What would you like to See on the New F100?
 

Figured this could be fun. If ford came out with a F-100 what would you want to see on it? What options would mean more to you. Obviously we all want 1000hp and 100mpg but more realistically.

I think a truck like this could sell well in the states due to the fact that the market is soft right now and most people might be looking for a cheaper more fuel efficient option from ford.


Thanks

well...

would the sport trac be dropped if they brought out the F100 in a super crew? or would it be only available in a scab configuration? Make sure that it can seat, in Screw config, 4 people @ 6'3" and 240 lbs (two front two back) in relative comfort for at least 2 hours. I use myself and my friends as a base-line. I am 6'1" and a somewhat chunky 255. friends run the range from 6 even to 6'4" and all over 200. Cargo boxes...in the regular cab have 6' and 7', then in the scab and screw configs have a 5.5 and 6.5 available like the F150.

Engine choices...4, 6 and 8...pending what the eco-boost is able to produce...as it stands, I have seen nothing therefore I call wolf-cookies and demand at the very least a 4.6 as the top engine.

Curb weight...as the original F100 was supposed to be a "Quarter Ton truck" IIRC, but will more realistically have a box capable of say 1k and towing in the range of about 6k as that is what the ranger can do IIRC so I say have the vehicle curb weight of no more than 5k.

packages...not as many as the F150...custom or XL, then XLT, then FX2 or FX4, with 4x4 being standard in FX4 and optional in XLT and XL trim. The 4 cyl with auto or manual in XL only, XLT and FX2/4 will run the 6 or 8 with manual or auto.

4x4...forlorn hope here...but an optional SAS up front? doubt it, though. SO...IFS up front and solid diff rear. Perhaps also have a "Raptor" F100 version as well since the front will be IFS.

Size...I have seen some quotes at 4/5ths the size of a std F150 but using the same frame. I am uncertain if that would keep the weight down but hey, I ain't no engine-ear.

Make sure that the SVT team doesn't ignore the F100.


If they follow that, then I would commit right now to get one.

Wow! Great thread.

1. V-6 - V-8. Too heavy for a four banger unless ecoboost is available.
2. Rcab w/ 6.5' and 8' box
3. Scab and Screw offering 5' and 6' box
4. 4x2 and 4x4 across the entire line-up
5. Manual or auto tranny across the entire line-up
6. Custom, XL and XLT. FX4 featuring a special offroad / sport package
7. Offer a variety of axles
8. Be able to tow 6500lbs
9. Make available to the SVT
10. Price starting at 15k and topping at 25k.
11. Give it it's own identity but different from the existing ranger.
12. Delete the Sport Trac which starts a 25K.
13. IFS and solid rear axle
14. Use as many existing parts and components as possible to keep costs down and maintain simplicity. ie. Utilize existing engines, trannys, axles, etc.

Finally, a Bronco should be able to emerge from this platform.

Tim

The new F-100 needs an 8ft bed in regualar cab and super cab configurations(at least regualar cab). It should have no smaller than a 6.5 ft bed in all other configurations. It needs to have a real bench seat in the supercab not jump seats like the Ranger. It needs to have the same equipment as an FX4 II Ranger but with selectable lockers available in all trim levels and cab cofigs. It should out pull the Dakota by at least 500 lbs, and have more payload. Maybe have a cool bed storage system like the Dodge Ram has. It needs to have at least 250 TQ (low end torque)in the base engine, and at least a 3V 4.6 as top engine maybe a 5.4. Needs to weight less than 5500 lbs in heaviest config. I don't think that is to much to ask for.

I've said all along what needs to be done is a redesign of the Ranger, not an F100. If you bounce through the Ranger forum, you'll see the chief complaints are lack of a true crew-cab and a diesel engine.

1)Keep the Ranger name.

2) Offer the current cab config.'s that the Ranger has(reg. and 2 and 4 door supercabs) with the current bed options (6 and 7ft) PLUS

3)A four door crew cab with a bench seat and a 5.5ft bed. (If anything bigger is needed you need an F150 or bigger)

4)Please, Ford, update the interior of the Ranger. All of Ford's fleet have things like door panel cupholders, dash-top storage tray, heated seats,split climate, more storage, etc. A flow-through center console gear shifter would be nice. Offer it with the supercab and crew.

5) For the diesel dummys offer a 4cy diesel, the current gas saving 2.3l, the V6 4.0 and pehaps something along the line of a 4.6 V8 for the supercrew model.

6) LONG LIVE THE FX4 LEVEL 2! TRim options: XL, XLT, FX4, FX4 level 2 with the bigger tire/better shcok options with a slightly raised ride highth an some cool decal. Maybe a Larait trim level too?

7) Finally, dump the Sport Trac but take the good stuff out of it and put it on the new Ranger (f100). The outboard cargo box tie down hooks, the vertical rear power sliding window, the ice chest/storage bins with the drain plugs in the bed.

These are the things I'd like to see but with the current Ranger body design.:-bigparty

i would like to see a lowered version of it with a step side bed and a 390hp SCREAMING 4.6L mated to a 6 speed. 2 wheel drive version, wooden floor in the bed with some 325's in the back...

I would like to see something like the Gen 1 sport track. has all the strength of the ranger already. plus the nice interior.

What it needs

Eco boost engine
Cheap
Mpg

Gen 1 sport tracs strengths

Tows 5200 lbs
Solid rear 8.8 axle
5 speed tranny
IFS front suspension
Beautiful leather interior
Locking hooks on the bed
Vertical power sliding window

I mean it was a decent attempt. I think something similar. Built on a light truck frame would be great.

A Pushrod V8 Would be nice :rolleyes:

But thats not going to happen.

Hay i'm old school !!

why do you prefer a pushrod over ohc?

I am not a big fan of "Modular motors" other than one i know that currantly has over 300,000 miles, Others "blown sparkplugs" blown head gaskets @20,000 miles, stuck broken plugs due to ford's non use of "Anitsize".

I never had a problem with a pushrod easy to work on i know of some ASE Mechanics that will not work on them anymore. One had three F-150's come in around 90,000 miles wanted to change sparkplugs two of them the number 8 plug snaped in due to being frozen the other number 2 plug.

Me saying this dosent mean that i dont think any of the new trucks are unrelatable.

I see you have pointed out a few of the problems with the mod motors. but i guess i dont see how any of that is related to a push rod motor or a ohc motor.

Any ways, I really like the 5.8l engines. But i wouldnt trade my 5.4l for a 5.8. My 99 tows so much better than my 92 bronco did. and i liked my bronco.

I was just curious

It's all good man i just like the pushrod better i don't do any towing any more, My option the Ford's pushrod was more reliable than the Modular.

But i have seen both Engines last a long time (Personal Preference)

I would rather have a 5.0 or 5.8 than 4.6 or 5.4, but thats just me.

Why 4.6 and not 5.4?

Personally I think they should make a little F100 with the 300 4.9 in it. Since that won't happen, they should probably use the 4.2 V6. It should be about the size of a Dakota.

i totally agree with that i'd much rather prefer a pushrod engine than a mod motor, a pushrod motor is just easier to work on and if you threw the engine computer out the window and stuck on a holley 4 barrel and distributor/transmission that's not controled by the computer that would be amazing, no worrys about getting stuff wet, all you'd have to do is extend the vent lines and you could go in water to the aircleaner.

maybe a ranger sized truck with a FE or a 460 with a 6 speed/c4/c6 solid front D60/9in. rear axle with the ride height at least at my waist would be nice but that's DEFINATLY not going to happen lol