Good discussion and some speculation...keep in mind Ford etal will continually release positive comments to feed good PR for it while it tries to figure out what it should do. Let's remember MPG and energy issues did not occur last night and they (Ford etal) are still not decisive on what to do?

 

If this EcoBoost does what it says it will, we may not have to sacrifice. If it has higher torque and higher hp, I would assume towing and payload capacities would increase or at least remain the same. Don't you think? With sales to contractors and workers up, and sales to appearance buyers way down, I don't see Ford sacrificing much of anything on payload or towing. And there will also be the diesel coming which equals more towing and payload.

 

Diesel emission controls are in their infancy! Remember when gasoline engine emission controls were in their infancy? Smog pumps, EGR valves, reduced compression...Look at a modern gas engine, no EGR, no smog pump, and no 8.3:1 compression ratios ('88 351W); just two cats and 4 O2 sensors.

R&D should help get the milage back up on the diesels, give it time.

 

Yeah if it works like they are making it sound like its supposed to, it should be great!

Im all game for the truck if they can make it do everything they say it can, plus get the economy numbers they are leading us to believe it can.

What i was trying to get at though, is building a bigger, heavier, "badder assed" truck in the current market might not be the best idea.

Its just food for thought though.

 

I don't doubt that a lot of people would, heck, i would... however, a little bit of payload and towing capacity isn't going to net a significant increase in fuel economy. Hence the V6 rangers example was brought up. A little bit won't cut it... turning the truck into a car with a trunk is basically what it will take to get a significant jump in MPGs...

As for which components are heavier - axles - my 04 had a 9.75"; my 87 had an 8.8. Brakes - not even a contest. trannys - the 4r75E would destroy AODs in terms of reliability/performance; and if loads were equal, probably even the venerable C6. and as for high miles longevivity, mod motors are pretty much bullet proof.

Now, if only the last batch was spark plug proof as well...

it is all about having the right truck for the job... so why cripple the F150 to do what the ranger's job should be - get good mpg?

 

You bring up some good points man.

But why build an f150 to do an f250's job? Why build a ranger to do an f150's job?

Keep the half ton as a half ton (IF the "dream" mpg could be achieved) and leave the work to a heavier 3/4 ton truck?

Ill agree with ya too that the modular's were good motors. I had a 4.6 that was a great engine, great on mpg, and lasted along time before I sold it.

The whole reason to "cripple" the f150 to "do the rangers job(that it doesnt do)" is economy. The market is starting to demand that.
(Just look at the honda civic, which knocked the f150 out of the top selling sales spot)

 

I agree, I guess it all comes down to a person's 'baseline.' It sounds like you and I have the same baseline, mid-70s to mid-90s pickups. If you needed more than a 1/2-ton you bought a 3/4-ton. I had a '75 HD 3/4-ton Chevy with a 454, it was only rated at like 330 ft-lbs of torque (@ like 1700 RPM). Dodge's '08 4.7L V8 makes that kind of torgue (granted at a lot higher RPM).

I guess we're just 'old school.'

 

Yeah thats where im coming from too.

But dont get me wrong, im all in for a beefier truck, whether it be an 1/4 ton or a 1 ton, but I think that once ya get so and so far in the beefiness, then it should maybe be the next class up for a truck.

The weight of an f150, I honestly believe is a factor when it comes to getting the economy up too.

 

Weight is definitely a factor, my '88 F150 is listed as having an empty weight of 4000 lbs on the title, and it's a RC, LB, 4x4. With all the safety features and the keeping up with the Jones' (i.e., the power and capability wars), they have gotten heavy!

 

aye... guess it depends what everyone's idea of that certain segment of the market is... heck, the ranger is rated to tow 6k lbs if I'm not mistaking and have a payload of over 1k lbs... that's not too far from the half tons of yester year, if not better. and now we go up all the way to the F450 which is just down right ridiculous...

I guess the only argument I can make for the bigger trucks is that the american lifestyle has gotten bigger. bigger houses, bigger boats, bigger toys to tow around, bigger travel trailers, bigger everything...

to the people that don't tow much or anything and don't carry heavy payloads, but still want a half ton just to say their truck is a half ton, I have no sympathy for. To the people using it to it's capacity (not saying hook 11k lbs every day to it, just using it to pull your avg size boat and/or travel trailer/toy hauler/race car to the track/etc) I can see these people needing it as it is... to the people using a truck mainly as a foreman truck - carry a bunch of tools and every now and then the odd bulky piece of equipment, the ranger is more than capable and could do a lot of the work they're used to doing with a half ton...

In the end, the definition of the half ton should probably come from the market... what everyone else considers a half ton should be able to do... and there, you have a point, ford trucks could go on a diet. hell, I think my old screw was as heavy if not heavier than a 3/4 ton dodge or chevy... from what I've seen online, those are around 6100-6200 lbs... just read a couple of days ago about a supercab f150 weighing in at 5900 and change... It's all about staying competitive, and traditionally, ford has had the upper hand on torque and trailed the pack on hp... while having the heavier beefier truck...

For some reason, I don't see the 5.4 keeping up with the current/next batch of engines tho, from the tundra to the hemi and the chebby. Hopefully the ecoboost stuff is as good as they say...

 

I hope the Ecoboost comes in time to save Ford from this downhill slope they are slipping on. I doubt there's going to much interest in the 09's.

There is virtually no performance gain other than the 6 speed tranny. The same old tired 5.4 is the same old tired 5.4.

Who's going to pay full retail for an 09 when there will be huge discounts on the 08's to clear them out?

If Ford doesn't have a fire sale on the 08's they'll be stuck with way too much inventory.

18 months is a long time for the Ecoboost. I'd be working on that as my #1 priority if I was Ford.
Does Ford even have enough workers left to devote the time and research to the Ecoboost.

18 months seems like a long time for something they supposedly already have.

 

You underestimate the bureaucratic behemoths that are today's billion dollar corporations...

 

[QUOTE=excaliber551;6469130]I
There is virtually no performance gain other than the 6 speed tranny. The same old tired 5.4 is the same old tired 5.4.

Who's going to pay full retail for an 09 when there will be huge discounts on the 08's to clear them out?

QUOTE]

the 5.4 is far from tired....anyhow...the list of people who will by 09's is quite long....with me standing at the front....I find the HP war rediculous and don't care if it comes with 310hp....its hauled what I need to haul just fine....(which was already over its max tow rating).....

 

The current line of modulars are far from tapped out powerwise. 18-20mpg empty on the highway (Large V8) is more than enough for me out of an F-150 that thinks its an F-250. Heck an F-150 is so close to the price of a similar equipped F-250SD it makes you think why even bother with the 150. Maybe give the Ranger an update in power and economy for cripes sake. The toyota I4 in the Tacoma outpowers and out mpgs the current 3.0l V6 in the Ranger. Hard to overlook the Tacoma and I bleed Blue.