[Denny]

I guess we can pin a lot of the popularity of the motoring lifestyle, and the acceleration of the peak oil situation, on this piece of history. It really was a quite breakthrough, as it changed people's lives.

Check the Detroit News Video for a cool retrospective of the car and the production methods. They were built to cross ditches and fields, a real SUV!

[frankthetank]

With all the hype in the stock market this week, Ford released its "new" F150 to the world unnoticed. Talk about ground breaking... This company has no clue...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]"The timing is perfect. The truck will solve not only the work needs with superior fuel economy, but it'll provide value that the trucker desires," said Ken Czubay, vice president of U.S. sales and marketing. "When times are tough, you want to have a product that differentiates yourself from the competition."

Czubay added that congressional approval of the proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial industry would "have a very important psychological effect" on potential buyers, especially if it encourages lenders to loosen up lending requirements.

"Credit is really the oil that makes the U.S. economy work, and when you throw sand in there it bogs everything down," he said. "Obviously, September was a reflection of that. But we'll get through it."

Ford said the new F-150 has an average 8 percent increase in fuel economy across the entire lineup. The two-wheel-drive F-150 with a 5.4-liter, three-valve V-8 engine averages 14 miles per gallon in the city and 20 mpg on the highway, compared with 13 mpg in the city and 17 mpg on the highway for the 2008 model.

A "superior fuel economy" version for 2009 increases the mileage to 15 mpg in the city and 21 mpg on the highway. That matches the averages of the most fuel-efficient versions of General Motors Corp.'s two-wheel-drive 2009 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra

[Snowrunner]

I doubt Ford had a chance to call this one off. These product launches are usually several years in the making. The retooling etc. has all been done way before introduction, even if they didn't take off the lines, they HAD already made the new negatives etc. and all that goes with it, most likely ordered the parts for the new model by their suppliers and had them end production of the old ones.

Essentially once they have gone down that road it would be much more costly for them to stick to the old model because the major capital outlay has already been done.

[Denny]

I think the amount of money, billions of dollars in the past couple of years, that has been invested by the "big 3" Detroit automakers and Toyota too, into pickup truck redesign is just a classic example of diminishing returns.

Many of the value added changes, as minor as they are to the fuel economy "bottom line", could have been easily enough incorporated into their existing truck models without touching the most expensive aspects of the changes, the cosmetic aspects of the body sheet metal, instrument panel and the like. I used to work in the auto business and its just mind blowing to see the kind of money that goes into this type of redesign, the stamping dies, the welding shop automation rebuilds, etc. I recall reading a few years ago that the cost for Chrysler, just to replace their shipping racks for the body panels after a change to their minivan design, was in the order of $110 million.

The North American auto business still has a belief in spending real big money for the cosmetic side of things. They don't seem to accept the reality that, for most buyers, the utility and reliability are the paramount virtues, especially for trucks.

[Tanada]

Not to defend FoMoCo, but they do produce a 6 cylender version of the F-150 that gets considerably better milage, they just don't promote it because they make more money on the big honker of a V-8.

If you go to a dealer today and place an order they will gladely sell you the 6 version, because any sale is better than no sale.

[eastbay]

[web]http://www.best-trade-car.com/blogpics/DEKKIV~22.jpg[/web]


Why not something like this modern and attractive model from Japan with a 1.3L 4 cylinder.

But no. Ford keeps trying to stuff the round peg into the square hole.

[frankthetank]

Tanada-

Where do you see an option for a 6cyl? I just tried to build one on the Ford site and i can't find that option for the F150...

After digging more... I think that 6 has been dropped!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ew for '09 is a 24-valve 4.6-liter V8, which also features the same Ford injection technology. This engine is meant to offer a compromise between peak output and fuel-efficiency. There's also a 16-valve 4.6-liter V8 that replaces the former V6 option, as it delivers the same fuel economy as the V6, only with more horsepower.

[strider3700]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '[')web]http://www.best-trade-car.com/blogpics/DEKKIV~22.jpg[/web]


Why not something like this modern and attractive model from Japan with a 1.3L 4 cylinder.

But no. Ford keeps trying to stuff the round peg into the square hole.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', 'T')anada-

Where do you see an option for a 6cyl? I just tried to build one on the Ford site and i can't find that option for the F150...

After digging more... I think that 6 has been dropped!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ew for '09 is a 24-valve 4.6-liter V8, which also features the same Ford injection technology. This engine is meant to offer a compromise between peak output and fuel-efficiency. There's also a 16-valve 4.6-liter V8 that replaces the former V6 option, as it delivers the same fuel economy as the V6, only with more horsepower.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'W')hy not something like this modern and attractive model from Japan with a 1.3L 4 cylinder.

But no. Ford keeps trying to stuff the round peg into the square hole.

[pedalling_faster]

If Henry Ford were around he'd fire a bunch of people (top 500 managers) and get to work re-designing.

[dissident]

The engine options of US light truck makers are driven by marketing idiocy. For example in 1993 Chrysler was offering the two valve version of its Cummins six-inline diesel which consumed about 10.5 liters per 100 km (23 mpg) on the highway (from personal experience it has this fuel consumption fully loaded with hardwood firewood). This option has not been available for a long time as they chose to go for the four valve version with a bigger bore (6.7 L vs 5.9 L) that gets 16 mpg. The original 5.9 L was and still is more than enough for a pickup truck but consumers respond to the horsepower number and ignore the torque.

The marketing departments and the consumers are still out of touch so products reflect this.

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'W')hy not something like this modern and attractive model from Japan with a 1.3L 4 cylinder.

But no. Ford keeps trying to stuff the round peg into the square hole.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('strider3700', 'a')ll of these f350 superduty dually diesels running around as trophy trucks for soccer moms is idiotic. There still is a need for large trucks though

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('strider3700', 'a')ll of these f350 superduty dually diesels running around as trophy trucks for soccer moms is idiotic. There still is a need for large trucks though

[eastbay]

[web]http://mactownminitrucks.homestead.com/9_Mini_n_on_Flatbed___Tan_Honda___Jerry_White_Polaris_04.26.07_007.jpg[/web]


Why not here?

[TreeFarmer]

I'm suprised that none of the car companies have at least shown a concept vehicle that is a mix of truck and car. Something like the old El Camino yet with a big enough bed to hold 4x8 building materials.

Doing something like that would allow them to greatly reduce wind resistance and this increase mileage.

One thing this is also never mentioned is that the carrying and towing capacity of these pickups keeps going up and up. I belive, but I'm not sure, it is because the weight of the trucks keeps going up. What we need is a true 1/2 pickup type vehicle with a sloped front and windshield for better mileage.

TF

[Buggy]

Back in 82 my dad bought a brand new Datsun 210. It got 45 mpg. Back in 05 I bought a brand new Hyundai Accent, a car that would have competed with my dad's Datsun back in the day. It only gets 34 mpg. We CAN build automobiles that weigh thousands of pounds less and get 60 mpg without a bunch of hybrid money sunk into it. WHY AREN"T WE?!?!!?!! It makes me soooo angry. As for the new F-150, its best use is a paper weight or door stop.

[Snowrunner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buggy', 'W')e CAN build automobiles that weigh thousands of pounds less and get 60 mpg without a bunch of hybrid money sunk into it. WHY AREN"T WE?!?!!?!! It makes me soooo angry.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '
')But no one needs a Ford F 250.