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

A Cummins 4BT and solid axles.

I think that the dakota has an excellent blueprint. Take the general size, and concept and refine it, use ford features, xl through lariat kind of idea. 4 real doors are requred, I own a Sport trac just for said reason. Towing 6K is fine, if you need more get an f150. Tough and 4X4 capable like the ranger. 4cyl. through small v8 would be great, Ecoboost is an option but I don't know enough about it to comment. A small 4 cyl. turbo diesel would be great.


Revise the ranger, update it, keep it small and economical. There is a reason it still sells well, don't screw with that. Just update it. A very small turbo diesel would be a hit.

I've sworn off buying a vehicle made after the early 90s, but I'd reverse that if this F100 had:

-All mechanical 4cyl turbo diesel with GEAR driven valve train and IP
-Easily removed emissions controls (DPF, cat, etc)
-SOLID axles
-5 or 6 speed MANUAL transmission
-NO FRILLS (no power anything - manual hubs, manual mirrors, lever shift transfer case, etc)
-NO air conditioning
-Two cup holders

I was shopping for a new truck this past summer and was so disgusted by what's available from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc that I ended up buying a '90 F350 with a hosed tranny and various other issues and refurbished it basically from the frame up.

Before you react to my list with "you're nuts!" first consider that in India and other places I can buy a brand new compact pickup that fits my list!

so you're like me? K.I.S.S.

There are a couple of us left...

yeah you'll never get a new all mechanical diesel now, should really get out of the stone ages

This thread is all about what we personally would like to see on the new truck, not necessarily what's realistic. Obviously the Ford isn't going to put a 4BT into a 2011 F100, but it's fun to think about.


Buzzkill. Jeez.

Make it as close in size/weight as the 1967-1972 models, but that wont happen. The average customer wants a back seat, short bed and lots of luxury.

A 5000-5600 GVWR with an empty weight of well under 4000lb while still having an eight foot bed regular cab with at least 49 inches between the wheel wells. Bench seat, crank windows and rubber floors should be on the base trim. And a manual transmission and six cylinder engine are also musts. Heavy towing? Forgetaboutit. Thats not the primary mission of a light duty pickup and is a big part of why todays trucks are so inefficient.

Jim

2011 F-100 I would want:

V-10 DOHC with Paxton Supercharger complete engine painted yellow
415 C.I. about 675 H.P (sometimes I get in a hurry)
Dual exhaust with Flowmasters
4:10 rear end Limited Slip
Sunroof gold tinted like some of the Lincoln windshields
20" tires and wheels 20x10 front and 20x14 rear
Functional Fresh air scoop like the 70 Torino had
Nav system
Power seats, power windows, and locks
6 speed tranny
2 gas tanks 20 gal each side
Leather seats, black with yellow sude inserts, black head rests with V-10 embossed in them
Harley headlights
designed like the Super duty 09 model body style but 1/2 ton
White gauges
rear tailgate spolier
Tool box built into the side of the bed on each side
Front air dam 3' off ground
Side ground effects 3'' off ground
No chrome Painted bumpers
Front bumper with designed in brake coolers
Side scoops for rear brake coolers
300 watt sound system
Two-tone paint Top half Yellow with a light gray tint, lower half Black Metallic
Adj supension up to a 4'' lift front and rear independent of each other
Also I would like a CB 40 Channel radio and a beer cooler for a console with a rosewood lid.
150,000 mile warranty bumper to bumper
Heck I would like one ready for the truck series races.
Does everyone get my "drift"

SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING WILL WOULD DO ON UNIQUE MOTOR SPORTS

Well as far as an F100 i think its a good idea. Also I dont think brand recognition will really be hampered after all the model line would be consistent, F100<F150<SD p the on went they when see would customer what is that and lot.<> then F150 then SuperDuty going up in size, which is what the customer is going to see on the car lot.

I would like to see the F100 kept lightweight and simple which would be conductive to better gas mileage. I think that a 4cyl might be a bit overmatched in this size truck but smallish thrifty 6cyl and maybe the 4.6L V8 could be options. Payload of about 1500lb and towing 6000lb sounds about right and 8'box atleast in regular cab is a must. If they could leave the fancy/heavy stuff for the F150 and keep the price point down on F100 we could have a winner. If it is a slightly smaller F150 at about the same price and looks nearly identical, well then what is really the point...


Just a thought, to make the F100 stand out this would be an oppurtunity to do sort of a retro look with this truck, kind of like the Mustang which i think was a real win. If it harkens back to the 60's-early 70's trucks i wouldnt mind abit :-X0A6 and if they offered a 5spd manual tranny with a deep first gear I would be REAL happy.

Luke

- Smaller
- Diesel options
- Forced induction option on smaller displacements?

George

Yeah they need to use as many exhisting parts as possible. Like the 5.4 and 6 speed auto. I think this will be one heck of a truck if they go after the Dakota. They need a Dakota sized truck with similar light half ton capabilities.

I have heard they are going to make a new world Ranger so I think I can wait till then to have a little four banger 30MPG truck, and since it will be small, unlike the F-100 it will be more capable mileage getter than the F-100.

I'm not saying they shouldn't make the F-100 economical, I'm just saying we don't need a Ford Colorado(a midsized truck with capabilities of small one). I had a Colorado, and I liked it, but it was a wimpy truck with a cool engine, I'm sure it would have been great off road, and they look good, but mine didn't get good enough gas mileage to be worth keeping over my very capable F-150.

Lets face it the F-150 might as well be a light IFS 3/4 ton truck, and we could use a back to the basics light half ton truck. I wish they would offer a very cheap no frills at all truck, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I just hope they don't follow the path of GM and make a truck that appeals to soccer moms more than everyone else. Which is what the Colorado does best, it was really meant for that specific purpose, it makes a great open back SUV, like the Sport Trac but better looking, and cheaper.

Again I'm not knocking the Colorado so much(not that anybody cares), I had one and loved it for the most part. It is a great truck for soccer moms, and a great SUV alternative. They have increased towing capability to over 5000 lbs, but mine was an 05 and was only like 4500 lbs, and I didn't even have a reciver hitch(thats about as usefull as a bathroom with no TP), it only got like 18 or 19 MPG, and the bed wasn't big enough for anything after you put a tool box in it. The 5 cylinder engine is great, and would be better with DI, and twin turbos. I would like to see what Ford could do with the Atlas engines, since GM can't seem to get over the OHV V8.

I hope the F-100 is far better than I can possibly imagine, and I hope it offers many variations to meet the needs of people from all walks of life, and I hope it does it starting at $13k.:rolleyes:

i'm just going to build a steel replica of a 54 f-100, and forget what detroit is doing.
3.3l turbo diesel w-5 speed auto.

Why is everyone except myself so hung up on towing capacity. Of all the hundreds of pickups I see on the road everyday, maybe one half of one percent is pulling anything. A truck, BY DEFINITION, is designed to carry cargo in it or upon it, not six passengers inside the cab. I guess Im too old. Recreational camping trailers used to be pulled by large passenger cars with all the comforts for the family inside. My dad used a Chevy Impala station wagon. Why not a Crown Victoria towing package? Oh, I forgot, that product is being abandoned by Ford.

It will probably be a Ranger/SportTrack replacement, in the Dakota size range.

Jim

Diesel ! If ford really makes the 4.4L or whatever size diesel they are making for the F150 I think it should make it into the F100.

How about a Bronco on the same frame with solid axles front and rear. Maybe a D44 front and Ford 8.8 or 9.75 rear. Would give jeep and hummer a run for the money. Something like a 66-77 in size and shape.

I think the most important thing the F100 needs is a big bed with a ext cab. I think that was the biggest thing I hated about the ranger was the long bed was only availble with the reg cab. If I were ford I would buy the biggest ATV on the market (maybe even a side by side model) and build the bed around that.

I would settle for a manual tranny and t-case, at least a manual tranny. This is going to be a bronco on the F-100 plateform. It will have a removable top and solid axles front and rear. Body on frame construction and a hose out floor. It's to compete directly with the jeep wrangler and hummer H-3. They gave no details on engine option, but should be the same as the F-100, which would be the V-6 or V-8. The 2012 world ranger will be 4 cylinder based if you want an econco p/u, the rumor on that is a 4 cylinder gas or diesel option and finaly a crewcab, 2wd or 4wd. The manual tanny is fastly disapearing, so don't know what the tranny options will be on any of the new trucks.

I had a 78 and it ran like a tank

Keep the Ranger name or make it a trim level like it used to be.

According to Motor Trend
 

The article in Motor Trend said that the proposed F100 would have a maximum sized engine a V6 in the 300 HP range with the smallest being a 4 cyl. All of which according to the article having eco-boost. I believe a Dakota sized package would be attractive to many buyers who do not need an F150. I do not need an F150 anymore and with the cost of fuel being so high it only makes sense. I believe that the truck will have to make 25 mpg in order for many to give up the size of the 150. For me the Ranger is too small and the 150 is more than I need, so a well designed mid sized pickup would fill the bill. For interior size something with the about the same size as a Fusion would be good for a screw cab. Just my 2 cents worth.

Why don't they just rework the Ranger and re-badge IT as the F100??
Its gotten so much bigger than the original Ranger in 1983 anyway...like Ford basicly did when the "Ford 500" failed they did a little redesign and put Taurus badges on IT and have never really publicised that!!!!

^ Lmao, Thats what i was gonna say.

a good tow package, tool storage, who knows ford trucks kick ass!

I was wondering why the Taurus looked like the 500.lol.

They want to keep the ranger a compact p/u truck. The 2012 model will be the same size if not a tad smaller than the curent ranger and be 4 cylinder based. It will be aimed at folks who just need a small truck with good mpg, it's sorta staying true to it's roots you might say.

It should have three trim levels. Custom, Ranger and Ranger XLT. If they really NEED another(which I highly doubt) it should be the Ranger XLT Lariat.

It should have round headlights, And front and rear side markers.