Whats going on with the Ranger?

[silvrsvt]

If I have my facts right, Twin Cities Assembly is closing in the next year or so. So where does that leave Ranger? I know the rumor is that its supposed to be moved to the Dearborn Plant, but we haven't seen boo about an update for it nor do I believe that Ford will keep building the same exact model at DTP.

[JW]

It's being updated for the 2004 model year. No, wait, the 2007 model year. No, make that 2009. No, wait, it's being dropped after 2008.

 

At least with other rumors, something eventually comes from people in the know, one way or the other. Not this time. If anyone does know definitively what's going on with the Ranger, they're not talking. I've heard everything above from a variety of people, and so far nothing's come of any of it.

[wescoent]

From what I've been able to piece together, there was a redesigned Ranger in the works scheduled to be released back in 2001 or 2002, and since then, the program has been getting pushed ahead due to funds being directed to more needy projects. I've also heard that it's being re-assigned to Dearborn Truck, but I don't doubt that it will be the same design. All they need to do is pull up the tooling, and move it to Michigan.

 

I think the actual redesign of the Ranger will be on the market by 2010. With the Explorer probably moving to a version of D3, a new BOF Ranger will come to replace both the current Ranger and the Sport-Trac. Size remains a question, tho I imagine it will move up to a larger size with V6 and V8 options (though I imagine not quite as big as the Dakota). Though they'll sell fewer, it will be more profitable. I don't know what they'll do to make up for the loss of 4-cylinder and fleet sales. Maybe a unibody Courier-type vehicle would do... I'm not sure what fleet buyers are looking for in a tiny cheap truck.

[LSFan00]

Next ranger is being designed by F Aus and will be imported to US. It's not the one we had a thread about 2 weeks ago (which showed a re-skinned Mazda BT-50 as a Ranger now for Australia, with an ugly nose). It will be awesome, and I am glad Ford is doing it; hopefully get some clean duratorq diesels out of it too, late 2008-2009 it will pop up. The thread is "Power Ranger" from Oz and is in the Ranger forum now;

 

...The all new vehicle is called T6 Light Truck project but it's still a couple of years away.

It was all over this web site and Ford's own, FOA has hired 276 engineers for the task.

I have it on good authority that FOA are styling the front to look more like a Super duty.

 

It will probably be one of about 4 products Ford rolls out right after bankruptcy/closing a bunch more NA/UAW plants, but that's just my speculation.

Edited February 28, 2007 by LSFan00

[igor]

actually, there is no indication that the FOA T6 will be exported beyond the usual FOA markets.

 

 

The options reside as follows:

- all new F100 developed on a modified F150 frame (I believe Pioneer has been talking about this)

 

- all new Ranger based on the global ranger - there is some info that FoMoCo is expanding the production of the Thai Ranger to S.Am which gives FNA much better position for import, since most of S.Am does not have import tariffs or "chicken tax"

 

- if ORE (on-road Explorer) ends up a no-go or it is based on a RWD architecture (and not D3) - then Ranger might go unitbody RWD - kind of like the FOA T6 but still uniquely FNA (unless FNA takes the Orion architecture being developed by FOA and uses it in FNA (this is all just a speculation thought).

 

Igor

[RichardJensen]

Ford NA is not getting the global Ranger. Ford will not be able to get congress to roll back the 25% tariff on imported pickup trucks. Nor are there any plans to break down the global Ranger and assemble it here.

 

The latest in unverifiable rumors has the Ranger canceled, and an F100 based on a heavily modified F150 chassis assembled at Dearborn, MTP, or Louisville. This scheduled for the 2009 or 2010 MY.

 

This is based on 1) inside contacts, and 2) published reports in the Detroit News (IIRC) stating that Ford was doing a stick and carrot thing with those three plants saying that one plant was going to get new product, and that one or two plants were likely to get closed.

 

There is also the possibility that Ford intends to phase out the Ranger by 2012, moving production to STAP after the F100 is launched. STAP employees on the forum have reported seeing engineers on site with Ranger blueprints. The reported cancellation of the panthers by 2012 would coincide with a decision to either update or close STAP at that time, depending on Ford's health and prospects.

 

Finally, the Ranger may be saved (and eventually migrated to the global Ranger platform), giving Ford a four pickup range (Ranger/F100/F-150/Super Duty). Such an approach might be slicing the market too thin--who knows?

Edited February 28, 2007 by RichardJensen

[kyle]

This is based on 1) inside contacts, and

 

 

Now if you don't reveal your inside contacts we will have to lock this thread!!

 

Oh right, only you can do that.

 

Now if I remember correctly did we not just go through this a few weeks ago!!

 

Regarding the ranger, you are probably right about them moving it up to be called a f100-that tariff is not going away-especially with the threat of some cheap chinese product coming in the future. Just cost of doing business in the US.

[DCK]

The F-100 rumor has been going around for years.

 

 

The thing about it is that it would keep the sales under the F-Series name which Ford hasn't been trying to hide the fact that they rather have the company go bankrupt then godforbid offering more products to the consumer that just might take a few sales away from the F-Series.

[RichardJensen]

Now if you don't reveal your inside contacts we will have to lock this thread!!

 

Oh right, only you can do that.

 

Now if I remember correctly did we not just go through this a few weeks ago!!

 

Regarding the ranger, you are probably right about them moving it up to be called a f100-that tariff is not going away-especially with the threat of some cheap chinese product coming in the future. Just cost of doing business in the US.

My 'inside contact' is a registered member of this board. I didn't reveal this, as I promised, until I saw it stated by another member of the board--who may or may not have received the information from the same source I had. Hence the 'inside contact' info may or may not be corroborated by other Ford employees on the board, which is why I prefaced it accordingly.

 

Furthermore, my info (that Ford is basing a midsize truck on the F150) is nowhere near as explosive as the allegation that the Boss has been canceled.

 

---

 

I am curious if Ford keeps the compact pickup market alive with the Ranger, or if there's just not enough of a difference between the maxed out Ranger and the stripper F150.

Edited March 1, 2007 by RichardJensen

[LSFan00]

Ford NA is not getting the global Ranger. Ford will not be able to get congress to roll back the 25% tariff on imported pickup trucks. Nor are there any plans to break down the global Ranger and assemble it here.

 

 

Again, thank you UAW. Helping American companies make poor decisions, by messing with basic economics supposedly to help the working class. Meanwhile, more plants close.

[jpd80]

Ford NA is not getting the global Ranger. Ford will not be able to get congress to roll back the 25% tariff on imported pickup trucks. Nor are there any plans to break down the global Ranger and assemble it here.

 

The latest in unverifiable rumors has the Ranger canceled, and an F100 based on a heavily modified F150 chassis assembled at Dearborn, MTP, or Louisville. This scheduled for the 2009 or 2010 MY.

 

This is based on 1) inside contacts, and 2) published reports in the Detroit News (IIRC) stating that Ford was doing a stick and carrot thing with those three plants saying that one plant was going to get new product, and that one or two plants were likely to get closed.

 

There is also the possibility that Ford intends to phase out the Ranger by 2012, moving production to STAP after the F100 is launched. STAP employees on the forum have reported seeing engineers on site with Ranger blueprints. The reported cancellation of the panthers by 2012 would coincide with a decision to either update or close STAP at that time, depending on Ford's health and prospects.

 

Finally, the Ranger may be saved (and eventually migrated to the global Ranger platform), giving Ford a four pickup range (Ranger/F100/F-150/Super Duty). Such an approach might be slicing the market too thin--who knows?

 

Something interesting in the official Ford press release: http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=23353

 

Global light commercial vehicle architecture

 

Ford Australia will have lead design and engineering responsibility for a new vehicle architecture that is targeted to underpin a range of light commercial vehicles in more than 80 countries worldwide.

 

Engineered for both right- and left-hand drive and manufactured in multiple locations, the first derivative is most likely to be a pick-up truck, although the architecture has the capability for a variety of multiple configurations and body styles.

 

"We are at the very beginning of this exciting new project. Significant engineering and design work over a number of years is still required before formal program approval will be granted by Ford. It is anticipated that once this occurs, the architecture derivatives are expected to result in more than 400,000 sales annually," said Ford Australia Vice President of Product Development, Mr Trevor Worthington.

 

The design and engineering program is expected to generate in excess of AUD700 million in research and development revenues for Ford Australia during the course of the project.

 

The new light commercial vehicle project will provide Ford Australia's design and engineering teams with the opportunity to extend their technical knowledge and capabilities, and also represents an expansion of Ford Motor Company's global shared technologies strategy.

 

Now there's nothing yelling out exports to North America but it did say:

"manufactured in multiple locations",

" range of light commercial vehicles in more than 80 countries worldwide"

"more than 400,000 sales annually"

 

No, you wouldn't import a truck into North America but you might build it there.

If not, do you think the duplication of platforms would get by Derrik K?

If it's none of the above, Could FOA be working on some part of the same platform?

Edited March 1, 2007 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

There is also the possibility that Ford intends to phase out the Ranger by 2012, moving production to STAP after the F100 is launched. STAP employees on the forum have reported seeing engineers on site with Ranger blueprints. The reported cancellation of the panthers by 2012 would coincide with a decision to either update or close STAP at that time, depending on Ford's health and prospects.

 

Interesting thing here...in another 5 years, Ford could be only making two car platforms in the whole USA..the Taurus and Mustang! Everything else would be made in Mexico or Canada. The Focus is the big unknown and the B car.

[wildosvt]

Again, thank you UAW. Helping American companies make poor decisions, by messing with basic economics supposedly to help the working class. Meanwhile, more plants close.

 

Everyone knows your a union basher. But please have your posts make sense. How do you get "union" our of quoting what Rich posted?

 

I am feeling more and more offended by your posts each day.

[LSFan00]

Um, what are you talking about? The UAW is out to protect workers. It's the company that is making the poor decisions on it's own, and trying to destroy the working class.

 

How would importing a truck from halfway around the world keep NA plants open? How would importing a truck from halfway around the world contribute economically to the US economy, and the working class?

 

Next time, buy a clue, because you don't seem to come by then naturally.

 

 

Who do you think would push congressmen to resist repealing a protective tariff, which Ford would want repealed? Toyota? GM? No, that would be the UAW lobby.

 

In seeking to keep protectionist quotas, it harms the company's who's workers it tries to protect. That's the crux of protecting workers; importing trucks might not be great for workers in Minneapolis this year, but creating a competitive domestic maker of cars is in the interest of Americans. As it stands right now, there won't be a powerful American car company in 10-15 years, so I don't see the point in supporting forcing the remaining (nearly broke) domestics keeping NA plants open.

 

I don't care if you are offended by these points, and I don't care if you think the world is ending because some large domestic manufacturing plants are closing. If you feel victimized in the process, I think you are a loser. The fact is the plants usually aren't competitive. You can keep demonizing "management" and "rich executives" and I will keep saying collective bargaining and health care expenses create false economics which create bad decision matrices which result in poor products/decisions. And there are real morons in management, in every company, but the morons are usually good at making themselves look good. But I lack common sense, oh well.

[Swizco]

Who do you think would push congressmen to resist repealing a protective tariff, which Ford would want repealed? Toyota? GM? No, that would be the UAW lobby.

 

...

 

You can keep demonizing "management" and "rich executives" and I will keep saying collective bargaining and health care expenses create false economics which create bad decision matrices which result in poor products/decisions...

 

LSFan00, I like you more and more every day. Keep it up, buddy.

 

Collective bargaining and trade protectionism are dead end roads. Remember how the financial capital of the world was going to be Frankfurt, Germany, 20 years ago? Now that's a joke, and the US is losing ground to Asia.

 

It doesn't take a teriff or a union to protect one's livelyhood. It takes ambition.

 

Swizco

[pcsario]

Who do you think would push congressmen to resist repealing a protective tariff, which Ford would want repealed? Toyota? GM? No, that would be the UAW lobby.

 

In seeking to keep protectionist quotas, it harms the company's who's workers it tries to protect. That's the crux of protecting workers; importing trucks might not be great for workers in Minneapolis this year, but creating a competitive domestic maker of cars is in the interest of Americans. As it stands right now, there won't be a powerful American car company in 10-15 years, so I don't see the point in supporting forcing the remaining (nearly broke) domestics keeping NA plants open.

 

I don't care if you are offended by these points, and I don't care if you think the world is ending because some large domestic manufacturing plants are closing. If you feel victimized in the process, I think you are a loser. The fact is the plants usually aren't competitive. You can keep demonizing "management" and "rich executives" and I will keep saying collective bargaining and health care expenses create false economics which create bad decision matrices which result in poor products/decisions. And there are real morons in management, in every company, but the morons are usually good at making themselves look good. But I lack common sense, oh well.

Wow.... GREAT post.

 

My sentiments exactly.

[Footballfan]

Ford NA is not getting the global Ranger. Ford will not be able to get congress to roll back the 25% tariff on imported pickup trucks. Nor are there any plans to break down the global Ranger and assemble it here.

 

The latest in unverifiable rumors has the Ranger canceled, and an F100 based on a heavily modified F150 chassis assembled at Dearborn, MTP, or Louisville. This scheduled for the 2009 or 2010 MY.

 

This is based on 1) inside contacts, and 2) published reports in the Detroit News (IIRC) stating that Ford was doing a stick and carrot thing with those three plants saying that one plant was going to get new product, and that one or two plants were likely to get closed.

 

There is also the possibility that Ford intends to phase out the Ranger by 2012, moving production to STAP after the F100 is launched. STAP employees on the forum have reported seeing engineers on site with Ranger blueprints. The reported cancellation of the panthers by 2012 would coincide with a decision to either update or close STAP at that time, depending on Ford's health and prospects.

 

Finally, the Ranger may be saved (and eventually migrated to the global Ranger platform), giving Ford a four pickup range (Ranger/F100/F-150/Super Duty). Such an approach might be slicing the market too thin--who knows?

 

I do not think that Ford would do a F 100 or Ranger simultainiously. The Ranger is barely breaking 100,000 units a year now, that number would drop signifficantly if it were coupled with the Ranger.

 

My guess: Dearborn gets the F 100, some production of the F-150 will be moved to Michigan Truck, and Louisville will keep the next generation Explorer.

 

A bigger question may be where will the next generation Focus (not the 2008 but the 2010) be built?

[Footballfan]

Who do you think would push congressmen to resist repealing a protective tariff, which Ford would want repealed? Toyota? GM? No, that would be the UAW lobby.

 

In seeking to keep protectionist quotas, it harms the company's who's workers it tries to protect. That's the crux of protecting workers; importing trucks might not be great for workers in Minneapolis this year, but creating a competitive domestic maker of cars is in the interest of Americans. As it stands right now, there won't be a powerful American car company in 10-15 years, so I don't see the point in supporting forcing the remaining (nearly broke) domestics keeping NA plants open.

 

I don't care if you are offended by these points, and I don't care if you think the world is ending because some large domestic manufacturing plants are closing. If you feel victimized in the process, I think you are a loser. The fact is the plants usually aren't competitive. You can keep demonizing "management" and "rich executives" and I will keep saying collective bargaining and health care expenses create false economics which create bad decision matrices which result in poor products/decisions. And there are real morons in management, in every company, but the morons are usually good at making themselves look good. But I lack common sense, oh well.

 

I see your points, and in a perfect world, that would be true. However, other countries are using protectionism to defend their industries- including Japan and China. This is not to mention the subsidies that Japan gives to their domestic automakers and well as government subsidized health care, retirement programs, and currency manipulations that give foreign makers a tremendeous advantage. We are definitely not competing on a level playing field with or without the union.

 

Loosing our manufacturing base and the incomes it provides will prove to be devistating to this country. A major plant pays a lot more in taxes than a shopping center or office building. The loss of this revenue is made up by higher taxes and/or deficit spending ultimately weakening the value of our dollar.

 

And regarding the union, management should not have agreed to contracts that they could not keep. Ultimately it falls on their shoulders; they should have had the foresight to see that they are getting into a contract that hampers their companies' productivity.

[630land]

Ford maybe had a good idea not making a 'bigger' Ranger. The Colorado and Dakota certainly aren't selling well, either.

 

My bet is the next gen will be imported, with only 4 doors, to avoid the 'chicken tax'.

[RichardJensen]

Again, thank you UAW. Helping American companies make poor decisions, by messing with basic economics supposedly to help the working class. Meanwhile, more plants close.

A brief review of history shows that the Big Three lobbied to get this tariff passed in the early 80s to put a stop to the onslaught of cheap Japanese compact trucks.

 

Secondly, it costs money and time to get ANY law changed. Even if you were to assume NO vested interest would oppose this law change (and GM and DCX would definitely oppose this law change--or at the very least not actively support efforts to change it, not just the UAW), it would still take a while to get it through Washington DC.

 

You need to stop assuming that the UAW is *the* issue here. Inertia, plus over a decade of terrible product decisions (with very few exceptions) are more to blame than the UAW.

[jpd80]

As an example guys, Australia has reduced imports Tarriffs from about the 25% in the 1980s years ago down to 5%.

5 Years ago local manufacturing was 70% of sales, today it's 20% and set to fall further.

[RichardJensen]

The average UAW worker has the ambition to show up for work each day, put in an honest days work, and do their best to assemble a quality product.

 

Management has shown no ambition

What's wrong with this statement?

 

Our friend Pioneer has decided to make unsubstantiated assertions about groups of people based exclusively on where they fit in the "Work For Ford" "Carry a Union Card" matrix. If you do both, you have 'ambition to show up for work each day and put in an honest days work'. If you only "Work for Ford", you have shown no ambition.

 

Most of the white collar employees at Ford, the salaried engineers, plant supervisors, etc., have the ambition to show up for work each day, put in an honest days work and do their best to design and oversee production of a quality product.

 

Many of Ford's "C" level officers, wanted to do a good job too.

 

What was the problem?

 

The entire structure was warped, and the last guy but one knew it was, and did nothing about it.

 

Rag on Bill Ford all you want, at least he tried to implement change. Nasser KNEW things had to change and he didn't even bother.

Edited March 1, 2007 by RichardJensen

[LSFan00]

A brief review of history shows that the Big Three lobbied to get this tariff passed in the early 80s to put a stop to the onslaught of cheap Japanese compact trucks.

 

Secondly, it costs money and time to get ANY law changed. Even if you were to assume NO vested interest would oppose this law change (and GM and DCX would definitely oppose this law change--or at the very least not actively support efforts to change it, not just the UAW), it would still take a while to get it through Washington DC.

 

You need to stop assuming that the UAW is *the* issue here. Inertia, plus over a decade of terrible product decisions (with very few exceptions) are more to blame than the UAW.

 

I don't think the UAW is *the* issue, but the whining/concern about a couple of plants and two poster's in particular attitudes about where products should be produced set me off more than I should allow. I don't know the particulars of the tariff, but I hope that Ford realizes some way to produce a competitive, leading compact pickup, personally. I'd like to buy one, and I have absolutely no need for an F150/Silverado/Tundra-sized utility/demonstration of my manliness.

 

I'm also more cynical about politician's motives than any component of Fomoco, btw, but that's for another board...

 

Lastly, Nasser did plenty wrong, but he did have a plan to revive Lincoln at least, which was summarily executed upon his departure by my understanding. The history of poor, personally-motivated product decisions at Ford is indeed a long, sordid, tail.

Edited March 1, 2007 by LSFan00

[Swizco]

I never said you had to work for Ford, or have a union card to fit my assertions. I only stated that most people that belong to a union are not the fat, lazy, drunk slobs that most people believe we are. I'm not saying there aren't any, channel 7 news has already proven that, but you find those kinds of people in every walk of life.

 

99.9% of us are all on the same team, buddy, union or not. There are a very few people at the very top that made some tough dicisions over the last few years, that turned out, in 20:20 hindsight, to be misguided. That doesn't mean that they wanted bad things for Ford, either.

 

The rest of us come in every morning, just like you, and work to make the cars we're developing as good as they can be, with the time we have and the resources available.

 

I get from you that you have this image of 'management' of a bunch of guys in suits, throwing money in the air and doing lines off of hookers backsides, while the company crashes and burns. The truth is, we only do that on Tuesday afternoons.

 

Swizco

[Hemiman]

If the design engineer, durability specialist, or bean counter had done their job right the first time, there would be no mass exedous to import vehicles, at least in the numbers today.

 

 

Let's see if we can come to some conclusions here. I'm gonna discuss one vehicle component: The Ford 9" rear end. Here Ford had a design that was second to none. Still is in the after-market.

 

What caused Ford to replace it with the 8.8"? My opinon is that someone said, "why are we making this piece this good, we could make a copy of the Dana-44 and save 47 cents per unit".

 

The 8.8 is "good enough" but it's not "the best".

 

This is the state of Ford now, "GOOD ENOUGH" This has impacted design, materials, outside suppliers, warranty....... everything.

 

How did Ford get here. Let's trace back to the decision to cancel the 9". Can anyone who knows shed some light on this.

 

Thanks

Edited March 1, 2007 by Hemiman