Ford made Chuck Norris, and thats why Chuck Norris is Built Ford Tough !

And in other news Nothing hurts Chuck Norris

 

My major complaint about ford, RUST! They do nothing to fend off rust.

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...t-up-with.html

 

[QUOTE=Snowseeker;11959210]My major complaint about ford, RUST! They do nothing to fend off rust.

Have you looked at the Hondas when they came to this country (and even more so the Toyotas)?

NONE of the 1990 vehicles have held up to rust like they all do now!

 

To answer the original question about the F-100, I don't get it either. They're building them in Australia I believe?

They let the Ranger whither on the vine with no major changes or updates in at least the last 10 years, probably more like 15. I believe they only sold about 20,000 of them last year. You can get a regular cab short bed F-150 with a LOT more passenger room AND bigger bed, better gas mileage, more powerful V6 (smaller but more torque AND horsepower), more towing, better looking (IMHO) for less than a Ranger SuperCab.... for less money than a Ranger or only slightly more.



I'm sure most of you have seen this, or something like it, already. Imagine MY frustration working at a dealer...

 

[quote=RobErnst;11959430]
Really? All my hondas look great compared to our fords.

 

I know I'll sound like a one-note pony here....

Ford should create a "raptor-ranger" truck.
It would be a ford ranger, fixed up with smaller raptor body panels,
3.5 eco boost engine, and basically the raptor package.
I bet they would sell faster than they could make them.

And they'd actually probably perform a lot better than the big raptor.

 

FiberwerX Offroad Fiberglass Products: Fenders, Bed Sides, Dashs, and Complete Body Kits Specialized for your Street, Prerunner & Race Trucks

Raptor Ranger Conversion Kit by TrakArt

I'm sure ford could do it much better.

 

In 2013 Ford is getting rid of the E series vans. The replacement is the overpriced "Transit" European design. that means anemic "euro style" low capacity air conditioning not fit for Texas, narrow cabs, less cargo space, who knows what other frugality, and all for a substantially higher price than the regular E van. Its very European. I test drove one of them this summer when it was 100 degrees and disliked its comfort. Thank goodness I didn't test it when it was 107. I would not want to drive one every day or for long trips.

So, no Ford does not always build what we want. More like they figure out what we like and then ruin it (see 6.0 and 6.4 powerstroke for examples).

 

I know this is an old thread, but try doing a 500 mile day in the front passenger seat of a current E-van and tell me about how useful the "wide body" is for long trips. I like our E150 but neither my wife nor I can tolerate much time in the passenger seat without left knee problems or spinal alignment issues.

The E van passenger seat is very well suited for left amputees with wide shoulders. Actually, make that a wide left shoulder--not how close the seat is to the door.

George

George

 

That goes for just about any van like that. I've driven the E-Van that we have at work and don't care for it. Maybe it is one of those things you get used to.

 

I have had big vans for 26 years now. A '73 flatnose Ford (horrible seating for both front seat passengers), an '86 GMC (driver OK but passenger needed to be an amputee), a '96 Savana (see below), and my '02 E150, which will be the last big van for us. Driver in the E150 is good, passenger is not. Our son is grown, we are done with Boy Scouts, and gas ain't getting cheaper. So in the next few years, maybe when my wife retires and we want to travel, we will update the van.

The Savana/Express fixed the problem by pushing the engine forward. I bought a new 1996 Savana and it was the Van from Hell, with 7 valve bodies, 3 transmissions, 2 fuel pumps, starter, alternator, intake manifold gaskets, 4 oxy sensors, and many other problems in the 60k miles I owned it. But it had a real passenger footwell.

Minivans do not have the problem (transverse engines) although the Astro/Safari was really bad....and I'm guessing the new Transit be somewhat better. I am afraid of the price but have a feeling I will really want one. I'd actually like a GOOD American minivan. There are none. The new Transit Connect has promise but will be built in Spain (now built in Turkey).

My wife and I don't get used to being contorted--instead the pain just gets worse. We are healthy and fit, but our bodies do not take well to horrible ergonomics for hours on end. Being 60 years old, the medical problems that an E van could cause could dwarf the price of the van in the long run.

George

 

In the hopes that it would give them an unbiased accounting of what myself and other long time Ford Loyalists are thinking and feeling about Fords current and future automotive offerings will be.
I did it here because their feed back option on their website is not really set up for receiving opinions from real Ford owners it's somehow been too Consultantized to be of any use to most of us.

It fails to understand that we are like a family in that we can and are very loyal to the Brand but if we are ignored or dismissed we can be very critical and if the folks running Ford are not in love with the product (Read Car Girls and Guys) and are just in it for the money then how can they expect us to embrace their new offerings?

It looks like lots of folks enjoyed and made their opinions known for which I'm happy and satisfied about now if only Ford management would open their collective eyes and ears we could once again see them reach the top tier of Automobile companies.

 

Hi Red Ford:
It has been a good, long thread. It is going to be hard to satisfy each of us but one thing I see is the lack of "mid size" vehicles in a format other than SUV's. Ford has the Escape, Edge, Flex, Explorer, and Expedition. But there are those of us who want or need a pickup truck or a van. I am in the latter category--a minivan has twice the cubic footage of an SUV on the same footprint. I would also like to see a modern and economical smaller pickup (maybe sized like the original Dodge Dakota) and a mid-sized van--the size of a Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota which are certainly no longer "minivans" at 200+ inches in length and weights of 4500 lbs. With modern drivetrains and great gas mileage for both of these vehicles.

I am hoping that between the new "stretch" Transit Connect and the short big Transit, I will find a van alternative that I would like at a price I'm willing to pay. But with regard to pickups, I am befuddled that there is no choice in the US that is smaller than an F150. And yes, the Ranger was not much more economical than the F150 in its final years--but if Ford had DEVELOPED the Ranger, there is certainly more mileage potential in something with less weight and frontal area than an F150.

No car company will ever satisfy *every* customer, but why are there so many SUV's and so few other truck type vehicles?

George

 

A short bed XL 4x2 with a 3.7 is very nimble and economical.

 

Because the customer is always right. If you didn't build what they want, they wouldn't be happy.