Is Ford Paying Attention? Do they care?

[RSM]

Sure hope Ford is paying attention to Ranger news and doesn't decide to give market share away to others. Ford can cry all they want about poor Ranger sales but they have no one to blame except themselves for letting the Ranger die on the vine. I'd bet if the Ranger name was given an "F" designation so that sales could be included with F series totals, we'd have a new truck by now, or soon. Here's a link to cars & trucks that were outsold in April by the Ranger.

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/05/10-cars-and-trucks-the-ford-ranger-outsold-in-april-2010.html

[NickF1011]

I'll say the same thing here that I did in the other thread this list appeared in. There's one reason the Ranger is even selling as well as it does: It's cheap. Dirt cheap.

[fordmantpw]

I'll say the same thing here that I did in the other thread this list appeared in. There's one reason the Ranger is even selling as well as it does: It's cheap. Dirt cheap.

 

And if Ford spent the money to put it on a modern platform with modern amenities, it wouldn't be cheap anymore, and no one would buy it. It just doesn't make economical sense for Ford to bring the Ranger up to the 21st century because then it would cost more than customers are willing to pay for a compact truck.

 

At least, IMHO.

[NickF1011]

And if Ford spent the money to put it on a modern platform with modern amenities, it wouldn't be cheap anymore, and no one would buy it. It just doesn't make economical sense for Ford to bring the Ranger up to the 21st century because then it would cost more than customers are willing to pay for a compact truck.

 

At least, IMHO.

 

Probably about right. The only way it would make sense is if they bring the global Ranger here, which doesn't seem too likely. At least not yet. With the global Ranger, they'd probably be able to keep the price at least somewhat low.

[fordmantpw]

Probably about right. The only way it would make sense is if they bring the global Ranger here, which doesn't seem too likely. At least not yet. With the global Ranger, they'd probably be able to keep the price at least somewhat low.

 

Yeah, the global Ranger is about the only hope (however slim that hope is). Apparently it needs some work to come up to US standards...maybe in a few years...

[ausrutherford]

Probably about right. The only way it would make sense is if they bring the global Ranger here, which doesn't seem too likely. At least not yet. With the global Ranger, they'd probably be able to keep the price at least somewhat low.

 

The only thing that shows that Ford might be interested in the bringing the Ranger here was the decision to build it in South Africa which has a free trade agreement with the US unlike Thailand. But then again, it needs to be engineered for here...which according to reports, it isnt.

[NickF1011]

The only thing that shows that Ford might be interested in the bringing the Ranger here was the decision to build it in South Africa which has a free trade agreement with the US unlike Thailand. But then again, it needs to be engineered for here...which according to reports, it isnt.

 

Yeah, I would say U.S. assembly for any Ranger replacement is unlikely. They certainly aren't going to retool TCAP.

[theoldwizard]

Yeah, I would say U.S. assembly for any Ranger replacement is unlikely. They certainly aren't going to retool TCAP.

Roger that !

 

Here is the way I see it.

 

Ford realizes that the global Ranger would have a hard time beating the fuel economy of a 2 door short bed F150 with a 2.0L EcoBoost. If they can't come up with a design that get "significantly" better fuel economy, why bother ?

 

Ford will likely keep building the current Ranger as long as they can, but the current design does not meet the near future (2014?) roof crush standards.

[theoldwizard]

Yeah, I would say U.S. assembly for any Ranger replacement is unlikely. They certainly aren't going to retool TCAP.

The flip side is, how much would it cost to put a non-EcoBoost 3.5L and 6 speed automatic or the 1.6L EcoBoost in the current chassis, even it is for just a couple of years ?

 

And please, come up with a better front axle/suspension for the4WD !

[fordmantpw]

The flip side is, how much would it cost to put a non-EcoBoost 3.5L and 6 speed automatic or the 1.6L EcoBoost in the current chassis, even it is for just a couple of years ?

 

Doesn't it need other things to meet federal standars? Side curtain airbags (or was that added already?), Electronic Stability Control, some other stuff I'm forgetting I think.

 

And please, come up with a better front axle/suspension for the4WD !

 

Most definitely! But there goes the cost again...

[RSM]

I'll say the same thing here that I did in the other thread this list appeared in. There's one reason the Ranger is even selling as well as it does: It's cheap. Dirt cheap.

 

I just did a "Build & Price" for a 2011 Ranger XL and a Toytota Tacoma at the respective manufacturer website, both are 4x2, A/C, 4 cylinder, 5 speed (basic entry level truck) and the results throw a monkey wrench into the price theory.

 

Tacoma: $17,000.00

Ranger: $18,540.00

 

I'm not trying to stir anyone up, just want down to earth answers on how it can be said the Ranger is dirt cheap in price, except Ford has a bigger incentive at this time that would drop the price below the Tacoma. From my point of view, it would seem that from what I've read of the responses here are that Ford can/should only built a full size truck. If that's the case, why not only build full size cars? If Toyota can build and sell a Tacoma w/o, or very minimal rebates and make money, why can't Ford?

 

I currently own a 2004 FX4 4x4 S/C and think it's the best full size truck I've ever owned (previous rides -1976 F150 4x4 and 1979 K20 Chevy) but I want a smaller truck because of space limitations in the garage and having to park in a very small cramped parking lot. I do occasionally pull a tandem axle trailer to move a compact utility tractor, so 5K to 6K towing capacity would work fine for me.

 

Besides, the Tacoma, Mahindra, Dakota and Frontier trucks are all UGLY in my opinion!!!!

 

Thanks for your 2 cents, understanding and help. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/public/style_extra/post_icons/icon1.gif

[NickF1011]

except Ford has a bigger incentive at this time that would drop the price below the Tacoma.

 

I think you answered your own question. MSRP's on the Ranger are grossly unrealistic compared to actual transaction prices.

[mustang2]

Sure hope Ford is paying attention to Ranger news and doesn't decide to give market share away to others. Ford can cry all they want about poor Ranger sales but they have no one to blame except themselves for letting the Ranger die on the vine. I'd bet if the Ranger name was given an "F" designation so that sales could be included with F series totals, we'd have a new truck by now, or soon. Here's a link to cars & trucks that were outsold in April by the Ranger.

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/05/10-cars-and-trucks-the-ford-ranger-outsold-in-april-2010.html

It's rugged, simple, dependable, and I think it's the best looking compact truck out there.

[Mackintire]

Think about it......................... we are going to get the global ranger. Ford would never announce it until the very last moment. Why? Because Ford wants to maximize their profit margins for the F150.

 

 

I 'm sorry but there is no way a F150 with a EB 2.0 short bed is going to be a sell to someone who wants a great mileage 4 door truck with some level of utility. Its just not going to happen.

 

The EB 2.0 Ranger should get 26 MPG or better in 4x4 trim.

 

Another part of what's going on is that the american public is going to have to get used to paying more for better smaller vehicles. I honestly believe that a loaded 2014 Ranger could top $32k, as would the Volkswagon Amorok in equal trim.

 

Its almost a given that it is coming, I m just not sure when.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Mackintire

[theoldwizard]

I 'm sorry but there is no way a F150 with a EB 2.0 short bed is going to be a sell to someone who wants a great mileage 4 door truck with some level of utility. Its just not going to happen.

 

The EB 2.0 Ranger should get 26 MPG or better in 4x4 trim.

We will have to agree to disagree !

 

I'll bet a short bed 2 door F150 4x4 with the same EB 2.0L EB would get 20 MPG or better. 4x2 should be 25 MPG or better. With higher volume of the F150 the cost would only be $4-5,000.

 

Unless gas goes over $4/gallon and stay there, that 5 MPG won't stop many buyers.

[Mackintire]

We will have to agree to disagree !

 

I'll bet a short bed 2 door F150 4x4 with the same EB 2.0L EB would get 20 MPG or better. 4x2 should be 25 MPG or better. With higher volume of the F150 the cost would only be $4-5,000.

 

Unless gas goes over $4/gallon and stay there, that 5 MPG won't stop many buyers.

 

 

Hah...Now I feel like the wise ol wizard.

 

The upcoming 5.0 liter F150 shortbed 4x4 makes 20 MPG. I have confirmation of that.

 

The upcoming EB 3.5 is making 22 mpg and could possibly do even better with the right gearing, but Ford's not yet done with their final tune so I have no confirmation of the final mileage, only what was seen on the testing report.

 

You can disagree, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Ford needs to drop some serious weight to get 25+mpg in the F150. A plug-in hybrid design can get there, but the biggest limitation when you are referring to 300+ miles is weight.

[Mackintire]

Just a quick update EB 2.0 in truck tune is showing 230+ HP and 240 lbs of torque. Mileage testing has not yet been done.

 

 

I was told US testing was performed on a flex platform in anticipation for use on the upcoming explorer. Both are D4 so it makes sense to me.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Mackintire

[theoldwizard]

Just a quick update EB 2.0 in truck tune is showing 230+ HP and 240 lbs of torque. Mileage testing has not yet been done.

So who is your source in Pittsburgh ?

[Mackintire]

So who is your source in Pittsburgh ?

 

Not here. Source is Husband of school teacher in detroit. I've known the school teacher for many years. Can't say what her husband does as I don't want to draw a bullseye on him.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Mackintire

[jc21]

I'll say the same thing here that I did in the other thread this list appeared in. There's one reason the Ranger is even selling as well as it does: It's cheap. Dirt cheap.

 

That's a virtue. My '02 was cheap to buy, cheap to operate (28-30 mpg highway)- went 100,000 on the OEM tires, 128,000 on the brakes, and reliable. I just came from looking at a 2010 XLT reg. cab/5m/2.3L ..........$14,997 +TTL. That's with A/C pw/door locks/cruise/ keyless entry, receiver hitch, and Sirius satallite radio. That is what I would call V-A-L-U-E. If I was Ford I would treat the Ranger like the original VW beetle and just keep to continuous improvement - a more economical V-6 would be a good next step. That the 2010 Ranger looks little different than my '02 matters little, it is improved in the areas that really matter. The Ranger isn't flashy or sexy but tried and proven. With a lot of vehicles you get the sizzle instead of the steak; not so with the Ranger.

[NickF1011]

That's a virtue. My '02 was cheap to buy, cheap to operate (28-30 mpg highway)- went 100,000 on the OEM tires, 128,000 on the brakes, and reliable. I just came from looking at a 2010 XLT reg. cab/5m/2.3L ..........$14,997 +TTL. That's with A/C pw/door locks/cruise/ keyless entry, receiver hitch, and Sirius satallite radio. That is what I would call V-A-L-U-E. If I was Ford I would treat the Ranger like the original VW beetle and just keep to continuous improvement - a more economical V-6 would be a good next step. That the 2010 Ranger looks little different than my '02 matters little, it is improved in the areas that really matter. The Ranger isn't flashy or sexy but tried and proven. With a lot of vehicles you get the sizzle instead of the steak; not so with the Ranger.

 

Ford already has been doing nothing but continuous tweaks on it for the better part of two decades. The result? Dwindling sales and dwindling profits. You don't make money selling stripper vehicles. Not to mention the Ranger is one of Ford's least safe vehicles these days and is incompatible with a lot of the new features Ford is offering these days. It's due for a new platform.

[Mackintire]

Ford already has been doing nothing but continuous tweaks on it for the better part of two decades. The result? Dwindling sales and dwindling profits. You don't make money selling stripper vehicles. Not to mention the Ranger is one of Ford's least safe vehicles these days and is incompatible with a lot of the new features Ford is offering these days. It's due for a new platform.

 

Rumor is VW is going to bring the Amorok to the US. If Ford does not bring the T6 or something equivalent, they're going to be giving up market share.

[NickF1011]

Rumor is VW is going to bring the Amorok to the US. If Ford does not bring the T6 or something equivalent, they're going to be giving up market share.

 

Market share is nice, but one also has to consider what it costs to maintain it. If Ford can't make a steady profit while maintaining share in a segment, they rightfully should surrender it. I hope Ford finds a way to make it happen though.

[GTwannabe]

Rumor is VW is going to bring the Amorok to the US. If Ford does not bring the T6 or something equivalent, they're going to be giving up market share.

 

Hope they do... a mid-size, quad-cab, diesel pickup that gets MPG's in the high 20's- low 30's will spank the competition and spur development.

[Mackintire]

Hope they do... a mid-size, quad-cab, diesel pickup that gets MPG's in the high 20's- low 30's will spank the competition and spur development.

 

 

Latest rumor over at pickuptrucks.com is that the 2014 F150 may get the 3.2 liter inline 5 cyl diesel.

 

200 HP 340lbs torque and decent fuel economy..... personally I doubt it, but you never know.