U.S.-spec Ford Ranger to officially end production in 2011, Ford explains why

[Sevensecondsuv]

However, a smaller FWD unitized pickup might do quite well. Ford has been building small unibody pickups for almost 30 years in Brazil and South Africa. They appear to function quite well.

 

But this is the US. Truck buyers (Ranger buyers included) here are a bit different. Most will run far and fast from a truck with a unibody or fwd. Hence the failure of the Ridgeline.

 

My personal preference for a BOF/RWD platform is based on ease of maintence, repair, modification, and the fact that a frame holds up to continued daily beatings without issue. All attributes that are important in any size pickup.

 

While there are some pretty stout unibody platforms running around out there, there is a reason they divide the BOF and unibodies vehicles into different classes at the demolition derbys.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

Best I can tell the current regular cab Ranger is just over 3100 lbs. That's significantly lighter and that's without any new weight saving technology.

Whoops, I quoted an older model in 4x4.

In Global Ranger, Single cab High Rider 4x2 is 1627 Kg or around 3570 lbs, that's still a lot less than your F150 ..

Edited September 20, 2010 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

Honda already tried that and proved that unibody pickups are a bad idea — for Honda and any manufacturer who builds one as big as the Ridgeline.

 

However, a smaller FWD unitized pickup might do quite well. Ford has been building small unibody pickups for almost 30 years in Brazil and South Africa. They appear to function quite well.

 

 

I don't think the unibody pickup idea is the failure...it is Honda's execution of said idea that has failed. The Ridgeline is a 80% F150 with only slightly better fuel economy, and after the '11 F150 comes out, I'm guessing the Ridgeline won't have that advantage either.

[xlover]

I think one point being stepped over here is that we should take their confidence they can upsell some of the former ranger customers to F-150 as an indication that the 3.7 v6 might end up turning out some very good mileage numbers for a full size pickup. at least meeting or beating some of the midsize offerings from the competition, forget beating the other fullsize trucks. if a customer who would have bought the ranger is willing to step up to one of those larger than a ranger midsize trucks they might be just as willing step up to an f-150 V6 if the mileage and performance is similar. The data point ford would look at is how many customers are "ranger or bust" in which case they will have to buy something completely different, which will probably be a different ford as we all know brand loyalty is very strong in pickup buyers. there will be some who will change brands just out of spite (probably not many), and there will be some who will find the competitions midzise offerings a tolerable increase in size but the F150 just too much.

[Chester]

Well then screw it. If Ford is not going to build a nice 4 door Ranger that makes decent mileage, then I'm just going to skip buying a new Ford Truck. I'll wait 4-5 years until an 2011 model diesel F250 is available used. I like the F150's just fine, but if I'm getting something that big, might as well get the more than capable model. And I certainly cannot afford the 50-60k they want for the new F250's I priced online.

[jpvbs]

What if in a few years, the global Ranger were to evole into the F150. I know some of our insiders hinted that in the future the F150 may be downsized and down rated to levels of a decade ago. The F250 would be made more "consumer friendly" and be more like the current F150. Upcoming fuel economy regulations would favor downsizing. It might not make sense to bring over a new bigger Ranger when in 2-3 years a new smaller F150 is introduced.

[RangerM]

Filtering out the fluff in the article, the reason for NOT making a Ranger available here is....

 

- If people in the U.S. want a small utilitarian vehicle, they'll buy a Fiesta or Transit Connect.

I'm not a marketing researcher, but can anyone who currently (or previously) owns a Ranger (or other small truck), because they wanted a pickup, make that case?

 

- T6 is only available as a right-hand drive.

T6 is going to be sold in virtually every country (of size) outside the U.S.; and all of them are right-hand drive?

 

- T6 doesn't meet safety or emissions standards

If the U.S. is more stringent than every other country on the planet, this is a problem.

 

- T6 won't sell because people would prefer the F-150, anyway. It's 90% the size of an F-150, and apparently closely priced.

This may be true, and I can't refute it, since I'm not the marketing researcher, however I can only hope that they intend to take the F-150 down in size.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ford make several vehicles that overlap in price? Hell, a fully-loaded Fiesta can reach $23,000, and as of August 30, 2010 Ford has taken 1000 orders at this price (if I'm reading this correctly). What other Fords does $23,000 buy?

 

If Ford doesn't intend to serve a 75,000 unit per year market, that's ok. If there is no way for Ford to make money at it, that's understandable.

 

If Ford thinks the reasons I like my Ranger is going to carry over to a Fiesta, Transit Connect, or (full-size) F-150, that's crazy.

Edited September 20, 2010 by RangerM

[OAC_Sparky]

Again, it's not all about weight. Or fuel efficiency. It's about SIZE (add your own inuendo here)

 

Not everyone lives on a ranch. There are a lot of suburbanites that just don't have the room. The F150 has become a MONSTER. It's huge.

 

A 1992 short bed Supercab was 219.10" long and 71.70" tall and weighed 4220 pounds and got 15/19MPG with an outdated straight 6.

 

In 2010, 18 years later, a shortbed Supercab is 231.70" long (almost another FOOT), 71.50" tall (but the bed is taller), weighs 5067(half a ton more!!) and still gets only 14/19MPG with its smallest V8. So much for improving mileage!

 

The reason why the Ranger sold so well in its day is because it offered a more economical solution to a full sized truck. There would be never any way I'd get a Transit Connect. I have a cap for my truck that I can remove when I want to carry a loose load; a van or a cutaway is even less capable.

[Critic]

Again, it's not all about weight. Or fuel efficiency. It's about SIZE (add your own inuendo here)

 

Not everyone lives on a ranch. There are a lot of suburbanites that just don't have the room. The F150 has become a MONSTER. It's huge.

 

A 1992 short bed Supercab was 219.10" long and 71.70" tall and weighed 4220 pounds and got 15/19MPG with an outdated straight 6.

 

In 2010, 18 years later, a shortbed Supercab is 231.70" long (almost another FOOT), 71.50" tall (but the bed is taller), weighs 5067(half a ton more!!) and still gets only 14/19MPG with its smallest V8. So much for improving mileage!

 

The reason why the Ranger sold so well in its day is because it offered a more economical solution to a full sized truck. There would be never any way I'd get a Transit Connect. I have a cap for my truck that I can remove when I want to carry a loose load; a van or a cutaway is even less capable.

I too was disappointed to read Fords explanation.. Here is some other info on the TC

 

The short wheelbase Transit Connect measures 4308 mm (169.6 inches) in length and 1814 mm (71.4 inches) in height, while the long wheel base model measures 4555 (179.3 inches) in length and 1981 (78 inches) in height.

 

See that antenna on TOP? That means it won't fit inside my garage.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Critic

[blksn8k2]

There are currently 168 comments to that article on Autoblog and probably 90% of those who have commented have said it is a stupid idea to drop the Ranger from the US market. I would like someone to explain to me how Ford can justify offering every possible iteration of a SUV/CUV, most of which do not sell 75k units per year and yet they cannot figure out a way to make a profit selling two different size pickup trucks. Hogwash.

[RichardJensen]

Because those low volume SUVs and CUVs sell for well over $30k per.

 

Nobody wants to sell a low volume low transaction price vehicle, and for every one person decrying the loss of the Ranger because they want a -small- truck, there are untold silent individuals who bought their Ranger because it was cheap, and bought it as cheaply as possible.

 

The "want the Ranger for its Rangerness" crowd is a classic long-tail situation. These people do exist, but not enough of them, according to Ford's calculations.

[mackinaw]

Like I said, you don't think on your own and wait for others to lead you by the hand. The Messiah hasn't come. Mulally will make mistakes and probably already has. Time will tell what those mistakes are. A few are already appearing which you and others fail to see.

 

An excellent point. As much as I like Mulally, I wonder when it will become OK to criticize him. The fan boys on the list won't tolerate such a discussion, but Mulally isn't infallible and he does make mistakes.

Edited September 21, 2010 by mackinaw

[Critic]

Ranger Replacement Choices... Transit Connect or??

 

Chevy Express - made in America Traditional size and more utilitarian; 20 MPG highway

 

Dodge Dakota less than 90% size of Ram.. able to fulfill traditional roles of small pickup abandoned by Ford.

 

Chevy Colorado less than 90% size of Silverado.. Reg Extended and Crew Cab... Ultimate Ranger Replacement

 

Fiesta? as a replacement for a truck?

 

Transit Connect? Might work for a small business, but I don't see a mom packing her kids into it, nor a half load of mulch/rick of wood being carried in it either.

 

Well looks like the competition has just been unwittingly helped by Ford. It's been a speculation for over 4 years about a Ranger replacement. I'm betting their never was any money to update it and there still isn't.

[FordBuyer]

There are currently 168 comments to that article on Autoblog and probably 90% of those who have commented have said it is a stupid idea to drop the Ranger from the US market. I would like someone to explain to me how Ford can justify offering every possible iteration of a SUV/CUV, most of which do not sell 75k units per year and yet they cannot figure out a way to make a profit selling two different size pickup trucks. Hogwash.

 

Hey...Mulally knows more about Ford than all of us put together and if he can't make a business case for Ranger, it's like the hand of God on your shoulder. Buy a $35,000 behemoth F-150 and forget about Ranger. But Ford brand needs another size pickup... only smaller. And a less expensive pickup that is more affordable than pricey F-150. That is a nobrainer and most Ford fans like you say feel that way.

[PREMiERdrum]

Chevy Colorado less than 90% size of Silverado.. Reg Extended and Crew Cab... Ultimate Ranger Replacement

 

Hasn't it been confirmed that the next-gen Colorado (revealed thru patent drawings) isn't coming here? The domestic offering dies off with the current generation in the next year or two.

 

As for the Dakota, the replacement is rumored to be a unibody "lifestyle" truck, and I'd be shocked if we didn't see a similar effort from Ford under the "F-100" or "SportTrac" nameplate.

[Pioneer]

I bet Ford either goes ahead with the shelved F-100 program, or introduces a special light duty version of the F-150.

[Edstock]

An excellent point. As much as I like Mulally, I wonder when it will become OK to criticize him. The fan boys on the list won't tolerate such a discussion, but Mulally isn't infallible and he does make mistakes.

Don't be shy, criticize him right now. If the fan boys are a problem, that's because you're a wuss.

 

But try to make your criticism valid.

 

Ranting on about how Lincoln must have a RWD something, and it must be available NOW, simply proves 1) you're ignorant of lead-times necessary to produce a vehicle; 2) you're ignorant about how important security is on future product; and 3) you're ignorant about how bare Ford's cupboard was until about 12 months ago, for product and components.

 

Similarly, ranting about the failure of the first-generation MKS and MKT and MKZ, when they have yet to receive their re-freshes shows similar ignorance about how difficult it is and how long it takes to re-establish a brand.

 

So, don't be ignorant, put some solid reasoning into your writing, and complain away.

[FordBuyer]

An excellent point. As much as I like Mulally, I wonder when it will become OK to criticize him. The fan boys on the list won't tolerate such a discussion, but Mulally isn't infallible and he does make mistakes.

 

Don't rile up the Mulally fan club on here. Most would rather kiss his ass than ask good questions. Mulally is a godsend and has turned around a moribund company, but he isn't infallible. The "Global" Ranger that isn't available in most profitable truck market in world is a big mistake. And saying that Ranger owners will buy a Fiesta instead is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard from Ford.

[RangerM]

The "want the Ranger for its Rangerness" crowd is a classic long-tail situation. These people do exist, but not enough of them, according to Ford's calculations.

Similar things were said about the Ford Mustang and "New Coke". "Old Coke".

Edited September 21, 2010 by RangerM

[FordBuyer]

Hasn't it been confirmed that the next-gen Colorado (revealed thru patent drawings) isn't coming here? The domestic offering dies off with the current generation in the next year or two.

 

As for the Dakota, the replacement is rumored to be a unibody "lifestyle" truck, and I'd be shocked if we didn't see a similar effort from Ford under the "F-100" or "SportTrac" nameplate.

 

Isn't there a rumor of a new Jeep pickup? And Mahindra is coming here with a new, small pickup also? The market for pickups will be much different in a few years when CAFE becomes the rule.

[Critic]

Yes the small pickup just can't be set out to pasture within Ford never to return. They have to be holding a replacement to their chests, this is just too important to abandon. a N.A. model only it now sounds like, well so is the F-series. IF I needed a pickup I would not buy full-size, cause it's more than I need, but the mid/small would suit me. Kuzak seems so out of touch with his remarks...

[RichardJensen]

Similar things were said about the Ford Mustang and "New Coke". "Old Coke".

 

You're kidding, right? The Mustang has had a pretty steady volume over the past 20+ years.

 

The Ranger went from Mazda import to being made in two factories to being a single-shifter at TCAP.

[Sevensecondsuv]

And saying that Ranger owners will buy a Fiesta instead is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard from Ford.

 

I'm with you 100% on that one.

 

I, however, will give Ford the benefit of the doubt and assume that there will be a Ranger replacement in 2-3 years. If they keep it as a real truck (i.e. it'd better have a frame, a live axle in the rear, a north-south engine, and a low-range transfercase on the 4x4 models) I'll be first in line to buy one. On the other hand, if what they come out with is on a unibody platform or has the engine pointing the wrong way, then forget about it. I'd sooner drive my 92 Explorer for another 20 years. Heck. I'd rather walk. Fortunately though, I won't have to. Someone will build such a vehicle, despite the fact that the marketing experts at Ford have declared it "unprofitable".

 

Oh, and it's laughable that Ford actually thinks I'd consider a Fiesta or Transit Connect. You want me to buy a FWD, sub-compact econobox (no matter how gussied-up it is) or a small stripped down front wheel drive 4-cylinder excuse for a van to replace a Ranger. Ha Ha Ha is all I have to say. And no, I won't even consider a 3-ton, $40K F-150 either.

 

Just when I was starting to think that Ford finally knew what they were doing and making good decisions. All I have to say is that they better have plans for a new NA Ranger and are just being tight lipped about it.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[FordBuyer]

Because those low volume SUVs and CUVs sell for well over $30k per.

 

Nobody wants to sell a low volume low transaction price vehicle, and for every one person decrying the loss of the Ranger because they want a -small- truck, there are untold silent individuals who bought their Ranger because it was cheap, and bought it as cheaply as possible.

 

The "want the Ranger for its Rangerness" crowd is a classic long-tail situation. These people do exist, but not enough of them, according to Ford's calculations.

 

If Ford had kept its Ranger current and put its best drivetrains in it, I would say they have good reason to kill it if present sales were the norm. But Ford spent very little money on it over the last 15 years and 75,000 sales/year is actually good considering how dated the vehicle is. Ford killed it on purpose and now is rationalizing why it doesn't deserve a replacement.

[Critic]

You're kidding, right? The Mustang has had a pretty steady volume over the past 20+ years.

 

The Ranger went from Mazda import to being made in two factories to being a single-shifter at TCAP.

I have nothing to base this upon right now, so this is purely speculation...

 

LAP: Small pickup derived off the new Escape/Kuga platform.