• 45

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.

[Source: The Detroit News]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 6 Years Ago
      Do both!!!
        • 6 Years Ago
        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..

        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
      • 6 Years Ago
      "A proposed smaller and lighter sibling to the popular F-150 pickup"

      So... like, a Ranger?
        • 6 Years Ago

        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! :)
        • 6 Years Ago
        haha exactly
      • 6 Years Ago
      Midsize Pickups are selling like hotcakes still in Australia. Here a lot of them run diesels and have a 3000lb payload and can pull about 6.600lb making them useful as a light duty commercial vehicle/ private use "car".Car/Utes also are selling well filling a lot of niches.
      • 6 Years Ago
      (KINDLY) What is moronic is when people don't realize that vehicles cost many hundreds of millions to conceive, design, develop, and market -- so write diatribes about manufacturers whom you feel should spend money they dont have on a project you like. (not just you, but some large % of the posters here.

      The F-150 shares components with a lot of trucks, vans, and cars. A small pickup, being the only rear-drive vehicle, would stand alone. As I write in another comment, there are other ways to cover the small pickup idea --- but their MAIN BUSINESS THAT THEY KNOW THEY HAVE is bleeding, so it makes more sense to put the money into that.

      Or let's call them all stupid for not having crystal balls, and for not waving their magic wands to make their foreign models fit American regulations.

      Save your energy, perhaps, for emailing your Congress Members to allow cars which are designed to European standards be brought in, or made here, if they substantially fit American regs.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Are you kidding?

        Ford has had decades to update the Ranger, and they haven't. That platform has been amortized LONG ago.

        The ranger could be built like the overseas ranger, or could be adapted from the Explorer, like the Sport Trac, but with two doors, and a longer bed.

        Ford has had plenty of time and money to step up and compete. They have chosen to squander instead.

        The F150 does share components with full size vans and full size SUVs, but not so much with cars.

        Also, no one is talking about diminishing what the F150 does well. However, not a single word of this explains how to make VERY BIG TRUCK more efficient by putting an under-powered engine in it, and making everyone dissatisfied, and not addressing the design issues that make the F150 a big truck that requires a certain amount of energy to be viable.

        If their main business is bleeding, then perhaps they should revisit that. Perhaps they need to find new ways of doing business, rather than new ways of handicapping the products they have.

        Perhaps they are bleeding because they haven't kept up for quite some time. It isn't a matter of chrystal ball predictions. The percentage of people you describe, me included, have been seeing a clear and present trend, no predictions, or denial required.

        It is Ford's responsibility to do business, and make products that sell, the better they sell, the better for Ford.

        It is not the consumer's job to patronize companies just because of the logo on the grille or the building. A customer's job is simply to spend their hard earned money responsibly for their situation, and buy the product that best fits that role. The company that caters to that the best, gets the money. No crystal ball required, just a bit of responsibility.

        It sure as hell isn't the responsibility of the government to micromanage, or bail out said company, or any other.
        • 6 Years Ago
        My post was about assuming Ford or GM are stupid for not doing XYZ without thinking through the applicable business case. It was not about whether Ford made mistakes (yes, many dozens, but they are now acting smart, it seems)

        I do not address the Ranger -- except to say it is probably too old-tech to fix up profitably

        Of course the F-150 shares the MOST COSTLY PARTS with cars -- engines and transmissions. Even though there are truck-specific variations, the development, tooling, and plants are shared, and used for decades. I am driving a 2000 Mustang with a 4.6L engine (unfortunately, lousy in comparison to my old 5.0 and 1 MPG less)
      • 6 Years Ago
      Too bad, I would have seriously considered a truck smaller then f150, larger then ranger, ie Dakota sized.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I wish that automakers would build trucks and SUVs the size of Blazers, Rangers, and Mighty Max.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Thats exactly what i said on one of my comments if u scroll down a little bit. And i completely agree with you.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Does it seem like idiocy to anyone else?

      Don't make a small truck, when your small truck is ancient, but still sells because people want at least SOMETHING.

      Let's put "fuel efficient drivetrains" in the new truck that we just designed, which is bigger, taller, less aerodynamic than ever, and weighs three tons, and just was reported to be able to tow almost 12,000 lbs.

      What exactly is going to be more fuel efficient than a torquey V8 that it already has, and the Diesel it is already supposed to be getting?

      A four cylinder? a small 6 cylinder? in a full size BIG FRICKIN TRUCK? The F150 today is as big, and as heavy duty as a Super Duty was a few years back.

      A 4 or small 6 are going to wheeze and cough under that weight, and not get any better mileage while being wrung out.

      SMALLER, LIGHTER, lower if not off-road intended, more aerodynamic in the front (without looking stupid, like Toyota trucks do.)...

      A Ranger replacement, properly designed and new, has a much higher probability of being fuel efficient than an anemic engine in big frickin truck.

      FoMoCo MORONS. This is why you are too stupid to do business.

      It isn't as if it is either-or. People who need full size, will still be able to get it.

      But those who need less capability, and more compact dimensions and better economy, have the ancient ranger, one of the oldest platforms still being sold as new.

      idiocy, I swear.

      • 6 Years Ago
      Silly Ford. Why can't they spell d.i.e.s.e.l. without adding a $7000 premium to the freakin' truck?

        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        And you forgot the turbos and the super-high-pressure fuel pumps and injectors . . . .
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
      • 6 Years Ago

      *Use existing Ford 4 and 6 cylinder engines and transmissions to replace the current Ranger's powertrains (especially the 3.0 and 4.0 v6's). No further R&D is needed and mpg would increase even more!

      *Update the interior at least little

      *Fit some side airbags to help safety some without adding a bunch of weight

      If Ford could hit 29-30 mpg out of the base 4 cylinder, it could be marketing greatness, especially considering it owns the small truck market.
      • 6 Years Ago
      HERE'S WHAT YOU DO MAKE A 4L SuperCharged Twin Turbo I6 ECOBOOST FOR THE F150 AND MAKE A 1.5L I4 SUPERCHARGED Twin Turbo ECOBOOST FOR THE P525 (RANGER REPLACEMENT) Make sure it's in Crewcab format and that it has H.L.A and Diesel Availablity and the the diesel is Direct Injected
      • 6 Years Ago
      Good...maybe Ford realized that there is no need for a truck, the size of the 1997-2003 F-150's...well, there wouldn't be a need if they weren't insistent on making the F-150 bigger and bigger with every refresh.

      The Ranger would be selling in droves right now if it had a 2.5L 4 banger with a 6-speed or the 3.5L with a 6 speed. Ditch those horrible engines it has now, and replace them with the 2.5 and 3.5 with the same 6-speed.

      Ford would be making so much money they actually could afford to try the silly F-100 experiment.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I agree with Matt on his perspective about the ranger. I still like my large pick ups though. But it is true, they keep getting larger and larger. Look at the tacoma and the colorado. They are way larger than the older models. Just compare a tacoma to the toyota pick ups from the 80's. Its like comparing a cobalt with an aveo in terms of size.
      • 6 Years Ago
      small diesel hybrids in F150s would get about 50 mpg. In an F100 about 60 mpg. They should quit screwing around with the other engines and jsut go with small diesel hybrids.
    • Load More Comments