Still hoping for the rumored 5-cyl turbo diesel. That paired with a manual transmission would make a nice package.

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
Still hoping for the rumored 5-cyl turbo diesel. That paired with a manual transmission would make a nice package.

Yes it would.

I have the 3.5 twin turbo Eco Boost in my 2016 Expedition. I was leery of such a small 6 cylinder in a big suv but it's proven itself.
I have yet to find myself wanting more power and I have pulled some decent loads.

quote:

Gotta keep getting better and better fuel mileage out of vehicles, or else the planet is gonna implode.

And then...when vehicles are fuel efficient and use less fuel, they can do like Ca and raise the taxes on gas/diesel at the pump because now they’re not getting enough revenue for whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
Still hoping for the rumored 5-cyl turbo diesel. That paired with a manual transmission would make a nice package.

Yes it would.

I'm just hoping manual will be an option. I suspect it won't.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
Still hoping for the rumored 5-cyl turbo diesel. That paired with a manual transmission would make a nice package.

Yes it would.

I'm just hoping manual will be an option. I suspect it won't.

And when the salesman tells me nope, they don't offer a manual as an option, that's when I turn around and walk out of the dealership and across the street to the Tacoma dealer.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
Still hoping for the rumored 5-cyl turbo diesel. That paired with a manual transmission would make a nice package.

Yes it would.

I'm just hoping manual will be an option. I suspect it won't.

If..if there's a MT option, it'll probably be in the least-desirable configuration; 4X2 regular cab XL. I think that manufacturers do stuff like this so when few get a vehicle like this, they can say "We offered it, but nobody wanted it".

That aside, it's easier to deal with emissions with an automatic. Easier to build with only one transmission. Honestly, they're better off-road in most circumstances. More accommodating of those with disabilities. IOW, it ain't gonna happen.

What made the Ranger interesting was that it was the only small pickup remaining on the market. Now it has grown to the size of the Tacoma, Frontier, and the Chevy Colorado. Some people still want a small vehicle with a cargo bed.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Reminds me a lot of a Tacoma or Tundra

Ummmm HOW? it looks exactly like it's big brother, the F150.

Toyota has often mimicked Ford for styling



wish someone would come out with a true small pickup, the new Tacos' are roughly the size of my 2000 Tundra,,

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Reminds me a lot of a Tacoma or Tundra

Ummmm HOW? it looks exactly like it's big brother, the F150.

Toyota has often mimicked Ford for styling



wish someone would come out with a true small pickup, the new Tacos' are roughly the size of my 2000 Tundra,,

One of my neighbors has a Nissan Titan. The side view, including the location of the badging, is so close to Ford’s that it’s hard to tell what it is until you’re right on top of it.

Our son just traded off his 2002 Ranger. He had it since 2010 and drove it for 100k miles. Ultra reliable, just a good, basic, manual transmission, small truck.

quote:

Originally posted by SigM4:
Still hoping for the rumored 5-cyl turbo diesel. That paired with a manual transmission would make a nice package.

I believe it has been confirmed that the 2018 Expeditions will have a diesel version, so there might be hope. There definitely would have been a diesel version if it weren't for the EPA and their BS you have to add to diesels now to make them pass current smog laws.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I have the 3.5 twin turbo Eco Boost in my 2016 Expedition. I was leery of such a small 6 cylinder in a big suv but it's proven itself.
I have yet to find myself wanting more power and I have pulled some decent loads.

Your engine has a hell of a lot more power than the 5.4 liter v8 that it replaced, that's in my 2008 expedition. I've driven them back to back and it's night and day, how much more power the new expeditions have with the 3.5

The front end looks like a cross between a Toyota and a Range Rover to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

Just give me a stripped down, non-driver assisted, lever activated 4x4, truck with a manual that does not cost 30k.

Bingo! That's what I'm interested in. Not some ridiculous 10 speed automatic.

Years ago, before the complications of age and medical considerations kicked in, I would never even consider an automatic transmission. It was a deal killer.

Now, intermittent lower back, hip, and knee problems make it difficult at times to use a clutch. That, plus the fact that automatics are now much more reliable and much more efficient than they were twenty or thirty years ago, makes the automatic a practical choice for me.

If I were younger and in good condition, with body parts that have not outlived their warranty, I'd probably go for the manual.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

Just give me a stripped down, non-driver assisted, lever activated 4x4, truck with a manual that does not cost 30k.

Bingo! That's what I'm interested in. Not some ridiculous 10 speed automatic.

Years ago, before the complications of age and medical considerations kicked in, I would never even consider an automatic transmission. It was a deal killer.

Now, intermittent lower back, hip, and knee problems make it difficult at times to use a clutch. That, plus the fact that automatics are now much more reliable and much more efficient than they were twenty or thirty years ago, makes the automatic a practical choice for me.

If I were younger and in good condition, with body parts that have not outlived their warranty, I'd probably go for the manual.

In addition to that. The new automatics are the wave of the future. They're a lot more efficient, the vehicles are faster, and even better off road and on road than the manuals. It's a lot easier to slowly put power to the wheels without breaking them loose with an automatic when off roading or pulling a heavy load like a boat up a boat ramp.

The semi-trucks are all going automatic and they hold up, the trucks are more efficient and accelerate better than the manual versions and it's a lot easier on the drivers in stop and go traffic.

Looks like a new Taco banged an F150.

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
What made the Ranger interesting was that it was the only small pickup remaining on the market. Now it has grown to the size of the Tacoma, Frontier, and the Chevy Colorado. Some people still want a small vehicle with a cargo bed.

Tacomas used to be smaller, too. I had a 1996 that was the same size as the old Rangers. My 2016 Taco is definitely larger, but still shy of a full size. I'm happy.

We've seen a number of Ford Rangers, similar to the photo, driving around Mexico the last few years. They were head turners - both because of their looks and because of their absence in the US for the past decade or so.

I had a one of the last Rangers sold in the US. I lived on a gravel road about a mile long. Shortly after I bought the truck, I felt the Ranger was too unstable for my 17 year old son to drive on the mile of gravel. I sold it and replaced it with a Dodge Dakota that was far, far better on the gravel.

A week after I made the trade, a rancher friend of mine called from the dealership asking why I sold a relatively new truck. I told him, knowing he lived on a long gravel road.

He bought he truck anyway and a few weeks later called to tell me his teenaged son rolled the truck on the gravel. Luckily the boy was OK but the Ranger was toast.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

In addition to that. The new automatics are the wave of the future. They're a lot more efficient, the vehicles are faster, and even better off road and on road than the manuals. It's a lot easier to slowly put power to the wheels without breaking them loose with an automatic when off roading or pulling a heavy load like a boat up a boat ramp.

And those of us who prefer a manual don't care about any of that. I guess some will just never understand.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

Now, intermittent lower back, hip, and knee problems make it difficult at times to use a clutch. That, plus the fact that automatics are now much more reliable and much more efficient than they were twenty or thirty years ago, makes the automatic a practical choice for me.

If I were younger and in good condition, with body parts that have not outlived their warranty, I'd probably go for the manual.

A perfectly valid and good reason why automatics are necessary as an option (or should be an option; not standard).

Anyway, you guys don't need to hear me go on yet another rant about manuals and automatics.

How do these 10-speed trannys work in real-world conditions, when carrying or hauling a load close to or at max weights?

I'm glad I got my Canyon and didn't wait.

as to anyone who's worried about the 10 speed transmission, it's only got more gears not less stout gears.