Ford Ranger sales post another gain in April

[RangerM]

LinkFor those of you scoring at home, the Ford Ranger notched another monthly sales increase in April — though not by much.

 

Ford Motor Co. said 7,585 of the St. Paul-made small pickup trucks were sold in April, up 86 trucks, or 1.1 percent, from the same period a year ago. Through the first four months of the year, Ranger sales are running 12.3 percent ahead of their 2007 pace.

 

That makes it the star performer among Ford's more established truck models. Only the Edge, with sales up 37.9 percent year-to-date, is seeing more dramatic gains in the troubled segment.

 

Link

[FordBuyer]

LinkFor those of you scoring at home, the Ford Ranger notched another monthly sales increase in April — though not by much.

 

Ford Motor Co. said 7,585 of the St. Paul-made small pickup trucks were sold in April, up 86 trucks, or 1.1 percent, from the same period a year ago. Through the first four months of the year, Ranger sales are running 12.3 percent ahead of their 2007 pace.

 

That makes it the star performer among Ford's more established truck models. Only the Edge, with sales up 37.9 percent year-to-date, is seeing more dramatic gains in the troubled segment.

 

Link

 

Most of the new Rangers I see in Metro Detroit are fleet vehicles. Very few are retail sales. Most Ford Dealers near me have no more than a few Rangers on lot unlike a few years ago when Rangers littered Dealer lots. I don't think there is any great demand for V6 Ranger than gets no better mileage than F-150. The best days of Ranger are over. Hopefully an F-100 and imported Ranger will pick up the slack. A new Ranger that gets 20% better fuel mileage than present one in V6 form or much stronger I4.

[RangerM]

Most of the new Rangers I see in Metro Detroit are fleet vehicles.

 

Sales are sales, but I would like to know if your observation holds in a region with a better economy.

[8A4RE]

I see a good mix of Rangers in Chicagoland. I see tons of new fleet and non fleet Rangers every day. I think they are good looking trucks. Thats why I bought mine. It will tow my Mustang with ease, and it fits in any parking space that a car will.

[Blueblood]

It must be the re-design!!

[lfeg]

The Ranger is a great fleet vehicle, I see many on the road. The best thing about these fleet sales is that they are not daily rental fleets, but fleet sales to commercial accounts and individual businesses. Hence they will not show up on dealer lots in a year or less to depress values. They will stay in the fleets for at least 3 years, and often longer (some I know of have a 5 year/90k mile cycle).

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Ford Ranger sales were up 20% last month in Europe it's fast becoming first choice of pick-up here with it's class leading MPG and near $126 a barrel oil today.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24530022

 

Just hope Ford know what they are doing by ending production of the Ranger, a new fuel efficient F-100 replacement needs to be built at St. Paul using the expertise & skill of it's pick-up building workforce.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[goinbroke2]

First, there are a SHITLOAD of rangers on the road here, in fact in the 70 or so people at the place I'm at there are 5 in the parking lot! There are FAR more rangers than all others combined around here.

 

"Most of the new Rangers I see in Metro Detroit are fleet vehicles. Very few are retail sales. Most Ford Dealers near me have no more than a few Rangers on lot unlike a few years ago when Rangers littered Dealer lots."

I should go get the camera and take a pic of the two local ford dealers who have lots of them. Of course then the response would be "see, they're not selling"

 

Second, "Just hope Ford know what they are doing by ending production of the Ranger," Has it ever been stated ANYWHERE besides on here during speculation/negativism, that the ranger will be killed? NO!

 

This forum is so full of bullshit and negativism it makes it hard to find the real truth.

 

I didn't see a tempo today, therefore all tempo's must of been banned from the highway.

Sometimes it's not all a conspiracy/fords idiots/domestic's suck/etc

 

The ranger (a small truck) gained sales during a time of increased fuel costs. Period.end of story. It doesn't need the armchair quarterbacking by negatards saying " It must be the re-design"

 

Ford sales up 1000%...yeah that's only because....

[goinbroke2]

Let me guess, there will have to be someone say "tempo's should be banned" with a few

 

 

Whatever

[NickF1011]

Second, "Just hope Ford know what they are doing by ending production of the Ranger," Has it ever been stated ANYWHERE besides on here during speculation/negativism, that the ranger will be killed? NO!

 

Well, on this point at least, it has been more or less confirmed that the Ranger as we currently know it will be dead by 2012, as Ford is not going to want to make the needed investment into such an outdated platform to keep it compliant with 2012 safety regulations. The only question is will its replacement (and there will be a replacement) be ready by then? It's still possible there will be a production gap.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

It seems obvious to me that Ford will maintain production of the Ranger so long as it does two things:

 

1) Pays the bills enough to keep the plant operating.

2) Positively affects CAFE

 

The elimination of the 3.0L is kind of a 50/50 thing as some of the sales will go to the 4 banger and others will go to te big V6. That should be a wash. I personally believe that Ford should do the R&D to replace the 2.3L I4 in the ranger with the 2.5L and continue production with that setup as long as is practical. It might also be worth it for Ford to also look at using the 2.0L from the focus in the smallest ranger (reg cab, short bed, 4X2) as an efficiency leader. Given the good torque of the 2.0L, it would be more than enough engine for that config, and would get even better mpg.

[NickF1011]

It seems obvious to me that Ford will maintain production of the Ranger so long as it does two things:

 

1) Pays the bills enough to keep the plant operating.

2) Positively affects CAFE

 

Add in the most important one:

 

3) Meets safety standards without requiring any significant investment.

 

Which by most estimates is 2012, regardles of what negative affect it has on CAFE getting rid of it. Ford's not going to bother upgrading it with things like AdvanceTrac and safety canopy systems to keep it legal. They'll just kill it and wait for the new one.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, that kind of folds back into #1 as the investment would mean added expense for the vehicle, making it more difficult to pay the "bills" (including amortizing the investment for the upgrade).

[P71_CrownVic]

Ford Ranger sales were up 20% last month in Europe it's fast becoming first choice of pick-up here with it's class leading MPG and near $126 a barrel oil today.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24530022

 

Just hope Ford know what they are doing by ending production of the Ranger, a new fuel efficient F-100 replacement needs to be built at St. Paul using the expertise & skill of it's pick-up building workforce.

 

The F-100 is a complete joke. Why would Ford produce a truck that is:

 

about the size of an old F-150

 

It makes no sense at all.

 

So, to all who want an F-100, just save yourself the time and money and buy a 1997-2003 F-150.

[NickF1011]

The F-100 is a complete joke. Why would Ford produce a truck that is:

 

 

 

It makes no sense at all.

 

So, to all who want an F-100, just save yourself the time and money and buy a 1997-2003 F-150.

 

Hmmm...maybe there are people on the planet who don't want to buy vehicles that are several years old. Of course, I'm sure that's a foreign concept to someone used to buying fleet retirees.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

The F-100 is a complete joke. Why would Ford produce a truck that is:

 

 

 

It makes no sense at all.

 

So, to all who want an F-100, just save yourself the time and money and buy a 1997-2003 F-150.

 

I would if you could buy one in the UK but they are not sold in Europe, and the diesel Ranger is sooooooh fuel efficient.

[Noah Harbinger]

Ford Motor Co. said 7,585 of the St. Paul-made small pickup trucks were sold in April, up 86 trucks, or 1.1 percent, from the same period a year ago.

 

I think that's along the lines of what the Focus would have seen due to gas prices alone, if they hadn't refreshed it...

[P71_CrownVic]

Hmmm...maybe there are people on the planet who don't want to buy vehicles that are several years old. Of course, I'm sure that's a foreign concept to someone used to buying fleet retirees.

Yeah...I am sure that's the reason behind the F-100.

 

[V8 Ford]

The F-100 is a complete joke. Why would Ford produce a truck that is:

about the size of an old F-150

 

 

It makes no sense at all.

 

So, to all who want an F-100, just save yourself the time and money and buy a 1997-2003 F-150.

That's ridiculous, I suppose Toyota should cancel the Camry because people are just going to buy '97 Avalons instead. Maybe Ford should cancel its entire car line because people can get a model T that carries just as many people as a modern 5 seater for way less. If there were no consumer demand for new vehicles because similar ones were built in the past, no one would buy new cars. The F-100 is ten years newer; in all probability it will be a superior truck in every regard (capability, safety, ride quality, fuel economy, performance, technology, etc). I'm sure there are people that won't find 10 years worth of improvement worth the extra price, but if that were the case for the vast majority of consumers there would be no market for new cars. From a real market standpoint, the F-100 makes sense since since fuel economy demand and CAFE regulations make a truck with less capability but better fuel economy more desireable fro someone that won't need the full capability of the F-150 and more desireable for Ford since it will boost their CAFE regulations vs. selling F-150s to these people. Going by the rumors, an alleged F-100 doesn't seem targeted to replace the ranger and an alleged ranger replacement seems more likely to take the low end of the truck lineup.

[armadamaster]

It makes no sense at all.

 

So, to all who want an F-100, just save yourself the time and money and buy a 1997-2003 F-150.

 

That's ridiculous, I suppose Toyota should cancel the Camry because people are just going to buy '97 Avalons instead. Maybe Ford should cancel its entire car line because people can get a model T that carries just as many people as a modern 5 seater for way less. If there were no consumer demand for new vehicles because similar ones were built in the past, no one would buy new cars. The F-100 is ten years newer; in all probability it will be a superior truck in every regard (capability, safety, ride quality, fuel economy, performance, technology, etc). I'm sure there are people that won't find 10 years worth of improvement worth the extra price, but if that were the case for the vast majority of consumers there would be no market for new cars. From a real market standpoint, the F-100 makes sense since since fuel economy demand and CAFE regulations make a truck with less capability but better fuel economy more desireable fro someone that won't need the full capability of the F-150 and more desireable for Ford since it will boost their CAFE regulations vs. selling F-150s to these people. Going by the rumors, an alleged F-100 doesn't seem targeted to replace the ranger and an alleged ranger replacement seems more likely to take the low end of the truck lineup.

 

So you honestly think a midsized (old fullsized) F-100 is going to get SUPERIOR MPG versus the current compact Ranger? None of the other midsize trucks that replaced their compact predecessors are....what's gonna change with the F-100?

 

Leave it Ford to have the last of and best of something on the market and find a way to can it.

 

Edited May 10, 2008 by Armada Master

[danup]

Isn't the current plan to replace the Ranger with both the F-100 and a new Ranger?

 

(Also, the whole F-100-buy-an-old-F-150 thing is a fallacy because the thing that'll make a real gas mileage difference is the fact that the big V8s in those old 150s will be replaced with more fuel-efficient V6s with similar output.)

[FordBuyer]

Isn't the current plan to replace the Ranger with both the F-100 and a new Ranger?

 

(Also, the whole F-100-buy-an-old-F-150 thing is a fallacy because the thing that'll make a real gas mileage difference is the fact that the big V8s in those old 150s will be replaced with more fuel-efficient V6s with similar output.)

 

According to Igor, that is plan.

 

Some of you posters are amazing though. Some of you forget history. Let's take the Jaguar brand for instance. Year after year Jaguar sales get worse and worse, with even the new XK sales tanking and sales in America down to nothing. Ford sells it, and because initial sales for XF, sister car of new MKS in some ways, are decent all of a sudden Ford was wrong to sell Jaguar. Yeah, right. Keep getting distracted by Jaguar and its problems.

 

Now let's look at the Ranger. Back in the 90's, Ranger sales were over 200,000 sales/year and kept Minnesota plant very busy. The Splash was hit with young people and arguably best looking compact pickkup on market. Flash forward to 2008 and Ranger is dated, and sales have fallen to less than 80,000/year and Minnesota plant barely works. Yeah, Ford let the Ranger die, but die it did.

 

So for future Ford is going to split pickup market into many segments....Ranger sometime in 2012, F-100 for 2010, new 2009 F-150 followed by diesel, and Super Duties with new 6.7L diesel coming. F-100 can easily go to Dearborn or Kentucky. I have no idea where the new 2012 Ranger will be built.

[V8 Ford]

So you honestly think a mid-old fullsized F-100 is going to get SUPERIOR MPG versus the current compact Ranger? None of the other midsize trucks that replaced their compact predecessors are....what's gonna change with the F-100?

I was referring to the 97 F-150, not the Ranger (its a Ranger thread so I probably should have been more clear), in which case a 97 F-150 size F-100 damn well better be able to get better gas mileage and/or completely blow away the 97 F-150 in every measurable area on account of it being developed over a decade later. The rumors here say that there is also a new ranger coming in addition to the F-100, so I doubt the F-100 is intended to be a ranger replacement, therefore the F-100 shouldn't be compared to the ranger.

Edited May 10, 2008 by V8 Ford

[8A4RE]

The F-100 is a complete joke. Why would Ford produce a truck that is:

 

 

 

It makes no sense at all.

 

So, to all who want an F-100, just save yourself the time and money and buy a 1997-2003 F-150.

 

Better yet, just buy a P71 Panther. Rides just like a truck and it has a trunk.

[goinbroke2]

So it boils down to....The ranger in it's current form will be replaced, but there is no concrete info on when or with what.

 

How about the ranger will be replaced with a....ranger, whenever ford feels like it regardless of all the stupid speculation!

 

What did you guys say in 72/73?

(1) "Yup they're killing the mustang, the body is too big so they're getting rid of it."

 

(2) "but it's a great seller"

 

(1)"nope, nobody wants a pony car with the gas going up, mustang is gone"

 

(2)"ford is so stupid for getting rid of the mustang"

 

(3) "yeah typical ford, always missing the boat"

 

(4) "Ford, LOL, they suck"

 

And on and on it goes each person "confirming" the wrong info and bashing ford.

Then the "new" mustang comes out and everyone shifts to bashing it because the taillights are too big/small/whatever for their personal tastes.

 

What a bunch of morons! A replacement is coming when they decide! Obviously after all your lip service, you guys don't believe ford has turned the corner or know whats going on or you wouldn't be second guessing EVERY SINGLE MOVE as if you guys know better.

Ranger/crown vic/econoline/ f series are all money makers and will be replaced when it is deemed time to do so. Now that there is new management, I'll guess they will better know when that time is.

But no, feel free to keep bashing ford and knashing your teeth because of unsubstantiated rumors and guesses.

 

Good plan.

 

Gee, why aren't you guys ceo's I wonder?