OAC_Sparky Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 I came across this thread and 'blksn8k2' said what I have been saying to my local Ford dealership for the past couple of years. That is exactly what I want, a crew cab truck with 6ft bed that is about the size of the former Dakota or the current Tacoma with available 4 wheel drive and put the ecoboost engine in it. Just as was said above, I don't need or want anything remotely the size of the current full size trucks that are available by all manufacturers. I don't want to fill up a 30-40 gallon fuel tank even if does get 30mpg, it would cost an average of at least 100.00 or more to fill up a 35 gallon tank which my neighbors F-150 4x4 has. Then there is the wife who uses my truck and she couldn't or wouldn't want to drive, let alone park the current F-150, they are just way toooo big for my liking. I'll pay the money for the truck I want, and as it is right now I am leaning towards the Tacoma when I am ready to buy in the next year or so, I just waiting to see what Ford is going to do about a replacement for the Ranger, if they think I am going into an F-150, then I will be buying a different brand altogether. It would be a shame since I have been a Ranger owner for the past nearly 20 years and my current 98 Ranger has only about 72,000 miles and is still like new, but I really need the crew cab as well as the 6ft bed since I use my truck as a truck quite often, I pick up my grandkids and it's getting a bit cramped and can only handle 2 at one time. Shut up, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're just a customer and Ford has bigger fish to fry. Go buy a Transit connect, a Fiesta or and F-150, and be thankful Ford marketing is smart enough to make this choice for you. (And no, I don't mean this and yes, that was sarcasm) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 1, 2010 Share Posted December 1, 2010 Shut up, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You're just a customer and Ford has bigger fish to fry. Go buy a Transit connect, a Fiesta or and F-150, and be thankful Ford marketing is smart enough to make this choice for you. (And no, I don't mean this and yes, that was sarcasm) Sadly, your sarcastic jibe is probably policy at Ford (which is now being ruled by accountants). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 So do you guys still want a new Ranger? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 So do you guys still want a new Ranger? Does the sun still rise in the east? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 As I've said before, I think Ford is caught between a rock and a hard place. The 150 is the top selling vehicle. Would the T-6 serve the needs of a high percentage of 150 buyers? My bet is it would. Would the T-6 satisfy thbe needs of a high percentage of those who want a new Ranger? My bet is it would. And for those who think the T-6 is too big, a Transit derivative would probably work. Going back to the 150, for those who could not live with the T-6 because it was too small, how many could be satisfied by the Super Duty? My bet- a high percentage. Think about this- pre Super Duty, there was one Ford pick up series. Much like GM and Mopar have today. Again- IMO this makes a lot of sense from a market coverage perspective. The problem is, how do you tell Alan that you are going to screw with the F-150? Long term, it makes a lot of sense and the ultimate numbers would improve. Short term?? And we all know, the short term is the only thing that wins votes today. And again, to those who say--"the F-150 gets better mileage than the current Ranger" - agreed- I know- I have a 2004 FX-4 Off Road- factory 31's. If I get 187 mpg I'm lucky. But a new Ranger WOULD NOT have the pig 4.0 sitting under the hood. And I don't WANT a big truck-primarily because my wife would never drive it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The F-100 would make a lot of sense because they could use the same platform to make an off-road bronco and maybe kick some jeep ass. Then us off-roaders get what we want, the guys wanting little work trucks with good MPG get theirs, and every bodies happy. If it took away F-150's top sales, they should just say "F-Series: America's best selling trucks" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The F-100 would make a lot of sense because they could use the same platform to make an off-road bronco and maybe kick some jeep ass. Then us off-roaders get what we want, the guys wanting little work trucks with good MPG get theirs, and every bodies happy. If it took away F-150's top sales, they should just say "F-Series: America's best selling trucks" How about an F-100 with a Ranger trim model? With CAFE coming, and F-150 even with new engines still a fuel hog in comparison to most other models, something smaller and more fuel efficient will be needed. Mulally keeps using the small, medium, and large vehicle mantra, and I assume that means trucks also. The F-100 would come in EB I4 and V6 engines only and be able to tow better than Edge and Explorer. Maybe a maximum tow rating of 7,000 pounds with V6. A little bigger than present Ranger, but considerably smaller than the huge F-150. And a Bronco built off same platform would be bonus for consumer and more profit for Ford as in sharing platform. In my view, it's foolish with new CAFE regs coming to put all the truck eggs into one F-150 basket. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Not to mention Ford also has the Super Duty for those who really need a full size truck that can haul and tow a bazillion pounds. My theory is that after all the manufacturers allow their small and midsize trucks to slowly wither and die without any meaningful upgrades that one of them will then downsize their half ton model to something more in-line with what consumers actually need and that will also allow them to meet ever more stringent fuel economy standards. The question is how long will all that take and who will be brave enough to go first? I just hope it happens before my Sport Trac dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Not to mention Ford also has the Super Duty for those who really need a full size truck that can haul and tow a bazillion pounds. Or use a snowplow................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) So why not bring this here and offer it with the 2.0L EB and the 3.5 or 3.7L TiVCT V-6? They could even call it a Sport Trac. Looks close enough to the last model that most wouldn't care if it is called a Ranger everywhere else. I would buy one of these in a heart beat: http://www.themotorreport.com.au/51339/2012-ford-ranger-wildtrak-due-at-geneva-report And consider this, if Ford sold this as the 2012 Explorer Sport Trac and only as a crew cab they could potentially use it to help the Explorer line claim the title of best selling SUV. Not as if they haven't done the same thing in the past... Edited February 11, 2011 by blksn8k2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 And consider this, if Ford sold this as the 2012 Explorer Sport Trac and only as a crew cab they could potentially use it to help the Explorer line claim the title of best selling SUV. Not as if they haven't done the same thing in the past... Now that is an interesting idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ford wants profits, not losses. If some of the armchair critics can come up with a real business plan, then go to Alan M. and present it. An f-100 would be nice, but will it make $$$? The days of loss leaders, just to keep ancient factories running, are long over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm sure this has all been said... But if Toyota and Nissan can make a business case to continue to support their small PUs why can't Ford? Even GM and Chrysler are reconsidering the market despite the fact they don't have a turn-key option like Ford. I just don't see how business cases are being built in those companies, but Ford can't... With no marketing Ford was able to sell ~70,000 Rangers and SportTracs last year in the US, and some more in Canada and Mexico. You'd think with some marketing Ford should able to stabilize sales at ~80,000 yearly in the entire NAFTA region. That should be enough volume to import from the existing line in Argentina at a minimum. Maybe they can apply some "tricks" like the Transient Connect to get around the tariffs. How about ship nearly complete units, missing something like engines and drivetrains, to Mexico where final assembly will occurs? I don't think the business case should be can it make millions, but will it not lose money... Because the Ranger adds much needed flexibility in a very uncertain market. The Ranger helps adjusting to customer desires when gas enviably is at $4/gal... Or more CAFE aggressive moves by government regulators/lawmakers. There's a study out there that says if you abandon a place in the market it take 100x the market effort to regain the traction you lost if you would have just gutted it out. As such the whole business case argument, heck the public justification smells badly of management misdirection. Something doesn't make sense to me that while at the same time Ford that is bringing some "smaller" options in the car/utility/van segment they are abandoning the same in the pickup truck market. Why does it makes sense to bring the Transit Connect and all the other C-Class variants to the NA market and yet they are pulling the Ranger out? The fuel mileage argument continues the misdirection, if not an outright untruth as they were comparing the new 3.7L F150 to the old and antiquated 4L Ranger. A 3.5L Ranger should get close to the same 19/26 mpg as the Edge, which is much better than the 17/23 mpg from the 3.7L F150. And this difference only looks even better for the Ranger when 2.5L and Ecoboost options are considered. And even the size argument falls apart... Looking at the CrewCab version the new T6 Ranger is 211 in Long and 72 in Wide compared to 231 in Long and 79 in Wide for the smallest F150. Yes the new Ranger is ~ 9 in bigger than the current one, but only ~3 in longer than current Tacoma and far smaller than the F150 in size. And to give some perspective the difference in size between a T6 Ranger and an F150 is about the same difference between a Taurus and a Focus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm sure this has all been said... But if Toyota and Nissan can make a business case to continue to support their small PUs why can't Ford? Even GM and Chrysler are reconsidering the market despite the fact they don't have a turn-key option like Ford. I just don't see how business cases are being built in those companies, but Ford can't... Sometimes a majority just means all the idiots are on the same side... And if Toyota and Nissan jumped off a bridge, should Ford follow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Ford might have 10 positive business cases but only enough resources to do 5. It's a question of where the money is best spent. Not investing in updating the Ranger platform and opting out of T6 early on made it a much more expensive proposition and the drop in the small pickup market makes it that much harder to recoup the investment. Couple that with a desire to close old plants and the decision to kill the Ranger makes business sense (to me at least). The question is what does Ford do for a fuel efficient pickup to fight rising gas prices? I'm sure it's in the works and it might be importing a T6 Ranger or making a lighter F-100 or something entirely different. But I do believe Ford has a plan for that and has decided their plan is better than keeping the current Ranger. I don't expect Ford to reveal that plan until the current Ranger and plant are dead and gone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Ford might have 10 positive business cases but only enough resources to do 5. It's a question of where the money is best spent. That line of reasoning makes sense until you try to figure out how the Hybrid GT got authorized while 80,000 annual Ranger/Sport Trac buyers are being left high and dry. This whole canceling the Ranger thing smacks of protecting F-150 sales and other very short term profit goals. I understand that the current Ranger is old old old and not really viable to offer any more. I just find it very hard to believe that Ford couldn't find a business case to either improve the current truck or bring the T6 to North America given the investments they are making in the rest of their lineup. Again, something else is behind this, and it more than likely has to do with protecting higher margin F-150 sales. Unfortunately, telling your customers what to buy instead of offering what they actually want never works out well in the long run. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 That line of reasoning makes sense until you try to figure out how the Hybrid GT got authorized while 80,000 annual Ranger/Sport Trac buyers are being left high and dry. This whole canceling the Ranger thing smacks of protecting F-150 sales and other very short term profit goals. I understand that the current Ranger is old old old and not really viable to offer any more. I just find it very hard to believe that Ford couldn't find a business case to either improve the current truck or bring the T6 to North America given the investments they are making in the rest of their lineup. Again, something else is behind this, and it more than likely has to do with protecting higher margin F-150 sales. Unfortunately, telling your customers what to buy instead of offering what they actually want never works out well in the long run. Pushing buyers towards the more profitable F-150 IS a business case. Ford NA opted out of the global T6 project 3 years ago and they can't just wave a magic wand and make the T6 U.S. compatible overnight. If so many people wanted small trucks then why is the entire market shrinking? If the Ranger had been given updates along the way and it had other vehicles with which to share a platform it would be a lot easier to justify keeping it. But that didn't happen. I firmly believe that Ford has a plan already in the works for a fuel efficient 1/4 ton F-100 truck. Whether it's a modified T6 with F150 styling or a smaller, lighter F-150 remains to be seen. Either way the current Ranger has to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I firmly believe that Ford has a plan already in the works for a fuel efficient 1/4 ton F-100 truck. Whether it's a modified T6 with F150 styling or a smaller, lighter F-150 remains to be seen. Either way the current Ranger has to go. Let's hope you are correct. But as I said on Feb 1, I truly believe the issue involves the justification for a 150 and a 250 as two distinct series. The bulk of the work truck market in the 1/2-3/4 ton range should be covered by one vehicle. Instead, we will loose the small pick up market and of those lost Ford owners, only the most rabid will move up to a 150. And to those who say-"well if Toyota and Nissan are stupid, should Ford "jump off the bridge"? I wouldn't say the total small truck market is "insignificant". And I also bet, if Ford had a fuel efficient, upgraded Ranger sized vehicle, there would probably be other buyers who would get on board. While I'm not sure gas will hit 5 bucks a gallon, it is not out of the question. We refuse to go after what domestic oil we have and the middle east is as much of a powder keg as it ever was. And we sure do know how fickle the American consumer is don't we? Or have we forgotten allready. Last point, those who talk about the need to prioritize and the the fact that there are only so many dollars to go around are correct. But how do you explain even the TALK of another GT halo car? Makes no sense IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Last point, those who talk about the need to prioritize and the the fact that there are only so many dollars to go around are correct. But how do you explain even the TALK of another GT halo car? Makes no sense IMO Exactly. 2500 sales vs 80,000 doesn't make much sense, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Exactly. 2500 sales vs 80,000 doesn't make much sense, It can when you consider you don't need a dedicated assembly line for the halo car. This halo car would also be a rolling R&D experiment for new type of hybrid power. It all comes down to how much investment is required and what is the expected ROI. Let's say both projects can break even at projected sales volume. The halo car is probably 20% of the investment required to keep the ranger and it doesn't require any long term investment. You people just don't understand how to make business decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And I also bet, if Ford had a fuel efficient, upgraded Ranger sized vehicle, there would probably be other buyers who would get on board. While I'm not sure gas will hit 5 bucks a gallon, it is not out of the question. Remember when gas hit $4/gallon? Perfect opportunity for buyers to downsize to small pickups. The Ranger might not be competitive with it's older powertrains but the Tacoma was. So we should have seen a huge spike in Tacoma or Frontier sales then, right? Except that didn't happen. It's a nice theory and one that I would have bought into but the evidence just isn't there. Remember Toyota and Nissan sell their small trucks worldwide so U.S, sales don't have to be huge. That's why the only logical solution is a T6 ranger variant or a modified F150 platform. With the right drivetrains and lighter weight you can achieve the fuel economy targets without a dedicated platform and factory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 We refuse to go after what domestic oil we have... You obviously haven't heard of the Bakken formation in North Dakota. They're drilling more holes in the NW corner of the state than a pack of mosquitoes in the rain forest. Our oil production has doubled in 3 years and is exptected to double again by 3 years. Only thing holding us back from getting more oil is there isn't enough housing for workers, and not enough pipeline to get it out. The State of ND has over a 1 BILLION dollar surplus in their budget. Of course, all that oil still isn't going to make a big dent in the price we pay at the pump, even if it is domestic oil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You people just don't understand how to make business decisions. Have you actually been in a manufacturing facilty? It doesn't sound like it. Do you think that Ford can cobble together a supercar, make 2500 of them with no tooling, no specialized fixtures, machining processes, government testing, crash testing, marketing, etc, All of things cost money, a lot of those costs are the same whether you make 2500 or 250 000. If anything, you have a lack of understanding of what is involved to put a car on the road. And by the way, people paying over $100G for a supercar don't want to be part of a "rolling R&D experiment". The first screwup can kill the line. There were a lot of POd GT owners over the recall for the control arm issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Have you actually been in a manufacturing facilty? It doesn't sound like it. Do you think that Ford can cobble together a supercar, make 2500 of them with no tooling, no specialized fixtures, machining processes, government testing, crash testing, marketing, etc, All of things cost money, a lot of those costs are the same whether you make 2500 or 250 000. If anything, you have a lack of understanding of what is involved to put a car on the road. Which Ford manufacturing plant produced the Ford GT? I don't think you understand huge internal investments versus outsourcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Pushing buyers towards the more profitable F-150 IS a business case. Oh, it's a business case all right. Just an extremely short-sighted business case. I'd like to think that Ford was getting away from making these types of decisions, but apparently not. How is this any different than abandoning the Taurus for the better part of a decade because Explorer and F-150 brought home bigger profits? No doubt that Ford makes more off of a 2011 F-150 than a 2011 Ranger. The problem with getting rid of the Ranger is multi-fold: 1) Ford is abonding buyers in a 250,000 unit / year market (and 2010 sales > 2009 sales) 2) The compact truck buyers who will still consider a Ford end up being pushed into something they don't really want or can't afford(F-150, Fiesta, TC, whatever Ford says they should drive) 3) If and when the less-than-1/2 ton truck market becomes more important, Ford won't have a dog in the fight and the market will have most likely forgotten that Ford ever even built a compact truck. That's why I say it's a very short sighted business case. 2 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.