Ford Considering Focus-based Pickup

i regularly hauled 46 plus pallets on my ranger back when i was doing te bon fire party thing....early to mid 90's

drop tail gate and put 6 in.....and then 4 piles of 10. sometimes a few more.


and sometimes you needed 4 low to get to the party site.





loading up to the max short tripping stuff when y just dgaf is always an adventure

stupid....and dangerous too... hey...shit got moved to where it need to go.

BDAB said:

according to the manufacturer of the chinese one they can have 1,000 units prepped with US emissions and impact standard avail to ship in 30 days. or atleast thats what is says on ali express....

Click to expand...

Kinda silly since the import tax would kill it as soon as it hit the dock.

bobbywalter said:

it would be an extended platform long wheelbase. not id envelope like current critter. like a jeep comanche.

Click to expand...

That concept actually had me thinking about what is/isn't possible with a Escape/Focus cabin, and adding a subframe & box. Sure enough, something similar has been done:

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/124602.jpg

Probably doesn't meet 2019 standards for rigidity.

It would make things a lot simpler to keep the box part of the body as far as rigidity goes. Like a Ridgeline.

Seems crazy to think that the Ranger ended production to eventually become a larger truck, and now they could be thinking about bringing back a smaller truck.

This makes me think of the VW Truck that was around for a while and the Chevy LUV. Trucks for people who don't want a real truck.

Nothing wrong with that as long as that is what you want and know that is what you are getting. Me personally, even if it isn't a full size truck, I want a body on frame with leaf springs and at least a rear solid axle.

Jim Oaks said:

Seems crazy to think that the Ranger ended production to eventually become a larger truck, and now they could be thinking about bringing back a smaller truck.

Click to expand...

Half tons are about the same as a 15yo 3/4 now...

sgtsandman said:

This makes me think of the VW Truck that was around for a while and the Chevy LUV. Trucks for people who don't want a real truck.

Nothing wrong with that as long as that is what you want and know that is what you are getting. Me personally, even if it isn't a full size truck, I want a body on frame with leaf springs and at least a rear solid axle.

Click to expand...

Chev LUV/Ford Courier/Datsun 620&720/Toyota HiLux are all part of 1st generation compact trucks. Body on frame, solid rear axle and rear leaf springs.

VW Caddy/Dodge Rampage/Subaru Brat are the trio of "utes" which spring to mind - Solid rear axles under rear leaf springs but unibodies.

Jeep Comanche was hybrid in middle.

I don't know if I have an issue with considering the '68-72 Chevrolet C/K-10s or current Dodges with rear coil springs as "real trucks".

85_Ranger4x4 said:

It would make things a lot simpler to keep the box part of the body as far as rigidity goes. Like a Ridgeline.

Click to expand...

Simple is probably wrong adjective to describe Honda making the Ridgeline rigid - there is a ton of complex engineering and formed parts in there. But yes, a continuous unibody would be stiffer than a unibody cab and the box on subframe. But the subframe is sooo much easier to design.

Jim Oaks said:

Seems crazy to think that the Ranger ended production to eventually become a larger truck, and now they could be thinking about bringing back a smaller truck.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the normal progression of automobiles, they grow in size/capability in each generation. Then after 2 or 3, manufacturers need a smaller model at the bottom again.

Classic case would be the T-bird.

don4331 said:

I don't know if I have an issue with considering the '68-72 Chevrolet C/K-10s or current Dodges with rear coil springs as "real trucks".

Click to expand...

cant see an issue there.....coils, bags, leafs.... air spring conversions are quite popular these days in 350-550 classes getting over worked and long haul.

don4331 said:

Simple is probably wrong adjective to describe Honda making the Ridgeline rigid - there is a ton of complex engineering and formed parts in there. But yes, a continuous unibody would be stiffer than a unibody cab and the box on subframe. But the subframe is sooo much easier to design.

Click to expand...

at the size of these rigs its actually easier to split the bed skin...as they flex and bust all one piece. the amount of steel needed to make them work makes body on frame lighter and cheaper....

smaller size...you can get away with.

but they are stouter then stout compared to conventional...the old style dodge and gm vans proved you can pound the shit out of them unibody/mono setups....






for a cost effective run-about hauler....no problems here with unibody and transverse engines.

The Courier's were total beasts. They took beatings like derby cars. They'd smoke badly and still run for years and years. Live in a city where it's sometimes necessary to hop curbs on purpose? No problem. They were slow as cold molasses and they wouldn't haul much weight, but they'd do 75% of what the average homeowner in those days wanted to do. You could still load em until bottomed out and drive em home. I have many fond memories of riding around in my aunt's Courier, beating that thing all over the county. Tough as nails.

Now they've reached somewhat of a cult/collector status like most vehicles of that vintage.


GB

don4331 said:

Simple is probably wrong adjective to describe Honda making the Ridgeline rigid - there is a ton of complex engineering and formed parts in there. But yes, a continuous unibody would be stiffer than a unibody cab and the box on subframe. But the subframe is sooo much easier to design.

Click to expand...

It is going to take a lot of work either way. You can't just cut the cargo part off of an Escape and put a subframe on it with a bed. The cabin is going to need a lot of rework too. You have your subframe, is there anything on the bottom of the existing structure to mount it to?

My thought was by filling in where the rear doors are and adding something of a racerback like a Ridgeline so you would gain back a lot of the strength lost by cutting off the top. It would structurally be more similar to what is there now.

Just throwing a frame under the whole thing would add a lot of unnecessary weight because the front half is designed to not need a frame.

The Ridgeline has a lot of structure underneath but is more on par with the new Ranger for capability than this hypothetical reincarnated compact truck.

bobbywalter said:

at the size of these rigs its actually easier to split the bed skin...as they flex and bust all one piece. the amount of steel needed to make them work makes body on frame lighter and cheaper....

smaller size...you can get away with.[/IMG]


for a cost effective run-about hauler....no problems here with unibody and transverse engines.

Click to expand...

I am thinking more El Camino sized rig, basically a stretched Escape with the rear top cut off. Not the old 60's Ford unibody trucks.

don4331 said:

Chev LUV/Ford Courier/Datsun 620&720/Toyota HiLux are all part of 1st generation compact trucks. Body on frame, solid rear axle and rear leaf springs.

VW Caddy/Dodge Rampage/Subaru Brat are the trio of "utes" which spring to mind - Solid rear axles under rear leaf springs but unibodies.

Jeep Comanche was hybrid in middle.

I don't know if I have an issue with considering the '68-72 Chevrolet C/K-10s or current Dodges with rear coil springs as "real trucks".



Simple is probably wrong adjective to describe Honda making the Ridgeline rigid - there is a ton of complex engineering and formed parts in there. But yes, a continuous unibody would be stiffer than a unibody cab and the box on subframe. But the subframe is sooo much easier to design.




Isn't that the normal progression of automobiles, they grow in size/capability in each generation. Then after 2 or 3, manufacturers need a smaller model at the bottom again.

Classic case would be the T-bird.

Click to expand...

I might have faulty memory on the Chevy LUV then and stand corrected. I could have sworn it was unit body. I may be too young for the Ford Courier and the Toyota Hilux. I don't remember either of them. I thought about the Jeep Comanche after my post but didn't update the post. I don't consider the Honda Ridgeline a truck but a chopped and modified Honda Pilot. I remember the Subaru Brat but couldn't remember how they were built. I forgot about the Dodge Rampage.

You might be correct about the leaf vs coil spring rear end. I figure there is a reason why most come with leafs beyond more than likely being cheaper to manufacture. Less parts to go wrong or break.

There are certainly advantages to a small truck over a mid size and vice versa. I would have been fine if Ford had decided to restart the small truck but added a crew cab option. My extended cab is just cruel for anyone short of young children and better suited as added storage room over the regular cab.

the luvs and pups i pounded into the ground had frames.

I had a 78 LUV. It most definatly had a frame. Not much of one, but it was there.

It blew up when i migrated to michigan from tennessee circa 87. Somewhere around cincinatti. Thats when i bought my first ranger (rusty #1) and continued the trip.

I love my mini mini truck's.

Dodge rampage
Vw truck
Suby brat (sort of)

The baja was a good thought poor design.
A 4 door loke the baja but with a 5+ ft ned thats 4ft wide at the tailgate opening would serve some purpose.

I absolutely loved my rampage but with 2 kids now a 2 seatee isn't practical. I got 35mpg with a Polaris 4wd ATV in the bed. If I could do that with. 4 seats of be tickled fancy

Sent from my LM-X410(FG) using Tapatalk