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

[RichardJensen]

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.

 

Dude. You just cited a company that can't tell its ass from a hole in the ground and a truck that will cost almost as much as an F150 and will be a nasty brutish and utterly uncivilized assault on the eyes, ears, and rumps of the American truck-buying public.

 

this is just too important to abandon

A tiny segment that has been declining for the last 15 years?

[Edstock]

Well looks like the competition has just been unwittingly helped by Ford.

Maybe. Sure is a hot-selling segment, GM and Chryco should each sink hundreds of millions, even more, into new mid-size pickups.

 

But the days of the $15,000 BOF mini-pickup are over.

 

For that kind of money, Ford could probably build the equivalent of the Bantam built in South Africa and Brazil: a Focus front end with a pickup box behind it. That takes advantage of the development work with respect to front/side collision already done on the Focus sedan.

[PREMiERdrum]

Isn't there a rumor of a new Jeep pickup?

The new Jeep "pickup" is due with the unibody Dakota in 2012 for MY 2013.

 

And Mahindra is coming here with a new, small pickup also?

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Critic]

Maybe. Sure is a hot-selling segment, GM and Chryco should each sink hundreds of millions, even more, into new mid-size pickups.

 

But the days of the $15,000 BOF mini-pickup are over.

 

For that kind of money, Ford could probably build the equivalent of the Bantam built in South Africa and Brazil: a Focus front end with a pickup box behind it. That takes advantage of the development work with respect to front/side collision already done on the Focus sedan.

 

LOL Ranchero?

[RichardJensen]

Regarding criticism of Mulally, I consider this plan to share sheetmetal between Europe and the US on large vehicles (not Focus/Fiesta) to be asinine. It's an answer to a question nobody is asking, and is borne of either a faulty comparison (cars = planes), or faulty logic (if we can do it, we should)

[FordBuyer]

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.

 

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.

 

When I had my '85 Bronco ll, the Ranger of same era front end looked exactly like my Bronco and had similar interior. Hopefully, Ford will not do something like that again by basing a new Ranger off the Escape. Yeah, that would mean another FWD vehicle that Ford doesn't need right now. Keep it RWD.

[RichardJensen]

LOL Ranchero?

Exactly. It's gone and it's not coming back. It's not suitable for multiple purposes

[RangerM]

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.

No, I'm not kidding.

 

Ford thought the "Mustang" would be accepted by the faithful as a front-wheel-drive, non-V8 car with Mazda-626 underpinnings.

 

They based this on declining sales (of the Fox-based car) and expected future rises in fuel prices.

[RangerM]

(Double-post) Edited September 21, 2010 by RangerM

[Sevensecondsuv]

No, I'm not kidding.

 

Ford thought the "Mustang" would be accepted by the faithful as a front-wheel-drive, non-V8 car with Mazda-626 underpinnings.

 

They based this on declining sales (of the Fox-based car) and expected future rises in fuel prices.

 

Yeah, I remember that. The Probe was supposed to the be the "Mustang of the future". For some reason, that FWD/V6 replacement for a RWD/V8 muscle car was just an impossibly tough sell. But don't worry, selling a Fiesta as a replacement for the Ranger will be a piece of cake!

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[FordBuyer]

No, I'm not kidding.

 

Ford thought the "Mustang" would be accepted by the faithful as a front-wheel-drive, non-V8 car with Mazda-626 underpinnings.

 

They based this on declining sales (of the Fox-based car) and expected future rises in fuel prices.

 

Yep, Ford made a BUSINESS CASE that a Probe like FWD vehicle would be a suitable vehicle to replace the RWD Mustang. Mustang fans went ballistic. I remember as a Mustang fan and owner for 17 years, I wrote a letter to Ford protesting the decision like thousands of others. And they listened to us and the RWD Mustang lives for the time being anyway. But who knows with Ford fast becoming a FWD company. As has been stated before, hopefully the next Mustang will be on a RWD platform that can be shared with both Ford and Lincoln brand. A new RWD T-Bird and Linoln sport sedan would be nice. Maybe even a new sports car to compete with Porsche and BMW. We can dream, can't we?

[Edstock]

Yeah, I remember that. The Probe was supposed to the be the "Mustang of the future". For some reason, that FWD/V6 replacement for a RWD/V8 muscle car was just an impossibly tough sell.

IIRC, there was a massive "write-in" campaign to keep the RWD Mustang; obviously, Ford listened.

[akirby]

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.

 

If IFs and BUTs were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas...........

 

They didn't "kill it on purpose". They just decided to invest elsewhere.

 

What really hurt the Ranger? Diverging the Explorer and Ranger platforms and putting the Sport Trac on the Explorer platform and not offering a 4 door Ranger. Why did they do that? Because at the time the Explorer was selling 400K and the Ranger 300K. It's easy to justify unique platforms with those volumes. The Ranger had to be built in 2 different plants.

 

Now all of that has changed and it's not just because they haven't updated it. The entire market has changed.

 

Ford can't make money on a Ranger unless it shares a lot with other vehicles.

 

Ford WILL have a truck below the F150 that is smaller and gets better fuel economy. Whether it's a new Ranger or T6 or F100 - who knows. But they need one to protect the truck market in case fuel prices go way up.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Whether it's a new Ranger or T6 or F100 - who knows. But they need one to protect the truck market in case fuel prices go way up.

 

Amen to that. Now let's just hope they don't neuter it in the process. Given Ford's recent product decisions, I'm sure you can understand why I'm fearful of that happening.

[akirby]

Amen to that. Now let's just hope they don't neuter it in the process. Given Ford's recent product decisions, I'm sure you can understand why I'm fearful of that happening.

 

Did they neuter the F150 or Mustang? Quite the opposite. I think the car talk is just a smokescreen.

[FordBuyer]

Did they neuter the F150 or Mustang? Quite the opposite. I think the car talk is just a smokescreen.

 

I don't get that either. Ford has really improved the vehicles they have, and Mustang and F-150 are updated quite regularly and both are best in class. One couldn't ask for a better Mustang, and the engines announced today for F-150 are awesome in every way. Kudos to Ford.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Did they neuter the F150 or Mustang? Quite the opposite. I think the car talk is just a smokescreen.

 

I hope you're right. As much as I don't like it, I can see Ford's case for the D3 based Explorer. I just can't see a similar case for a small pickup.

 

 

I don't get that either. Ford has really improved the vehicles they have, and Mustang and F-150 are updated quite regularly and both are best in class. One couldn't ask for a better Mustang, and the engines announced today for F-150 are awesome in every way. Kudos to Ford.

 

I was more referring to the new unibody, front-wheel-drive architecture Explorer, and killing the CV without a RWD replacement in the works. I've got nothing but Kudos for Ford with what they did with the new Mustang. The new engines for the F-150 are also outstanding. Nothing but praise there either. I am, however, still pouting about the cancellation of an available manual transmission in the F-Series. (Although I do understand why Ford did that one - I must be one of a minute minority who actually prefers a manual transmission in a full-size or heavy-duty pickup)

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[TomServo92]

I don't get that either. Ford has really improved the vehicles they have, and Mustang and F-150 are updated quite regularly and both are best in class. One couldn't ask for a better Mustang, and the engines announced today for F-150 are awesome in every way. Kudos to Ford.

 

Which is why I have confidence in what they're doing. You don't. That's fine too. But why do you whine about in EVERY SINGLE POST?

[Bob Rosadini]

How about this wild thought. Someone suggested the T-6 could end up here as a 150 replacement. Not a bad thought-long range. If you buy into the "one platform" concept., does it not make sense that perhaps a vehicle that is 90% the size of a 150 WOULD work here-in particular when you add the US volume to support the entire world wide volume.

 

Also, ever wonder how Ford justifies a separate platform in the form of the Super Duty? I do believe before the advent of the Super Duty, in the "old days" the difference between a 150 and a 250 was basically spring ratings, brakes/wheels/tire size. The sheet metal was the same, I,m sure there were some frame differences,but were they not built on the same lines??

[TomServo92]

Also, ever wonder how Ford justifies a separate platform in the form of the Super Duty?

 

Higher ATPs. When that changes, so will the unique platform.

Edited September 21, 2010 by TomServo92

[OAC_Sparky]

.

 

Ford can't make money on a Ranger unless it shares a lot with other vehicles.

I beg to differ.

 

Is the global Ranger sharing a platform with anything else?

 

Is it profitable?

 

Even at 90% of the size of an F150, it would still be a viable product if the gas mileage is right.

The 2010 shortbed Supercab is 231.70" long and 71.50" tall

90% dimensionally would be 208" long and 64.5 tall

The Supercab Ranger now is 204" long and 66" tall and a lot lighter.

 

WTF? 4" longer for a cab that can seat 4 in regular seats and not jumpseats?

 

Lame excuse...

[FordBuyer]

I hope you're right. As much as I don't like it, I can see Ford's case for the D3 based Explorer. I just can't see a similar case for a small pickup.

 

 

 

 

I was more referring to the new unibody, front-wheel-drive architecture Explorer, and killing the CV without a RWD replacement in the works. I've got nothing but Kudos for Ford with what they did with the new Mustang. The new engines for the F-150 are also outstanding. Nothing but praise there either. I am, however, still pouting about the cancellation of an available manual transmission in the F-Series. (Although I do understand why Ford did that one - I must be one of a minute minority who actually prefers a manual transmission in a full-size or heavy-duty pickup)

 

Oh OK. I get you now. Yeah, no more new FWD vehicles please. Ford has enough already. I would like to see at least one new RWD vehicle for Ford and at least one for Lincoln. With AWD, traction control, and ESC, RWD is much more viable in 2010. And it makes for better high performance vehicle and tower. And no FWD T-Bird please. RWD or forget it.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I do believe before the advent of the Super Duty, in the "old days" the difference between a 150 and a 250 was basically spring ratings, brakes/wheels/tire size....I'm sure there were some frame differences...??

 

Nope, actually the frames were all identical, unless you were getting a 4x4 F-350 with a solid front axle. Then the front bracketry was slightly different than the TTB-equipped F-150 and F-250. Heck, a lot of those same frame components were (and still are) used on the Ranger. And people wonder why you can't kill a Ranger...

[FordBuyer]

I beg to differ.

 

Is the global Ranger sharing a platform with anything else?

 

Is it profitable?

 

Even at 90% of the size of an F150, it would still be a viable product if the gas mileage is right.

The 2010 shortbed Supercab is 231.70" long and 71.50" tall

90% dimensionally would be 208" long and 64.5 tall

The Supercab Ranger now is 204" long and 66" tall and a lot lighter.

 

WTF? 4" longer for a cab that can seat 4 in regular seats and not jumpseats?

 

Lame excuse...

 

How can the "Global" Ranger be global if its not even available in the most important end of the Western Hemisphere? Not offering it here certainly breaks from Mulally global plan. As was stated earlier, the global Ranger probably weighs close to one ton less than porky F-150.

[RichardJensen]

No, I'm not kidding.

 

Ford thought the "Mustang" would be accepted by the faithful as a front-wheel-drive, non-V8 car with Mazda-626 underpinnings.

 

They based this on declining sales (of the Fox-based car) and expected future rises in fuel prices.

 

Not comparable.

 

This is a segment populated largely with bottom-feeders. I'm not going to support your argument in favor of keeping the Ranger because it means that I'm compelled to support the people that want to keep the panther going. The two arguments are equivalent.

 

Basically--a small cadre of people that appreciate it for what it is, and a significant number of people that appreciate it because it's cheap.

 

It should be plainly apparent to you that there is a difference in the reasons why most people were buying a Mustang in '89 and why most people are buying Rangers 20 years later.