- Banned
- #46
Not arguing the point. Perhaps Ford took into consideration the CAFE regulations for it's choice as well (just guessing). As far as off road capability, a bigger more powerful engine is not always better. I've read that is the case. I'm not a hardcore off roader, so I have no real experience with such a statement.ah, you misunderstand, I am not saying they should have added the manual to the 2.7 in addition to the 2.3, I am saying they should have only done the 2.7 with a manual, then the above costs you mentioned would have been about the same. They paid whatever testing (crash and emissions) testing cost for the 2.3 and manual, I am saying that the costs would have been about the same if they did it for the 2.7 and manual instead and that they would have gotten a higher take rate and been able add it to other models that have a transfer case and take the 2.7 (read; millions of F-150 units a year) in the future if they so desired. Once they get the Bronco frame under the new Ranger, the 2.7 will be the engine of choice there as well. With similar weight, they could probably piggy back some of Bronco's testing in the emissions area to save money and offer class leading power in a midsize pick up with both a manual or automatic options. It is insane to do it the other way around and pick the 2.3 as the design target over the 2.7
My real pet peeve is not using computer aided crash test modelling in these modern times. The DOT should be using manufacturers resources to validate the computer simulation modelling tools rather than uselessly balling up automobiles. It does make for cool IIHS videos though
Sponsored