2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[Dalko43]

Just curious where you read that. I own an F-150 so I wanted to read what Ford said. I did some googling but came up empty.

On an episode of the TruckShow Podcast (I think a Motortrend spin-off) an engineer from Ford was brought onto the show to discuss the new 3.0l Powerstroke. During the course of the conversation, he discussed the design differences between the Super Duty and F-150, and noted the design life intended for the F-150 (10 years, 150k miles).

Truck Show Podcast

 

[Todd780]

Thank you for sharing the link.

 

[DaveInDenver]

the design life intended for the F-150 (10 years, 150k miles)

Interesting that he'd let something like that slip. Everything has design expectations and I've wondered what various companies used for intended service life and what that means. Lots of things have a lifecycle between minor and major overhauls, so this alone doesn't imply an F150 only will be on the road that long. Just could mean at 150k you should expect to be doing somewhere between a little and a lot of stuff to keep it going.

 

[Dalko43]

Interesting that he'd let something like that slip. Everything has design expectations and I've wondered what various companies used for intended service life and what that means. Lots of things have a lifecycle between minor and major overhauls, so this alone doesn't imply an F150 only will be on the road that long. Just could mean at 150k you should expect to be doing somewhere between a little and a lot of stuff to keep it going.

You're right in that his words are open to somewhat broad and vague interpretations.

Still, saying that out loud doesn't give a whole lot of confidence to the person looking to buy a 10 year old F-150. And nor do I consider Ford alone in this design mentality, as I see most other OEM's design their 1/2 ton's to be 'good enough' rather than over-engineered (perhaps with the exception of Toyota's Tundra).

That's partly why I'm eager to see the Ranger come to North America. We might be getting a tweaked version, but that vehicle was initially designed to operate in austere and challenging environments. Fingers crossed that its outback pedigree isn't lost in translation.

 

[DaveInDenver]

You're right in that his words are open to somewhat broad and vague interpretations.

Still, saying that out loud doesn't give a whole lot of confidence to the person looking to buy a 10 year old F-150. And nor do I consider Ford alone in this design mentality, as I see most other OEM's design their 1/2 ton's to be 'good enough' rather than over-engineered (perhaps with the exception of Toyota's Tundra).

That's partly why I'm eager to see the Ranger come to North America. We might be getting a tweaked version, but that vehicle was initially designed to operate in austere and challenging environments. Fingers crossed that its outback pedigree isn't lost in translation.

I get where you're coming from but I think it's not exceptional for the industry, Toyota included seems to be building vehicles less robustly. Perhaps not the Land Cruiser.

 

[Buliwyf]

It's no secret thanks to fleets. Vans and 150's are traded in at 150k / 3-4 years, Super Duties at 200k / 4-5 years.

Since fleets don't do any maintenance you have a huge repair bill, or a risky truck that could fail at any moment if you keep it.

Let's look at whats due:
Trans flush. Diff, diff, and xfer case flush. Timing chain and tensioners. Possibly calipers. Shocks and joints are toast. Plugs and wires. Not to mention body work to make the truck professional looking again.

 

[Dalko43]

I get where you're coming from but I think it's not exceptional for the industry, Toyota included seems to be building vehicles less robustly. Perhaps not the Land Cruiser.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Tundra, for a few reasons, but when you see it in person and compare it to other 1/2 tons', it definitely looks a bit beefier:

• Bigger rear axle (10.5") than all other 1/2 tons.
• 4.30 gearing, whereas most other 1/2 tons are using higher gearing, even with their v8's.
• Similarly-sized brake discs, but it has 4 piston calipers up front while I think most others have 2 piston calipers.
• I can't quantify the strength of things like transfer case, trailer hitch attachment and drive shaft, but they certainly looked more beefy.
• Not to mention the Tundra really has its underside well-sorted for rough 4x4 use (skid plates, good placement of wires and sensors) compared to some others.
• Tundra's payload and towing is rated using SAE standards; I don't think any other OEM's do that for their 1/2 tons, could be wrong though.

Other than frame and certain chassis components, I'd imagine that the LC 200 uses fairly similar driveline components as it uses the same 5.7l v8 as the Tundra. The Tundra has a somewhat bigger axle (10.5" vs the LC's 9.5"), which makes sense given that its rated to carry and tow more weight. The LC 200 is beefy, but I certainly wouldn't consider the Tundra any less beefy by comparison.

 

[Wallygator]

I'm not necessarily a fan of the Tundra, for a few reasons, but when you see it in person and compare it to other 1/2 tons', it definitely looks a bit beefier:

• Bigger rear axle (10.5") than all other 1/2 tons.
• 4.30 gearing, whereas most other 1/2 tons are using higher gearing, even with their v8's.
• Similarly-sized brake discs, but it has 4 piston calipers up front while I think most others have 2 piston calipers.
• I can't quantify the strength of things like transfer case, trailer hitch attachment and drive shaft, but they certainly looked more beefy.
• Not to mention the Tundra really has its underside well-sorted for rough 4x4 use (skid plates, good placement of wires and sensors) compared to some others.
• Tundra's payload and towing is rated using SAE standards; I don't think any other OEM's do that for their 1/2 tons, could be wrong though.

Other than frame and certain chassis components, I'd imagine that the LC 200 uses fairly similar driveline components as it uses the same 5.7l v8 as the Tundra. The Tundra has a somewhat bigger axle (10.5" vs the LC's 9.5"), which makes sense given that its rated to carry and tow more weight. The LC 200 is beefy, but I certainly wouldn't consider the Tundra any less beefy by comparison.

I do believe the others are using SAE standards and have been for a few years now since 2015. Toyota was the first to adopt it in 2013.

Also I think the only place the Tundra is weaker is possibly in it's hybrid style frame. Look at some videos of that "booty bounce" The LC frame I believe is fully boxed.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Also I think the only place the Tundra is weaker is possibly in it's hybrid style frame. Look at some videos of that "booty bounce" The LC frame I believe is fully boxed.

 

[ADDvanced]

It's no secret thanks to fleets. Vans and 150's are traded in at 150k / 3-4 years, Super Duties at 200k / 4-5 years.

Since fleets don't do any maintenance you have a huge repair bill, or a risky truck that could fail at any moment if you keep it.

Let's look at whats due:
Trans flush. Diff, diff, and xfer case flush. Timing chain and tensioners. Possibly calipers. Shocks and joints are toast. Plugs and wires. Not to mention body work to make the truck professional looking again.

Suspension only lasts 70k unless it's a highway vehicle.

 

[Buliwyf]

For sure. My work trucks shocks have been absolutely toasted for at least 30,000 miles now. I don't want to be the companies 1st tech to complain about shock intervals. I'll likely be stuck with them for the full 200,000 miles.

 

[Dalko43]

I do believe the others are using SAE standards and have been for a few years now since 2015. Toyota was the first to adopt it in 2013.

Noted.

Also I think the only place the Tundra is weaker is possibly in it's hybrid style frame. Look at some videos of that "booty bounce" The LC frame I believe is fully boxed.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the Tundra for a few reasons. I'd rather see the frame fully boxed, but I still think that truck is well-built and very robust in its current form. It can ultimately tow and carry more than the LC 200, so obviously the frame is durable.

Everything else underneath the Tundra is, like I said before, very beefy compared to some other 1/2 tons. I find it interesting too that OEM's like GM and Ford will offer GVWR upgrade packages (which are rated far higher than the Tundra), but they're using the same brakes and axles as the lower-payload variants (which are smaller compared to what is on the Tundra).

 

[Martinjmpr]

It's no secret thanks to fleets. Vans and 150's are traded in at 150k / 3-4 years, Super Duties at 200k / 4-5 years.

Since fleets don't do any maintenance you have a huge repair bill, or a risky truck that could fail at any moment if you keep it.

Let's look at whats due:
Trans flush. Diff, diff, and xfer case flush. Timing chain and tensioners. Possibly calipers. Shocks and joints are toast. Plugs and wires. Not to mention body work to make the truck professional looking again.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison though. Fleet/work trucks endure a much harder life than "personal use" or suburban dad trucks. I think the number of 20+ year old trucks still on the road attests to that, at least here in CO where it's relatively dry (I do understand that in places with a colder/wetter climate and/or heavy use of road salt, any vehicle, no matter how rugged, is likely to have severe rust by the time it's spent 10 winters up there, but that really has nothing to do with ruggedness or longevity.)

 

[Buliwyf]

I agree completely. But it's almost impossible to use civvy numbers as real wear/tear expectations. They vary too wildly.

I beat the heck out of my work truck.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I beat the heck out of my work truck.

And that is the critical statement. If the engineer in Dalko's post expected the service life of an F150 to be 10 years and 150k of rental and fleet work then that says something completely different.