Ford was smart to keep the V6.
They will capture GM —and soon Toyota Tacoma— buyers looking for a V6.
They will capture GM —and soon Toyota Tacoma— buyers looking for a V6.
Motor Trend 2024 Ranger Article
2024 Ford Ranger First Look: Way More "America, Truck Yeah!" Than Before
A new V-6 option, beefier styling and capability—the Ranger's still global, but it's way better equipped for North America.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Colorado is in trouble.2024 Ford Ranger First Look: Way More "America, Truck Yeah!" Than Before
A new V-6 option, beefier styling and capability—the Ranger's still global, but it's way better equipped for North America.www.motortrend.com
I know looks are subjective but the GM twins have suck huge front ends.....barf...and you can't see out of them worth a crap.Colorado is in trouble.
One cool thing is the rear side step.....big enough for two feet and rated for 300lbs!
Also the towing tech is crazy good.
2023 models only had the 2.3 EB. The 2.7Nano is a freaking beast in the F150. Can't wait to see what it does in the smaller Ranger.Ford was smart to keep the V6.
They will capture GM —and soon Toyota Tacoma— buyers looking for a V6.
Hopefully they fixed the valve issue that was causing blown 2.7 EcoBoost engines on Broncos.2023 models only had the 2.3 EB. The 2.7Nano is a freaking beast in the F150. Can't wait to see what it does in the smaller Ranger.
That was for engines produced in 2021. There were around 50 or engines that actually failed according to most sources. Supposedly a bad batch from an outside vendor.Hopefully they fixed the valve issue that was causing blown 2.7 EcoBoost engines on Broncos.
There are 68 blown engines documented on Broco6G: https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...o-far-updated-december-13-2022.31951/page-286That was for engines produced in 2021. There were around 50 or engines that actually failed according to most sources. Supposedly a bad batch from an outside vendor.
This list only includes engines failures experienced by forum members. The final tally is likely closer to 150.
Admittedly not a large number, but it still sucks when it happens to you.
Funny how every time Ford screws up, it is always some outside vendor's fault.
If you do work for Ford, be prepared to get thrown under the bus at some point.
Passing the buck is not just a Ford thing, take a look at any corporation that wants to not look bad in the publics eyes. Bud Light comes to mind recently......they recently "fired" the outside ad agency that developed their recent campaign. Like they did not approve of it beforehand.Funny how every time Ford screws up, it is always some outside vendor's fault.
And this time it was indeed an outside vendor that supplies the valves in the 2.7. You can bet Ford bent them over and got them to pay for every engine rebuild.
A Colorado is 78.8" tall, but only 74.9" wide. The new Ranger is 74.4" tall and 75.5" wide. Ram 1500 is only 77.5" tall but it is 82.1" wide. Colorado is too tall, and malproportioned for its width.I know looks are subjective but the GM twins have suck huge front ends.....barf...and you can't see out of them worth a crap.
One cool thing is the rear side step.....big enough for two feet and rated for 300lbs!
Also the towing tech is crazy good.
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/...2024 Ford Ranger Technical Specifications.pdf
GM probably wanted a family resemblance with their full sizes. I despise the GM full size looks. If you sit in one you can't freaking see out of them. GM is terrible, Ram not too bad and Ford easiest to see out of.A Colorado is 78.8" tall, but only 74.9" wide. The new Ranger is 74.4" tall and 75.5" wide. Ram 1500 is only 77.5" tall but it is 82.1" wide. Colorado is too tall, and malproportioned for its width.
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/product/2024/ranger/All-New 2024 Ford Ranger Technical Specifications.pdf
Speaking strictly of automakers, passing the buck is an art form at Ford. Happens more often than you think.Passing the buck is not just a Ford thing, take a look at any corporation that wants to not look bad in the publics eyes. Bud Light comes to mind recently......they recently "fired" the outside ad agency that developed their recent campaign. Like they did not approve of it beforehand.
And this time it was indeed an outside vendor that supplies the valves in the 2.7. You can bet Ford bent them over and got them to pay for every engine rebuild.
The only time I can recall Toyota doing something similar was when it got hit with the runaway Camrys and Lexus ES in 2010. The media was breathing down their necks, so someone at Toyota spoke out of turn and blamed the supplier that made a throttle part —to Toyota specifications. The whole thing was very unlike them. I’m sure whoever it was got scolded.
When FCA/Stellantis has to deal with quality issues you don’t find them in the media pointing fingers at their vendors. Even though Marchionne had a knack for throwing his own staff under the bus at press conferences...
Or pretending he wasn't responsible for suppliers wholly or mostly owned by FCA like VM.Speaking strictly of automakers, passing the buck is an art form at Ford. Happens more often than you think.
The only time I can recall Toyota doing something similar was when it got hit with the runaway Camrys and Lexus ES in 2010. The media was breathing down their necks, so someone at Toyota spoke out of turn and blamed the supplier that made a throttle part —to Toyota specifications. The whole thing was very unlike them. I’m sure whoever it was got scolded.
When FCA/Stellantis has to deal with quality issues you don’t find them in the media pointing fingers at their vendors. Even though Marchionne had a knack for throwing his own staff under the bus at press conferences...
I'll say the same thing about Ford and their Bronco valve problems as I said about FCA and their 9 speed issues (among others).
The manufacturer picks the supplier and sets their expectations. The car buyer isn't buying from the vendor. The car manufacturer is who the car buyer is going to blame.
The manufacturer picks the supplier and sets their expectations. The car buyer isn't buying from the vendor. The car manufacturer is who the car buyer is going to blame.
Correct. It is the job of the manufacturer to set the quality and cost parameters, select the vendors, and manage them.I'll say the same thing about Ford and their Bronco valve problems as I said about FCA and their 9 speed issues (among others).
The manufacturer picks the supplier and sets their expectations. The car buyer isn't buying from the vendor. The car manufacturer is who the car buyer is going to blame.
At Toyota, if something goes wrong and you were to start blaming your vendors, your own colleagues —and your boss— will look at you like you don’t know how to do your job.
The automakers may pass the buck, but members do here as well. As I recall when there were issues with the frame welds during the launch of JL, some here refused to blame Jeep. “It’s a supplier issue” was the theme of the day.Speaking strictly of automakers, passing the buck is an art form at Ford. Happens more often than you think.
The only time I can recall Toyota doing something similar was when it got hit with the runaway Camrys and Lexus ES in 2010. The media was breathing down their necks, so someone at Toyota spoke out of turn and blamed the supplier that made a throttle part —to Toyota specifications. The whole thing was very unlike them. I’m sure whoever it was got scolded.
When FCA/Stellantis has to deal with quality issues you don’t find them in the media pointing fingers at their vendors. Even though Marchionne had a knack for throwing his own staff under the bus at press conferences...
I’m not saying it’s wrong to blame a supplier…as many parts of any assembled device or vehicle are manufactured by a supplier. However, it’s ultimately the responsibility of the company you’re buying from to remedy the situation.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine "root cause" of any defect.The automakers may pass the buck, but members do here as well. As I recall when there were issues with the frame welds during the launch of JL, some here refused to blame Jeep. “It’s a supplier issue” was the theme of the day.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to blame a supplier…as many parts of any assembled device or vehicle are manufactured by a supplier. However, it’s ultimately the responsibility of the company you’re buying from to remedy the situation.
Toyota is obsessed with this.
FCA could care less.
Suppliers work with Toyota to improve quality and reduce the chances for defects in making parts. Toyota pays for companies to do LEAN manufacturing events so costs go down and processes improve. They agree to split the savings. If there is a warranty claim, Toyota works to determine if it is their design (they swallow the costs) or if the supplier did not hold to the design (supplier pays).
FCA threatens suppliers and tells them the cost is too high (regardless what they quote). FCA tells them they will find someone else if the supplier cannot hit the price target. FCA does not care how the supplier hits the cost target, but still holds the supplier responsible for warranty work. FCA almost NEVER took responsibility for poor designs and pushed cost of warranty onto suppliers.
This is why so many warranty and recall parts for FCA were in short supply. There was no incentive for suppliers to produce them. FCA threatened suppliers that they would not be considered a future supplier if they did not provide free parts for warranty/recall work....which is why so many of those parts would fail again.
It is the difference between collaboration with suppliers (like Chrysler did in the 1990s) and abusing suppliers (like FCA has done for the past decade).
Right.The automakers may pass the buck, but members do here as well. As I recall when there were issues with the frame welds during the launch of JL, some here refused to blame Jeep. “It’s a supplier issue” was the theme of the day.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to blame a supplier…as many parts of any assembled device or vehicle are manufactured by a supplier. However, it’s ultimately the responsibility of the company you’re buying from to remedy the situation.
As far as I can tell, Ford is the only automaker that publicly throws its suppliers under the bus on a regular basis. Firestone, Navistar, Webasto, whoever made those 2.7 EcoBoost valves, etc. The list goes on.
IMO, this habit comes from an internal culture of fear and mistrust.
The few times I worked with Ford, I felt like I had to constantly watch my back. They didn’t share as much information as I needed to get things done. And there was always someone, somewhere, saying something out of the blue that took you by surprise. My contacts would disappear for days or weeks at time, and then reappear with no explanation.
It was like being inside the KGB...
That must be why suppliers rank Stellantis like this.It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine "root cause" of any defect.
Toyota is obsessed with this.
FCA could care less.
Suppliers work with Toyota to improve quality and reduce the chances for defects in making parts. Toyota pays for companies to do LEAN manufacturing events so costs go down and processes improve. They agree to split the savings. If there is a warranty claim, Toyota works to determine if it is their design (they swallow the costs) or if the supplier did not hold to the design (supplier pays).
FCA threatens suppliers and tells them the cost is too high (regardless what they quote). FCA tells them they will find someone else if the supplier cannot hit the price target. FCA does not care how the supplier hits the cost target, but still holds the supplier responsible for warranty work. FCA almost NEVER took responsibility for poor designs and pushed cost of warranty onto suppliers.
This is why so many warranty and recall parts for FCA were in short supply. There was no incentive for suppliers to produce them. FCA threatened suppliers that they would not be considered a future supplier if they did not provide free parts for warranty/recall work....which is why so many of those parts would fail again.
It is the difference between collaboration with suppliers (like Chrysler did in the 1990s) and abusing suppliers (like FCA has done for the past decade).
Notice that the decline has come all under FCA’s watch, and it’s worsened under Stellantis.
Source: Plante Moran Supplier Study
They deserved it. Where FCA would have kept using a crappy engine, Eco Diesel cough cough, Ford said "screw it, lets design our own". The Ford designed PowerStroke was and is far more reliable than the Navistar unit that cost Ford a lot of money and customers.....I would bet many to Ram and Cummins.Navistar
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Allpar Forums
A forum community dedicated to Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Chrysler, AMC owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
