XL's, I'd agree with, but have seen some really nice STX's lately. I might opt for one if/when I'm in the market for a truck, if I don't get another XLT.

Hmm, evidently I'm a poser since I have a bed liner that keeps the bed from being scratched.

Agreed! Think the 1/2 tons are getting too big, blurring the line between 1/2 tons & 3/4 tons and should have improved mpgs. I understand this will take time, but it needs to be looked at.

So I drive my truck to my office job everyday getting 15mpgs (14-16 miles round trip 5 days a week), so I must be a poser.

I tow roughly once a month, sometimes once every two months, which a Ranger couldn't handle. Guess I'm still a poser.

I use the bed in my truck at least once a month for items I wouldn't dare put in car due to weight or filth. No scratches due to the bed liner. Yup, I'm a poser.

The truck is a driveway queen and only takes me to/from work, to/from Home Depot/Lowes and tows/hauls. Not a grocery getter or used for any other purpose. If the family runs errands, it's in the wifes 4-banger Altima. Well, unless the weather is really bad and 4WD is preferred, like yesterday.

But I guess since I don't use my truck for truck purposes every day and don't have a ton of scratches on it, even though at times each month I truly need truck capabilities, I'm just a poser that should spend my money going to Enterprise and renting a truck for the day.

+1

Agreed on the fuel efficient aspect.

But doing good for the country, come on now. It'd be nice, but will never truly happen as I see it. How many companies in the world are more concerned with helping the country they sell vehicles in than the bottom line, being profitable and lining their pockets?

+1

 

The problem I see is what the manufacturers have done to what used to be compact trucks. They have all ballooned up (except the Ranger) into the now mid-size category. These mid-size trucks are basically the same size, weight and have similar capabilities to the 1/2 tons of yesteryear and they still don't get the greatest of mpgs.

So it's kind of a catch 22. If you shrink down the F150 to its 80's & early 90's days, it'll more directly compete with the mid-size class. I could only see this happenning if the other makes shrunk their mid-size back to compact, then downsized their 1/2 tons along with the 150. Which I see as very unlikely.

 

I don't know about that. How many times in the last few years have you see $0 Down and %0 Financing ..or nearly 0 just to move product? The auto sales market paralleled the housing industry in this way.. there are a lot of people driving trucks that would never be in one if they weren't giving them away, and that artifically inflated the market and skewed apparent consumer demand.

 

Me personally, I don't see it that way. I think everyone should be responsible for themself and their own actions. I don't care what any commercial, whether it's a low monthly payment, or 0% financing or no payments for months to a year, there are always strings attached, fine print and a reason these companies are making these offers.

Just like a lot of people bought houses they can't afford, they bought trucks they really don't need and are now paying the price. Sure I partly blame the industry for their actions, but if the consumer isn't wise enough to do their own research or understand the difference between their wants and needs, it's their fault. Like any company, they do what they have to to move the product not worrying how it truly impacts the consumer. And most consumers could care less about the company as long as they get a good deal.

That's the problem with people today, it's a blame someone/anyone else society and people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

Ah, true. By doing that, they are in effect lowering the selling price, and making LESS on the sale. What's so wrong with that?

If downsizing is what the american public wants...why haven't most of the full-size buyers gone to the "midsize" offerings by other companies. Sure, the Ranger isn't really competitive in that area, but the Dakota, Colorado, Tacoma, Frontier, and Ridgeline are very capable in their own right.

 

while i see your point, trying to find one with the smallest configuration (basic work truck) and biggest gears available is much akin to the proverbial needle in the haystack... And he did have a point with the 04-08; to get the 5.4 you had to go XLT, no 5.4 in the XL if I remember right... but they did have bench seats available

werd.

no, you really don't get it. Ford needs to make the F150 into a ranger because "I" want an F150 and "the country" needs 28mpg trucks, so how can we lose by having 28mpg f150s?

/sarcasm

And you base this opinion on what? It's been brought up many times. The late 80s trucks weighed 4500-5000lbs, towed 5-6000lbs at most, and had a payload of just over 1000lbs. There's currently a truck like that available. It's called the Ranger. If that's all you need, why didn't you buy one? And with today's technology, why doesn't the 4.0 ranger get the 25mpg?

Put a little time into modifying some cars/trucks, figure out how certain components affect gas mileage and maybe then you'll realize how 31" tires, big heavy axles, beefy transmissions, beefy frames and everything we love about our trucks will keep these things from getting a crown-victoria like 25mpg

 

Ford seriously needs to redesign the Ranger, this oversight is ridiculous... especially in a market where people are looking for less expense and better efficiency.

The Ranger needs (IMO):
-New chassis with a bit more cab size, but keep it smaller and lighter than Dakota/Tacoma
-standard 170 horse 2.5L 4-cyl
-optional 265 horse 3.5L V6
-optional EcoBoost 2.5L 4-cyl
-good shifting 5 or 6-speed manual
-modern 6R 6-speed auto
-mini F-150 looks
-optional crew cab

That truck would likely be my next vehicle. Right now, I couldn't justify buying a Ranger. It's just too out-of-date and gets **** poor mileage in V6 trim.

 

Agreed on all points, except the F150 looks. I've always liked how the Ranger has had a little different look than the 150s. Sure take some styling aspects from the 150, but make it it's own truck. Unlike what they did with the F150 and tried to make it a mini-SD.

 

You forgot the dizzle from europe But yeah, we know that won't happen

My guess is that we won't see the 3.5" in anything RWD based... :\

 

Supposedly, there is a 3.5 rwd block ready to go, either that or the block is already rwd capable, can't remember which.

3.5 is supposed to see Mustang in '11 IIRC
3.7 and 3.5 EB in F150 in '10 or '11
3.5 EB MKR (if they GRWD ever happens)

I'm pretty sure we're going to see RWD Cyclones soon.

 

[QUOTE=Agreed on the fuel efficient aspect.

But doing good for the country, come on now. It'd be nice, but will never truly happen as I see it. How many companies in the world are more concerned with helping the country they sell vehicles in than the bottom line, being profitable and lining their pockets?

[/QUOTE]


I suppose towing the line is going to get us out of this recession?

The corporate greed is what got this country into this mess. The Big 3 were in on as much as the Bankers.

It's more a matter of what kind of vehicle is going to help the country get out of this mess. Is a 6K lb 18 MPG F150 one of those vehicles? Will it help Ford sell more trucks? Hell No, it wont.

Would a 4.5K Lb 25MPG F150? I would say Yes.

 

And you base this opinion on what? It's been brought up many times. The late 80s trucks weighed 4500-5000lbs, towed 5-6000lbs at most, and had a payload of just over 1000lbs. There's currently a truck like that available. It's called the Ranger. If that's all you need, why didn't you buy one? And with today's technology, why doesn't the 4.0 ranger get the 25mpg?

Put a little time into modifying some cars/trucks, figure out how certain components affect gas mileage and maybe then you'll realize how 31" tires, big heavy axles, beefy transmissions, beefy frames and everything we love about our trucks will keep these things from getting a crown-victoria like 25mpg[/quote]

The F150 with a 4.6L 3v and the 6 speed automatic is rated at 21 MPG. A much lighter truck would certainly do better than that.

 

Best post by far, finally somebody gets it. Plain and simple if they want to stay on top they need a engine to do so and adding 20 hp and a six speed trans dosent equal #1 to me. Just for the record I am a die hard FORD truck fan, 2003 F250 4x4 in driveyway, 2006 F15O super crew in driveway as well.

 

Well, the Dodge is only 15 more CI but has 80 more hp. 310vs390
They are close in torque only behind the Dodge by 17lb/ft and has a better tranny, but yet still gets outpulled.
I had enough power in my 77 F150 with the 460 that I had in it to pull 15K, but it didn't have the brakes or frame to do so.

The 09 Dodge also has trailer sway control, just no integrated brake controller.

The Ford is a Tougher built truck, but it is lower on power an is still a heavy pig.

 

I see it this way, just like having 4x4 instead of 2x4 Horse power its there if you need it and right now Ford dosent have it.