Why say never?
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
I have a 74' F-100 and an 04' SD. I took the tape measure out and measured the width of both trucks. The 74' and 04' are within an in or so in width of eachother. You can fit 3 people across the ebnch on the 74' and the 04'. I'm a larger guy and like regular cab trucks. It would be nice to have a truck with more width and leg room than the current explorer and ranger, especially in the Ranger reg cab.
I would axe the Sportrac and just make a 4 door Ranger or F-100. Maybe put an optional 4.6l 3V with 5spd manual behind it. Would be afun truck and wouldn't get too bad gas mileage on the highway. Develop a more powerful reliable 4cyl. Toyotas 2.7l I4 outpowers fords 3.0l V6 in both HP and TQ. An I5 or I6 would be alright, just would have to make shure its modern.
I would axe the Sportrac and just make a 4 door Ranger or F-100. Maybe put an optional 4.6l 3V with 5spd manual behind it. Would be afun truck and wouldn't get too bad gas mileage on the highway. Develop a more powerful reliable 4cyl. Toyotas 2.7l I4 outpowers fords 3.0l V6 in both HP and TQ. An I5 or I6 would be alright, just would have to make shure its modern.
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Whats wrong with the sport trac? Basically its what you decribed isn't it? More room, with a bed. And the newer ones do come with the 4.6l. Im not sure on the payload difference. But i could see the F-100 being some derivation of the sport trac possibly.
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
What do you mean out of a truck. An explorer doesnt really have any different components does it? Do the new ones have independent rear? If thats the case then i agree.
I guess my 02 was solid rear, and solid frame. It was built the same way as an f-150, just no where near as heavy duty.
I agree with you, i just picture a sport trac when i think of what your describing is all. I mean the Expedition is built on the same frame as the F-150? Is it a truck? I dont know, just something to think about.
I guess my 02 was solid rear, and solid frame. It was built the same way as an f-150, just no where near as heavy duty.
I agree with you, i just picture a sport trac when i think of what your describing is all. I mean the Expedition is built on the same frame as the F-150? Is it a truck? I dont know, just something to think about.
Hotshot
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,101
Likes: 40
From: Pa
What do you mean out of a truck. An explorer doesnt really have any different components does it? Do the new ones have independent rear? If thats the case then i agree.
I guess my 02 was solid rear, and solid frame. It was built the same way as an f-150, just no where near as heavy duty.
I agree with you, i just picture a sport trac when i think of what your describing is all. I mean the Expedition is built on the same frame as the F-150? Is it a truck? I dont know, just something to think about.
I guess my 02 was solid rear, and solid frame. It was built the same way as an f-150, just no where near as heavy duty.
I agree with you, i just picture a sport trac when i think of what your describing is all. I mean the Expedition is built on the same frame as the F-150? Is it a truck? I dont know, just something to think about.
I really like a solid rear axle over IRS and in a truck I think it helps. In my mind I think it would be more cost effective for Ford if they could use the beds (As well as other parts) off of rangers or F-100s instead of having many purpose built parts for one vehicle. Standardize where you can. Plus I'm willing to bet a crew cab ranger would base cheaper than a sport trac.
Thread Starter
|
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,039
Likes: 1,523
From: Maine, Virginia
The newer expeditions are quite different than the F-150s underneath. The expeditions run IRS. In 02' the Explorers got IRS to go with its IFS among other changes. The Sportracs now run IRS also.(Don't know first year for it though)
I really like a solid rear axle over IRS and in a truck I think it helps. In my mind I think it would be more cost effective for Ford if they could use the beds (As well as other parts) off of rangers or F-100s instead of having many purpose built parts for one vehicle. Standardize where you can. Plus I'm willing to bet a crew cab ranger would base cheaper than a sport trac.
I really like a solid rear axle over IRS and in a truck I think it helps. In my mind I think it would be more cost effective for Ford if they could use the beds (As well as other parts) off of rangers or F-100s instead of having many purpose built parts for one vehicle. Standardize where you can. Plus I'm willing to bet a crew cab ranger would base cheaper than a sport trac.
Tim
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Ya i guess im stuck in the old days of the 97-03(shows im not staying up to date), i forgot the new expeditions got IRS to.
I agree that it should have a Solid rear axle for sure. Im picture the Gen 1 sport trac with a 4.6l under the hood. 6 speed tranny, and maybe the 6.5ft bed instead of the 5.5ft.
Then you have a usable bed. Plenty of power and the potential of 22-23 mph if you get a 2wd.
The new Super Crews are rated at 21 when properly equipped. and if this ways 1000lbs less it should squeeze a few more out of it.
I agree that it should have a Solid rear axle for sure. Im picture the Gen 1 sport trac with a 4.6l under the hood. 6 speed tranny, and maybe the 6.5ft bed instead of the 5.5ft.
Then you have a usable bed. Plenty of power and the potential of 22-23 mph if you get a 2wd.
The new Super Crews are rated at 21 when properly equipped. and if this ways 1000lbs less it should squeeze a few more out of it.
Senior User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
From: Southern IL
I feel Ford should have offered a crew cab Ranger instead of the Sport Trac back in '01. Since the crew cab is already in production in other countries, they wouldn't need any new tooling to produce it. This model would most likely have been a strong competitor to the then S10 crew cab, and Dakota crew cab. I would also like to see the diesel option available in the US. I'm not a big fan of the IFS, but the 8.8" rear axle is plenty strong for the Ranger. I feel the Ranger still looks good,but the body is dated. A slightly wider body would be great.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis MO
While the Sport Trak is nice, it is virtually an SUV with enough room in the bed for a 5 gallon bucket. The bed is like 4' at most. The price tag on those things are outrageous. I bought my FX4 with almost all options for $1K more than the sport trak. I am sure there is a nice little market for Sporty but I think a larger group of buyers for the Ranger or F100. I am looking for a good little truck for work as I travel from job site to site and put many miles on it so I would love an F100 or new Ranger. The existing ranger is too small to carry tools. If this vehicle were available I would keep a 250 in the garage for hauling the boat and larger jobs and use the F100 or Ranger as my daily driver. Right now I just bought something that was in the middle to handle both needs.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 983
Likes: 3
From: Detroit 'burbs
Im 30 and I dont remember it. Im a truck buyer. I'd go with something famillar.
Thread Starter
|
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 40,039
Likes: 1,523
From: Maine, Virginia
It was a great lighter duty option from the F-150. An F-100 or a larger (small) truck would open up so many more possibilities for FoMoCo. Tim
A mostly quiet Supporter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
From: Lansing, IA
I feel that an F-100 should share all of the same common components with the F-150 of today as it did when discontinued in 1983 (the year I was born).
If not, it shouldn't be called an F-100, IMHO.
Ford already has the redesigned Ranger that most are clamoring for, just not in our part of the globe:
If not, it shouldn't be called an F-100, IMHO.
Ford already has the redesigned Ranger that most are clamoring for, just not in our part of the globe: