Bob Rosadini

Note October sales-down 12% for the month and 25% YTD. How about it-any Ford truck people out there with some insight into what is going on? To a 'civilian", it looks like nothing is happening but continuing erosion of the brand. No sign of any new product even though the medium duty market is set to rebound. If they are going to do something, they should do it quick. I'm headed down to a friend of mine's steel supply business today. I met this guy 40 years ago when we were freshmen in college. Forty years ago they had a fleet of Fords- f-750's, F-800's. Forty years later, they are still running F-750's. There is still a loyal customer base out there but if it were my business, I think I would be looking for some sign that what I buy today will be supported say five years from now.

My guess would be .."does not meet US emmissions standards". They do use the 8.3 in the South American Cargo-which looks just like the original Cargo that was ultimately built at KTP until the "give away" to Daimler.

Like I said before- on paper the 6.7 has better numbers than the big diesels of the early 60's. Now to solve the problem, why don't they try to shoehorn the 8.3 in? The 750 has all the specs in terms of axles, frames etc to make it work. I assume Frontal area, cooling is the issue? If they really want to offer a baby 8 -and a 37,000 lb gvw package, a 6.7 as the only engine is not going to cut it.

As the owner of a 2010 SHO I would have to say that the visibility is an issue. As for Interior room-regardless of what the tape says is in my opinion "confining". I know all the PR about the center consul space being identical to the CV and all the electronics will swap over-blah blah. But as comfortable as my SHO seats are, I'm not wearing a belt with a Glock, taser, radio etc. Bottom line- stock up on CV's while you can. End of an era and a great durable vehicle.

As a "Ranger-T-6 cheerleader" I have to admit you make an excellent case here. I would walk before I owned anything but a Ford. When its time to replace my 04 Ranger -if I ever have to-and there is no smaller alternative, I guess I would end up in a 150. I think your point is a good one- Tacoma sales define the market potential-at least in this economy. Incremental small truck volume beyond that number would to a large measure come out of existing Ford 150 numbers. The one thing that could change that is energy costs. If it goes to 4 bgucks a gallon all of a sudden the "good" 150 mpg numbers would look a lot better in a package that weighed a lot less. You can't argue with the point that an excellent powertrain that gives good MPG numbers would do better with less weight. I still stand by my point however that there is too much overlap between 150 and 250 and future product decisions should address that-with a bias toward a smaller truck.

No problem- I don't think I said Ford was .."run by people with no sense of what people want". If I came across that way, sorry about that. what I did try to say is that if there is a glaring product overlap, its 150/250. The T-6 in my mind would let Ford capture all the people who truly don't need a 150 but don't want a compact, while also getting the people who would not have any reservation about getting something a bit bigger than a Ranger. Perhaps Richard summed it up best with his comment about what we might see when the current 150 cycle is due for a complete upgrade. Could be that the design work has been done by the Aussies, and four years from now, new ballgame. As for Mr Scott, after 44 years in the corporate world, I sure do recognize that sometimes the party line is the only option you have.

Should have previewed my post. What I meant to say was I doubt that KTP could handle the 150 volume that would upgrade to Super Duty. But I do believe T-6 would keep the 150 buyers on the lower end of the weight range and totally dominate the small truck market now shared by GM, Yoda, and Fiat.

Richard, I would hope you are correct-but I do believe what I am saying makes sense- the problem would be monumental to correct. If you relied on Super Duty to fill in the high side of 150, KTP could not handle that. ercentage of 150 sales- even on the commercial side. And totally dominate the market at the expense of GM, Yoda and Fiat. Oh and my apologies to Mr Scott. My sarcasm should be directed to the corporate culture that forces guys to sing the party line-not to individuals.

Mr Scott, Put your Kool-Aid aside and take a deep breath. Yes you said all the right things about the Ranger and your next performance appraisal will reflect that. You probably will get promoted out of your truck job-which you probably have no passion for- and will be the new "General Manager of Fleet Sales to the Hairdresser Supply Industry. But hey, I understand, you have a family to take care of and corporate life is tough. The truth of the matter is, no one has the stones to tell Alan that the truck that should go away is the F-150 in its current bulk. Think about it. The T-6 would grab most of the smaller truck market including a big percentage of the 150 market. The balance of the 150 buyers who truly need a "full size" truck would end up with a 250- ok-take a leaf or two out of the rear springs and call it an F-200! Statistics 101-how to lie with numbers. Common sense should tell you where the REAL overlap is! Unfortunately, that will not happen. The Aussies have painted you into a tough corner! And yes, when you say there is no small truck market-should I say "smaller truck market"- the reason is, the choices are lousy. And one last thing- who is the marketing genius that thinks a potential Ranger buyer would opt for a Focus instead? Another minority opinion from a 40+ year customer-including many Louisvilles in the old days- stockholder and Ford owner. Five of them in my yard but I'm off to the barn to work on my B-61X-any truck guys left at Ford who know what a "B Model" is?

i do believe 90%

StangBang-Outstanding- loPro Lincoln 650 that the surviving Lincoln dealers will all buy as their designated ramp truck! Complete with Lincoln signature "starving Baleen Whale" grill! And the Lincoln volume will do much to bolster the production figures the Ford commercial truck guys are generating!

Richard-yes I hear you on the pricing issue. but explain to me how "right sizing the dealer footprint" generates a REAL savings for Ford? They are not company stores. Right sizing benefits surviving dealers but what does Ford save? Postage? Brochure costs? (I think the dealers pay for those) Manpower?-maybe they lay off a couple of field reps. Also by eliminating say Milan , Mountaineer production, do those sales automatically default to Fusion/ Explorer? I'm afraid that is wishful thinking. I think it is comical that they are now scrambling to come up with additional product so that the Lincoln dealers can survive.

7M3- I would tend to agree-then again look at the torque/HP ratings of the B Series for emergency use- then compare those numbers to the "old days"- say a 534 ford, or a 549 IH or a 478 GMC or even say a B Model Mack with a non-turbo 673? I agree no substitute for cubic inches, but on paper it should work.. And Joe '76- I agree- everytime I see a ford commercial truck ad and it features say a 350/450/550, I say the same thing- why isn't there a 650/750 in the background- in particular when they run that ad that has the whole fami;ly in it-including E series. Maybe they think the 550 in that ad is in good company with that old warhorse R model in the background! I maintain my position though that when it comes to medium duty, they are lousy marketers. I saw a Ford Comercial truck website, and if you didn't know better, you would think that 650/750 was only available with an Allison! I'll say it again- medium duty sales will rebound and the class 8 market will move to truly vocational trucks including baby 8 traqctors that handle short haul container distribution- the market will be there-my guess is the bobbleheads are filling Alan wiith stories of ..."why spend money on a limited market" . The car guys that led to the sale of big trucks in 98 are still around I'm afraid. Case in Point- south of Boston there is a large heavy truck dealership that was a full line Ford truck dealer in the old days-well they sell Navistar now in addition to Ford mediums and Western Stars. Someone told me these guys can't sell 250's/350's because some struggling but long standing car dealer is down the street from them. If I'm a contractor I want ONE dealer relationship. This car dealer had a big campaign this weekend advertising their "truck business" -the guy doing the talking sounded like some kid-probably the owner's son-in law-who I'll guaranttee dowesn't know shit about the product he sells and has no passion for it. but you think the car guys that run Ford are going to seed anytjing wrong with this? I doubt it. I'd love to admit I'm wrong.

For sure -Blackwood-strike out- fancy F-150-strikeout- Duh- "Hey Alan lets go for the NBA/Equestrian crowd". If a King Ranch isn't good enough, you are selling to the drug crowd and they will never make it past their 8th payment!

You would think this would be a true statement correct? And if so, would it not apply to Milan? Mountaneer? GM? Yes it would- but then you talk about the "marketing overhead" associated with keeping these brands. Well that too is a correct statement. So what did they do? Keep a big chunk of marketing overhead because they insist on keeping Lincoln alive that feeds a separate dealer network, that now has lost a huge percentage of their sales potential. Cover your fixed costs with that! I love Alan but I think he is surrounded now by bobbleheads- "yes boss- brilliant idea". Everyone is drinking the same Kool-Aid

Amen!! And while I was not in "Goinbrokes" survey, I agree 100% that the size of the vehicle is the issue. My 04 Supercab FX-4 is big enough for me. Also, as an aside on the name issue, I don't think "Ranger" has a cheap connotation as some say. Again an opinion but I look at the Taurus name issue and I just wonder who would ever suggest to Al that they should get rid of another nameplate that has recognition. And by the way, as for "F-100", only old guys like me remember that long ago there was an "F-1" and then I believe in 53 or 54 it morphed into"F-100"

No, I haven't driven an MKS. I do have an SHO which is a nice car. Notice what is under my name however- I do miss the 07 Sport. But as most of you know-I'm probably one of the oldest guys who regularly visits these forums. I'm also a stockholder and again, my opinion is the Lincoln lineup by and large does not impress me (from an appearance or spec perspective) as does the Cadillac lineup. Again, an opinion. Lincoln had a great opportunity when the LS came out- they received good marks from the automotive press and what did they do with it? Nothing. Now they are going to take a bunch of fwd variants and make a mark? I recognize the missed opportunity with the LS did not happen on Al's shift, but looking at the Lincoln lineup, I see a Fusion, an Edge, an F-150 and an Expedition. And as for style, just like I thought Nasser's Taurus reminded me of a catfish, these Lincolns remind me of a whale on a feeding frenzy-but again to each his own. And by the way- the "truck" has already been dropped right?

I'm a huge Mulally fan but I think he now has too many bobbleheads surrounding him. Let's see, I'm a total Ford guy but I can't think of a Lincoln that really makes me say "wow". Now Cadillac? a whole lot of "wow" there. NKS? MKK? KKK? Oh yeah- Blackwood II -a real big seller!

I do believe you are right on- scary thought. If the T-6 is 90% the size of the 150, logic says to me that the truck that doesn't fit into the mix IS in fact the 150! It in my book is too close to the Super Duty. This subject has been beat to death in another forum (Interesting-if you judge relevance of issues facing Ford, judging by the responses on the Ranger issue I would say there is a lot of passion here). But face it- the party line says .."who would want a Ranger, when for a few bucks more, you will be able to get a V-6 150 with comparable fuel economy? True statement if you compare the high tech 3.7 with the pig 4.0. But what if a Ranger size vehicle had an EB I-4 or even a 3.5 or a 3.7. The 3.7 Mustang gets 30 mpg highway. Think what it would get in a Ranger with a little detune, reasonable trans. and rear axle ratio? Well the Ford guys like me might reluctantly buy the 150. Those that don't want the bulk of a 150? Hello Toyota!

And you really believe that the Ranger is not profitable? As I have said before, if every manufacturer only produced there most profitable item, it would truly be a different world. Recognizing within REASON one must concentrate on items that generate the most profit, I find it hard to believe that the Ranger, given its history, and current state of "malaise"-not sur if that is the right word-maybe "neglect" could not be profitable again. More importantly, I can't believe that the T-6 at 90% the size of a 150, makes more sense as a WORLD vehicle when something perhaps a bit smaller would fill a void here as well as truly the world where a vehicle the size of a 90 scale 150 will be one big truck!

I think STAP will be working six days a week as departments push 2012 requirements into 2011, funding permitting.

Joe, I did hear about it-never saw any pictures but assumed it was a CV.The outrage here is that this moron was still on the road given his track record- It almost seems that when people repeatedly get caught for the same thing, the idea of a vehicle becoming a lethal weapon should carry some weight- and perhaps people like this should end up in the can.

Ouch!!! But I have stated many times I am an old fart. I retired in May a month shy of 44 years. But I think young-and as a matter of fact wouldn't have a canned beer in my cooler! Hereafter I will use.."best thing since Viagara!!

How about this wild thought. Someone suggested the T-6 could end up here as a 150 replacement. Not a bad thought-long range. If you buy into the "one platform" concept., does it not make sense that perhaps a vehicle that is 90% the size of a 150 WOULD work here-in particular when you add the US volume to support the entire world wide volume. Also, ever wonder how Ford justifies a separate platform in the form of the Super Duty? I do believe before the advent of the Super Duty, in the "old days" the difference between a 150 and a 250 was basically spring ratings, brakes/wheels/tire size. The sheet metal was the same, I,m sure there were some frame differences,but were they not built on the same lines??

Valid point- but the danger in carrying that philosphy too far is that in my book, you end up painting yourself into a corner- and when tastes change-what have you left to market? Just think where many companies would be today if they devoted their resources ONLY to their most profitable product? My guess is, good in the short term- a disaster in the long term. The Ranger was at one time a top selling vehicle. As so many have pointed out, you don't do anything to keep it fresh and what do you get?-lost sales to Toyota Lets just hope the answer is not a Transit connect with a tin box in the back. We need BOF, RWD and a North/South engine.