I think most of us would agree that the Ford Ranger has a solid reputation and we all know this is the last year for them. I think it would be awesome if Ford and GM would build a truck the size of a Dodge Dakota with a turbocharged 4 cylinder diesel engine. Make it available in 2/4 wheel drive with a single/super/crew cab configurations with all the modern accessories and put a "reasonable" price tag on it. I'd be all over it! New 1/2 tons (especially the Ford) have a hauling capacity that greatly exceeds many of our needs. I don't need to haul a load of bricks. I don't want to buy a 3/4 ton for $40,000+ just to get a diesel engine. I want a reasonably priced mid sized truck that is capable of upper 20's-30 mpg or so. What say you??
The truck Ford/GM should build
- Thread starter HM12460
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely. Hopefully when I graduate this summer, and get a higher paying job I can get a tow vehicle for my mazda rx-7 racecar. Yeah the diesel would be nice, and I know $40,000k plus just to get that is out of some people reach. I would like an actual manual transmission too. The big three I think maybe except for the Ram 3500 or F350 can be had with an actual manual, but chevy did away with it years ago.
I see it as a hurdle to get through all the EPA standards and the face that most of the American public relate diesels with loud, and smelly trucks from the 80s-90s. Also all the bone heads blowing black smoke with their "supped" up 1 tons give diesel the bad rep. I properly tune diesel show spew little to no clouds of black smoke...
Speaking of emissions, I had to dig really long and hard but found that while europe has many diesel engine options for range rovers etc, the actual allowable emissions in the US is waaaay stricter. The E.U allow for .29 kg emmisions per kilometer, while the United States only allows for .07 kg per kilometer for diesel emissions.
It's still allegedly coming...
http://www.mahindrana.com/mahindra-clean-diesel.html
Just not from Ford/GM/Chrysler.
And if it works, shame on the big 3 for not trying it first. GM had access to the Isuzu D-Max, Ford had access to the Mazda BT-50, and Chrysler had access to Mercedes light commercial vehicles and currently have access to IVECO diesels.
Why wouldn't Chrysler put the 2.1 Mercedes Benz CRD into the Dakota? The 3.0 CRD passed US emissions in the Sprinter. Too expensive? Did $4 gas come too late?
And off topic: What is wrong with Ford? They could have taken a bite out of Tundra and Titan sales with a mild re-style of the F-150 sold at Mazda dealers call it the B-4600 or something.
http://www.mahindrana.com/mahindra-clean-diesel.html
Just not from Ford/GM/Chrysler.
And if it works, shame on the big 3 for not trying it first. GM had access to the Isuzu D-Max, Ford had access to the Mazda BT-50, and Chrysler had access to Mercedes light commercial vehicles and currently have access to IVECO diesels.
Why wouldn't Chrysler put the 2.1 Mercedes Benz CRD into the Dakota? The 3.0 CRD passed US emissions in the Sprinter. Too expensive? Did $4 gas come too late?
And off topic: What is wrong with Ford? They could have taken a bite out of Tundra and Titan sales with a mild re-style of the F-150 sold at Mazda dealers call it the B-4600 or something.
Ford at some point is supposed to introduce the F-100 which will be a size up from the Ranger and size down from the F-150 .
Yes , a Diesel would be a great idea .
Yes , a Diesel would be a great idea .
whatever happened to the GM 4.5 diesel for 1/2 tons?
+1 on the Ranger having a solid reputation. I have an 01 Sport Trac which is basically a Ranger with 4 doors and it has served me well over the past 10 years. Ford is making a mistake ending Ranger production. The Ranger is one of the very few trucks that looks like a truck. Many look like a full size version of a Tonka toy truck or a scaled down version of a Class 8 tractor. A small diesel would be ideal in the Ranger.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 10,258
Yeah a diesel would be awesome in the ranger it would get like 28 mpg.
according to the Ford facebook page, a lot of people have been wanting the new Ranger for the USA, it's going to be produced for all other countries.
Reason is.. mileage wise the F-150 is close to the same as the Ranger pickup, and saleswise.. the F-150 is about the same price as the Ranger (for base models). Most customers in the USA have been going towards the F-150 instead of the Ranger.
The new Ranger looks very sweet!
toyota's tacoma is now going to be the #1 midsize truck because Ford gave up for the USA.
So either I goto Austrailia, buy the pickup I want and have it shipped to the USA, put some smog stuff on it and pay a whole lot of money.. or I just get an F-150.
in 3rd world countries.. the Ranger is known as a full sized pickup.. they even have 4-door Rangers.. Not for the USA though.. the Sport-Trac is the closest thing.
toyota has a 4-door.. I"ll never buy one.. but at least someone's listening!
Reason is.. mileage wise the F-150 is close to the same as the Ranger pickup, and saleswise.. the F-150 is about the same price as the Ranger (for base models). Most customers in the USA have been going towards the F-150 instead of the Ranger.
The new Ranger looks very sweet!
toyota's tacoma is now going to be the #1 midsize truck because Ford gave up for the USA.
So either I goto Austrailia, buy the pickup I want and have it shipped to the USA, put some smog stuff on it and pay a whole lot of money.. or I just get an F-150.
in 3rd world countries.. the Ranger is known as a full sized pickup.. they even have 4-door Rangers.. Not for the USA though.. the Sport-Trac is the closest thing.
toyota has a 4-door.. I"ll never buy one.. but at least someone's listening!
Originally Posted By: typ901
whatever happened to the GM 4.5 diesel for 1/2 tons?
My guess is that during the bankruptcy it was placed on hold. I have not heard anymore of it, but about 1 1/2 ago I was hearing of us putting that diesel in our large SUV's. Perhaps as GM continues to turn around, money will be allocated for it again. If it does, I bet it would be for the next generation full size SUV - which is the 2013 model year. Too late to do it with the current model with all the regulations and other gov't stuff that needs to be done.
whatever happened to the GM 4.5 diesel for 1/2 tons?
My guess is that during the bankruptcy it was placed on hold. I have not heard anymore of it, but about 1 1/2 ago I was hearing of us putting that diesel in our large SUV's. Perhaps as GM continues to turn around, money will be allocated for it again. If it does, I bet it would be for the next generation full size SUV - which is the 2013 model year. Too late to do it with the current model with all the regulations and other gov't stuff that needs to be done.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: typ901
whatever happened to the GM 4.5 diesel for 1/2 tons?
I have not heard anymore of it, but about 1 1/2 ago I was hearing of us putting that diesel in our large SUV's.
The Jeep Liberty's Italian VM Motori made CRD generated a lot of interest.(even if California couldn't have it) The Mercedes Benz 3.0 made an even more brief appearance in the Grand Cherokee. I'm honestly suprised no one else even made an attempt at a small/mid-size SUV diesel. I don't even remember the Durango having a diesel option. The Nitro allegedly did but I've never seen one. (Seen a few Liberty CRDs)
No Trailblazers. No Explorers...
I wonder how many GCs/Liberty CRDs they would have sold when gas was $4+ a gallon with one simple commercial featuring their fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: typ901
whatever happened to the GM 4.5 diesel for 1/2 tons?
I have not heard anymore of it, but about 1 1/2 ago I was hearing of us putting that diesel in our large SUV's.
The Jeep Liberty's Italian VM Motori made CRD generated a lot of interest.(even if California couldn't have it) The Mercedes Benz 3.0 made an even more brief appearance in the Grand Cherokee. I'm honestly suprised no one else even made an attempt at a small/mid-size SUV diesel. I don't even remember the Durango having a diesel option. The Nitro allegedly did but I've never seen one. (Seen a few Liberty CRDs)
No Trailblazers. No Explorers...
I wonder how many GCs/Liberty CRDs they would have sold when gas was $4+ a gallon with one simple commercial featuring their fuel economy.
VW has a diesel in the Touraeg, as does Audi. And so does M-B. Only reasons that I am not 100% behind diesel is cost 30 cents more in my area, per gallon, adds cost to vehicle for engine vs. petrol and risk of fuel gelling.
I'd like it if Ford or GM built a fullsize truck that wasn't so fullsize. New trucks are so fat and oversized and still offer the same 6.5' or 8' boxes? In my mind, trucks today are the equivalent (size wise) to fullsize cars of the 1970's - tons of wasted space and unnecessarily large. Sure they have more power, are more comfortable, but they need to reduce the package size.
Have you seen a early 90's Ford or GM truck parked next to a modern equivalent? They look like mid-size trucks.
Look at the dimensions below how much the've changed in the past 15 years. A 2011 Supercab long box is nearly as big as a 1976 Cadillac Series 75 Limo!!
1996 Ford F-150
Reg Cab Short Box
Wheelbase: 116.8"
Length: 197.1"
Reg Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 133.0"
Length: 213.3"
Super Cab Short Box
Wheelbase 138.8"
Length: 219.1"
Super Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 155.0"
Length: 235.3"
2011 Ford F-150
Reg Cab Short Box
Wheelbase: 125.9"
Length: 213.2"
Reg Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 144.5"
Length: 231.8"
Super Cab Short Box
Wheelbase: 144.5"
Length: 231.8"
Super Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 163.1"
Length: 250.1"
1976 Cadillac Deville
Wheelbase: 130"
Length: 230.7"
1976 Cadillac Series 75 (factory Limo)
Wheelbase: 151.5"
Length: 252.2"
Have you seen a early 90's Ford or GM truck parked next to a modern equivalent? They look like mid-size trucks.
Look at the dimensions below how much the've changed in the past 15 years. A 2011 Supercab long box is nearly as big as a 1976 Cadillac Series 75 Limo!!
1996 Ford F-150
Reg Cab Short Box
Wheelbase: 116.8"
Length: 197.1"
Reg Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 133.0"
Length: 213.3"
Super Cab Short Box
Wheelbase 138.8"
Length: 219.1"
Super Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 155.0"
Length: 235.3"
2011 Ford F-150
Reg Cab Short Box
Wheelbase: 125.9"
Length: 213.2"
Reg Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 144.5"
Length: 231.8"
Super Cab Short Box
Wheelbase: 144.5"
Length: 231.8"
Super Cab Long Box
Wheelbase: 163.1"
Length: 250.1"
1976 Cadillac Deville
Wheelbase: 130"
Length: 230.7"
1976 Cadillac Series 75 (factory Limo)
Wheelbase: 151.5"
Length: 252.2"
Wow...
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
I'd like it if Ford or GM built a fullsize truck that wasn't so fullsize. New trucks are so fat and oversized and still offer the same 6.5' or 8' boxes? In my mind, trucks today are the equivalent (size wise) to fullsize cars of the 1970's - tons of wasted space and unnecessarily large. Sure they have more power, are more comfortable, but they need to reduce the package size.
Have you seen a early 90's Ford or GM truck parked next to a modern equivalent? They look like mid-size trucks.
Excellent point and figures to back it. I have noticed the same thing - almost every new generation looks more bloated. The latest seem to be the worst.
I'd guess the manufacturers do this because a large percentage of their half ton customers buy them for the manly image rather than the bed size.
The bloated versions cater to that kind of manliness.
One part of the bloating up is more height, which simply makes it harder to put anything in the truck. But hey, how many of these customers put something in there more than twice a year that wouldn't fit in a back seat floor?
I'd like it if Ford or GM built a fullsize truck that wasn't so fullsize. New trucks are so fat and oversized and still offer the same 6.5' or 8' boxes? In my mind, trucks today are the equivalent (size wise) to fullsize cars of the 1970's - tons of wasted space and unnecessarily large. Sure they have more power, are more comfortable, but they need to reduce the package size.
Have you seen a early 90's Ford or GM truck parked next to a modern equivalent? They look like mid-size trucks.
Excellent point and figures to back it. I have noticed the same thing - almost every new generation looks more bloated. The latest seem to be the worst.
I'd guess the manufacturers do this because a large percentage of their half ton customers buy them for the manly image rather than the bed size.
One part of the bloating up is more height, which simply makes it harder to put anything in the truck. But hey, how many of these customers put something in there more than twice a year that wouldn't fit in a back seat floor?
Originally Posted By: nitehawk55
Ford at some point is supposed to introduce the F-100 which will be a size up from the Ranger and size down from the F-150 .
Yes , a Diesel would be a great idea .
Ford killed that idea last year for a F100 type pickup to replace the ranger. According to Ford, the F100 would have put it in spitting distance in size and pricing of the F150. Their market research told them that most would just spend the few extra coin and get the F150.
Ford at some point is supposed to introduce the F-100 which will be a size up from the Ranger and size down from the F-150 .
Yes , a Diesel would be a great idea .
Ford killed that idea last year for a F100 type pickup to replace the ranger. According to Ford, the F100 would have put it in spitting distance in size and pricing of the F150. Their market research told them that most would just spend the few extra coin and get the F150.
Originally Posted By: whip
I liked the previous generation Tundra because it was a 7/8 scale full size truck. The new Tundra is ridiculous.
Agreed. They had a nice niche with the almost full size Tundra. With the current one they followed everyone else and made some kind of goofy obese Tonka truck.
Personally, I think the size of my Ranger is just about right for me. I use it as a commuter and work truck and it's excellent at both tasks. It's fuel efficient and very reliable on a day to day basis, and I can still put 1500 lbs. of stuff in the bed if I need to. The typical full size would be more truck than I really need, but I guess if I want to buy a new Ford that's what I'll be stuck with. I do like the larger Ford trucks, but I'd like for there to be a smaller Ford truck available.
I liked the previous generation Tundra because it was a 7/8 scale full size truck. The new Tundra is ridiculous.
Agreed. They had a nice niche with the almost full size Tundra. With the current one they followed everyone else and made some kind of goofy obese Tonka truck.
Personally, I think the size of my Ranger is just about right for me. I use it as a commuter and work truck and it's excellent at both tasks. It's fuel efficient and very reliable on a day to day basis, and I can still put 1500 lbs. of stuff in the bed if I need to. The typical full size would be more truck than I really need, but I guess if I want to buy a new Ford that's what I'll be stuck with. I do like the larger Ford trucks, but I'd like for there to be a smaller Ford truck available.
- Status
