000 respectively.

 

So somebody is buying them...

[RichardJensen]

.

Edited September 13, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

I think I will make my conclusions off of what I'm experiencing first hand

 

Are you being deliberately argumentative?

 

Because it sure seems like it.

 

You are either opposing a viewpoint here that nobody is advancing (that the TC can be used by any contractor under any circumstance), or you are advancing a viewpoint that cannot be seriously opposed: 'I see nothing but full size vans used by 'serious' contractors'.

 

I would note that this stemmed from a comment akirby made about plumbers and florists using TC vans. A comment that, IMO, you blew all out of proportion by asserting that akirby was so ignorant of the construction industry that he was lumping building trades with florists.

 

There are plenty of plumbers that use the TC for, among other things, on-call work. Do you need a half-ton or 3/4 ton van to take a set of wrenches & some fittings to an already built home on a paved road with busted faucet?

 

Several companies see enough business opportunity for the building trades to provide upfit kits for them:

 

http://www.masterack.com/category.asp?category=shelving-packages&id=1020796740

http://www.weatherguard.com/en/view/Products/Van-Storage-Equipment/Packages/Plumber/600-8312L

http://www.workvanequipment.com/Transit-Connect-HVAC-Plumbing-Van-Shelving-Package_p_287.html

http://www.autotruck.com/ford-van-equipment/ford-transit-connect

http://www.rangervanshelving.com/index.php/shelving-packages-ford-transit-connect.html

http://www.plumbingvans.com/product-category/transit-connect/transit-connect-shelving/

http://www.kargomaster.com/products/commercial-van-equipment/transit-connect-equipment/plumbing-transit-connect-shelving-package.html

 

Do all trades use the TC all the time? No. Obviously not. Do some trades use the TC? Yes.

Edited September 13, 2015 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

In any case, there's no further need for discussion about who knows more about the construction business.

 

Suffice to say that *some* plumbers and other tradespeople can work out of Transit Connects.

[blksn8k2]

The CAFE standard for 2018 shows the EPA window sticker requirement for light trucks as 28 mpg for trucks with a "footprint" (track x wheelbase) of 41 SQ FT or smaller and 19 mpg for those 75 SQ FT or larger. Also consider that future CAFE standards are based on the types of vehicles in a particular manufacturer's fleet. In other words, Ferrari doesn't have to meet the same average as Subaru.

With all that in mind, what incentive would a manufacturer have to build a truly small truck when they know they can make higher profits on a larger truck that also has a much lower CAFE standard to meet?

This could be an important consideration when deciding whether to build a small Ranger based on something like the Transit Connect or use a larger BOF chassis ala the GM twins and the T6 Ranger. Add in the fact that expected sales volumes will be relatively low and therefore have less impact on CAFE, then it becomes more likely that a light truck with lower FE requirements but higher profit margins would make a better business case.

Another factor in favor of a midsize is that, assuming it would have a higher profit margin than the vehicles currently produced at MAP (or a Transit Connect variant), it would probably be better able to absorb the higher labor costs of that plant versus those of the expected new home of the Focus and its platform mates.

[jpd80]

 

The CAFE standard for 2018 shows the EPA window sticker requirement for light trucks as 28 mpg for trucks with a "footprint" (track x wheelbase) of 41 SQ FT or smaller and 19 mpg for those 75 SQ FT or larger. Also consider that future CAFE standards are based on the types of vehicles in a particular manufacturer's fleet. In other words, Ferrari doesn't have to meet the same average as Subaru.

With all that in mind, what incentive would a manufacturer have to build a truly small truck when they know they can make higher profits on a larger truck that also has a much lower CAFE standard to meet?

This could be an important consideration when deciding whether to build a small Ranger based on something like the Transit Connect or use a larger BOF chassis ala the GM twins and the T6 Ranger. Add in the fact that expected sales volumes will be relatively low and therefore have less impact on CAFE, then it becomes more likely that a light truck with lower FE requirements but higher profit margins would make a better business case.

Another factor in favor of a midsize is that, assuming it would have a higher profit margin than the vehicles currently produced at MAP (or a Transit Connect variant), it would probably be better able to absorb the higher labor costs of that plant versus those of the expected new home of the Focus and its platform mates.

 

Keep in mind that the CAFE for those smaller truck footprint is also below that for Transit Connect and C1 based Utilities like Ranger.

and unless the vehicles track is around 5 feet (60") and the wheelbase is over 8 feet 3 inches. (99") that 41 sqft CAFE doesn't apply.

 

I can assure you that Ranger and Everest are well over that 41 SQFT so either way, I think they have that covered..

 

It would be interesting to see the CAFE road map for Mis Sized trucks, that may bring T6 Ranger back into contention

especially with something like the 2.3 Ecoboost and around 28 mpg - what Explorer gets with 2.3 Ecoboost.

Edited September 14, 2015 by jpd80

[bzcat]

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

Edited September 14, 2015 by bzcat

[fordmantpw]

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

 

That is what Ford management has hinted at. It has to exceed F150 MPG by a decent margin to make it worthwhile.

[RichardJensen]

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.

 

That would tend to be my guess as well: Ford NA gets the F-Series and the global compact pickup, ROW gets the global compact & the global midsize.

[Sevensecondsuv]

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 higher 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

30+ wouldn't even require it to be on a car platform. Heck - the old Ranger, BOF and all, delivered 27 mpg with the 2.3 and M5OD spinning a 4.10 rear end. Drop the 1.6EB in along with a 6 spd trans (auto or manual) and it would do 30 easy. With the EB's better torque curve, it could probably make do with a 3.55 rear just fine. That reduction in ratio alone I worth another 2 mpg probably.

 

So there you have it - 32ish should be entirely possible even with a BOF platform with a footprint the size of the old one. Factor in better utilization of aluminum and it could be improved more.

 

My point is that BOF vs unibody doesn't really have much to do with fuel economy. Ford could easily design a BOF ranger to get 35 mpg if they wanted to. The decision on BOF vs unibody will come down to manufacturing considerations and whether Ford thinks a full frame is mandatory for what buyers will use the truck for.

[silvrsvt]

30+ wouldn't even require it to be on a car platform. Heck - the old Ranger, BOF and all, delivered 27 mpg with the 2.3 and M5OD spinning a 4.10 rear end. Drop the 1.6EB in along with a 6 spd trans (auto or manual) and it would do 30 easy. With the EB's better torque curve, it could probably make do with a 3.55 rear just fine. That reduction in ratio alone I worth another 2 mpg probably.

 

It did?

 

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