P71_CrownVic Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 No, but pretending you have common sense and ignoring facts will get you no where....and laughed at. You would know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Oh look, it's Noel Coward and Oscar Wilde. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 (edited) Oh look, it's Noel Coward and Oscar Wilde.How old are you Rich? I had to WIKI Noel Coward and Oscar Wilde and the pictures are in black and white! Edited November 24, 2007 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 It's a line from House. Both men were noted for being sharp tongued and witty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 So tell us why Toyota ended the Celica, their two seat sports car, Tercel, Echo, and there were some others that I forget the name of. All the manufacturers have ended lots of vehicles over the years. The Celica was ended because of low sales. Why low sales? It was an uncompetitive vehicle saddled with a paltry 4 cylinder engine when its closest competitors offered Turbo 4's or V6's in it's time (Eclipse, Cougar, Probe). Same with the Nissan 240SX in it's time...they were badly executed and offered nothing different in it's time and segment. Tercel and Echo sold decently for what they were but were later replaced with the Yaris, so it didn't really go away rather a name change to go with a newly redesigned "B" segment vehicle which itself underpins some Scions. And with those vehicles for example...when you sell just 10-20K Celicas in a year and wish to give up, no biggy...so what, Eclipse and Cougar picked up those sales? Whoop-de-doo. My point: You don't give up on a vehicle that sells 200-400K on a yearly basis...your handing over the ompetitors those 100-200K sales. And essentially from the lose of those sales, Frontier and Tacoma have sold in (for it's brand) record numbers when that took affect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 24, 2007 Author Share Posted November 24, 2007 Lack of demand.Compact truck w/fullsize truck capacity gets fullsize truck gas mileage, and compact trucks that are truer to the compact truck model of old are simply not useful to most people. They are tiny on the inside and not particularly useful on the outside. What makes them less useful today, than compared to the 20 years ago, when they were everywhere? Gas was cheaper then (wasn't it?). The trucks actually would carry (although not tow) more. So tell us why Toyota ended the Celica, their two seat sports car, Tercel, Echo, and there were some others that I forget the name of. All the manufacturers have ended lots of vehicles over the years. See below The Celica was ended because of low sales. Why low sales? It was an uncompetitive vehicle saddled with a paltry 4 cylinder engine when its closest competitors offered Turbo 4's or V6's in it's time I would follow Antaus' point by saying that the Celica lost something in 1986 when it went to front-wheel-drive. Prior to that it was rear. The product changed from something desireable, to something (to me) that wasn't. This seems to be true in a lot of cases. The product leaves the market, not the other way around. Although to the "Fast and the Furious" crowd, the rwd -> fwd transition would seem to not matter. Perhaps there was some technological reason for them not being tweaked the way the Eclipses and Civic CRXs were? On a side note. When I took my wife's Highlander in for a recall, I was talking to a salesman about the Celica, and he said that whenever a used one came it, unless it was a POS, it was sold within a day or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 What makes them less useful today, than compared to the 20 years ago, when they were everywhere? Gas was cheaper then (wasn't it?). The trucks actually would carry (although not tow) more. What makes them less useful today? CUVs and SUVs. Like I said in my earlier post. CUVs & SUVs with 1000-1500lb payloads & fold flat 2nd and 3rd rows; just about everything that you can haul in a compact truck you can haul in a CUV or SUV---the few things that you can't haul you can have delivered--or picked up. I mean, ultimately, you're buying a compact pickup so you can haul away stuff that is stinky or disgusting, and so you can bring rough edged or loose objects to your house. For just about everything else, the CUV offers similar capability, plus room for 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 On a side note. When I took my wife's Highlander in for a recall, I was talking to a salesman about the Celica, and he said that whenever a used one came it, unless it was a POS, it was sold within a day or two. Why should any car maker be interested in selling a great selling used car? Doesn't make any sense for them since they don't make any money on it.. Your using the same reasoning that Panther Mafia uses... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 What makes them less useful today? CUVs and SUVs. Like I said in my earlier post. CUVs & SUVs with 1000-1500lb payloads & fold flat 2nd and 3rd rows; just about everything that you can haul in a compact truck you can haul in a CUV or SUV---the few things that you can't haul you can have delivered--or picked up. I mean, ultimately, you're buying a compact pickup so you can haul away stuff that is stinky or disgusting, and so you can bring rough edged or loose objects to your house. For just about everything else, the CUV offers similar capability, plus room for 5. I have to agree for the most part but the UTE should be imported to see how it does, the problem I suspect they will have is the lack of a second row of seats. A 4 passenger UTE would be even better but maybe too costly to build. They would have to overhaul the platform and put a shorter bed on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I'm sure Ford has looked into Ute type things, they spend $7B a year on R&D, one imagines at least a few bucks have gotten spent on such a thing. Fact is, a back seat--an accessible back seat--has become a near necessity for most car buyers. I can't say why exactly, but you can look at the sales of standard cab trucks, compact trucks, and coupes--all in the crapper.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Yes, and you didn't need one of these. Now that's funny....and a good find! Heh...that needs to be standard on all the domestic fullsize trucks...and it would go nicely with the tailgate version Ford has on the current Superduty. The bed height of my 1989 extended cab Cheyenne is about as tall as my 5'9" frame needs. Plus I don't need rope ladder to get in and out of the cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescoent Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Well, somebody explain this to me. Ford is currently developing a global Ranger for overseas markets. The development costs are being incurred one way or another. Why not sell this truck in the United States when it comes out? Unless it doesn't meet our regulations for whatever reason, it doesn't make any sense NOT to sell it here. Here's my situation. I live on a fairly large property, which requires work from time to time. Planting new bushes and trees, hauling off dead ones, hauling rocks, leaves, and such. I also occasionally buy large items which are simply too big for a sedan to carry. What I need is a 4-wheel drive truck capable of hauling some stuff. I've priced out both an F-150 and Ranger with the basic stuff I need, and the F-150 is about $5,000 more expensive ($20,000 versus $25,000). So what should I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Well, somebody explain this to me. Ford is currently developing a global Ranger for overseas markets. The development costs are being incurred one way or another. Why not sell this truck in the United States when it comes out? Unless it doesn't meet our regulations for whatever reason, it doesn't make any sense NOT to sell it here. Here's my situation. I live on a fairly large property, which requires work from time to time. Planting new bushes and trees, hauling off dead ones, hauling rocks, leaves, and such. I also occasionally buy large items which are simply too big for a sedan to carry. What I need is a 4-wheel drive truck capable of hauling some stuff. I've priced out both an F-150 and Ranger with the basic stuff I need, and the F-150 is about $5,000 more expensive ($20,000 versus $25,000). So what should I do? Look at the difference in what you get for a $5,000 upgrade and realize the F-150 is the better buy. I'm not going to list all of the differences but their close in fuel economy but the 150 is more capable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WC-MAN Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Still, he has a point. If the global Ranger (IE Mazda B) can meet US specs, it doesn't make sense not to sell it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Is the "chicken tax" still in place, or wasn't that supposedly dissipating soon ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Look at the difference in what you get for a $5,000 upgrade and realize the F-150 is the better buy. I'm not going to list all of the differences but their close in fuel economy but the 150 is more capable! $5,000 is a substantial cost different, especially in the lower end of the truck market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 What makes them less useful today? CUVs and SUVs. Like I said in my earlier post. CUVs & SUVs with 1000-1500lb payloads & fold flat 2nd and 3rd rows; just about everything that you can haul in a compact truck you can haul in a CUV or SUV---the few things that you can't haul you can have delivered--or picked up. I mean, ultimately, you're buying a compact pickup so you can haul away stuff that is stinky or disgusting, and so you can bring rough edged or loose objects to your house. For just about everything else, the CUV offers similar capability, plus room for 5. Not that this proves anything, but I have never known (or heard of) anyone buying an SUV or CUV as a small pickup replacement. That said, I can see your logic, in the context of why minivans and station wagons are out of fashion. Most people I know (including my wife) purchase an SUV or CUV, when a minivan or station wagon would have been just as good. There are things that small trucks will haul that SUVs and CUVs won't. Those are TALL items. I've moved furniture, appliances, trees (especially around Christmas), my daughter's "Princess" castle (that was a big box), a 42" Plasma TV (in the box), and countless other items that an SUV or CUV would not have. I don't think I'd want to rent a truck every time I wanted to move something like that, and getting it delivered, would be a PITA, because delivery persons don't often work on my schedule. I just want to get it, and go. I really could see your point if I lived in a large city, presumably where vendors deliver for free, and don't have to go very far, and doing things for yourself is more of a pain. Here in Raleigh, NC many stores will deliver (although not haul away) for free. BUT, they aren't going to drop everything and deliver it at the time of purchase. This may mean taking time off from work. Things are more spread out here. You don't go a few blocks. You may have to go several miles. I guess everyone sees things from their own perspective. To be honest, most of the hauling that I see in SUVs and CUVs is done in the trailers dragged behind them. Give me a crew cab Ranger and I'll accomplish the same (5 persons) without a trailer. I just find a 4 foot bed Sport Trac a little lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 (edited) $5,000 is a substantial cost different, especially in the lower end of the truck market. And so is the difference between the F-150 and a Ranger, it doesn't seem so big when you consider that a diesel option cost $6,900! Edited December 2, 2007 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 Why should any car maker be interested in selling a great selling used car? Doesn't make any sense for them since they don't make any money on it.. Your using the same reasoning that Panther Mafia uses... My point was that it seems ironic that a car that languished on the dealer lot when it was new, can't stay there now. What makes it more desirable now, compared to then? The answer to me is obvious when you compare a Celica to a tC, but that is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 And so is the difference between the F-150 and a Ranger, it doesn't seem so big when you consider tha a diesel option cost $6,900! If a person doesn't NEED to spend the extra $5K (25% of 20K), why should they volunteer to do so? A navigation system is more capable than a map, but for me the extra 2K isn't worth it. And resale value isn't a major concern to someone (like me) that keeps a vehicle far beyond it's payoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I can give you an anecdotal Ranger customer, one who has purchased 3 since 1990. My Dad is 63 years old and wants the most basic but capable hardware he can get for the money. He's very price conscious, not willing to spend more than a certain amount per month. He drives a lot of miles to work but loves the truck for its ride height, durability, and versatility. He doesn't want AWD because it eats gas, doesn't want a V8 (see earlier), but doesn't want to drive a truck that looks 'fleet'. He is ready for a new car and wants another Ranger, but they haven't changed and he want's something newer. He wants the I4 Escape, but he needs the truck for home improvement projects. So if Ford can bring him a good looking Ranger that has the cargo capabilities of a truck, but the fuel economy of an Escape, he'll be thrilled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 (edited) Not that this proves anything, but I have never known (or heard of) anyone buying an SUV or CUV as a small pickup replacement. That said, I can see your logic, in the context of why minivans and station wagons are out of fashion. Most people I know (including my wife) purchase an SUV or CUV, when a minivan or station wagon would have been just as good. They're buying them instead of compact trucks in the first place. People are not even entering the compact market in the first place. These vehicles are not attractive to them. Edited November 25, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 If a person doesn't NEED to spend the extra $5K (25% of 20K), why should they volunteer to do so? A navigation system is more capable than a map, but for me the extra 2K isn't worth it. And resale value isn't a major concern to someone (like me) that keeps a vehicle far beyond it's payoff. I know what you are saying! The fact is that the F-150 it the toughest new truck on the market it will definatly out last your note. The ranger is just not selling and it not good to build a vehicle that it is not profitable to build. I'm sorry but I'd either keep your Ranger or have to look at competitors compact trucks while their still building them! The market is just not there and if it continues to shrink no one will be building a compact truck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 They're buying them instead of compact trucks in the first place. People are not even entering the compact market in the first place. These vehicles are not attractive to them. Unfortunately my words betray my meaning. (By 'replacement', I didn't mean to say that they were replacing anything.) Perhaps I should have used the word 'equivalent'. I agree with your first statement. My observation is no less valid however. I see many SUV/CUVs with trailers behind them. This seems to make a lot of sense in the context of, "Why should I buy a truck, when I can just tow a trailer when I have something dirty"? (Before you retort, no need to remind me that this statement is supporting your point). My personal opinion is that I would prefer to not have to hook up, or find a place to park, the trailer. Apparently, based on sale figures of the Ranger and all its competitors, there are more than a quarter million persons of like mind. Link I am intelligent enough to know that the fewer number of vehicles sold, the higher the development costs that must be incorporated into the price. Higher costs make the vehicle less competitive, even to a manufacturer's own product (the F-150 vs the Ranger argument). HOWEVER, I would be interested to know which vehicle sells more WORLDWIDE (at the retail level), the F-150 or the Ranger. With a world platform, would Ranger be more competitive? That said, it is a shame that Ford would abandon a market that it once dominated. Would Ford be able to (profitably) market a small truck, based on a competitive world platform, with 'only' 100k sales per year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Don't know what the future of the Ranger is. I've heard that a F150 based small truck is on the way. I have no idea under what context though... The compact trucks, however, are not really entry points to fullsize trucks anymore; as the compact truck market has shrunk, and as fullsize truck prices continue to hover around $20k. Compact truck market seems relegated to the young and old, with very few people that have family responsibilities buying them. My idea is to totally make over the Ranger as a youth truck. Something that a certain kind of 18-22 yo male year old 'needs' to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.