Who knows? Maybe they'll be even MORE of a status symbol now that they must pay a fortune to drive to and from work every day.
I've heard that Ford has stopped building the Excursion and has reduced production of the Expedition. Sounds like good news to me. Less gas-swilling, emissions-dumping hazards on the road.
Gooba, you just hate to hear the truth don't you? Well here is some more about your pathetic Frontier. Go to www.pickuptruck.com see how your Frontier falls flat on its face in sales. Total for 1999 sales are 96,301!! LOL. The Ranger 348,358!@! Come on! over 350,000 people can't be wrong... Sales this year so far, Ranger 159,521, Frontier 45,747... The Ranger is also Rated number 4 out of ALL truck sales... Sales do matter, the consumer rules and makes the choice. What don't you understand about torque? Where is the extra 25ft/lbs needed to compete with the Ranger this year? and the extra 40ft/lbs you'll need in about 4 months? The 3.3 is a joke, lacks power, torque to compete so Nissan bandaids it with a supercharger, LOL.....
vince,before you jump about truth and sales you need to take another look at those figures.Before you utilize those Ranger sales figures as the consumer making the decision,thereby implying that regular people bought those trucks,you better take out the sales to Federal,State, and local governments,as well as the fleet sales.Nissan is unable to sell to this market and a total sales number as you are quoting is false as a consumer comparison.You may be surprised that the figures are much closer. Personally,I do not care about the sales figures nor where Ranger rated or the torque.It is not a factor.I bought my CC and not the Ranger because it fit the need I had for a truck for my family.I did not care for the Ranger because it was cheaply made on the inside,was sadly lacking in off road performance-it would not go in 4wd where I took my Nissan in 2wd,and I did not care for the body lines.It did have more torque and hp then my Nissan but it would be unusable off road because the rear end would not stay down. That was from my road test,not some magazine article,and guess what,sales figures never entered in the picture. So,vince,again how is all of your previous post relevant?It matters.........?Also,I am still waiting on your response about the wisdom of you paying cash for your truck. You can make comments about the 3.3L but you seem to not be able to qualify your remarks.You say it is a joke.Why?If your comments are based on hp/torque comparisons alone,which seems to be the only things you quote,then that is not a valid statement.That would mean that the 4.0L is a joke in comparison to any other engine that has more hp or torque.The bandaid of the supercharger from Nissan?Good move.You can call it a bandaid,and it may be one but it is no more of one then the supercharger on the 3.8L Tbird SC engine.Also,there is something to be said for being able to say I have a supercharger under my hood and to have the unique sound that is associated with it.Band aid? So what,it is awesome and the only one offered stock from the factory in ANY production truck.LOL......
You're so uneducated aren't you? Why are you so scared to really talk to me directly about sales figures and you're misunderstanding of them? When was the last time you ever backed up a single statement? I went to you're link above look at what the source says...'All vehicles sold' for the first four models. Commercial, Rental, Government and so on. How many times does it have to be repeated to you? You must be having buyers remorse...I don't know why though the ranger is a great truck. I know that you paid cash but it's ok you might be able to fetch a good price for your truck in 2 years or so. You're badly in need of a statistic lesson. Number 1 step is research you're source! Number 2 step what do your numbers include! Your point is NEVER supported unless your numbers make coincide.
OK Vince, in the sales figures you quoted, where is the mazda B series? I didn't see it listed in any of the lists that cover all trucks, isn't it true that the sales figures you quoted for the ranger also include the B series? So how many retail ranger sales do you get when you take out the mazda sales and fleet sales? What ever that number is is the one you need to use if you are at all concerned about acurate comparisons. You said you were researching the ranger's suspension and why the ranger's braking is absolutely laughable not to mention dangerous, have you come up with anything yet? Have you looked under your truck yet? Why are you chicken about recieving the information I offered you to help your research? LOL I think I know why, YOU can't handle the truth, the ranger is an absolute joke, the worst suspension, small bed, terrible warranty, bad resale value, questionable relibility, no power, terrible ride, high noise levels, bottom of the heap braking and off road performance, the weakest standard engines, the least amount of standard equipment, high maintenance insurance and repair costs, narrow cab, cheap steel and so on, there is your joke.
I thought you were a reasonable guy. What's all of this Ranger bashing? Did Vince get to you? Spoog and Vince sure seem to stir up a whole ton of unnecessary garbage.
(1) Worst suspension. Huh? It rides just like every other compact truck. Haven't you driven them all?
(2) Small bed. You're kidding, right? It being a COMPACT truck and all. If you want a big bed, get a full-sized truck. Do you actually think that a couple of cubic feet make any difference at all?
(3) Terrible warranty. 3yr/36,000 and 3yr/50,000 (for B-Series). How exactly is that terrible?
(4) Bad resale. Nothing could be further from the truth. My truck has depreciated about $3,500 in just over 2 years. I also could have taken the rebate (in liu of great financing) of $1,500.
(5) Questionable reliability. Take a look at any source, and they rate the Ranger extremely well. Where are you getting this?
(6) No power. Again, where are you getting this? No matter the engine ratings, the Ranger accelerates, tows, and hauls right up there with engines rated at 30-40hp more. It'll only improve in '01 and beyond with the Cammer and the upcoming V8.
(7) Terrible ride. What? It's a truck! Are you expecting it to be posh like a Lexus or something? Maybe you were referring to a comparison with a Caddy or something... Refer to #1.
(8) High noise levels. Actually, no. A small amount of wind and tire noise at 75mph+ but nothing anywhere near "high". Surprisingly, it's pretty quiet.
(9) Bottom of the heap braking and off road performance. Again, no. I've actually just read that Ford is now making 4-wheel ABS standard equipment on ALL trucks. That article where you cite this "terrible braking" also has no specifics. Maybe if you could come up with any sort of other information with like-equipped trucks, I'd be more apt to believe this.
(10) Weakest standard engines. If you're talking about the 2.5, yes. But, rectified in '01 with a more powerful 2.3. Anyone who buys the 2.5 is definately not concerned about power. Spend the extra $400 for the 3L. Trust me. You'll love it, and it will end up paying for itself.
(11) Least amount of standard equipment. It's quite simply you don't pay for what you don't want. How could this possibly be bad?
(12) High maintenance, insurance, and repair costs. Uh, no. It's the absolute opposite. Nothing could be further from the truth.
(13) Narrow cab. What!? It's a COMPACT truck!!!
(14) Cheap steel. OK, now you are REALLY reaching! I guess that's why you cut off with the "and so on". My wife actually ran over a tree (a good 4" in diameter). Nothing was bent. It didn't even DENT the bumper. However, it did break the foglight valance when she knocked it out of the ground and ran over it.
I'm not trying to be abrasive or anything. But, everything is just so waaaay off the mark here, that I just had to throw the BS flag.
I don't think the 3.3 is a joke. It's a decent engine that gets the job done. It might not be able to tow like Ford's 4L, but if it's that close you probably shouldn't be towing that boat or whatever with a compact truck.
The S/C should only improve the 3.3L as long as Nissan does the internal work to make the engine reliable and long-lasting with forced induction.
However, I would prefer the 3.5L V6 out of the Pathfinder in liu of a S/C 3.3L.
Here we go again... I have give links showing the Ranger is better in crashtests, better in performance, one point lower in reliability... What more do you want...?? Higher in quality too at JD powers!! Gee, I wonder why Nissan wasn't chosen as the carmaker for federal/state governments. Sales are sales, that is what makes money, that is what Nissan still has to figure out I guess?? That is why they needed to be bailed out by Renault! LOL...
I stand somewhat corrected on my earlier statement.I forgot about the Cyclone and the Lightning.But,I was not completely wrong either.Those are special edition models and unique unto themselves.The Frontier is no different other than the SC,so it could be considered as the only production model. I want to ask about a couple of things you mentioned to cncman. You said: (5) Questionable reliability. Take a look at any source, and they rate the Ranger extremely well. Where are you getting this? Go to JD Powers and look at the vehicle reliability study for 1999,1998,and 1997 and you will see that Nissan rates higher then the average and that Ford is below the average and did not make the charts.That would be a good indicator.
(6) No power. Again, where are you getting this? No matter the engine ratings, the Ranger accelerates, tows, and hauls right up there with engines rated at 30-40hp more. It'll only improve in '01 and beyond with the Cammer and the upcoming V8. It does have power,and is comparable.The v8 is only speculation at this point and not concrete.
(8) High noise levels. Actually, no. A small amount of wind and tire noise at 75mph+ but nothing anywhere near "high". Surprisingly, it's pretty quiet. Look at the long term road test here at Edmunds on the Ranger and there is comments on the noise level as well as the ride of the vehicle.
(3) Terrible warranty. 3yr/36,000 and 3yr/50,000 (for B-Series). How exactly is that terrible? This could be an issue in the near future.With Ford cutting the warranty times to the dealerships and thereby cutting the mechanics wages,you will see a marked decrease in the quality of those warranty repairs.If you have poor quality under warranty,the warranty becomes worthless because of all of the time you will spend inconvenienced. As far as the off road performance,the suspension is the limiting factor there.They are supposed to address that issue,but until then,it is lacking.The report from the roundtable Ranger and Ford addressed that. One last thing,I do appreciate your input into the discussions,but I would like to know why you answer for vince?
No vince,sales are not all sales.Nissan was not chosen because it is against the law for the government to purchase foreign vehicles for their fleets.If it wasn't Toyota would probably be the winner. Go back to JD Powers vince,and look at the vehicle reliability studies for the past three years.Ford was below average and did not even make the charts.Ford only scored higher in the Initial ratings-the first 3 months,after that it fell bad.The fun part,is that is YOUR link.Maybe Ford will figure out how to make a vehicle reliable past 3 months.
Cthompson; I am a reasonable guy, you already know that, and please know there are no hard feelings or hostility directed towards you, I have alot of respect for you and your views, that doesn't necessarily mean we share the same opinions. I guess I should qualify the remarks I made with the words, "compared to the frontier" I think gooba addresed the points I was going to make very well, but I should fill in the gaps.
1) No actually they don't all ride the same, and yes I have driven them all and I have driven the tacoma and ranger side by side in dynamic comparisons and have seen the results myself. Plus, A torsion bar suspension is better than not having one, double wishbone suspension is better than long/short arm suspension, the ranger's leaf springs are attatched to the frame with an offset bracket, the frontier's are in line with the frame, better design, plus in head to head competitions, the frontier was praised for its on and offroad comfort.
2) Actually I do think that a bigger bed is better, you can haul more stuff, a bed is what makes a truck a truck, the more stuff I can fit in the bed means less trips to help a friend move, taller sides give me a more secure feeling when I put something tall back there, plus being wider, it is easier to fit large items in there without having to put them in an awkward position.
3)this is one of the points I should qualify with "when compared to the frontier" 3/36 vs 5/60, come on, which would you rather have? I think whatever your opinion, you would rather have ford stretch the warranty to compete with Nissan/Toyota.
4) what are you basing your depreiciation figures on? I am recalling all of the rangers we had on my used car lot that had to be almost given away after 2 months, they sold for $1500-2500 below NADA retail, also if you want to really know what a vehicle is worth, you need to look at auction reports, these show a higher resale value for Nissan trucks than rangers, plus CR has the Nissan CC as the best resale value of any compact truck.
5)Questionable relibility, look at all of the problems reported by people here, there are many consistent problems, head gasket leaks, wipers spontaneously going on, diesleing sounds, engines needing replaced before 40,000 miles, you don't hear these major problems with the frontier, plus every place that rates relibility rates the forntier higher.
6) power is power, the ranger only approaches the other trucks when you buy all of the extra packages for towing, and the 4 cylinder couldn't tow a tricycle.
7) I don't see why wanting a comfortable ride in a compact truck is undesirable, sure it is a truck, but that is no excuse for a teeth shattering ride, these things are primarily commuter vehicles, I put a high premium on comfort. Fact is the frontier has a more comfortable smoother ride, and I like that.
8) I have the decible ratings somewhere, the frotnier is still quieter at idle, 30 mph and 70 mph, I have driven several rangers, the forntier is defintiely quieter.
9) They can only test what ford makes available, you can't tell me that 4wheel ABS VS 2wheel ABS can make 100ft of difference. Regardless of what ford is going to do, the fact is still that the ranger braking is subpar, plus the excessive brake fading after repeated breaking the ranger exhibits. So it is OK that ford makes a lousy braking system now as long as they improve it in the next year or so?
10) again, it is great that ford is going to bring a decent engine out for the 4 cylinder, but what I said is still true. And why is it that whenever the 4cylinder is criticized, ranger guys dismiss it like it doesn't even exist, and why can't a buyer want a four cylider that has power? most compacts are 4 cylinders, why can't ford address the needs of the biggest percentage buyers out there? Plus the standard ranger V6 is weaker than the standard frontier V6, so this is true also, the 3.0l actually performs very much like the frontier four cylinder.
11) well I guess it is all how you want to look at it, I happen to like to get the most for the money, but that is just me, I like nicer equipment, I like AC, and nice wheels and an extra 12v adapter and a sliding window and bucket seats, and I really like not having to pay extra for them. But however you look at it, what I said is still true.
12) Again this is a "when compared to the frontier" Look at intellichoice.com, the ranger is rated worse on all of these categories. Plus timing chain in 4 cylinders, 105,000 replacement intervals on timing belt on V6 frontier.
13)What is wrong with wanting a more comfortable roomier interior? yes it is a compact truck, but there is no reason you can't have a decent amount of space too, why not both, it seems that you are not disputing anything I say as not being truthful, just that you don't happen to agree that these facts are important to you.
14)What I meant on this point was the corrossion protection, Nissan uses Durasteel, coated on both sides with an aluminum chromate, the ranger is galvanized and only on one side. That is what I menat by cheap.
So I don't get what you mean by way off, you don't dispute the facts, you just have a different spin on it, everything I have said is true, 100% BS free.
I still doubt that the 3.5 will find its way into the frontier, I think it will be the base engine in the new Nissan Full sized truck with the Infiniti V8 as an option, BTW there is an artist's drawing of the truck at the pickuptruck site Vince posted, looks good.
VInce; Yes you posted the link about the crash tests, but you can't defend your position, why are there no differences in injuries between the two, why can't you comment on the ranger's lousy braking? Or is that just not a safety issue with you? Your relibility post makes me laugh, it still shows the ranger is not as relible as the frontier, you are really good about posting stuff that shoots you in the foot. OK you say edmunds rates the ranger better in performance, but what performance? was this with a load or without? what engines and equipment did they have in the comparison? what was the data they came up with? All you can do is regurgitate other's opinions, but I guess you have to be reasonably intelligent to form your own opinions. That's OK Vince, I won't bug you about the fact that you won't respond to suspension comparisons and you completely ignore the fact that I tried to get the article to you you said you wanted to research, we all know you are too scared to face the truth, well keep on living in La-La land. Just a little hint, if you keep your head in the sand long enough you suffocate.
Vince your so funny when you try... and you do try. In fact, you try so hard....it's FUNNY. You stumble, you trip and you still fumble all over yourself! The reason you are this way is because you don't have a clue! Do you make it to work all by yourself? I bet you take the same route to work so you don't get lost...like you do here on the internet. You've got me laughing out loud just thinking about you. Are you serious? All sales are not equal, anybody who graduated 5th grade could tell you that! Do you really think that foreign automobile manufacturers can sell to the government of this country, what's the matter with you man? For one thing are you aware that there is an import tax on foreign vehicles, why would our own government pay it's own tax? Thank the big man upstairs, our government agencies don't think like you. I thought you would at least know the basics. Oh my I can't even finish typing..hehehehe :-)
not trying to be a jerk but both the typhoon and cyclone were turbos. But I know the point you were trying to make and you're right. Let's not forget about the little pocket rocket the supercharged MR-2.
I didn't say that the Ranger rated higher. It's actually a close third behind the Tacoma and Frontier. My point is that the Ranger is well above average in vehicle reliability. It is not some piece of crap that breaks down all of the time as some Nissan owners like to portray lately.
The V8 isn't just speculation. Ford has built many prototype V8 Rangers with many different V8s. Whether or not it makes it into production is another question.
That long-term road test which everyone seems so fond of quoting pretty much compares the Ranger to a car. So, I'm actually speaking from experience here. Whether you like it or not, when compared to other trucks the Ranger DOES have a comfortable ride and low noise levels. (Mine actually has higher noise levels with the addition of the KKM and cat-back, but those are such sweet sounding noises).
Over the past 4 years I have made 2 trips to the dealer (one each for my '95 & '98). Service was great. Repair complete and correct in a day, just like what they told me. Of the 5 or 6 Fords owned by my immediate family, there have been 2 trips to the dealer in the past few years. They have experienced the same service. Again, I am actually speaking from experience here, not from some complaint I read on a discussion forum.
BTW, I thought this was an open discussion forum. I chimed in because of the half-truths and outright BS that was being thrown around.
You are correct that you did not say the Ranger rated higher.You said it rated extremely well,and you just said: My point is that the Ranger is well above average in vehicle reliability.
Where did you get that from?JD Powers rated Ford below average in vehicle dependability for the last 3 years.I realize that there are good trucks out there and you probably own one of them,but that may be a testament more to you then to the mfg. You said: The V8 isn't just speculation. Ford has built many prototype V8 Rangers with many different V8s. Whether or not it makes it into production is another question.
They may have built a few prototypes,but until it hits production it is speculation. From the roundtable:
Malcom Strydom:
"Now comes the big question you are all wondering? V8 or not to V8. Well they couldn't tell us if such an animal was due to come out or not but I can tell you they are not blind to the idea and they wanted to hear what we had to say about it. Trust me guys we preached V8. Like I say they couldn't reveal that kind of info but I did get the impression that if a V8 did ever come out it will not be 302. It would be new technology, OHC. The 4.6 that are in Mustangs? I cannot say - sorry guys I tried to weasel as much info as possible They also threw the idea of a super charged V6 at us, so there's a possible option too."
The service issue is not something on a discussion forum.It was reported that Ford was saving over 70 million by cutting the warranty times on repairs and that the techs did not believe it was fair.It will affect the repairs eventually. The comparison of the Ranger to a car on the long term road test is not really valid.Granted some of the people had not driven a truck before,but it still was an impression and complaint.
The SC on the Nissan?I guess I was correct that the Frontier will be the only production truck offered with a factory supercharger,or has been offered. You are correct that it is an open discussion forum and you do have valid opinions and are always looked to for input,but some of the posts directed at vince should be answered by vince.The level of debate with him drops quite a few IQ points when compared with discussions with you.
BTW,you said: BTW, I thought this was an open discussion forum. I chimed in because of the half-truths and outright BS that was being thrown around.
I am curious,I do not recall you addressing vince on any of his comments.Why is that?If you have addressed him I stand corrected,if not is it because you agree with him and or that he does not spread half truths or BS?
My experience is that Ford Motor Company had to buy my Ranger back from me because it spent more time in the shop in the first six months than it did in my driveway. That's my personal experience and not something I read in a chat room. And I know, there are tons of people who will say "well, you just got a lemon. Try another one." Sorry, but when you're talking about over 20K for a truck, it better run the first time. THere are no second chances for that sort of thing in my book. And so far, my Frontier has been a champ both on and off road - and not a single visit to the shop for anything.
Why didn't you chime in on cncman with his erroneous, half-truth statements? Don't you think you're the kettle calling the pot black?
BTW, I said "Ranger" not "Ford". I thought we were discussing the Ranger's reliability, not Ford as a whole. I said the RANGER is rated well above average. And, it is.
"The SC on the Nissan?I guess I was correct that the Frontier will be the only production truck offered with a factory supercharger,or has been offered."
Uh, no. Have you so quickly forgotten about the Lightning? Why wouldn't you consider it to be a "production" vehicle? It comes right out of the factory like every other F-150. They ship it to the dealer and sell it. I really can't fathom the reason you wouldn't consider it a production vehicle.
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you on definitions. It's tedium to the point of stupidity. Ford has built V8 Rangers. Will they sell V8 Rangers? Only Ford knows, and they aren't telling.
Why would you truck enthusiasts react so negatively to the idea of a well-powered, small-displacement V8 in a compact truck? Don't be so brand loyal to the emblem on the hood of your truck sitting in the driveway. It'll benefit you whatever you choose to buy.
"The service issue is not something on a discussion forum.It was reported that Ford was saving over 70 million by cutting the warranty times on repairs and that the techs did not believe it was fair. It will affect the repairs eventually."
I don't think any of us have all of the facts to comment. Maybe time allotments are overbudgeted. Maybe new diagnostic equipment has cut repair times. Maybe Ford is attempting to force older dealerships to upgrade equipment. Working as an auditor, I'll also tell you something: budgets don't mean a thing.
One more thing. I couldn't care less what a few car reviewers said about a truck. In fact, I couldn't care less about what any reviewer said about any vehicle. It's just opinion, which is shaped by one bias or another.
Cncman, your typical salesperson, and gooba is not far behind once again.... Better get to selling cncman your still over 110,000 Frontiers behind the Ranger!! LOL......
Keep twisting and turning with those numbers cncman, the saleman is coming out in you! The 3.3 is a joke, joke, joke, underpowered to pull even the Frontier's own weight!....
Why didn't you chime in on cncman with his erroneous, half-truth statements? Don't you think you're the kettle calling the pot black? I did not "chime in" on cncman because I did not know enough about the subject.If I did,I would have said something.Is it safe to assume that this is your answer as to why you have nothing to say when vince says something?
Uh, no. Have you so quickly forgotten about the Lightning? Why wouldn't you consider it to be a "production" vehicle? It comes right out of the factory like every other F-150. They ship it to the dealer and sell it. I really can't fathom the reason you wouldn't consider it a production vehicle. You are correct the Lightning does have a supercharger.I would not consider it a production vehicle because it has a limited number,is only shipped to dealerships that are SVT qualified,which is around 10%,and it does not have a 4wd option.It is produced,but is a special vehicle.You cannot get a F150 with a supercharger.
BTW, I said "Ranger" not "Ford". I thought we were discussing the Ranger's reliability, not Ford as a whole. I said the RANGER is rated well above average. And, it is. Where do you come up with your reliability figures?So,by what you are saying,Ranger is above average in long term dependability,and the rest of the Ford vehicles are bad enough to pull the overall rating to below average.
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you on definitions. It's tedium to the point of stupidity. Ford has built V8 Rangers. Will they sell V8 Rangers? Only Ford knows, and they aren't telling. There are no hairs to split.I can believe that they were built,but until you or I can go down and purchase one,it is the same as not having been built.It is no different then Nissan pitting a diesel in the Frontier,but I cannot get one here,or Ford building a crewcab Courier that is available everywhere but in North America.
I don't think any of us have all of the facts to comment. Maybe time allotments are overbudgeted. Maybe new diagnostic equipment has cut repair times. Maybe Ford is attempting to force older dealerships to upgrade equipment. Working as an auditor, I'll also tell you something: budgets don't mean a thing.
I am attaching an article on this issue.You are right,budgets do not mean a thing.What does mean something is cutting the paycheck of a technician.This is an issue I know quite a bit about.
Ford repair pay angers mechanics They say cutbacks for warranty work may hurt consumers
Less time to make repairs Ford Motor Co. has rankled dealers and mechanics by cutting the number of labor hours it reimburses dealerships for certain warranty repairs. Source: Automotive technicians By Mark Truby / The Detroit News
DEARBORN -- Ford Motor Co. is facing a backlash from dealers and mechanics upset over reductions in reimbursements for warranty repairs. Mechanics nationwide, communicating mainly over the Internet, are considering staging a job walkoff or going to court to fight the cutbacks by Ford. The controversy threatens to aggravate already strained relations between the Dearborn-based company and its dealers. The diminished reimbursements, dealers contend, are cutting into profits and making it difficult to attract and keep competent automotive technicians. "It's a slap in our face," said Chris Peters, a transmission specialist at Fairlane Ford in Dearborn. "Our paychecks can be dramatically reduced. It's the kind of thing that could make a lot of guys want to leave." Like its competitors, Ford is aggressively attempting to reduce warranty costs. Such savings ultimately could be passed on to consumers in terms of lower new car prices. But dealers and mechanics warn the cutbacks could result in hastily done and shoddy repairs. The service bay dispute is comparable to the controversy over managed health care in which insurance companies reimburse doctors and hospitals a flat rate for prescribed medical procedures. In some cases, the insurers refuse to pay for certain treatments. Similarly, Ford two years ago initiated a comprehensive review of the amount of time a typical mechanic should take to complete specific repair jobs. Factoring the use of power tools and diagnostic equipment, Ford determined that it had been paying for excessive labor time on hundreds of jobs -- from transmission repairs to engine replacements. "We know there is going to be consternation with this," said Frank Ligone, a Ford technical operations manager who helps develop the warranty service times. "The question is: Are the times accurate and do they have integrity? We think they do. If we say it can be done in an hour, it should be able to be done in an hour." Ligone also noted that Ford reviews the time alloted for any job if five or more mechanics appeal. Ford and most other automakers pay dealerships between $60 and $70 per hour for warranty repairs. Dealers then pay mechanics a percentage of that fee based on the job and the mechanic's level of experience and training. Warranty repairs are a huge expense for automakers. About 35 percent of all repairs made at dealerships across the country are covered by manufacturer's warranties. Those repairs cost automakers about $12 billion a year, estimates Joe Grant, president of J. & L. Warranty Pros of Auburn, Mich., which helps auto dealerships collect warranty reimbursements. And nearly half of all dealer profits come from their service and parts operations. Less money in paycheck Mechanics contend that although some of new times are fair, others are unrealistic. And the net effect is less money in their paycheck at a time when the auto industry is making record profits. "Qualified technicians used to be able to meet or even beat the times after doing the repair several times and figuring out a better way," said Jeremy Sharples, a computer and electronics technician for a Ford dealership in New London, Conn. "Now the technician has no hope of even breaking even. It's no fun working 40 or 50 hours and producing 30." Ford, for example, reduced the amount of labor time it pays for the removal and reinstallation of a Lincoln Navigator engine from 8.6 hours to 6.9. This means Ford pays the dealership about $110 less for the repair. Typically, the reduction is absorbed fairly evenly between the dealership and the mechanic. Mechanics and dealers acknowledge that some repair jobs could be completed in less than the original times alloted by Ford. On other occasions, they say, it takes two hours to diagnose a problem that is slotted as a 30-minute repair. "There has always been a fudge factor," said Russ Milne, owner of Russ Milne Ford in Macomb Township. "They are used to making $40 and they are making $30. Ford says they were overpaid; they don't think so. But whether they were overpaid or not they are still losing 10 bucks. Given the upswing in the economy it's pretty discouraging." Mechanics will leave With Ford continually reducing allowed repair times in recent months, mechanics have been discussing the possibility of a nationwide work stoppage. Much of communication takes place on the Internet, where sites launched by Ford technicians such as flatratetech.com have become electronic meeting halls. "A lot of the people coming in now are in favor of a walkout, but I don't think it's a good idea," said Sharples, the mechanic in New London, Conn. "We could end up hurting ourselves. We really need Ford to understand this is hurting them, too." A more likely scenario, say dealers and mechanics, is that more and more mechanics will leave to work at other dealerships and independent garages or leave the field altogether. Mechanics have been in short supply for years. The modern mechanic is far from the popular stereotype of grease monkeys with black fingernails and oily rags Why didn't you chime in on cncman with his erroneous, half-truth statements? Don't you think you're the kettle calling the pot black? I did not "chime in" on cncman because I did not know enough aboutdangling from their back pockets. Motor vehicles have become extraordinarily sophisticated machines that rely on complex electronic systems to run properly. A mechanic must be grounded in math and computer science and undergo near-constant training to keep in step with the industry. A highly trained mechanic can make between $50,000 and $70,000. Even so, thousands are leaving the auto repair field every year. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates nationwide a shortage of 60,000 mechanics. Viewed against that backdrop, Ford's decision to reduce warranty payouts could drive away more mechanics, according to some industry watchers. "They're going to be cutting their own throats because the dealers won't be able to hire qualified technicians," said Brad Summers, who owns Summers Dealer Services in Grayling, Mich., which negotiates warranty reimbursements for dealers. "It's going to be a very tight labor market in the near future." Incentives may not work Ford's national dealer council has held discussions with the company about the warranty changes and their potential effect on attracting and retaining good mechanics, said Jerry Reynolds, chairman of the dealer council and owner of Prestige Ford in Garland, Texas. "It's a very big deal. We are very concerned about (it) because it's so difficult to find good techs. And this could make matters worse." Ford and the dealer council have been discussing creating an incentive program that would reward the best technicians with bonuses, Reynolds said. Ford is in the process of implementing a program called Blue Oval Certified that is designed to reward dealerships with high customer satisfaction rates. One goal of the program is to improve the overall performance of dealer service centers. Mechanics claim the cutbacks will undercut these efforts. "If they really wanted to improve customer care, they wouldn't drive the most qualified technicians out of the business," said Sharples, the mechanic from New London, Conn. "Ford is killing themselves by doing this because if you have pulse and a wrench these days, you get hired. That's not something that someone who spent $40,000 on a vehicles particularly wants to hear."
Why would you truck enthusiasts react so negatively to the idea of a well-powered, small-displacement V8 in a compact truck? Don't be so brand loyal to the emblem on the hood of your truck sitting in the driveway. It'll benefit you whatever you choose to buy. I am not brand loyal.The idea of a V8 in a compact truck is great.I have put Ford and Chevy V8s in Rangers,Nissans,and Toyotas and it works great.I have to give Dodge credit for putting a 5.9L in their Dakota and Durangos.Hopefully they will continue on when they start their Hemi program and expand the 5.7L hemi into all of their trucks and continue with the larger hemi later on.The wisdom of doing all of this,V8 Rangers,large V8s will depend on the fuel prices.It may be back to 3,4 and 5 cylinders.
Cncman, your typical salesperson, and gooba is not far behind once again.... Better get to selling cncman your still over 110,000 Frontiers behind the Ranger!! LOL......
Keep twisting and turning with those numbers cncman, the saleman is coming out in you! The 3.3 is a joke, joke, joke, underpowered to pull even the Frontier's own weight!....
vince,is this typical of your intelligence?It is a shame.You must make your wife and parents very proud if this is the extent of your mental ability.I hope you keep them supplied with 2 bags when you are with them.
Cthompson; I never made any half truths or anything of the sort, you don't necessarily dispute what I say, just that it either doesn't matter to you or you think of it differently, that doesn't mean what i said was BS, it is all true, but that is why we are here, you always have very good points and I still respect your opinions, just respect mine and we can move on.
Vince; Are you still here? I thought I heard a clucking noise, LOL, still afraid to address anything posed to you, well you ignore us, we'll ignore you, bye bye birdie.
When do I not say something if Vince chimes in? I've already said that the 3.3L is a decent engine, and I welcome the S/C (the 3.5L would be better, but it's probably not cost effective for Nissan). I don't really care that much about sales figures. Why should I get involved in any debate about them? I also said that I didn't see anything negative about Renault purchasing a share of Nissan. It seemed like a win/win situation for both companies.
You have been silent about all things negative posted about the Ranger or Ford that were either false or needed clarifying.
Being brand loyal is fine. Being brand blind can shut one out of some interesting products.
I do respect your opinions, and I've found most of your posts to be truthful and open-minded. It's when you write posts like the following I take offense.
"the ranger is an absolute joke, the worst suspension, small bed, terrible warranty, bad resale value, questionable relibility, no power, terrible ride, high noise levels, bottom of the heap braking and off road performance, the weakest standard engines, the least amount of standard equipment, high maintenance insurance and repair costs, narrow cab, cheap steel and so on, there is your joke."
Your items like bad resale value, high maintenance costs, high insurance costs, high repair costs, and cheap steel are absolutely false. They can easily be quantified or researched, and you will find exactly the opposite. Most of the rest of your "negatives" are either opinion or quite simply a characteristic of any compact truck.
Alright. So, if Nissan actually builds less S/C Frontiers than Lightnings, it's not actually a "production" vehicle?
I'd also hazard to guess that there are more certified SVT dealers in the U.S. than there are Nissan dealers. Or, the number is very close. I've got 3 SVT dealers within 30 minutes of my house but only 1 (maybe 2) Nissan dealers. I think there are 900 SVT dealers???
You CAN get an F150 with a supercharger. It's called a Lightning. It's a fun truck. I'd suggest to everyone that they take one out for a test drive just for the helluva it.
The Taurus doesn't have a 4wd option. Does that make it not a "production" vehicle?
Since you're chomping at the bit so much to talk about Ford reliability, I'm game.
From what I've seen on the various ratings about the entire population of Ford vehicles:
-Most Fords (passenger cars) are about average with some a little over and some a little under average.
-The F150 and Ranger are above average.
-The Windstar is TERRIBLE. It's about as bad as a Yugo.
-I can't remember the Explorer or rest of their 'utes. I believe it's right about average. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
-V6 Mustangs are also very bad. The 3.8L V6 should be avoided at all costs.
-V8 Mustangs are all over the place. If treated well, they're a gem. But, so many are abused by their owners.
So, if you ever consider a Ford purchase, avoid the Windstar and V6 Mustang. I'd also never, ever purchase a used V8 Mustang (unless you know the owner and have watched every mile they've put on the car).
Interesting article you posted about the mechanic time budgets. There seems like a whole lot of good and bad points.
-Repairs should be done quicker
-Repairs could have been done in a better/more efficient fashion and weren't
-Consumer prices will be reduced
-Dealers will be forced to use the latest diagnostic equipment for more accurate repairs
-Mechanics may be in a shortage
And so on...
I'd just tell the mechanics "welcome to my world". I get more and more work heaped on me with smaller and smaller budgets. Also, my billable hours requirements have increased greatly.
Maybe Ford is just trimming the fat. Maybe they're cutting into the muscle. I guess time will tell if they can't staff their service departments.
I seriously doubt it though. It's simple supply and demand. It seems most likely that the price reductions from the factory will be offset by dealer markup to make up for increased operating costs. So, in financial terms the net effect will probably be zero. In terms of time, the vehicles would hopefully be spending less time in the repair bay.
I assume the Lightning you guys are talking about will be the new one for 2001? Since it's going to be the one with a s/c(not in the previous models). I've been doing some(limited) research and i can't find any other truck past or present being offered with a s/c. Unless I'm missing something, Ford or Nissan(whoever comes out first) will be the first to offer a TRUCK with a s/c. As a truck owner and using my 4x4 for the stuff I do I would want that sweet little 3.5L instead.
Anyway there should be no doubt that it(Lightning) is a production vehicle. My '94 S-10 SS was offered in limited quantity and it was considered a full production vehicle. Plus, several of GM's special vehicles that were limited like the Grand National (and it's GNX counterpart- very rare), the earlier mentioned cyclone(still holds the record for "fastest production vehicle") and the Typhoon, all considered by the industry and record books as production vehicles. Saying that a vehicle isn't a production vehicle especially if it's offered to retail dealers on account of it's production quantity is certainly a gray area. It may not be a "mass production" vehicle but, I think it's definately defined as a production vehicle.
The first F150 Lightning, which was produced (I believe) from '93-'95, did not have a S/C. I believe it had the naturally aspirated 351ci V8.
The current Lightning, which began production for the '99 model year has a S/C 5.4L Triton V8 producing 360hp and 440ft/lbs of torque.
I'd be genuinely surprised if there's never been a S/C truck made before the Lightning. Maybe it's true. Or, maybe it's such an insignificant vehicle that it falls below all of our radars.
Sorry about that i dropped the ball on that last post. I wrote it late last night. I totally forgot about the '99 Lightning. I know the others didn't have a s/c and they were fast and quick. As for the Syclone(sorry about the misspelling last night) I honestly can't remember but I thought it was the fastest production vehicle until the Jaguar(ford) came out. But you might be right it's probably the fastest 'production truck', especially since '93 there's been alot of fast cars produced, right?
I searched again last night after my post and still could't find anything on s/c production trucks. I'll keep digging. I'm kind of curious why not?
But I believe the Syclone was computer limited to around 120 MPH. Nothing to back it up, just memory. I guess that would make it the fastest truck though 'till the newer SC Ligtnings came out. Still seem to remember the Syclones being a tad quicker then the current Lightnings. That 4 wheel drive would let them launch hard.
In the first place I am not brand blind as you infer.I have over 20 different manufacturers of vehicles and equipment in the fleet.
I will take the hit on the production vehicle statement.Your reasoning is not correct either.To qualify for production status the mfg has to produce 500 of the vehicles.In this sense the Lightning qualifies.My 4wd comment was based on your saying it is a F150 and inferred that it was like any F150.I disqualified that by my 4wd comment.I cannot go to a Ford dealership and order a F150 4wd with a supercharger on it.All of this is going to be a moot point as Toyota has announced the availability of superchargers on some of their vehicles.
Reliability?Where did you get your information?When I brought in JD Powers VDI study it did not break out the Ranger.That would mean that the majority of Ford vehicles fell below the average and the Ranger rating suffered.
You said,among other things: I'd just tell the mechanics "welcome to my world". I get more and more work heaped on me with smaller and smaller budgets. Also, my billable hours requirements have increased greatly.
After reading this post I agree that you do not know enough about the subject to comment or you would not have made such a callous remark as that nor such a comparison. You work in a climate controlled environment.The technician is usually working in a less then desirable environment and alot of times on a hot piece of equipment. In order for the technician to make any money he has to do the repair as quickly as possible.He will use whatever is at his disposal to do the repair in less then the prescribed time. Take 2 1999 Ford Ranger trucks,4.0l with a/c to the dealership for a leaking water pump.The first truck is covered under warranty.The technician does the job in 1hr.Ford has said that the repair is 1.5hrs.The technician just made 10.00 if he is paid 20.00/hr.If he does it in 3.0hrs he still only gets paid for the 1.5hrs,and he lost money.If Ford decides to cut the time to 1hr or 0.9,the technician either loses money or finds some other way to cut corners further.Now take his buddy with the other Ranger doing the same job,only the customer is paying.He does it in 1.0hr also.The flat rate on that repair is 2.3hrs.He made 26.00 on the job.It is better money wise not to do the warranty repair.Also,if they are hurrying the technician may miss something or cut too many corners,and the customer will suffer in the end.In this case it is the technician who is in control,not the dealership.So,you are correct,budgets mean squat,and the technician could care less about the budget.He is only looking at the factory and flat rate times and how to get as many hours in a day as possible.
I believe the "fastest truck" ranking came from elapsed 1/4 mile times, not top speed. I think the Lightning is rated a couple of tenths slower than the Syclone.
I remember some advertising jargon about the Syclone being able to beat a Ferarri Mondial in the quarter mile.
lol, I'm sorry gooba(refering to you taking the hit)I wasn't trying to pick on you You are correct about the 500 though I couldn't remember it last night. There's a topic here on the "fastest production truck in the world". They said it hit 208 on the salt flats. That's where I getting the fastest from. I do remeber the 1/4 times were extremely fast too! But, I agree with you it's all fun as long as the motor would last .
"In the first place I am not brand blind as you infer.I have over 20 different manufacturers of vehicles and equipment in the fleet."
Your obvious disdain for Ford and Nissan can do no wrong view seem to dictate otherwise.
"I cannot go to a Ford dealership and order a F150 4wd with a supercharger on it."
Actually, you can. Check out the Roush F150 4x4. It's not a "production" vehicle by your definition though (I don't see it as one either). Just a FYI for you.
The Harley-Davidson F150 isn't available in 4wd form. Does that make it not a production vehicle? Or, does the absense of a supercharger make it a production vehicle? Just kidding...
Reliability:
You're looking at a single study of a small sample of vehicles. I'm just summarizing reportings that I remember about Ford vehicle reliability from all available sources that I've seen lately. Look at things like autoweb, carpoint, edmunds, consumer reports, the various car rags, etc...
It seems crazy to me that someone would see a single magazine article, review, test, or whatever and suddenly their mind is made up and everything is black and white.
As for my job, if only you could see some of the places I've had to work. A shop would have been like heaven to me. Businesses usually don't like auditors and go out of their way to make terrible conditions to "encourage" our quick departure.
Why should anyone receive special treatment over anybody else? I'm so sick of people bitching about how hard they've got it and wanting special priviledges.
BTW, I worked DAMN hard to get where I'm at today. I've put in thousands of hours and paid many tens of thousands of dollars to do it. I don't [non-permissible content removed] when my budget gets cut from the prior year (w/o basis), more jobs get thrown on my schedule, my billable hours requirements get upped, and I've got to severely cut into my personal time to get my work done. BTW, I'm salaried, so I don't see a single dime more.
First,the link was interesting and quite informative. The reliability issue?I quoted that to prove a point to vince.It was his main source.I have read the other items in trade magazines,web sites and bulletins and came away with my opinion.Actually,I rate Dodge as bottom of the heap.That is based on daily observation.
I may have made an incorrect assumption as to your working conditions.You are a white collar worker and they usually have the better working conditions and environment. The technician is not asking for special treatment or privileges.The technician only wants what is right.He has as much time and money tied up in his trade as you do,and it is a constant training cycle. I am sure you work very hard at your profession and I commend you for it.As you said you are salaried,there are alot of technicians who would like to be on salary,but the dealership will not do it.You get paid the same no matter how long it takes,as you said,you do not get a dime more,nor do you get a dime less. That technician gets paid by the job and at an hourly rate,and only when the job is completed.If the job is held up because of the parts dept he does not get paid for that job. You talk of budgets and cutting,etc.As you said,and I agree,it means nothing.The technician generates revenue for that dealership.Usually the parts and service departments generate the constant flow of money into the dealership. You see,there is one general observation that I have made,and that is that in the scheme of things white collar workers,albeit hard working,intelligent and industrious people are a luxury.The blue collar trades and crafts worker is a necessity.Without these people alot of things quit working.
No need to apologize.I was in error.I forgot and was reminded.Your comments were greatly appreciated,thank you. Awesome speed.I would imagine it would be something to ride in.The thing is,where would you use it at,and I doubt it runs on pump gas.It may not be very streetable and definetly lacking in fuel economy.
Maybe Ford is screwing their techs/dealerships. Maybe Ford is just cutting the fat. It's probably a little of both.
White and blue collar workers need each other. Without both, our present society couldn't function.
I'm with you. I hope this isn't a case of corporate america screwing the little guy. I'm sure there's probably a lot more to it than just what the article mentioned. I wonder if other manufacturers are following suit. Didn't it say something about industry trends in there?
Now that we seem to have covered a few subjects with a lively discussion,what next? I am going to ask this question.Why can;t anybody offer the option of GPS or electronic maps in the trucks?Why only the upper SUVs and luxury type cars.I know I prefer to travel in my truck and I know a few times out in the middle of BFE when some of that would have been handy.
I guess it's just the way of things. The most expensive vehicles always get the latest and greatest options. Us truck guys have to wait.
You could add a GPS system to your truck. Be prepared to spend a couple grand. I've never played around with one of the hand-held ones. I think CP has got one. You could ask him if he likes it.
In either case, I've seen so many complaints about them that I'd be hesitant to invest that much money in one for now at least.
yeah the couple of grand cost might make it a little pricey.I have seen and heard some of those complaints and I have also seen and heard great things.The things I have seen were great.The people I know that have the handheld ones swear by them and they seem to work pretty good,especially with USGS maps. I just thought that it was ironic that the people who would benefit with that technology can only get it in a handheld device.As a general rule you are not going to take your Cadillac or Lincoln out in the boonies.
Guys I've been think the same thing! If there's any vehicle that needs one, a jeep. Because they're sold and designed(well they used to be)for offroading. But certainly, pickup deserves one before a luxury car. Also I appalled by the pricing of these things in a vehicle. I deal in GPS units everyday and you can get one with a differential beacon for $550. My expeirence with the handheld units haven't been as good as the stationary units. But, my experience with the handheld units were operating under their own power(batteries). Now they make holders to slide the handhelds into and you can power them from the vehicle's 12 volt system. I think you could mount one like a portable cell phone. The main problem is whether or not the unit could properly read the satelites. Those of you lucky enough to have a bench seat might be able to mount a stationary unit(Garmin 128)on the hump in middle it's not to big and you could mount the antenna on a topper or clamp it to the bed rail. It would still read the satelites through the cab. You could certainly add one though no problem for way r a $1000(if you don't want a built-in maps).
Comments
I've heard that Ford has stopped building the Excursion and has reduced production of the Expedition. Sounds like good news to me. Less gas-swilling, emissions-dumping hazards on the road.
Well here is some more about your pathetic Frontier. Go to www.pickuptruck.com see how your Frontier falls flat on its face in sales. Total for 1999 sales are 96,301!! LOL. The Ranger 348,358!@! Come on! over 350,000 people can't be wrong... Sales this year so far, Ranger 159,521, Frontier 45,747... The Ranger is also Rated number 4 out of ALL truck sales... Sales do matter, the consumer rules and makes the choice.
What don't you understand about torque? Where is the extra 25ft/lbs needed to compete with the Ranger this year? and the extra 40ft/lbs you'll need in about 4 months? The 3.3 is a joke, lacks power, torque to compete so Nissan bandaids it with a supercharger, LOL.....
Personally,I do not care about the sales figures nor where Ranger rated or the torque.It is not a factor.I bought my CC and not the Ranger because it fit the need I had for a truck for my family.I did not care for the Ranger because it was cheaply made on the inside,was sadly lacking in off road performance-it would not go in 4wd where I took my Nissan in 2wd,and I did not care for the body lines.It did have more torque and hp then my Nissan but it would be unusable off road because the rear end would not stay down.
That was from my road test,not some magazine article,and guess what,sales figures never entered in the picture.
So,vince,again how is all of your previous post relevant?It matters.........?Also,I am still waiting on your response about the wisdom of you paying cash for your truck.
You can make comments about the 3.3L but you seem to not be able to qualify your remarks.You say it is a joke.Why?If your comments are based on hp/torque comparisons alone,which seems to be the only things you quote,then that is not a valid statement.That would mean that the 4.0L is a joke in comparison to any other engine that has more hp or torque.The bandaid of the supercharger from Nissan?Good move.You can call it a bandaid,and it may be one but it is no more of one then the supercharger on the 3.8L Tbird SC engine.Also,there is something to be said for being able to say I have a supercharger under my hood and to have the unique sound that is associated with it.Band aid? So what,it is awesome and the only one offered stock from the factory in ANY production truck.LOL......
You said you were researching the ranger's suspension and why the ranger's braking is absolutely laughable not to mention dangerous, have you come up with anything yet? Have you looked under your truck yet? Why are you chicken about recieving the information I offered you to help your research? LOL I think I know why, YOU can't handle the truth, the ranger is an absolute joke, the worst suspension, small bed, terrible warranty, bad resale value, questionable relibility, no power, terrible ride, high noise levels, bottom of the heap braking and off road performance, the weakest standard engines, the least amount of standard equipment, high maintenance insurance and repair costs, narrow cab, cheap steel and so on, there is your joke.
Remember the GMC Syclone built in the early '90s? It had a S/C 4.3 good for 280hp.
Don't forget the current Lightning either. It's got a S/C 5.4L Triton good for 360hp.
(1) Worst suspension. Huh? It rides just like every other compact truck. Haven't you driven them all?
(2) Small bed. You're kidding, right? It being a COMPACT truck and all. If you want a big bed, get a full-sized truck. Do you actually think that a couple of cubic feet make any difference at all?
(3) Terrible warranty. 3yr/36,000 and 3yr/50,000 (for B-Series). How exactly is that terrible?
(4) Bad resale. Nothing could be further from the truth. My truck has depreciated about $3,500 in just over 2 years. I also could have taken the rebate (in liu of great financing) of $1,500.
(5) Questionable reliability. Take a look at any source, and they rate the Ranger extremely well. Where are you getting this?
(6) No power. Again, where are you getting this? No matter the engine ratings, the Ranger accelerates, tows, and hauls right up there with engines rated at 30-40hp more. It'll only improve in '01 and beyond with the Cammer and the upcoming V8.
(7) Terrible ride. What? It's a truck! Are you expecting it to be posh like a Lexus or something? Maybe you were referring to a comparison with a Caddy or something... Refer to #1.
(8) High noise levels. Actually, no. A small amount of wind and tire noise at 75mph+ but nothing anywhere near "high". Surprisingly, it's pretty quiet.
(9) Bottom of the heap braking and off road performance. Again, no. I've actually just read that Ford is now making 4-wheel ABS standard equipment on ALL trucks. That article where you cite this "terrible braking" also has no specifics. Maybe if you could come up with any sort of other information with like-equipped trucks, I'd be more apt to believe this.
(10) Weakest standard engines. If you're talking about the 2.5, yes. But, rectified in '01 with a more powerful 2.3. Anyone who buys the 2.5 is definately not concerned about power. Spend the extra $400 for the 3L. Trust me. You'll love it, and it will end up paying for itself.
(11) Least amount of standard equipment. It's quite simply you don't pay for what you don't want. How could this possibly be bad?
(12) High maintenance, insurance, and repair costs. Uh, no. It's the absolute opposite. Nothing could be further from the truth.
(13) Narrow cab. What!? It's a COMPACT truck!!!
(14) Cheap steel. OK, now you are REALLY reaching! I guess that's why you cut off with the "and so on". My wife actually ran over a tree (a good 4" in diameter). Nothing was bent. It didn't even DENT the bumper. However, it did break the foglight valance when she knocked it out of the ground and ran over it.
I'm not trying to be abrasive or anything. But, everything is just so waaaay off the mark here, that I just had to throw the BS flag.
The S/C should only improve the 3.3L as long as Nissan does the internal work to make the engine reliable and long-lasting with forced induction.
However, I would prefer the 3.5L V6 out of the Pathfinder in liu of a S/C 3.3L.
Gee, I wonder why Nissan wasn't chosen as the carmaker for federal/state governments. Sales are sales, that is what makes money, that is what Nissan still has to figure out I guess?? That is why they needed to be bailed out by Renault! LOL...
I want to ask about a couple of things you mentioned to cncman. You said:
(5) Questionable reliability. Take a look at any
source, and they rate the Ranger extremely well.
Where are you getting this?
Go to JD Powers and look at the vehicle reliability study for 1999,1998,and 1997 and you will see that Nissan rates higher then the average and that Ford is below the average and did not make the charts.That would be a good indicator.
(6) No power. Again, where are you getting this?
No matter the engine ratings, the Ranger
accelerates, tows, and hauls right up there with
engines rated at 30-40hp more. It'll only improve
in '01 and beyond with the Cammer and the upcoming
V8.
It does have power,and is comparable.The v8 is only speculation at this point and not concrete.
(8) High noise levels. Actually, no. A small
amount of wind and tire noise at 75mph+ but nothing
anywhere near "high". Surprisingly, it's pretty
quiet.
Look at the long term road test here at Edmunds on the Ranger and there is comments on the noise level as well as the ride of the vehicle.
(3) Terrible warranty. 3yr/36,000 and 3yr/50,000
(for B-Series). How exactly is that terrible?
This could be an issue in the near future.With Ford cutting the warranty times to the dealerships and thereby cutting the mechanics wages,you will see a marked decrease in the quality of those warranty repairs.If you have poor quality under warranty,the warranty becomes worthless because of all of the time you will spend inconvenienced.
As far as the off road performance,the suspension is the limiting factor there.They are supposed to address that issue,but until then,it is lacking.The report from the roundtable Ranger and Ford addressed that.
One last thing,I do appreciate your input into the discussions,but I would like to know why you answer for vince?
Go back to JD Powers vince,and look at the vehicle reliability studies for the past three years.Ford was below average and did not even make the charts.Ford only scored higher in the Initial ratings-the first 3 months,after that it fell bad.The fun part,is that is YOUR link.Maybe Ford will figure out how to make a vehicle reliable past 3 months.
I am a reasonable guy, you already know that, and please know there are no hard feelings or hostility directed towards you, I have alot of respect for you and your views, that doesn't necessarily mean we share the same opinions. I guess I should qualify the remarks I made with the words, "compared to the frontier" I think gooba addresed the points I was going to make very well,
but I should fill in the gaps.
1) No actually they don't all ride the same, and yes I have driven them all and I have driven the tacoma and ranger side by side in dynamic comparisons and have seen the results myself. Plus, A torsion bar suspension is better than not having one, double wishbone suspension is better than long/short arm suspension, the ranger's leaf springs are attatched to the frame with an offset bracket, the frontier's are in line with the frame, better design, plus in head to head competitions, the frontier was praised for its on and offroad comfort.
2) Actually I do think that a bigger bed is better, you can haul more stuff, a bed is what makes a truck a truck, the more stuff I can fit in the bed means less trips to help a friend move, taller sides give me a more secure feeling when I put something tall back there, plus being wider, it is easier to fit large items in there without having to put them in an awkward position.
3)this is one of the points I should qualify with "when compared to the frontier" 3/36 vs 5/60, come on, which would you rather have? I think whatever your opinion, you would rather have ford stretch the warranty to compete with Nissan/Toyota.
4) what are you basing your depreiciation figures on? I am recalling all of the rangers we had on my used car lot that had to be almost given away after 2 months, they sold for $1500-2500 below NADA retail, also if you want to really know what a vehicle is worth, you need to look at auction reports, these show a higher resale value for Nissan trucks than rangers, plus CR has the Nissan
CC as the best resale value of any compact truck.
5)Questionable relibility, look at all of the problems reported by people here, there are many consistent problems, head gasket leaks, wipers spontaneously going on, diesleing sounds, engines needing replaced before 40,000 miles, you don't hear these major problems with the frontier, plus every place that rates relibility rates the forntier higher.
6) power is power, the ranger only approaches the other trucks when you buy all of the extra packages for towing, and the 4 cylinder couldn't tow a tricycle.
7) I don't see why wanting a comfortable ride in a compact truck is undesirable, sure it is a truck, but that is no excuse for a teeth shattering ride,
these things are primarily commuter vehicles, I put a high premium on comfort. Fact is the frontier has a more comfortable smoother ride, and I like that.
8) I have the decible ratings somewhere, the frotnier is still quieter at idle, 30 mph and 70 mph, I have driven several rangers, the forntier is defintiely quieter.
9) They can only test what ford makes available,
you can't tell me that 4wheel ABS VS 2wheel ABS can make 100ft of difference. Regardless of what ford is going to do, the fact is still that the ranger braking is subpar, plus the excessive brake fading after repeated breaking the ranger exhibits. So it is OK that ford makes a lousy braking system now as long as they improve it in the next year or so?
10) again, it is great that ford is going to bring a decent engine out for the 4 cylinder, but what I said is still true. And why is it that whenever the 4cylinder is criticized, ranger guys dismiss it like it doesn't even exist, and why can't a buyer want a four cylider that has power? most compacts are 4 cylinders, why can't ford address the needs of the biggest percentage buyers out there? Plus the standard ranger V6 is weaker than the standard frontier V6, so this is true also, the 3.0l actually performs very much like the frontier four cylinder.
11) well I guess it is all how you want to look at it, I happen to like to get the most for the money, but that is just me, I like nicer equipment, I like AC, and nice wheels and an extra 12v adapter and a sliding window and bucket seats,
and I really like not having to pay extra for them. But however you look at it, what I said is still true.
12) Again this is a "when compared to the frontier" Look at intellichoice.com, the ranger is rated worse on all of these categories. Plus timing chain in 4 cylinders, 105,000 replacement intervals on timing belt on V6 frontier.
13)What is wrong with wanting a more comfortable roomier interior? yes it is a compact truck, but there is no reason you can't have a decent amount of space too, why not both, it seems that you are not disputing anything I say as not being truthful, just that you don't happen to agree that these facts are important to you.
14)What I meant on this point was the corrossion protection, Nissan uses Durasteel, coated on both sides with an aluminum chromate, the ranger is galvanized and only on one side. That is what I menat by cheap.
So I don't get what you mean by way off, you don't dispute the facts, you just have a different spin on it, everything I have said is true, 100% BS free.
I still doubt that the 3.5 will find its way into the frontier, I think it will be the base engine in the new Nissan Full sized truck with the Infiniti V8 as an option, BTW there is an artist's drawing of the truck at the pickuptruck site Vince posted, looks good.
Yes you posted the link about the crash tests, but you can't defend your position, why are there no differences in injuries between the two, why can't you comment on the ranger's lousy braking? Or is that just not a safety issue with you? Your relibility post makes me laugh, it still shows the ranger is not as relible as the frontier, you are really good about posting stuff that shoots you in the foot. OK you say edmunds rates the ranger better in performance, but what performance? was this with a load or without? what engines and equipment did they have in the comparison? what was the data they came up with? All you can do is regurgitate other's opinions, but I guess you have to be reasonably intelligent to form your own opinions. That's OK Vince, I won't bug you about the fact that you won't respond to suspension comparisons and you completely ignore the fact that I tried to get the article to you you said you wanted to research, we all know you are too scared to face the truth, well keep on living in La-La land. Just a little hint, if you keep your head in the sand long enough you suffocate.
Are you serious? All sales are not equal, anybody who graduated 5th grade could tell you that! Do you really think that foreign automobile manufacturers can sell to the government of this country, what's the matter with you man? For one thing are you aware that there is an import tax on foreign vehicles, why would our own government pay it's own tax? Thank the big man upstairs, our government agencies don't think like you. I thought you would at least know the basics. Oh my I can't even finish typing..hehehehe :-)
The V8 isn't just speculation. Ford has built many prototype V8 Rangers with many different V8s. Whether or not it makes it into production is another question.
That long-term road test which everyone seems so fond of quoting pretty much compares the Ranger to a car. So, I'm actually speaking from experience here. Whether you like it or not, when compared to other trucks the Ranger DOES have a comfortable ride and low noise levels. (Mine actually has higher noise levels with the addition of the KKM and cat-back, but those are such sweet sounding noises).
Over the past 4 years I have made 2 trips to the dealer (one each for my '95 & '98). Service was great. Repair complete and correct in a day, just like what they told me. Of the 5 or 6 Fords owned by my immediate family, there have been 2 trips to the dealer in the past few years. They have experienced the same service. Again, I am actually speaking from experience here, not from some complaint I read on a discussion forum.
BTW, I thought this was an open discussion forum. I chimed in because of the half-truths and outright BS that was being thrown around.
My point is that the Ranger is well
above average in vehicle reliability.
Where did you get that from?JD Powers rated Ford below average in vehicle dependability for the last 3 years.I realize that there are good trucks out there and you probably own one of them,but that may be a testament more to you then to the mfg.
You said:
The V8 isn't just speculation. Ford has built
many prototype V8 Rangers with many different V8s.
Whether or not it makes it into production is
another question.
They may have built a few prototypes,but until it hits production it is speculation.
From the roundtable:
Malcom Strydom:
"Now comes the big question you are all wondering? V8 or not to V8. Well they couldn't tell us if such an animal was due to come out or not but I can tell you they are not blind to the idea and they wanted to hear what we had to say about it. Trust me guys we preached V8. Like I say they couldn't reveal that kind of info but I did get the impression that if a V8 did ever come out it will not be 302. It would be new technology, OHC. The 4.6 that are in Mustangs? I cannot say - sorry guys I tried to weasel as much info as possible
The service issue is not something on a discussion forum.It was reported that Ford was saving over 70 million by cutting the warranty times on repairs and that the techs did not believe it was fair.It will affect the repairs eventually.
The comparison of the Ranger to a car on the long term road test is not really valid.Granted some of the people had not driven a truck before,but it still was an impression and complaint.
The SC on the Nissan?I guess I was correct that the Frontier will be the only production truck offered with a factory supercharger,or has been offered.
You are correct that it is an open discussion forum and you do have valid opinions and are always looked to for input,but some of the posts directed at vince should be answered by vince.The level of debate with him drops quite a few IQ points when compared with discussions with you.
BTW, I thought this was an open discussion forum.
I chimed in because of the half-truths and
outright BS that was being thrown around.
I am curious,I do not recall you addressing vince on any of his comments.Why is that?If you have addressed him I stand corrected,if not is it because you agree with him and or that he does not spread half truths or BS?
BTW, I said "Ranger" not "Ford". I thought we were discussing the Ranger's reliability, not Ford as a whole. I said the RANGER is rated well above average. And, it is.
"The SC on the Nissan?I guess I was correct that
the Frontier will be the only production truck
offered with a factory supercharger,or has been
offered."
Uh, no. Have you so quickly forgotten about the Lightning? Why wouldn't you consider it to be a "production" vehicle? It comes right out of the factory like every other F-150. They ship it to the dealer and sell it. I really can't fathom the reason you wouldn't consider it a production vehicle.
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you on definitions. It's tedium to the point of stupidity. Ford has built V8 Rangers. Will they sell V8 Rangers? Only Ford knows, and they aren't telling.
Why would you truck enthusiasts react so negatively to the idea of a well-powered, small-displacement V8 in a compact truck? Don't be so brand loyal to the emblem on the hood of your truck sitting in the driveway. It'll benefit you whatever you choose to buy.
"The service issue is not something on a discussion forum.It was reported that Ford was saving over 70 million by cutting the warranty times on repairs and that the techs did not believe it was fair. It will affect the repairs eventually."
I don't think any of us have all of the facts to comment. Maybe time allotments are overbudgeted. Maybe new diagnostic equipment has cut repair times. Maybe Ford is attempting to force older dealerships to upgrade equipment. Working as an auditor, I'll also tell you something: budgets don't mean a thing.
One more thing. I couldn't care less what a few car reviewers said about a truck. In fact, I couldn't care less about what any reviewer said about any vehicle. It's just opinion, which is shaped by one bias or another.
erroneous, half-truth statements? Don't you think
you're the kettle calling the pot black?
I did not "chime in" on cncman because I did not know enough about the subject.If I did,I would have said something.Is it safe to assume that this is your answer as to why you have nothing to say when vince says something?
Uh, no. Have you so quickly forgotten about the
Lightning? Why wouldn't you consider it to be a
"production" vehicle? It comes right out of the
factory like every other F-150. They ship it to
the dealer and sell it. I really can't fathom the
reason you wouldn't consider it a production
vehicle.
You are correct the Lightning does have a supercharger.I would not consider it a production vehicle because it has a limited number,is only shipped to dealerships that are SVT qualified,which is around 10%,and it does not have a 4wd option.It is produced,but is a special vehicle.You cannot get a F150 with a supercharger.
BTW, I said "Ranger" not "Ford". I thought we
were discussing the Ranger's reliability, not Ford
as a whole. I said the RANGER is rated well above
average. And, it is.
Where do you come up with your reliability figures?So,by what you are saying,Ranger is above average in long term dependability,and the rest of the Ford vehicles are bad enough to pull the overall rating to below average.
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you
on definitions. It's tedium to the point of
stupidity. Ford has built V8 Rangers. Will they
sell V8 Rangers? Only Ford knows, and they aren't
telling.
There are no hairs to split.I can believe that they were built,but until you or I can go down and purchase one,it is the same as not having been built.It is no different then Nissan pitting a diesel in the Frontier,but I cannot get one here,or Ford building a crewcab Courier that is available everywhere but in North America.
I don't think any of us have all of the facts to
comment. Maybe time allotments are overbudgeted.
Maybe new diagnostic equipment has cut repair
times. Maybe Ford is attempting to force older
dealerships to upgrade equipment. Working as an
auditor, I'll also tell you something: budgets
don't mean a thing.
I am attaching an article on this issue.You are right,budgets do not mean a thing.What does mean something is cutting the paycheck of a technician.This is an issue I know quite a bit about.
Ford repair pay angers mechanics
They say cutbacks for warranty work may hurt consumers
Less time to make repairs
Ford Motor Co. has rankled dealers and mechanics by cutting the number of labor hours it reimburses dealerships for certain warranty repairs. Source: Automotive technicians
By Mark Truby / The Detroit News
DEARBORN -- Ford Motor Co. is facing a backlash from dealers and mechanics upset over reductions in reimbursements for warranty repairs.
Mechanics nationwide, communicating mainly over the Internet, are considering staging a job walkoff or going to court to fight the cutbacks by Ford.
The controversy threatens to aggravate already strained relations between the Dearborn-based company and its dealers. The diminished reimbursements, dealers contend, are cutting into profits and making it difficult to attract and keep competent automotive technicians.
"It's a slap in our face," said Chris Peters, a transmission specialist at Fairlane Ford in Dearborn. "Our paychecks can be dramatically reduced. It's the kind of thing that could make a lot of guys want to leave."
Like its competitors, Ford is aggressively attempting to reduce warranty costs. Such savings ultimately could be passed on to consumers in terms of lower new car prices. But dealers and mechanics warn the cutbacks could result in hastily done and shoddy repairs.
The service bay dispute is comparable to the controversy over managed health care in which insurance companies reimburse doctors and hospitals a flat rate for prescribed medical procedures. In some cases, the insurers refuse to pay for certain treatments.
Similarly, Ford two years ago initiated a comprehensive review of the amount of time a typical mechanic should take to complete specific repair jobs. Factoring the use of power tools and diagnostic equipment, Ford determined that it had been paying for excessive labor time on hundreds of jobs -- from transmission repairs to engine replacements.
"We know there is going to be consternation with this," said Frank Ligone, a Ford technical operations manager who helps develop the warranty service times. "The question is: Are the times accurate and do they have integrity? We think they do. If we say it can be done in an hour, it should be able to be done in an hour."
Ligone also noted that Ford reviews the time alloted for any job if five or more mechanics appeal.
Ford and most other automakers pay dealerships between $60 and $70 per hour for warranty repairs. Dealers then pay mechanics a percentage of that fee based on the job and the mechanic's level of experience and training.
Warranty repairs are a huge expense for automakers. About 35 percent of all repairs made at dealerships across the country are covered by manufacturer's warranties. Those repairs cost automakers about $12 billion a year, estimates Joe Grant, president of J. & L. Warranty Pros of Auburn, Mich., which helps auto dealerships collect warranty reimbursements.
And nearly half of all dealer profits come from their service and parts operations.
Less money in paycheck
Mechanics contend that although some of new times are fair, others are unrealistic. And the net effect is less money in their paycheck at a time when the auto industry is making record profits.
"Qualified technicians used to be able to meet or even beat the times after doing the repair several times and figuring out a better way," said Jeremy Sharples, a computer and electronics technician for a Ford dealership in New London, Conn. "Now the technician has no hope of even breaking even. It's no fun working 40 or 50 hours and producing 30."
Ford, for example, reduced the amount of labor time it pays for the removal and reinstallation of a Lincoln Navigator engine from 8.6 hours to 6.9. This means Ford pays the dealership about $110 less for the repair. Typically, the reduction is absorbed fairly evenly between the dealership and the mechanic.
Mechanics and dealers acknowledge that some repair jobs could be completed in less than the original times alloted by Ford. On other occasions, they say, it takes two hours to diagnose a problem that is slotted as a 30-minute repair.
"There has always been a fudge factor," said Russ Milne, owner of Russ Milne Ford in Macomb Township. "They are used to making $40 and they are making $30. Ford says they were overpaid; they don't think so. But whether they were overpaid or not they are still losing 10 bucks. Given the upswing in the economy it's pretty discouraging."
Mechanics will leave
With Ford continually reducing allowed repair times in recent months, mechanics have been discussing the possibility of a nationwide work stoppage. Much of communication takes place on the Internet, where sites launched by Ford technicians such as flatratetech.com have become electronic meeting halls.
"A lot of the people coming in now are in favor of a walkout, but I don't think it's a good idea," said Sharples, the mechanic in New London, Conn. "We could end up hurting ourselves. We really need Ford to understand this is hurting them, too."
A more likely scenario, say dealers and mechanics, is that more and more mechanics will leave to work at other dealerships and independent garages or leave the field altogether.
Mechanics have been in short supply for years. The modern mechanic is far from the popular stereotype of grease monkeys with black fingernails and oily rags
Why didn't you chime in on cncman with his
erroneous, half-truth statements? Don't you think
you're the kettle calling the pot black?
I did not "chime in" on cncman because I did not know enough aboutdangling from their back pockets.
Motor vehicles have become extraordinarily sophisticated machines that rely on complex electronic systems to run properly. A mechanic must be grounded in math and computer science and undergo near-constant training to keep in step with the industry. A highly trained mechanic can make between $50,000 and $70,000. Even so, thousands are leaving the auto repair field every year.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates nationwide a shortage of 60,000 mechanics.
Viewed against that backdrop, Ford's decision to reduce warranty payouts could drive away more mechanics, according to some industry watchers.
"They're going to be cutting their own throats because the dealers won't be able to hire qualified technicians," said Brad Summers, who owns Summers Dealer Services in Grayling, Mich., which negotiates warranty reimbursements for dealers. "It's going to be a very tight labor market in the near future."
Incentives may not work
Ford's national dealer council has held discussions with the company about the warranty changes and their potential effect on attracting and retaining good mechanics, said Jerry Reynolds, chairman of the dealer council and owner of Prestige Ford in Garland, Texas.
"It's a very big deal. We are very concerned about (it) because it's so difficult to find good techs. And this could make matters worse."
Ford and the dealer council have been discussing creating an incentive program that would reward the best technicians with bonuses, Reynolds said.
Ford is in the process of implementing a program called Blue Oval Certified that is designed to reward dealerships with high customer satisfaction rates. One goal of the program is to improve the overall performance of dealer service centers.
Mechanics claim the cutbacks will undercut these efforts.
"If they really wanted to improve customer care, they wouldn't drive the most qualified technicians out of the business," said Sharples, the mechanic from New London, Conn. "Ford is killing themselves by doing this because if you have pulse and a wrench these days, you get hired. That's not something that someone who spent $40,000 on a vehicles particularly wants to hear."
Why would you truck enthusiasts react so
negatively to the idea of a well-powered,
small-displacement V8 in a compact truck? Don't be
so brand loyal to the emblem on the hood of your
truck sitting in the driveway. It'll benefit you
whatever you choose to buy.
I am not brand loyal.The idea of a V8 in a compact truck is great.I have put Ford and Chevy V8s in Rangers,Nissans,and Toyotas and it works great.I have to give Dodge credit for putting a 5.9L in their Dakota and Durangos.Hopefully they will continue on when they start their Hemi program and expand the 5.7L hemi into all of their trucks and continue with the larger hemi later on.The wisdom of doing all of this,V8 Rangers,large V8s will depend on the fuel prices.It may be back to 3,4 and 5 cylinders.
far behind once again.... Better get to selling
cncman your still over 110,000 Frontiers behind the
Ranger!! LOL......
Keep twisting and turning with those numbers
cncman, the saleman is coming out in you! The 3.3
is a joke, joke, joke, underpowered to pull even
the Frontier's own weight!....
vince,is this typical of your intelligence?It is a shame.You must make your wife and parents very proud if this is the extent of your mental ability.I hope you keep them supplied with 2 bags when you are with them.
I never made any half truths or anything of the sort, you don't necessarily dispute what I say, just that it either doesn't matter to you or you think of it differently, that doesn't mean what i said was BS, it is all true, but that is why we are here, you always have very good points and I still respect your opinions, just respect mine and we can move on.
Vince;
Are you still here? I thought I heard a clucking noise, LOL, still afraid to address anything posed to you, well you ignore us, we'll ignore you, bye bye birdie.
You have been silent about all things negative posted about the Ranger or Ford that were either false or needed clarifying.
Being brand loyal is fine. Being brand blind can shut one out of some interesting products.
"the ranger is an absolute joke, the worst suspension, small bed, terrible warranty, bad resale value, questionable relibility, no power, terrible ride, high noise levels, bottom of the heap braking and off road performance, the weakest standard engines, the least amount of standard equipment, high maintenance insurance and repair costs, narrow cab, cheap steel and so on, there is your joke."
Your items like bad resale value, high maintenance costs, high insurance costs, high repair costs, and cheap steel are absolutely false. They can easily be quantified or researched, and you will find exactly the opposite. Most of the rest of your "negatives" are either opinion or quite simply a characteristic of any compact truck.
No harm. No foul.
Later,
-C
I'd also hazard to guess that there are more certified SVT dealers in the U.S. than there are Nissan dealers. Or, the number is very close. I've got 3 SVT dealers within 30 minutes of my house but only 1 (maybe 2) Nissan dealers. I think there are 900 SVT dealers???
You CAN get an F150 with a supercharger. It's called a Lightning. It's a fun truck. I'd suggest to everyone that they take one out for a test drive just for the helluva it.
The Taurus doesn't have a 4wd option. Does that make it not a "production" vehicle?
From what I've seen on the various ratings about the entire population of Ford vehicles:
-Most Fords (passenger cars) are about average with some a little over and some a little under average.
-The F150 and Ranger are above average.
-The Windstar is TERRIBLE. It's about as bad as a Yugo.
-I can't remember the Explorer or rest of their 'utes. I believe it's right about average. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
-V6 Mustangs are also very bad. The 3.8L V6 should be avoided at all costs.
-V8 Mustangs are all over the place. If treated well, they're a gem. But, so many are abused by their owners.
So, if you ever consider a Ford purchase, avoid the Windstar and V6 Mustang. I'd also never, ever purchase a used V8 Mustang (unless you know the owner and have watched every mile they've put on the car).
-Repairs should be done quicker
-Repairs could have been done in a better/more efficient fashion and weren't
-Consumer prices will be reduced
-Dealers will be forced to use the latest diagnostic equipment for more accurate repairs
-Mechanics may be in a shortage
And so on...
I'd just tell the mechanics "welcome to my world". I get more and more work heaped on me with smaller and smaller budgets. Also, my billable hours requirements have increased greatly.
Maybe Ford is just trimming the fat. Maybe they're cutting into the muscle. I guess time will tell if they can't staff their service departments.
I seriously doubt it though. It's simple supply and demand. It seems most likely that the price reductions from the factory will be offset by dealer markup to make up for increased operating costs. So, in financial terms the net effect will probably be zero. In terms of time, the vehicles would hopefully be spending less time in the repair bay.
Anyway there should be no doubt that it(Lightning) is a production vehicle. My '94 S-10 SS was offered in limited quantity and it was considered a full production vehicle. Plus, several of GM's special vehicles that were limited like the Grand National (and it's GNX counterpart- very rare), the earlier mentioned cyclone(still holds the record for "fastest production vehicle") and the Typhoon, all considered by the industry and record books as production vehicles. Saying that a vehicle isn't a production vehicle especially if it's offered to retail dealers on account of it's production quantity is certainly a gray area. It may not be a "mass production" vehicle but, I think it's definately defined as a production vehicle.
Please post your sources/info on the Syclone, "worlds fastest production vehicle" that's a new one on me.
It was one helluva fast truck. Well, up until about 75K miles when the engine would go...
As for the current Lightning, longevity remains to be seen...
The current Lightning, which began production for the '99 model year has a S/C 5.4L Triton V8 producing 360hp and 440ft/lbs of torque.
I'd be genuinely surprised if there's never been a S/C truck made before the Lightning. Maybe it's true. Or, maybe it's such an insignificant vehicle that it falls below all of our radars.
I searched again last night after my post and still could't find anything on s/c production trucks. I'll keep digging. I'm kind of curious why not?
I will take the hit on the production vehicle statement.Your reasoning is not correct either.To qualify for production status the mfg has to produce 500 of the vehicles.In this sense the Lightning qualifies.My 4wd comment was based on your saying it is a F150 and inferred that it was like any F150.I disqualified that by my 4wd comment.I cannot go to a Ford dealership and order a F150 4wd with a supercharger on it.All of this is going to be a moot point as Toyota has announced the availability of superchargers on some of their vehicles.
Reliability?Where did you get your information?When I brought in JD Powers VDI study it did not break out the Ranger.That would mean that the majority of Ford vehicles fell below the average and the Ranger rating suffered.
You said,among other things:
I'd just tell the mechanics "welcome to my world".
I get more and more work heaped on me with
smaller and smaller budgets. Also, my billable
hours requirements have increased greatly.
After reading this post I agree that you do not know enough about the subject to comment or you would not have made such a callous remark as that nor such a comparison.
You work in a climate controlled environment.The technician is usually working in a less then desirable environment and alot of times on a hot piece of equipment.
In order for the technician to make any money he has to do the repair as quickly as possible.He will use whatever is at his disposal to do the repair in less then the prescribed time.
Take 2 1999 Ford Ranger trucks,4.0l with a/c to the dealership for a leaking water pump.The first truck is covered under warranty.The technician does the job in 1hr.Ford has said that the repair is 1.5hrs.The technician just made 10.00 if he is paid 20.00/hr.If he does it in 3.0hrs he still only gets paid for the 1.5hrs,and he lost money.If Ford decides to cut the time to 1hr or 0.9,the technician either loses money or finds some other way to cut corners further.Now take his buddy with the other Ranger doing the same job,only the customer is paying.He does it in 1.0hr also.The flat rate on that repair is 2.3hrs.He made 26.00 on the job.It is better money wise not to do the warranty repair.Also,if they are hurrying the technician may miss something or cut too many corners,and the customer will suffer in the end.In this case it is the technician who is in control,not the dealership.So,you are correct,budgets mean squat,and the technician could care less about the budget.He is only looking at the factory and flat rate times and how to get as many hours in a day as possible.
I remember some advertising jargon about the Syclone being able to beat a Ferarri Mondial in the quarter mile.
infer.I have over 20 different manufacturers of
vehicles and equipment in the fleet."
Your obvious disdain for Ford and Nissan can do no wrong view seem to dictate otherwise.
"I cannot go to a Ford dealership and order
a F150 4wd with a supercharger on it."
Actually, you can. Check out the Roush F150 4x4. It's not a "production" vehicle by your definition though (I don't see it as one either). Just a FYI for you.
http://www.roushperf.com/vehicles/f150/
The Harley-Davidson F150 isn't available in 4wd form. Does that make it not a production vehicle? Or, does the absense of a supercharger make it a production vehicle? Just kidding...
Reliability:
You're looking at a single study of a small sample of vehicles. I'm just summarizing reportings that I remember about Ford vehicle reliability from all available sources that I've seen lately. Look at things like autoweb, carpoint, edmunds, consumer reports, the various car rags, etc...
It seems crazy to me that someone would see a single magazine article, review, test, or whatever and suddenly their mind is made up and everything is black and white.
As for my job, if only you could see some of the places I've had to work. A shop would have been like heaven to me. Businesses usually don't like auditors and go out of their way to make terrible conditions to "encourage" our quick departure.
Why should anyone receive special treatment over anybody else? I'm so sick of people bitching about how hard they've got it and wanting special priviledges.
BTW, I worked DAMN hard to get where I'm at today. I've put in thousands of hours and paid many tens of thousands of dollars to do it. I don't [non-permissible content removed] when my budget gets cut from the prior year (w/o basis), more jobs get thrown on my schedule, my billable hours requirements get upped, and I've got to severely cut into my personal time to get my work done. BTW, I'm salaried, so I don't see a single dime more.
The reliability issue?I quoted that to prove a point to vince.It was his main source.I have read the other items in trade magazines,web sites and bulletins and came away with my opinion.Actually,I rate Dodge as bottom of the heap.That is based on daily observation.
I may have made an incorrect assumption as to your working conditions.You are a white collar worker and they usually have the better working conditions and environment.
The technician is not asking for special treatment or privileges.The technician only wants what is right.He has as much time and money tied up in his trade as you do,and it is a constant training cycle.
I am sure you work very hard at your profession and I commend you for it.As you said you are salaried,there are alot of technicians who would like to be on salary,but the dealership will not do it.You get paid the same no matter how long it takes,as you said,you do not get a dime more,nor do you get a dime less. That technician gets paid by the job and at an hourly rate,and only when the job is completed.If the job is held up because of the parts dept he does not get paid for that job.
You talk of budgets and cutting,etc.As you said,and I agree,it means nothing.The technician generates revenue for that dealership.Usually the parts and service departments generate the constant flow of money into the dealership.
You see,there is one general observation that I have made,and that is that in the scheme of things white collar workers,albeit hard working,intelligent and industrious people are a luxury.The blue collar trades and crafts worker is a necessity.Without these people alot of things quit working.
Awesome speed.I would imagine it would be something to ride in.The thing is,where would you use it at,and I doubt it runs on pump gas.It may not be very streetable and definetly lacking in fuel economy.
I'm getting sick of the 50+ hour weeks wrapped with 3 hours of commuting each day. And, it's not even BUSY season!!! I'm dreading Jan 1.
Actually, we have busy season #2 starting soon (all of the 6/30 year ends). Crap! The hours requirements will be upped again.
I could tell you some whacked out stories about some of the jobs I've worked during these past coupla years.
Maybe Ford is screwing their techs/dealerships. Maybe Ford is just cutting the fat. It's probably a little of both.
White and blue collar workers need each other. Without both, our present society couldn't function.
I'm with you. I hope this isn't a case of corporate america screwing the little guy. I'm sure there's probably a lot more to it than just what the article mentioned. I wonder if other manufacturers are following suit. Didn't it say something about industry trends in there?
I am going to ask this question.Why can;t anybody offer the option of GPS or electronic maps in the trucks?Why only the upper SUVs and luxury type cars.I know I prefer to travel in my truck and I know a few times out in the middle of BFE when some of that would have been handy.
You could add a GPS system to your truck. Be prepared to spend a couple grand. I've never played around with one of the hand-held ones. I think CP has got one. You could ask him if he likes it.
In either case, I've seen so many complaints about them that I'd be hesitant to invest that much money in one for now at least.
I just thought that it was ironic that the people who would benefit with that technology can only get it in a handheld device.As a general rule you are not going to take your Cadillac or Lincoln out in the boonies.