Unless you don't live, breathe and sleep auto industry goss, you know high gas prices and a construction industry slowdown have killed sales of full-size pickups. Not a moment too soon, Ford is developing a new, more efficient pickup to fit between the F150 and the Ranger. Dubbed the P525, the lighter vehicle's based on the F150 frame, likely powered by one of Ford's new Ecoboost turbocharged V6s. "Sources" tell Automotive News [sub] that the pickup (which could carry the old F100 nameplate) is in Ford's product cycle plan, awaiting final approval. Will this new pickup will replace the Ranger, which could go out of production when Ford's Twin Cities plant shuts down in 2009? Hell if I know. But with revised CAFE regs looming, the new pickup is more likely to replace the F150 as Ford's volume truck (the current F150 returns between 13 and 20 mpg depending on trim). If the P525 graduates from development, expect "unique sheet metal and innovative storage space." We'll be a little more concerned with the weight and miles per gallon.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
If they can incorporate the small diesel that they’re developing this will be a homerun. And really help shine up those fleet CAFE numbers!
Reading the title I thought “At last, a new lightweight 4-cylinder pickup that we can actually use!” Imagine my disappointment upon reading “..will be based on the F150 frame…” which is titanic (small ‘t’).
Why doesn’t Ford get it? We don’t need another Frontier/Tacoma/Dakota clone, we need a new Ranger! Cheap and cheerful is the way to go.
Took ’em long enough. I’m not ready to dismiss the midsize F-100 as a stupid idea just yet, even if it is based on the heaviest and most inefficient truck frame currently on the market. I think this does, however, beg the question of why Ford didn’t consider using the lighter Explorer frame. It would be smaller and could use smaller engines.
Also: I think it’s kinda funny how Ford has literally made their F-150 so big and inefficient that it can’t continue as the “volume seller” anymore.
sean362880 :
I agree with you 100%. This sounds like they’re just “right-sizing” the F150. It’s a noble goal if they come through with it.
I’d really love to see an updated Ranger with the 2.5L motor they’re sticking in the Escape, along with an updated body/interior and *NO* increase in size or weight.
How many ways can you say “dumb idea”? The ranger died because it got too close to the F150 in size and price and not much better mileage. Now if the F100 was to be more the size of the original Ranger (not the latest one) but with a capable 4 or 6 cylinder diesel, it’d be a hit. This still-born dog isn’t going to accomplish anything.
The Ranger is not close to the F-150 in size or price; it’s basically the last true “compact” pickup. The Ranger is struggling only because it hasn’t had a full revamp since the 1993 model year.
I think it’s a great idea on Ford’s part. I foresee it as something that isn’t a midsize truck, but more like resetting the size expectations of half ton trucks closer to what they were 25 years ago. Back then, a half ton truck couldn’t go 0-60 in six seconds or tow five tons. Each successive generation of full-size pickup has gotten larger, to the point that even a 7′ tall person could stand next to an F-150 and reach something on the floor of the pickup bed.
ChrisHaak, I agree, but it should say “to the point that even a 7′ tall person couldn’t stand next to an F-150 and reach something on the floor of the pickup bed.
How many ways can you say “dumb idea”? The ranger died because it got too close to the F150 in size and price and not much better mileage. Now if the F100 was to be more the size of the original Ranger (not the latest one) but with a capable 4 or 6 cylinder diesel, it’d be a hit. This still-born dog isn’t going to accomplish anything.
As a Ranger owner, I have to completely disagree. The Ranger is not even close to the size of an F150. I bought it specifically because it is the last of the compact pickups and because it gets much better mileage then the F150. The interior is functional, and that’s about all I can say. It is literally the same interior since 1995. That being said, the interior was shared with the Explorer so it is not completely utilitarian.
Ford has continued to upgrade the Ranger even though it is long over due for a thorough redesign. Since 1993 they have added a true independent front suspension, introduced a SOHC 4.0LV6, added a 5 speed automatic transmission (in 1997! Still waiting on GM’s 5 speed…). The wheelbase was also changed in 1998 to allow more cabin room and at the same time the frame was boxed.
They just need to update the Ranger and offer the 4WD system with the small 2.3L engine and a 5speed.
I used to have the Mazda clone of the 2WD ranger with the 2.3L and I could get 25-28mpg consistently.
Looking to the future this F100 3/8 Ton “Pocket Battleship” it will have enough functionality to meet the needs of 90% of current F150 owners.
The other 10% who need more can just get a F250 or 350.
$4/gal fuel is making us all reevaluate are actual needs relative to our perceived needs.
Guys, I stand corrected. Thanks. ;-)
The key for Ford will be to nail the trade-off between capability and economy.
A decade ago, Chrysler did it by up-sizing its compact to mid-size, forcing Toyota and everyone else to follow suit. Ten years ago, fuel economy was low on buyers’ lists of needs, so the largest ‘small’ pickup was able to expand sales.
I think Honda almost pulled it off with the Ridgeline, but the styling — especially with the rearward sloping cargo area — simply put off too many potential buyers.
It will be interesting to see what Ford does with the Explorer FourTrack, which is essentially a pickup built off the Explorer chassis. It would make sense to unify it with the F-100 or just eliminate it in favor of a crew cab F-100.
The level of stupidity at Ford is astounding. Rather than make the F-150 the proper size, Ford thinks the better solution is to release a truck that guzzles gas, is the size of the 1997-2003 F-150, and waste a TON of money in the process.
If this “F-100” isn’t a perfect subject for a “Ford Death Watch” editorial, I don’t know what is.
P71_CrownVic :
If it’s done correctly, the F100 would obviate the need for an F150 to be honest. It’s almost as if they want to admit that 1/2 ton trucks have gotten to the point where they are just parodies of themselves.
I can see where Ford may want to right the situation but feel if they abandon the F150 then they might potentially be leaving the market for the current sized trucks all to GM and Dodge (though it’s pretty evident that market is in trouble and there are no near term signs of improvement).
I’m certainly not in the market for any truck but I’d love to see a modern 1/2 ton truck sized like 1/2 ton trucks of 20 years ago. Next up, I’d like to see midsize trucks go away and true compacts reappear :)
I have mixed feelings about this move, one the one hand I have to ask wouldn’t a smaller more efficient, less expensive F-100 just cannibalize the F-150 sales? But at the same time Ford does have an excellent track record when it comes to building and selling trucks (everything else aside you shouldn’t forget that the F-150 is STILL the best selling vehicle in the U.S.)
Well… global Ranger debuts around the same time, and that will be your true compact.
Ford is doing something that is marketing genious, in my opinion. They are trying to keep the “F-series” line-up the best-selling by adding a mid-size component based on the F-150 and calling it the F-100. As gas prices rise, of course truck sales will decline. Probably all the way to 70s levels when trucks were not the best-selling vehicles. The F-100 can be a bit experimental with technology (its new, not as much baggage of expectation to drag around) and will likely get people to consider a pick-up again, especially if prices don’t go over $4-5/gallon. Most importantly, it would likely steal from both the mid-size and full-size segments… and perhaps significantly from the full-size segment.
The new F-150 will be a much better truck than the outgoing model. Weight has been reduced, capability is better, and gas mileage is expected to improve about 1 mpg in all places across the board. With Ecoboost, Ford has a real opportunity for gas mileage gains starting in MY2010. This F-100 will just continue that trend and help the brand of “F-series” in times of expensive gas.
What I see here is a complete mis-understanding that FORD has two distinct truck lines.
The Super Duty is HUGE. The other 150 lineup is not too tall for a 7 ft person to reach to the bottom of the bed. In fact, I see many of these in the Crew Cab format than any other layout for the Ford line. For urban grocery getters.
It can be confusing to the non truck buying public. It’s hard to see the need for these from the front seat of a Volvo.
I guess GM is right sizing their trucks to begin with. Still offering a smaller truck. Along with their med. and large sizes!
Kudos for the Colorado and Canyon. Still available with a 4 cyl.
I think this could be a great move on Ford’s part. The market clearly does not need all of the size and weight in the current F-150. Instead of downsizing and looking like they are making the new F-150 weaker, they are simply allowing a new model to do that, even if it is basically an F-150.
If the F-100 ends up being vastly popular, they will be able to shift production towards that until there is not a need for the F-150. It shouldn’t be thought of as an entirely new model, but instead it should be thought of as another trim level, the same way that there is an F-250, F-350, F-450.
This could actually be a more truck looking replacement for the SportTrac. Instead of being associated with the Explorer, it will carry the F-series brand recognition along with a truck that is more in line with today’s increasing gas prices.
Also, this does not necessarily replace the Ranger. No one at Ford has officially said that the Ranger is dead. As another comment pointed out, this is expected the same year as the new global Ranger. I know Ford has made bad moves before, but I do not think they would let one of their established nameplates die out as it is posting such large sales increases.
As long as they don’t base this off of the Explorer America concept and make this unibody (which is the rumour), then I would very interested in purchasing one of these.
Purists may argue that the F100 would ruin the reputation of F-Series trucks if it becomes another yuppie-mobile “truck” like the Ridgeline.
But we will see.
To P71_CrownVic’s post, I would reply that someone will have to be brave and blink first. It started with Dodge, then Nissan, then Ford, then Chev/GMC, then Toyota, so that now everyone has a big goofy looking half-ton. Ford is testing the waters with this move.
Well, if it’s based on the F-150 platform, it would be BOF and unibody. There were rumors Ford might go the direction of the Ridgeline last year-ish with an F-100, but it was killed for a shrunken mid-size truck based on the regular full-size.
If the the SportTrac happens to stick around, it, along with the Explorer, would go unibody and serve an entirely different purpose from the F-100.
The next Ranger is BOF.
CT_Jake stood up, changed his mind, admitted error, and thus may be one of the few real men left in the world (certainly on the net). Well done, sir.
I think the F100 is a GREAT idea. I do hope the lighten the frame a little, but it’s a good sign for Ford that they are moving this direction.
Sure, a new Ranger would be great. But do you expect Ford to commit to that without another decade or so of careful study and planning? Mustn’t be too hasty! After all, the F-100 may await “final approval” for a year or two.
Might it be that the reason the F-100 would use the F-150 frame is it would permit both models to be built on the same assembly line? The Ranger plant is scheduled for closure.
I was in Argentina last fall, as I was touring the country side of course I noticed a plethora of F-100s and F150s (As it is over much of the world). I didn’t see a single one newer than the early 90’s though. That might not seem strange, as most people think of Argentina as being 3rd world, but there were a LOT of new cars on the road of nearly every make and model.
I asked about it, and the basic attitude was that the new F150s are garbage, so everyone just maintains their older models.
Found that interesting.
I gotta’ agree with the posters saying updating the Ranger would be a much better idea. It’s amazing how this country and the world survived 50 years ago with trucks that were used almost exclusively as work vehicles with engines producing half the horsepower of todays trucks. Just a thought, instead of making ’em faster and keeping the mpg approximately the same (it may even be a little worse now) why not produce a more efficient work truck that can do the hauling and towing just not at break neck speeds. With modern engines and transmissions, they could easily produce a pick-up that gets 25 to 30 mpg, can haul 1 ton or more, and can tow 2 tons. The real reason for not doing this is most trucks aren’t used as trucks more than once or twice a year. A truck is now mostly a large, inefficient passenger vehicle, and most people who buy trucks would not accept slow acceleration times.
Ford is developing a new, more efficient pickup to fit between the F150 and the Ranger. Dubbed the P525, the lighter vehicle’s based on the F150 frame, likely powered by one of Ford’s new Ecoboost turbocharged V6s.
Ford is kidding, right?
A “more efficient” pickup using the F150’s frame, and an Ecoboost V6? Simply by using the F150 frame as a starting point, a lot of efficiency is thrown out the window. And the redesigned F150 itself is said to use Ecoboost V6 engines. So it will simply be an F150 with another name and body.
RobertSD
Well, if it’s based on the F-150 platform, it would be BOF and unibody. There were rumors Ford might go the direction of the Ridgeline last year-ish with an F-100, but it was killed for a shrunken mid-size truck based on the regular full-size.
Sold!
Thanks for the clarification.
itshoody :
May 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
(everything else aside you shouldn’t forget that the F-150 is STILL the best selling vehicle in the U.S.)
This is true-but just barely.
F-Series sales for April: 44,813
Camry sales for April: 40,016
I imagine the Camry will start beating the F-Series in monthly totals sometime this year, and for the full calandar year next year. Considering that as recently as 2005, the ratio of F-Series sales to Camry sales was greater than 2 to 1 (F-Series 2005 sales: 901,463; Camry 2005 sales: 431,703), that’s a dramatic change.
(Also, Ford doesn’t break out F-250/F-350/Super Duty sales seperate from the F-150’s, so it’s possible that the Camry already outsells the F-150 alone.)
Geotpf
(Also, Ford doesn’t break out F-250/F-350/Super Duty sales seperate from the F-150’s, so it’s possible that the Camry already outsells the F-150 alone.)
Everything I’ve read suggests that the Super Duty (F250-F750) is about 40% of the F-Series total, so you are more than correct.
Just a thought, instead of making ‘em faster and keeping the mpg approximately the same (it may even be a little worse now) why not produce a more efficient work truck that can do the hauling and towing just not at break neck speeds. With modern engines and transmissions, they could easily produce a pick-up that gets 25 to 30 mpg, can haul 1 ton or more, and can tow 2 tons.
Makes me think of my 1984 Mazda B2000. It had the aerodynamics of a brick and was so slow I called it “the Silver Slug” (because it was silver in color but would never be mistaken for a bullet!) Going up steep hills I sometimes had to shift down to 2nd gear so that little carbureted 2.0l 4 cyl could get me up the hill and the only time it ever saw 75mph was downhill with a tailwind.
But you know what? That truck would go nearly 400 miles on 11 gallons of gas. Do the math – that’s about 37 mpg.
Of course, it wouldn’t work today. No air bags, no power steering, no AC and the Japanese-made truck was a tad small for my 6’1″ frame. But there’s no reason that a manufacturer couldn’t get 30+ mpg out of a small, extended cab truck if they kept the size smaller and the HP down around 125. It wouldn’t be a speed demon, but so what?
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Total F-series in March 08 54.465
Total GM ruck Sierra and Silv. 57,649
Total Camry: 34,914
So now which is the best selling line in the U.S.?