Ranger Rescue

[P71_CrownVic]

How can you even REMOTELY compare the Ranger to the Flex when it comes to costs? The situations are NOTHING alike.

 

I am not comparing them in a vehicle versus vehicle sense.

 

I am questioning why you :cheerleader: don't see the utter stupidity in Ford spending a TON of money designing a seven-seat station wagon, when they already have a brand new, well reviewed, seven-seat station wagon on the market. But yet in the same breath, you can poo poo the idea of Ford swapping engine and trans options in the Ranger that has seen a sales spike due to the gas prices. Not to mention that Ford actually makes money on the Ranger. With the Lincoln Taurus and Flexible, Ford will put off profitability for the D3 platform for yet more years.

 

Swapping engines and trans in the Ranger for the time being would be the perfect solution to not only customers who need a truck, but Ford themselves in terms of PROFIT.

[NickF1011]

I am not comparing them in a vehicle versus vehicle sense.

 

I am questioning why you :cheerleader: don't see the utter stupidity in Ford spending a TON of money designing a seven-seat station wagon, when they already have a brand new, well reviewed, seven-seat station wagon on the market. But yet in the same breath, you can poo poo the idea of Ford swapping engine and trans options in the Ranger that has seen a sales spike due to the gas prices. Not to mention that Ford actually makes money on the Ranger. With the Lincoln Taurus and Flexible, Ford will put off profitability for the D3 platform for yet more years.

 

Swapping engines and trans in the Ranger for the time being would be the perfect solution to not only customers who need a truck, but Ford themselves in terms of PROFIT.

 

Ranger? Sales spike?

 

May 2008: 7239

 

May 2007: 9608

 

Down 24.7%

 

Yeah, people are just lining up for those Rangers.

 

Your argument here is as ridiculous as it is for the Panthers. The Rangers only make a lot of money BECAUSE they haven't been changed any. You go changing them, there goes that profit margin. Ford would rather soak up as much profit per unit now on a platform they are discontinuing and then worry about declining profit per vehicle on the NEXT platform. Why eat into its profits now when it likely wouldn't do much of anything to increase sales before the new one comes out?

Edited June 11, 2008 by NickF1011

[DSenstad]

The Ranger plant had been at 40 hours weeks and are now running at 50 hours. If they were running 50 weeks last year they would have had more sales wouldn't have they? Management at the Ranger plant recently told the union that they wanted 10 Saturdays this year... I don't remember them asking for more than a couple last year.

 

Numbers don't always tell the whole story believe it or not. Wasn't Nasser big on numbers?

[NickF1011]

The Ranger plant had been at 40 hours weeks and are now running at 50 hours. If they were running 50 weeks last year they would have had more sales wouldn't have they? Management at the Ranger plant recently told the union that they wanted 10 Saturdays this year... I don't remember them asking for more than a couple last year.

 

Numbers don't always tell the whole story believe it or not. Wasn't Nasser big on numbers?

 

Sales would have to be up considerably in order to bring in the same revenues the current truck does if they decided to replace the engines and transmissions right now. Just file it under Notgonnahappen.

[FordBuyer]

If ever a car was crying out for a 3.0 V6 Hybrid or a 2.0 EB Hybrid, it's the Taurus/Fivehundred.

 

There are so many variables in gas mileage on any one day. The wind, traffic conditions, timing the lights or getting caught by everyone, sudden hazards that come requiring braking, and on and on. Also, rental cars suck, never maintained well, beat up, and so on. I will go with the more stringent EPA ratings on the new Taurus which say it will deliver 28 highway as an average, better than the 500 with more power. My 2002 Taurus gets 22mpg in mixed driving with 3.0L 24 valve V6 and smaller than present Taurus with two less gears and 65 less hp. So if you can pull 22+mpg in new Taurus in mixed driving, that is impressive in my book with so much more car and power.

[P71_CrownVic]

Your argument here is as ridiculous as it is for the Panthers.

 

 

You mean the argument where I said the sooner they are killed the better???

 

Ranger? Sales spike?

 

May 2008: 7239

 

May 2007: 9608

 

Down 24.7%

 

Yeah, people are just lining up for those Rangers.

 

Oh, look at that...a :cheerleader: using warped figures to try and make their drivel look better. Did you happen to notice that the Ranger sales are UP 2.3% so far this year??? Man the truth must hurt.

 

Anyway, Ford would still be making a KILLING on the Rangers if they swapped engine and trans options. They would be making FAR more money than they will be on the 7th and 8th attempt of the D3 platform...

Edited June 12, 2008 by P71_CrownVic

[RangerM]

My Ranger with a 3.0 does worse than what the sticker said

My Ranger will do exactly what the EPA says on the highway (24), but it has always done better than expected in the city (EPA 17; my experience 21)

 

Still does to this day, with 150K miles.

[armadamaster]

Yeah, people are just lining up for those Rangers.

 

Your argument here is as ridiculous as it is for the Panthers. The Rangers only make a lot of money BECAUSE they haven't been changed any. You go changing them, there goes that profit margin. Ford would rather soak up as much profit per unit now on a platform they are discontinuing and then worry about declining profit per vehicle on the NEXT platform. Why eat into its profits now when it likely wouldn't do much of anything to increase sales before the new one comes out?

 

The :cheerleader: s argument for not changing them is what is ridiculous. They change the F-150 every few years and people keep coming back. Oh, but change has nothing to do with that...guess if today's F-150 was the 1997 F-150 inside and out then it would have maintained the exact same sales numbers w/o any investment over the years. I guess Ford shoulda kept the F-150 the same all this time instead of wasting money updating. Stupid Ford.

[NickF1011]

You mean the argument where I said the sooner they are killed the better???

 

 

 

Oh, look at that...a :cheerleader: using warped figures to try and make their drivel look better. Did you happen to notice that the Ranger sales are UP 2.3% so far this year??? Man the truth must hurt.

 

Anyway, Ford would still be making a KILLING on the Rangers if they swapped engine and trans options. They would be making FAR more money than they will be on the 7th and 8th attempt of the D3 platform...

 

WHOA! 2.3%??!?! That means Ford might sell a whole 85,000 of them this year!! That's easily enough to pay off new drivetrains in 3 years. :rolleyes:

[NickF1011]

The :cheerleader: s argument for not changing them is what is ridiculous. They change the F-150 every few years and people keep coming back. Oh, but change has nothing to do with that...guess if today's F-150 was the 1997 F-150 inside and out then it would have maintained the exact same sales numbers w/o any investment over the years. I guess Ford shoulda kept the F-150 the same all this time instead of wasting money updating. Stupid Ford.

 

There comes a point when a vehicle becomes a lost cause. The Ranger is a lost cause. Any investment in it now would be a WASTE OF TIME. Nobody is going to give a crap about new drivetrains if it's still got the same crappy interior and outdated exterior it had 15 years ago. NOBODY here that I recall has said not to do anything with the Ranger. We are all BEGGING for a NEW one. But slapping a bandaid on a tired vehicle that hasn't seen any investment in years won't accomplish a thing.

 

A somewhat valid comparison might be the Mercury Marauder. People bitched and moaned for years for Ford to put a more powerful engine into the Panthers. When they did, nobody bought the thing anyway. The Ranger would be no different with new powertrains at this point.

[FordBuyer]

Ford is meeting with Twin Cities plant officials today to discuss plant options. Something must be up as reported to meet today. By tonight, we should know what is up and what happened at meeting and if any decisions. Why meet if plant was already slated for closure? Ford must have some options for plant.

[NickF1011]

Ford is meeting with Twin Cities plant officials today to discuss plant options. Something must be up as reported to meet today. By tonight, we should know what is up and what happened at meeting and if any decisions. Why meet if plant was already slated for closure? Ford must have some options for plant.

 

Could be considering building the new Ranger there. I don't really see it having any impact on the current model though.

[FordBuyer]

Could be considering building the new Ranger there. I don't really see it having any impact on the current model though.

 

 

I really belive Twin Cities is history no matter what. Ford doesn't need that plant anymore, less so now than even a few months ago. But I think Ford will keep plant open into 2010 because Ford has no other smaller pickups than F-150 and won't have one for quite some time other than present Ranger. Ford can't end present Ranger production until smaller pickup arrives. Ford can't afford to give up another 100,000 sales volume vehicle. Not in my opinion. Ford needs every 100,000 sales vehicle it can gert right now. I can even tell that Edge sales are starting to slow down somewhat. Dealers around me are drowning in Edges on lot not selling right now. Fusion, Focus, and Escape are Ford's only good sellers right now. Taurus is doing better too. I would imagine Ranger is doing quite well with fleet managers even now.

[NickF1011]

I really belive Twin Cities is history no matter what. Ford doesn't need that plant anymore, less so now than even a few months ago. But I think Ford will keep plant open into 2010 because Ford has no other smaller pickups than F-150 and won't have one for quite some time other than present Ranger. Ford can't end present Ranger production until smaller pickup arrives. Ford can't afford to give up another 100,000 sales volume vehicle. Not in my opinion. Ford needs every 100,000 sales vehicle it can gert right now. I can even tell that Edge sales are starting to slow down somewhat. Dealers around me are drowning in Edges on lot not selling right now. Fusion, Focus, and Escape are Ford's only good sellers right now. Taurus is doing better too. I would imagine Ranger is doing quite well with fleet managers even now.

 

2010 seems about right for TCAP's deadline. As for the Edge...it seemed pretty steady through May. Ranger sales were in the toilet last month.

[P71_CrownVic]

WHOA! 2.3%??!?!

 

Yeah...they were up...not down like you wanted...

 

 

That means Ford might sell a whole 85,000 of them this year!! That's easily enough to pay off new drivetrains in 3 years. :rolleyes:

 

They are not new drivetrains...

 

And how long will it take to pay off 8 vehicles (6 of which were sales BOMBS), in four years?

[NickF1011]

And how long will it take to pay off 8 vehicles (6 of which were sales BOMBS), in four years?

 

Considering how much they share in common? Probably not nearly as long as you want to think.

[P71_CrownVic]

Considering how much they share in common? Probably not nearly as long as you want to think.

 

Weren't you one of the :cheerleader: that said that the D3s don't have anything in common? Now, your story is:

 

"Considering how much they share in common?"

 

You must be dizzy a lot of the time.

[Deanh]

irrespective of the constant pillow fighting going on here, i am sure ford will/ cannot ignore the compact truck market, my guess is they have been working on somthing that may have gotten side-lined for more pressing issues....we were told not much was being put into the Ranger due to its inherrant lack of profitability, presumably in comparison to its bigger brother the F-150, however with gas going the way it is Ford may change its tune, especially since they have already completed the 09 F-150....I LOVE the size of the Ranger...its chassis and drivetrains though are depressingly pre-historic due to the fact Ford chose to leave it dying on the vine...so gimme new styling, better chassis ( hell being NON heavy duty throw in IRS ) modern interior and a 2.5 eco-boost , and I and presumably customers may stand up and take notice, right now its sales are pretty much based on being the only deal in town........

Edited June 12, 2008 by Deanh

[jpd80]

Well the FoA boys are confirming the T6 Global Ranger replacement will be the same size as the Tacoma/Hilux.

I'm thinking the F100 will be closer in size but quite a bit lighter than the F150, satisfying disaffected owners

the F150 could then become another Super Duty truck.

[630land]

F100? Maybe it will be same size as Tacoma? And, did any information come from that 'meeting'?

[jpd80]

F100? Maybe it will be same size as Tacoma? And, did any information come from that 'meeting'?

I can tell you this, it's been in the public domain for 6 months:

T6: bigger and better

Carpoint.com.au

Details of Ford's T6 global light commercial replacement (designed and developed by

Ford Australia to replace the current Mazda BT50 and Ford Ranger) are slowly emerging.

Those close to the project have hinted that the new model would grow in size, in line with

the latest Toyota HiLux and Nissan D40 Navara with its width no longer 'tied' to the Japanese

1.7m width restriction that has defined every Ford Courier/Ranger/Mazda B-series so far.

Other 'insider' news indicates it will feature a full chassis and rear leaf springs

to meet the work expectations of this type of vehicle worldwide. The challenge currently facing

local engineers is to set new ride standards while maintaining a true one-tonne load capacity -

- unlike, for example, the D40 Navara which comes in well under one tonne to achieve its softer ride.

As for the current model's torsion bar front suspension, one senior Ford engineer said:

"I have never wanted to design a torsion bar front suspension and I have no intention of starting now."

Hmmm… It seems it's a safe bet that the new "truck", as Ford boss Tom Gorman likes to call it,

will feature double-wishbone coil spring front suspension.

The engineer also noted the passenger car levels of finish and amenities in the above mentioned Nissan's cabin

were a direction he saw as an important development.

Edited June 13, 2008 by jpd80

[P71_CrownVic]

irrespective of the constant pillow fighting going on here, i am sure ford will/ cannot ignore the compact truck market, my guess is they have been working on somthing that may have gotten side-lined for more pressing issues....we were told not much was being put into the Ranger due to its inherrant lack of profitability, presumably in comparison to its bigger brother the F-150, however with gas going the way it is Ford may change its tune, especially since they have already completed the 09 F-150....I LOVE the size of the Ranger...its chassis and drivetrains though are depressingly pre-historic due to the fact Ford chose to leave it dying on the vine...so gimme new styling, better chassis ( hell being NON heavy duty throw in IRS ) modern interior and a 2.5 eco-boost , and I and presumably customers may stand up and take notice, right now its sales are pretty much based on being the only deal in town........

 

But see, for the short term, Ford does not need all of that or the stupid F-100...

 

All Ford needs to do, IN THE SHORT TERM, to make the Ranger fly off the lots, is give it the 2.5/6-speed OR the 3.5/6-speed. Oh and do that little thing Ford has no clue how to do...ADVERTISE it!

[NickF1011]

Weren't you one of the :cheerleader: that said that the D3s don't have anything in common? Now, your story is:

 

"Considering how much they share in common?"

 

You must be dizzy a lot of the time.

 

Would LOVE to see where I ever said the D3's don't have anything in common. By all means, quote it in your response.

[Deanh]

But see, for the short term, Ford does not need all of that or the stupid F-100...

 

All Ford needs to do, IN THE SHORT TERM, to make the Ranger fly off the lots, is give it the 2.5/6-speed OR the 3.5/6-speed. Oh and do that little thing Ford has no clue how to do...ADVERTISE it!

not sure P, antiquated styling and chassis don't help in the slightest...in the meantime it moves due to rebates and financing........good little truck, but WAY behind developement curves, that said NO ONE including toyota has a modern mini truck....just have an inkling there is something around the corner. ( Truth be told a 2.3 with a 5 speed makes a GREAT thrasher.....)

[P71_CrownVic]

not sure P, antiquated styling and chassis don't help in the slightest...in the meantime it moves due to rebates and financing........good little truck, but WAY behind developement curves, that said NO ONE including toyota has a modern mini truck....just have an inkling there is something around the corner. ( Truth be told a 2.3 with a 5 speed makes a GREAT thrasher.....)

 

I agree...but no matter how behind the 8-ball the Ranger is, it is still the best small truck on the market. And like I said with new engine and trans optiona and a dab of advertising, it would sell...and I think it would sell very well.