Filed under: Trucks/Pickups, Plants/Manufacturing, Ford
Ford F-100 put on hold
Click above for high-res gallery of the 2009 Ford F-150
Ford's plans to manufacture the F-100 pickup, its answer for consumers who want a more fuel-efficient pickup, have been shelved (for now). A proposed smaller and lighter sibling to the popular F-150 pickup, the F-100 would have been built at the Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, Michigan. Instead of designing a new small truck, one that consumers may not have warmed up to in the first place, Ford is reportedly making an "unprecedented" investment in more fuel-efficient powerplants to drop under the hood of the best-selling F-150. According to Ford, much of the funding will be directed towards its EcoBoost engines that utilize turbocharging and direct injection to deliver increased power and efficiency. The company is also looking at a technology called "ethanol boosting" which injects a small amount of the biofuel into the engine to increase fuel economy even further. Investing in new engine technology is expensive, but Ford is counting on reduced warranty costs (they have decreased by $1.2 billion in the past 18 months) to help offset development fees.
Gallery: 2009 Ford F-150
_thumbnail.jpg)
[Source: The Detroit News]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Austin 2:04PM (8/07/2008)
Do both!!!
Reply
Rboyett 2:56PM (8/07/2008)
I totally agree with you.
However, I believe Ford is thinking the market isn't there for them to invest the money on two different models (even ones on shared platforms). They may feel that they need a good return on their investment and that more fuel efficient engines can be used in multiple products..
gholland 3:07PM (8/07/2008)
Ford isn't exactly swimming in cash right now. The costs associated with transforming their truck plants to produce the euro Fords has obviously taken priority. Considering their financial state, they have to pick and choose; and for now, the Ranger is going to be their F-100.
Dave 2:05PM (8/07/2008)
Michigan Truck Plant in INDIANA???? Please lay off the blunts over there. Wow. EdjewKshun!
Reply
timhwu 2:36PM (8/07/2008)
Yep, Wayne, Indiana!
TigerMil 2:06PM (8/07/2008)
Silly Ford. Why can't they spell d.i.e.s.e.l. without adding a $7000 premium to the freakin' truck?
Reply
Shipey 4:31PM (8/07/2008)
'Cause you can't build d.e.i.s.e.l. without lots and lots of expensive f.o.r.g.e.d. internals and multiple catalytic converters filled to the brim with p.r.e.c.i.o.u.s. metals.
AMcA 6:18PM (8/07/2008)
And you forgot the turbos and the super-high-pressure fuel pumps and injectors . . . .
montoym 6:53PM (8/07/2008)
I believe M-B's diesel options will cost around $1000 and VW's TDI option is around $2000.
There is definitely a way to sell a full-size pickup without a $7000 price increase for the diesel, more technology or not. It's done all over the world.
That One Person 8:56PM (8/07/2008)
You think Ford's diesels are expensive?
The Duramax in a Silvy 2500 costs $7200. A Cummins in a Ram 2500 costs $6100. The Powerstroke in a F-250 is $6900.
Oh and Montoy...there may be a reason why those engines are so cheap. MBs are luxury cars. And VWs are overpriced econoboxes. I think maybe the costs of those engines are absorbed somewhere.
Allan 2:11PM (8/07/2008)
"A proposed smaller and lighter sibling to the popular F-150 pickup"
So... like, a Ranger?
Reply
Isuzu32 2:15PM (8/07/2008)
haha exactly
Randy 3:17PM (8/07/2008)
Bravo!
Ford is missing a mid sized truck in the lineup! That's how they should have said it!
Ranger = Small
F-150 = Full
By making a mid, they take the mojo away from Ridgline and Tacoma (and bury Dakota).
At the same time, they must worry about F-150 sales declining from F-100 sales.
Just build it! :)
Luna34 2:12PM (8/07/2008)
I am wondering why they havent invested on a new ranger. With these gas prices a redesigned ford ranger would be a smart move. With gas prices this high i wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the fleet sales would shift to smaller pick ups. Im sure a lot of companies who buy large pick ups do not need the towing capacity, horsepower, and size. Most companies can and will do with mid-size pick up. Just make sure its very fuel efficient and they will sell like hotcakes, even to the average consumers. But for the large truck enthusiasts like me, please revive the boss 6.2 V8 on the f-150!!!
Reply
mroverlord 2:41PM (8/07/2008)
Our fleet here at work, and many others in the area have started replacing older trucks with Rangers and Dakotas. We also have some hybrid Escapes, which work great for some of our stop and go city employees.
Isuzu32 2:19PM (8/07/2008)
I wish that automakers would build trucks and SUVs the size of Blazers, Rangers, and Mighty Max.
Reply
Luna34 2:22PM (8/07/2008)
They do, but theres some of us out there that need and like the larger ones like the chevy silverado, f-150, Ford Super duty and Cadillac Escalade ESV.
Isuzu32 2:31PM (8/07/2008)
Compare the size of a 1st gen tacoma to the current tacoma. They are not even close in size. Even the Colorado is out of proportion. The current Nissan Frontier is the size of the 1st gen T100!!!
I understand the need for larger trucks. There always will be a need for them. But a small pickup, maybe the dimensions of the 2nd gen S-series, is a good fit for someone who just hauls or tows now and then.
Luna34 2:38PM (8/07/2008)
Thats exactly what i said on one of my comments if u scroll down a little bit. And i completely agree with you.
why not the LS2LS7? 4:22PM (8/07/2008)
Yes, it is as a friend said (and probably stole from elsewhere). "The race is on to build the biggest small truck!"
Small trucks (the Tacoma is a great example) got larger and larger over the years. So did the large ones of course.