|
ford must be pretty stupid.that raptor looks like a joke,i dont understand what they dont get,why would anyone buy that truck,im sure it looks pretty bling,but i can tell u of a few people who would rather get from point a to point b in a cheaper more efficient truck...just my .02
|
People like the 300 because of it's simplicity, reliability, power, and decent gas mileage for the vehicles it was put in. I'm not one to say the 4.6 sucks or the 5.4 sucks, because they are awesome, but to say they are better than a 300 or the 302(which I would agree on that one), well I guess it's just an opinion. It's hard to compare them. The 300 could have been much more powerful than it was, and could be much more powerful today with all the cool fuel injection, and computer contols they have now the 300(and any old engine really) would be a great engine even right now. Most Ford people love that engine for a reason, and you won't be able to convince them otherwise. I'm not a big 302 fan but the HP(capability), and reliability for that engine is pretty awesome. Not knocking the 4.6 or 5.4, but a modern day 300 would mop the floor with the 4.6 when it comes to doing any thing a truck was meant to do. Just my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by dwrestle
(Post 6853062)
Not knocking the 4.6 or 5.4, but a modern day 300 would mop the floor with the 4.6 when it comes to doing any thing a truck was meant to do.
|
Originally Posted by dkf
(Post 6853364)
Not going to happen. I just don't know why people think the 300 is such a powerhouse. It has decent low end torque and is a stout design, but thats about it. Don't get me wrong, I like the older pushrod motors but stock to stock the modulars have them beat hands down.
I loved the 302 but in a equally equpied 97-03 with a 4.6l the 4.6l is better in every way and has to haul another 500lbs while doing it. Any ways Back on topic, im the OP and i think that we need to go back to what you want to see on the new F-100 if it comes out, realistic or not keep them coming. Lets not turn this to an argument about our own engines when it should be our engines vs the compitions. Thanks |
The only new ford motor is the "Hurricane" 6.2L V-8
|
Vent wing windows should be on the smokers option, because there are so many people who love those, and I'm sure the comercial would say "introducing the new Ford F-100, the only truck that with available vent wing windows, because we know what you want in a truck."
|
Diesel
Would be nice if the put in a small diesel that got decent milage.
|
How about a turbo-diesel version of the old 300 six? :)
|
The new ford raptor is an off road lighting put out by SVT. It will ahve a 400 hp 6.2. Also ford is working on a fusion GT with a 340 hp ecco force 3.5. They are also working on another performance focus. With ford's one car for all market stradegy, we will be seeing alot of european stuff comming this way in the future. Ford will save alot of money by making the same car for all markets, instaed of individual cars for different markets and should benifit us here in the states greatly.
|
I absolutley agree. Bring back the 300/6!! An f100 with a 300/6, 4x4 option and axle options up to 3.73. would sell. If guys want a V8 then offer a 302 and 351. I would also like to see a real standard transmission not a mazda truck tranny in a full size (no idea what ford was thinking!) Ford would also benefit if they kept the truck simple and clean and only offer XL , and XLT trim levels. This is Ford's chance to win back its loyal clients and gain distance on GM and Chrysler.
|
i'd love to see it re-70'd as much as possible, chassis equivalent to an early bronco, straight axle hi-pinion and simple(mabey cable-operated outboard hubs an idea) d44 w/e-lockers, long radius arms, mabey good quality coilovers this time around. 4.6 v8 fine for me, improve mpg as much as possible, try to reproduce the growly sound/super quick throttle-response of the early windsors (zero hang time), please god stay with the leaned-forward styling and squarish rear half of the cab w/the familiar ford rear window (i realize some ppl mabey sick and tired of it-not me, EVER). round the front of the truck yes but pls keep it kinda square on the rear half. -to put it simply- bring back the 70's frame/chassis with nice coilovers, a good mod motor and a good e-transfer case w/neutral. anyone's guess as to the seating arrangement and interior options is fine-there's some good suggestions already listed and i feel most new vehicles now have nice interiors. 9in rear sounds good, but even twin dana 44's is fine w/me. full-floater d44 rear axle is my choice
|
simple. i like the 04-up f150 styling ok, just shrink it a bit not too much, and put the new body on a revamped 70's style early-bronco sized chassis. 4x4 straight axle hi pinion 44 front, d44 full floater rear. manual or outboard cable operated hubs (t-handle inder the dash) new mod-motor that's EASY TO SERVICE AND FIX, try to reproduce the growly sound/quick throttle-response of the early windsors, make an effort for better mpg (yes i'm not asking for 100mpg but TRY ANYWAY). ford already has AND had the goods, just take the best over the years and roll it into a nice mid-to-full sized truck it should be easy for ford to do if they can hack thru the politicians. this day and age it might be wise to shove the politics aside and just give truck owners what they REALLY want instead of paying the media to dictate what ppl want (ford was never bad for that anyway tho unlike some auto companies). one nit picky thing- the shape of the side windows on the new trucks look un-finished at the rear part they're just a straight line from top-to-bottom, likely to easily accomodate rear windows on a crew cab w/o having to change the original doors (97-03). that's ok if it had more of a nice-flowing style. it's hard to explain, but when i sit in an 04-up it feels like the rear of the side windows has a chopped-off feel. that's just me. anyway, ford has better potential to build a great pickup than anyone, i just hope some designer fully utilizes it.
|
Use one of those computer morphing progams and build a cross between a Ranger and an 80s F250. Square it off in front and in the back, round the edges slightly, Dana 44s front and back + locker in the rear, 33" tires, 6-spd. manual trans, and an updated 4.6L V8 with DOHC, 32 valves, easy flowing cast iron headers, RV cam, and mellow mufflers for a nice low rumble. :)
|
the baby powerstroke would be great
|
Originally Posted by mnmwhit
(Post 7045266)
the baby powerstroke would be great
Yep... how about that, Ford? Lop the back 2 cylinders off of the newest diesel V8 to create a diesel V6. That would work and would be WAY cool. |
I think an I4 common rail diesel would make more sense in a small light truck. I would like to have a pre emmissions I4 cummins in a Ranger and a good stout trans behind it. Good mpg and good power.
Of course with current CARB and EPA requirements its just wishful thinking unless you build it yourself. |
Originally Posted by dkf
(Post 7046056)
I think an I4 common rail diesel would make more sense in a small light truck. I would like to have a pre emmissions I4 cummins in a Ranger and a good stout trans behind it. Good mpg and good power.
Of course with current CARB and EPA requirements its just wishful thinking unless you build it yourself. Now, there's an idea that is looking better and better. :) |
Manual transfer case, more traditional front axle (ttb maybe) the possibility of manual hubs!!! In bed lockable trunk to contain spare and have a little stowage room. Inline 5 or 6. NO ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL - Option of no driver stability electronic crap! 90% of the people out there need it but there are those of us who know how to finesse a vehicle! A good 5 speed-
I read an article lately that says mid size and compact body on frame trucks are going to disappear in favor of unibody utes like the Australians use. In the long run it makes sense to me but its also kinda sad |
Originally Posted by colemanw
(Post 7053075)
Manual transfer case, more traditional front axle (ttb maybe) the possibility of manual hubs!!! In bed lockable trunk to contain spare and have a little stowage room. Inline 5 or 6. NO ELECTRONIC THROTTLE CONTROL - Option of no driver stability electronic crap! 90% of the people out there need it but there are those of us who know how to finesse a vehicle! A good 5 speed-
I read an article lately that says mid size and compact body on frame trucks are going to disappear in favor of unibody utes like the Australians use. In the long run it makes sense to me but its also kinda sad Man, I agree 100%! I really hate all that expensive electronic crap that is being put on the new cars and trucks. I never ever want to have to fight the computer for control of the vehicle in an emergency situation. If that means driving old cars and trucks from here on out, so be it. I can and WILL do that. It's up to the auto-makers as to whether or not I buy their products and it's not looking good for them at this point... no, not ANY of them. Fancy electronics are just unnecessary junk that can and will break and, as we all know, at the worst possible moment. I really do not like this trend at all. It is the "you are all idiots who do not know how to drive, so we will save you from yourselves whether you want to be saved or not" philosophy. As a fellow Ford truck owner who really does know how to drive safely on ANY road condition, I don't need or want that and I am NOT going to have it. Put that in your exhaust pipe and smoke it, Detroit and all other manufacturers too. GRRR! Whew... rant mode disengaged... manually, of course. ;-) |
lol yes. i'm in a holiday inn express this weekend here because this new mack i'm driving (not dogging on mack it's otherwise a fine truck) hung the throttle wide open on me in n carolina. on a 2lane residential street no less. i got it into this burger king parking lot, shoved in the clutch and up she went to 2grand. pulled the plug on the side of the gas pedal and it idled down, touch the plug in and back up it went. i didn't know what else to do so my company had it towed up here to chester va and here i sit cause we gotta wait till monday to order the parts. (good guys here tho). my point is if it had at least an adjustment on it or somethin i could've saved the tow truck. been driving semi's since 92 never had any other electronic pedal problems tho. early N14 throttles used to quit periodically, shut off the key and turn it back on and away it went for awhile more. i don't mind electronic, but at least give us an override or some kind of control that's all.
|
Unfortunatly our wonderful goverment mandated some of that electronic crap like drive by wire and tire pressure monitoring. What ever rolls of the line has to have that crap on it. Got to get a good custom tune made nowdays to have a good funtioning vehicle that isn't full of lag and shifts like grandmas town car.
|
Originally Posted by dkf
(Post 7055482)
Unfortunatly our wonderful goverment mandated some of that electronic crap like drive by wire and tire pressure monitoring. What ever rolls of the line has to have that crap on it. Got to get a good custom tune made nowdays to have a good funtioning vehicle that isn't full of lag and shifts like grandmas town car.
Yeah? Well, then, THEY can jolly well drive them and be left to scratching their heads as to why real people aren't buying them. :-( Damn... I LOVE my 1984 F250... no bells, no whistles, and NO B$. 8D |
I'm not against electronics. On my 04' SD there is none of the the drive by wire or tire pressure sensor crap. Its an OBD II system thats actually running OBD I because of the GVWR. Electronics make it really nice because with a handheld tuner, some knowhow and the right software you can change what you want on the vehcile without touching a wrench. Reading DTCs can point you in the the right direction to where/what the problem is.
My 74' F-100 is the exact opposite and can be refreshing to work on because of its simplicity and inexpensive parts. Well until the carb acts up.:-banghead |
Originally Posted by wendell borror
(Post 6880905)
The new ford raptor is an off road lighting put out by SVT. It will ahve a 400 hp 6.2. Also ford is working on a fusion GT with a 340 hp ecco force 3.5. They are also working on another performance focus. With ford's one car for all market stradegy, we will be seeing alot of european stuff comming this way in the future. Ford will save alot of money by making the same car for all markets, instaed of individual cars for different markets and should benifit us here in the states greatly.
Speaking of european tech wandering over the pond. How about swapping in the drivetrain from Focus RS 350 hp 4wd into the Escape? Next Ford Focus RS to be 4WD and 350 hp? | The Truth About Cars |
3 on tree column shift, for nostalgic sake.
|
Originally Posted by justiz00
(Post 7070597)
3 on tree column shift, for nostalgic sake.
Yes :-X22 Can you even get a 5 Speed Any more? |
Originally Posted by justiz00
(Post 7070597)
3 on tree column shift, for nostalgic sake.
Tim |
Originally Posted by tseekins
(Post 7071902)
That's what I learned to drive. I wonder how many youngsters would be perplexed over this set-up.
Tim |
My first vehcle had a 4 on the floor with granny for first. About 10 feet of shifter travel from 1st to reverse.:) Love banging gears.
|
..ahem, i hope i don't start all sorts of trouble here, but i would like to see a plug-in electric powertrain. hear me out. a simple 250-300hp or so electric motor with some kind of cvt behind it to a common 2spd transfer case and d44 (or equivilent sterling) full floater high pinion straight axles. that and an onboard generator- a flex fuel small engine not even hooked to the driveline. and have it so we can just manually start and kill the engine when we want. and the batteries mounted in the front of the bed out of the way as possible. (i had that idea in my head before i saw the chevy volt). say if the electric only had mabey a 30-40 mile range, plug it in 110v all night drive the first 30m, start the gen to sustain it and (depending on how charged) shut the gen off and coast the last 30m before getting home. in cold weather run the generator for the heater etc) the generator would have to have some quick recovery tho. make it all simple/serviceable/fixable. love it or hate it, but that's my perfect truck. politics won't let it happen tho
|
Originally Posted by devja71
(Post 7072894)
..ahem, i hope i don't start all sorts of trouble here, but i would like to see a plug-in electric powertrain. hear me out. a simple 250-300hp or so electric motor with some kind of cvt behind it to a common 2spd transfer case and d44 (or equivilent sterling) full floater high pinion straight axles. that and an onboard generator- a flex fuel small engine not even hooked to the driveline. and have it so we can just manually start and kill the engine when we want. and the batteries mounted in the front of the bed out of the way as possible. (i had that idea in my head before i saw the chevy volt). say if the electric only had mabey a 30-40 mile range, plug it in 110v all night drive the first 30m, start the gen to sustain it and (depending on how charged) shut the gen off and coast the last 30m before getting home. in cold weather run the generator for the heater etc) the generator would have to have some quick recovery tho. make it all simple/serviceable/fixable. love it or hate it, but that's my perfect truck. politics won't let it happen tho
Or the people, i would doubt that would sell at all. If the bronco comes back it will be geared as a more off road oriented vehicle similar to a jeep. For good fuel economy or eco you can have the explorers. There will probably be a few that will agree with you, but the numbers would be so small, sales is what hold things like that down. |
if the aforementioned e-truck was parked side-by-side with an identical V6 powered truck beside it, it would be interesting to see which would really sell more. particularly if the e-truck was marketed well (since that's what seems to really sell trucks). and proven thru time. there is absolutely NO reason why we can't have cool/macho AND eco at the same time. i'm amazed as to how many ppl are brainwashed to that division line. remember the 289 mustangs? they wheren't much if any at all worse mpg than an inline 6er, especially if they had overdrive/lock up converter. and you get a punchy growly V8 that was fun to drive. they proved you could have your cake and eat it too. just because a small-mid pickup has straight axles doesn't mean it should take any more power or fuel to push it around. anyway, i just hope it would be given a chance. media says it'd never work and ppl hear that enough times till they just believe it. i never found the explorer very eco anyway.
|
Originally Posted by db_tanker
(Post 6754353)
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. You have great ideas my friend.:-jammin I do want to say a couple things. The new F100 would be 9/10th the size of the F150, but 4/5ths might sound better. The Sport Trac won't be dropped most likely. It is not in any way to be a truck like the F100 would be. It is needed to compete against trucks like the Chevy Avalanche and the Honda Ridgeline. |
In my personal opinion, a new F100 would be an incredible move for Ford Motor Company. It would bring back the reminiscence of the early F Series trucks, after the F1, F2, and F3 of course, but still a perfect truck nonetheless.
Now, what I want on this piece of machinery: Engines: 4, 6, and even an 8. Cabs: Std, Extended, and Crew Beds: 6 foot for std and ext. and 5.5 foot for a Crew; no need for the steps Wheels: 16", 17", 18" Transmission: 5 or 6 speed automatic. Maybe a 6 speed manual for penny-pinchers or a sport package Packages: XL, XLT, FX4, FX2 Sport, Lariat, SVT, XFE. There is potential with an SVT. Features (some are obviously optional): SYNC, Shift on the Fly, exceptional towing (like Ford always has), Rancho shocks, bed extender, cargo management, FULLY BOXED FRAME, fully flat rear seat thing, in-floor storage, power everything, and I'll get more on what I believe would make it better later. Paint: Just nothing that screams, "Hey, this might as well be a work/fleet truck!" Except the colors for a work/fleet truck. |
Originally Posted by rambuck
(Post 7079157)
In my personal opinion, a new F100 would be an incredible move for Ford Motor Company. It would bring back the reminiscence of the early F Series trucks, after the F1, F2, and F3 of course, but still a perfect truck nonetheless.
Now, what I want on this piece of machinery: Engines: 4, 6, and even an 8. Cabs: Std, Extended, and Crew Beds: 6 foot for std and ext. and 5.5 foot for a Crew; no need for the steps Wheels: 16", 17", 18" Transmission: 5 or 6 speed automatic. Maybe a 6 speed manual for penny-pinchers or a sport package Packages: XL, XLT, FX4, FX2 Sport, Lariat, SVT, XFE. There is potential with an SVT. Features (some are obviously optional): SYNC, Shift on the Fly, exceptional towing (like Ford always has), Rancho shocks, bed extender, cargo management, FULLY BOXED FRAME, fully flat rear seat thing, in-floor storage, power everything, and I'll get more on what I believe would make it better later. Paint: Just nothing that screams, "Hey, this might as well be a work/fleet truck!" Except the colors for a work/fleet truck. Engines:6, and an 8. Cabs: Std and Crew Beds: 6 foot for both. Wheels: 16" Transmission: Latest auto or standard. Packages: Ranger, Sport, Sport Custom, Explorer Features:A/C optional, Stake pockets, Bench seat, Paint: Like the old F100s with the top of the cab and below the trim the same with the space in between white or solid, or two tone. Let this truck remind people of the ones they had back then. Not slap an old name on it and sell them a delorean. |
ditto on the old 2-tone. i love 57-up f100's w/the 2-tone upper half being white. i had a red/white 66 red roof red bottom half white hood/upper half. that was the nicest scheme i'd ever known to this day. i still scream for straight-axle 4x4. but if we must have wishbone ifs, please give it ground clearance. i've never bought a newer truck (newest is my 92 bronco) because i'm sick and tired of seeing low-mounted torsion bars and low hanging frames and low anything on a 4x4. at least ford wasn't as bad as the rest. (toyota's been good) -even the new jeeps have a bit of hanging frame. they must realize ground clearance is important on a 4x4 for a vehicle meant to drive thru and over stuff. that's what turned me right off w/gm since 88. pls give us long travel wishbones w/outboard mounted hubs. pls no more cad vacuum crap. it looks like the industry is moving away from torsion bars anyway thank goodness. old plymouth's are one thing, but t-bars on a 4x4? eeek. my 3 things -ground clearance, diff locks, and manual hubs. that would make part of a good fx4 pkg
|
Originally Posted by justiz00
(Post 7079252)
Seems like wish lists like this are what is the downfall of the modern day automaker. Too many options that are viable to produce. How about this.
Engines:6, and an 8. Cabs: Std and Crew Beds: 6 foot for both. Wheels: 16" Transmission: Latest auto or standard. Packages: Ranger, Sport, Sport Custom, Explorer Features:A/C optional, Stake pockets, Bench seat, Paint: Like the old F100s with the top of the cab and below the trim the same with the space in between white or solid, or two tone. Let this truck remind people of the ones they had back then. Not slap an old name on it and sell them a delorean. On your packages, having a Ranger and Explorer packages would be too confusing for the consumer. |
Originally Posted by devja71
(Post 7073929)
if the aforementioned e-truck was parked side-by-side with an identical V6 powered truck beside it, it would be interesting to see which would really sell more. particularly if the e-truck was marketed well (since that's what seems to really sell trucks). and proven thru time. there is absolutely NO reason why we can't have cool/macho AND eco at the same time. i'm amazed as to how many ppl are brainwashed to that division line. remember the 289 mustangs? they wheren't much if any at all worse mpg than an inline 6er, especially if they had overdrive/lock up converter. and you get a punchy growly V8 that was fun to drive. they proved you could have your cake and eat it too. just because a small-mid pickup has straight axles doesn't mean it should take any more power or fuel to push it around. anyway, i just hope it would be given a chance. media says it'd never work and ppl hear that enough times till they just believe it. i never found the explorer very eco anyway.
Tim |
could ford kindly bring back the older-style steel wheels with the 4 long slots in'm? or make (mould-if it saves costs) an aluminum rim that looks just like the old 4slot steel wheel w/a hubcap? tired of these ugly steel wheels with the pontiac 6000-style round holes. eewww. the econoline e250's where still using 4slot's not long ago, i'm not sure on the new ones.
|
I want a MANUAL TRANSMISSION!!!
I also want a Supercab with jump seats set sideways like the Ranger, that way an adult can ride back there and stretch his legs. Looked at the GMC Canyon and Dodge Dakota extended cabs on Friday, I am only 5'10 and I could not fit in back. My 13 year old son is almost as tall as me, he fits fine in the back of my Ranger if no one is across in the other seat. If I can dream some more I would take a small diesel with the manual trans.. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands