New Ford email announcement...

[Kromolly]

I understand, I buy over 100 new vehicle a year in my job.  Yes they are safer and they do run longer than they used to, in part due to synthetic lubricants, and engines last longer thanks to fuel injection and cylinder walls not being washed with gasoline.  For the average person who doesn't repair their own vehicle and can justify the expense, new cars are fine.  But the purchase price, complexity and cost of repair drives me away.  Nothing jumps out at me and says "wow", now that's a nice looking car.  And I'm not interested in lease payments for the rest of my life.    Just one guy's opinion.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Call me old-fashioned (that's a joke folks...) but I have zero interest in a big self-propelled electronics-laden murse, with the engineering philosophy behind it of an appliance...when it's broke, throw it out and buy a new one.

And cars have been entirely capable of going 200,000 miles with minimal maintenance for many decades. My #2 '86 Jag has 225,000 on the clock. My '89 #2 truck is pushing 300,000 now (I rebuilt the heads and did a timing chain at around 200K). My '92 #1 truck had no significant issues until just at 200,000 (a new trans for $2100), and a roller-lifter failure at 225,000. And the '01 PT cruiser I inherited also has about 225K, and nothing significant has ever failed...though I maintained it from almost new, and did things like timing belts as required.

EDIT: Heck...even my mother's '63 Olds had 165,000 entirely uneventful miles on it when she died. Regular oil changes and relatively inexpensive competent general maintenance, watching fluids, and not driving like a moron are the only things most cars have ever really required to give long and faithful service.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

Delete. Duh.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy

[Kromolly]

I don't disagree that when you look back at automobiles before about the mid to late-'80s, most didn't last as long without some major drivetrain repair.  And rust could be an issue depending on what part of the country you were in and whether it was parked under cover and maintained, or not.  Proper maintenance and better lubricants could have made them go longer, so it's a little bit apples to oranges.  Electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection have done a lot to reduce maintenance and improve total combustion, reducing wear and allowing engines with even marginal maintenance to routinely go 150-200k miles or more.    But a lot of cars before the '90s did go 200k or more... years ago I had a '69 Buick Riviera that had 190+K on the clock when I sold it, and it was running like a top, one of the best cars I ever owned.

My issue with modern vehicles is the overcomplication.  CAN networks with 20 or more modules feeding into a BCM and PCM, all extremely sensitive to voltage and resistance, and all requiring factory tooling to diagnose and repair.  Overly complicated entertainment systems that are integral to the computer network and make you captive to the manufacturer for replacement.  Components that will require service located in nearly non-serviceable places adding many hours to repair times.  In modern cars it is the electronics that will take them out, and they will be non-repairable for the average person, so throw it away and buy a new one.

[Ace-Garageguy]

26 minutes ago, Kromolly said:

I don't disagree that when you look back at automobiles before about the mid to late-'80s, most didn't last as long without some major drivetrain repair.  And rust could be an issue depending on what part of the country you were in and whether it was parked under cover and maintained, or not.  Proper maintenance and better lubricants could have made them go longer, so it's a little bit apples to oranges.  Electronic ignition and electronic fuel injection have done a lot to reduce maintenance and improve total combustion, reducing wear and allowing engines with even marginal maintenance to routinely go 150-200k miles or more.    But a lot of cars before the '90s did go 200k or more... years ago I had a '69 Buick Riviera that had 190+K on the clock when I sold it, and it was running like a top, one of the best cars I ever owned.

My issue with modern vehicles is the overcomplication.  CAN networks with 20 or more modules feeding into a BCM and PCM, all extremely sensitive to voltage and resistance, and all requiring factory tooling to diagnose and repair.  Overly complicated entertainment systems that are integral to the computer network and make you captive to the manufacturer for replacement.  Components that will require service located in nearly non-serviceable places adding many hours to repair times.  In modern cars it is the electronics that will take them out, and they will be non-repairable for the average person, so throw it away and buy a new one.

100% correct...mostly.

But...I often see relatively new vehicles from snow-belt environments (read: salted roads) badly rusted structurally. There is sometimes quite obviously zero rustproofing factory-applied.

And engines like the venerable small- and big-block Chevy, Ford, and Chryslers, transmissions like the GM 350, 400, Ford C5 and C6, Chrysler 727, and rear-axles from the era were virtually indestructible with any kind of reasonable use and care.

Most of today's tiny-internaled, overstressed 6, 8, and more-speed automatics are essentially non-repairable, and hideously expensive to replace. 60,000 mile lifespans are commonplace.

Little highly-stressed engines likewise. Out of warranty? Too bad, sucker.

EDIT: And more frequently every week, I encounter vehicle structures assembled using a combination of adhesives, spot-welding, and application-specific rivets. There is NO rational engineering necessity for putting anything together that way. All it does is vastly complicate collision repair.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy

[Rob Hall]

Definitely looks truckish in these recent spy photos.  

[1972coronet]

45 minutes ago, Rob Hall said:

Definitely looks truckish in these recent spy photos.

I'm more interested in that 'camouflage' wrap ! Wowie Zowie ! Reminds me of the artwork I'd create from 1986 - present ( influenced by the vintage psychedelic artwork in my high school art teacher's classroom ).

[Oldcarfan27]

1 hour ago, Rob Hall said:

Definitely looks truckish in these recent spy photos.  

Another Tonka truck on the road. 

Yawn. ?

[espo]

It's a Crew Cab Broncho with a mini open bed. Ford will sell a bunch of them. I just will not be one of them.  

[Classicgas]

Manufacturers should just let some nameplates rip.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Gee willikers. They re-invented this. How clever.

[Richard Bartrop]

40 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Gee willikers. They re-invented this. How clever.

I know.  Imagine if Chevy tried to rip off the Mustang?  Oh wait...

It's a little later late in the game to be worried about originality from the big carmakers.

Besides, you know if they came up with something original, people would be moaning about how weird it is.

[Ace-Garageguy]

44 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

...Besides, you know if they came up with something original, people would be moaning about how weird it is.

You mean something like this?

[Richard Bartrop]

So be careful what you wish for when you start griping about originality.

[Jon Cole]

On 6/5/2021 at 6:06 PM, BlackSheep214 said:

I knew it wasn't going to be a sedan because Ford has ceased productions of all sedans and compact/subcompact cars.

Methinks maybe in size similar to the Honda Ridgeline?

Small to large: Maverick, Ranger, and F-Series.
Ford Ranger length: 210.8"
Honda Ridgeline length: 210.2"
Darn close! 

[Jon Cole]

2 hours ago, Classicgas said:

Manufacturers should just let some nameplates rip.

It's the doings of the marketing people. Give the people a name they recognize, and it sells. Never mind that they bastardize the original.

[Deuces ll]

23 hours ago, slusher said:

Ford still makes the Mustang…?

Yep! I have one in my driveway at the moment.....?

[niteowl7710]

The irony here is pretty deep.  You guys are acting like the Maverick - which lasted all of 7 years - is some sort of institutional car at Ford.  It was a cheap, crappy, economy car aimed at the Vega and things like the Civic & Corolla.  Sure a few had a 302 in it, and some people decided to make a drag car out of it, but be HONEST.  The vast majority were powered by one of three anemic inline 6s, and even the 302 was only around 200HP - which is incidentally 45HP LESS than the Turbo 4 that's in the Bronco Sport this little truck shares it's platform with...The Maverick is the epitome of "an appliance", the really only ones that survive are some of the Grabber trim levels ones, nobody saved the rank and file cars for anything, they rusted to pieces and were replaced by something else.  

[Deuces ll]

5 hours ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

Another Tonka truck on the road. 

Yawn. ?

I know where these pictures were taken..... I live a couple of miles away from from the "test track".....

[Deuces ll]

23 minutes ago, niteowl7710 said:

The irony here is pretty deep.  You guys are acting like the Maverick - which lasted all of 7 years - is some sort of institutional car at Ford.  It was a cheap, crappy, economy car aimed at the Vega and things like the Civic & Corolla.  Sure a few had a 302 in it, and some people decided to make a drag car out of it, but be HONEST.  The vast majority were powered by one of three anemic inline 6s, and even the 302 was only around 200HP - which is incidentally 45HP LESS than the Turbo 4 that's in the Bronco Sport this little truck shares it's platform with...The Maverick is the epitome of "an appliance", the really only ones that survive are some of the Grabber trim levels ones, nobody saved the rank and file cars for anything, they rusted to pieces and were replaced by something else.  

Dad's old '72 Grabber with a 302 was only rated @ 144? h.p.

[Dave Van]

4 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Gee willikers. They re-invented this. How clever.

THAT Ranger was body on frame rear drive at least. The Maverick will be FWD uni-body......a Focus with a truck like body. Nothing wrong.....they will sell a bunch to folks who think they want a F-150 but after they drive a real truck......buy the Maverick....a nice ladies 'truck'. 

My F-150 rubber floors, manual locks and windows 4 x 4 will outlast me. 

 

[slusher]

People need affordable vehicles and too them they feel the same way as people who bought a Cadillac SUV.  I think it’s a good thing the recognize the market for it…

[1972coronet]

6 minutes ago, Dave Van said:

My F-150 rubber floors, manual locks and windows 4 x 4 will outlast me. 

REAL trucks / work vehicles have rubber-vinyl floor mats . Carpeting has no place in a work vehicle . Did it take the moving-of-mountains to get a pickup sans frills and tech ?

[Deuces ll]

So, you guys think they'll come out with a Grabber version of this new pickup?????......??

[Ace-Garageguy]

54 minutes ago, Dave Van said:

...The Maverick will be FWD uni-body......a Focus with a truck like body. Nothing wrong.....they will sell a bunch to folks who think they want a F-150 but after they drive a real truck......buy the Maverick....a nice ladies 'truck'...

Frankly, I'm surprised this concept has been so long in coming for US manufacturers. Honda's been building the transverse-engined front-wheel-drive Ridgeline since 2004, and VW was making Rabbit pickups way back in what...'78 or '79?

The packaging makes lotsa sense for a light-duty "truck".

Ford's pretty late to the  me too!!!  me too!!!  game.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Ace-Garageguy
poo tiddly zip