Red Horse

Agree with KSC's editorial comments on Ford's dumb ass position on this issue.-as well as all the other posters. No unibody "car/truck"for me. And B61VT brings up good points on the economics that certainly apply to a lot of people. biut I'm afraid the Ford boys are driven totally by the manufacturing economics- and I guess from a stockholder's perspective tough to argue. Bottom line, do they have ANY option that would let them build off a current US built BOF vehicle? I don't think so. Then again, I look at the engineering/development costs that are done with respect to the Ranger/Everest platform. Assuming these two are not that far off from meeting US crash standards, what would it take to tweak them to comply? But back to the US manufacturing issue, I think with 150 now based on aluminum and its unique manufacturing process, they don't have a plant that does conventional BOF construction with "old fashioned" steel/welded construction. Transit is unibody. The Super duty line, built at the huge Kentucky Truck Plant (originally built as the largest HD truck plant in the world in'69 when thje Louisville came out) is BOF but if you listen/read all the buzz on those, they will soon be aluminum. Maybe the Ohio plant that still builds the last of the E series Cut aways and will soon be building the 2016 F650/750 could be the plant that builds this BOF small truck? A complicated problem for Ford. We shall see just how successful the new GM's are. In the meantime, I'm taking good care of my '04 Ranger FX-4 that has been in the family since new. And as I've posted many times on the BON website, I can't see throwing a couple of calcium loaded "44s" in the back of a unibody tin can built on a Transit Connect platform

Any clue as to the premium for the P-H system over a conventional power train? If you use say 3.50 per gallon, that is $15,000 per year savings. As for operating cost, I would imagine you also have lower brake costs with these things. Any clue as to durability of this system? Is Parker Hannifin last one in the hydraulic hybrid business? I think Ford had done a lot of research on this mode but have not heard of any activity of late. Makes sense to me but I guess the cost/weight penalty of the "accumulator tank" or whatever you call it is a big negative.

Turnpike doubles I see? So you do NYS thruway and Mass Pike?

The Explorer PI is now outselling the Taurus PI almost 2 to 1. With all the stuff these guys carry today, not surprising. As for the Charger, unless they have made huge changes, everything I have read/heard says they have very high maintenance costs. BUT they are fast! Then again, how fast is fast enough. As someone said-nothing outruns a Motorola! Nothing will probably compare with Crown Vics in terms of durability and low operating costs. And nice thing about CV's, once they were turned in, a quick paint job and they were back on road as cabs for another 100,000 or so miles.

Agree on the Ranger-I have an 04 FX-4. The 4.0 V-6 is a bit of a gas hog but guess what- I like the size. When people say-"well a 150 gets better gas mileage", I say..."but I don't want a truck that size" . Then they talk about a new replacement built on a Transit Connect. And I say..."check out attached-am I going to put two calcium loaded "44's" in the back of a Transit Connect? Not with a sense of comfort. And the argument will always be that the small truck market is just too small to be profitable. I'm sure Toyota is thrilled that Ford has left the market to them. And the anti Ranger crowd will be watching the success/failure of the new GM small trucks to prove/disprove their point. Oh and as to the argument that a 150 gets better gas mileage, just think what Ranger mpg numbers would have been with a modern engine such as the 3.5 V-6 or a 2.0 Ecoboost.

Nice- oldie made in USA!

2010 was last year of BOF Explorers. I do believe you can now rent from U-haul with an Explorer and I think that entire issue was just related to the Firestone issue. My wife has had three Explorers and last year her last one (2004) was pushing 100,000. She does not like new ones as she claims she can't see out the back blah blah. She wanted a Pilot which I said was not going to happen so I went on Autotrader.com and found a 2010 Limited Ford Certified Pre Owned with 27,000 miles. 3V 4.6 v-8, 6 speed. Great vehicle Can't beat the CPO deal-100,000 mile power train warranty etc. As for the Everest, looks like a great vehicle with great power train options-but I bet we never see it here. Same deal as the Ranger-anything that will take away from existing Ford vehicle sales has a snow ball's chance in hell of getting here.

Caption for this is..."Fifty Plus Years of 24" Spokes" Picking up a load of graded base at Pandolf-Perkins in Sterling today with the B model and Pao Corp is in back of me with one of their beautiful Granites. Heidi in scalehouse says this truck is a former Perkins unit-not sure of its age but there is at least a 50 year span between these two Macks.

Hah! Matt-forgot about that custom touch! Someone was telling me the other day about a guy who spent a good buck having something custom machined-nothing out of the box!

Agree! That is what my tongue in cheek comment was all about. When you look at all the Overdrive "award winners", all the same "low rider", flat rimmed baseball hat over the ears look. I laugh. the manufacturers do all they can to improve visibility, give drivers a good view of the road and you see some St. Petermobile headed toward you and you barely see the top of the drivers head above the dash. I asked one "driver" one day why he drove on the floor and he said..."better visibility-you can see further down the road"!!

Nah- they have it all wrong. Needs a visor so the net windshield opening is no more than 4", full fiberglass wheel skirts, and a seating position so it looks like no one is actually driving it. Oh yeah-forgot about the 24" deep chrome bumper with 1.75" of ground clearance. Got to have the "look" to make it on one of those Shell calendars!

What do you figure? about 3 hours for a pre trip?

"Giving them back" seems to be the usual outcome. Think about it- a truck being built by a partnership that is each up to its eyeballs in legal issues over inferior products! (or to be more specific-inferior motors)

Don't know what the reception is in the rest of the country but here in New England, you never hear anything good about these Cat/"Binders". How much long is Cat going to continue this experiment?

Matt- Looks pretty good for a parts truck-see what you mean though on the frame-lot of empty holes!

I should be so lucky

"Big 10-4" on the copper! "Feel" as well as change in engine tone-just think-you are probably 40' from the engine(s)!! As for GPM, can't imagine

Well in any case, give the FordOtosan workers a "A" for dress code. Look at any US assembly scenes and it seems "hip hop" shorts, sneakers etc are acceptable. These FordOtosan guys look like they actually are wearing work shoes, reflectorized safety striping on pants etc.

Hah- go to OD's first picture. Think those tie down chains on that bucket are anything but decorations? On another note I wonder how many hydraulic pumps these things have? I imagine one for each function?? Biggest thing I've ever run is a PC 300-can't imagine sensation of curling the bucket on this thing-then again, you are not worried about "feeling" for a buried conduit!

And before I respond to your comment, I would have to say go back and read the thread again. Perhaps then your panties won't remain twisted! Was my use of the term Ruski offensive? I never thought of it as such but rather an abbreviation for things Russian. Was my comment on Russian design offensive? I don't think so- my opinion. If you think typical Russian (make that Ruski as that is not degrogatory IMO) automotive design has typically been good, that is your opinion. The truck in question looks good-hence my tongue in cheek comment on hacking Ford's design center. I would also add that after your first little "admonition", I apologized to Vlad-which I believe he acknowledged. I hardly think I attacked all those of Russian ancestry with my comment. Lighten up pal-you take yourself too seriously. Now, to get to the issue, I guess what you are saying is use of a Ford logo on a valve cover, or perhaps modifying an accessory drive, qualifies them to say they "designed" the engine. So be it. Sounds to me like they are playing word games

Nah- the "two story Falcon" has at least a foot and a half over the Cargo

I must be dense. Just what does the following say: In the heavy Cargo range, Ford Otosan has been offering the 10.3-liter Fiat Powertrain Technologies (FPT) Cursor 10 found in Iveco trucks. Following last years announcement (below), we learned that Ford Otosan will produce the 11.1-liter Cursor 11 and 12.9-liter Cursor 13 under license in Turkey (The Cursor 11 replaces the Cursor 10). For the JMC-Ford joint venture to find success in China’s heavy truck market, they would have to build these FPT engines in China. Ford Otosan is to invest US$ 100 million in the production of the new 11-liter and 13-liter Ecotorq engines. The intellectual property rights of the engines, designed by Ford Otosan engineers, belong to Ford Otosan. The new Ecotorq engines that will be manufactured at Euro 6 emission standards, are expected to have wide use including heavy commercial vehicles as well as industrial and marine applications. In first paragraph, clearly states these are FPT engines that are being built under license in Turkey. Second paragraph talks about "intellectual property rights"... designed by Ford Otosan engineers" ...that.."belong to Ford Otosan". What am I missing-they didn't design anything-they are building Fiat Power under license! Also, just how close does this guy Marchione want to FPT to be involved with any Ford re entry into heavy trucks? I assume FPT is NOT a spin off and is in fact under Chrysler/Fiat control???

Looking Good!! Is that a new Transit off to the side?

Any id on who owned it? I think Getty had some 358's. DM's were the more popular city spec chassis in the 70's.

I do believe that is NOT an airport refueler but is rather a 3000 gallon NYC spec gasoline hauler. back in the era when NYFD ruled the roost on petroleum delivery in the boroughs. 3000 gal was max on gasoline. Steel tank, chassis was restricted to a few manufacturers as for example all wiring underhood had to be in BX etc etc. tank and valves by the way was single sourced. Talk about a good deal.