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

[FordBuyer]

There has been no work done whatsoever on a T6 for the USA.

Even if they wanted to right now, it's close to two year's work.

 

For the near term (2-3 years), Ford is using the new V6 F-150 as a hedge against spiking fuel prices that could happen at any time. We will see how that strategy plays out during the coming years. Fuel prices are so volatile even now with deflation still upon us in many ways. Some say a barrel of oil should be about $35, but speculators keep it up near $80. God knows what the price will do if a recovery really takes hold. Ford is really gambling by putting all its pickup eggs in one basket.

[akirby]

There has been no work done whatsoever on a T6 for the USA.

Even if they wanted to right now, it's close to two year's work.

 

I know - I said that up front. New Ranger could be an upgraded current Ranger or a new one altogether.

[NLPRacing]

There has been no work done whatsoever on a T6 for the USA.

Even if they wanted to right now, it's close to two year's work.

 

Wasn't the supposedly already developed rumored F100 a 7/8 sized version of the 97-03 F150? There was also a rumored D3 based F100 as well. If the T6 is "90% the size of the current F150", then why would they develop for NA when they already have these supposed F100's already based on NA products ready to go. The T6 shares nothing with any NA product and would be too big for an NA Ranger and would be redundant if the F100 developed using F150 hardware does really exist. So it makes sense that Ford's T6 was never intended for Ford NA (maybe Mazda will sell it here to compete against Tacoma & Frontier). I could see a new F100 (either BOF or D3) come out to compete against the midsize trucks and I could also see Ford coming out with a new Ranger that is still a true compact pickup (would a TC based Ranger work?). Who knows. We probably won't know until after the next round of Union negotiations.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, IMHO, the only T6 that would make sense for the US would be the short bed, single cab version. As compared to the closest analogous F-150, it's non-trivially lighter, and its likely that it wouldn't have a significant impact on F-150 sales while offering something more fuel efficient for fleet work. If they could develop the 2.0L EB I4 for it with an auto, I'm sure that it would do very well for a narrowly targeted market. I'd imagine that it could be produced for a decent amount less cost than the comparable F-150, so long as it's coming from a NAFTA country.

 

But, I just don't see Ford doing another BOF vehicle for domestic production. I'm feeling really strongly that, for the domestic small truck market, they're going to want MAJOR similarity to an existing program. The ONLY program that I believe will offer what they need is the Transit connect. I don't see the next gen Escape being a solution given the way that the existing KUGA and Escape are put together. You'd wind up with the flying butresses of the Ridgeline and Avalanche if the bed was of any really usable size, but, more importantly, the bed would have to be too high off the ground for the vehicle to be visually appealing. The Transit connect is already enginered with a low floor in mind. This will make a pickup conversion even more attractive.

 

The only thing I worry about with a project like that is the Subaru Baja effect. The bed is just too small for most anything and it winds up being a very expensive vehicle. A regular cab or extended cab configuration might work for a TC based trucklett. I just wouldn't want to see them try for a crew cab. The other problems that the baja had was its weight and fuel economy, granted, it's AWD configuration was partly responsible for that.

[jpd80]

F Truck sale really suffer when gas prices jump, owners and buyers take flight if they feel the cost of ownership is dragging them down. Remember a few years back when owners defied all logic and sold their trucks and SUVs for huge losses only to see gas prices ease as little as 6 months later.

[weiweishen]

 

I wonder if there's an opportunity to make a half chassis Focus pick up with Ecoboost 1.6 or 2.0,

such a vehicle with AWD would be interesting in snow belt states, sounds like open back Transit Connect.

Or they can make a small pickup based on Flex platform. I guess the pickup build on Flex platform will outsold Flex.

[RichardJensen]

Irrelevant? Are you fracking kidding me?

Pickup truck market is notoriously more 'loyal' than the car market:

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/08/hybrid-truck-ow.html

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/04/duh-j-d-power-finds-strong-loyalty-among-truck-buyers/

 

Granted that data is for fullsize truck markets, but I'm willing to bet that loyalty among compact/midsize truck buyers is significantly higher than cars.

 

And Toyota, lately, hasn't given many of its truck owners reason to switch (don't mention sudden-acceleration, because cruise control fires didn't do anything to the F150).

 

The Fusion is profitable -without- denting Camry sales, the Ranger would -need- to take sales from the Taco (in a shrinking market) in order to turn a profit. That's an unacceptable risk to take.

You clearly don't understand the small truck consumer. There is a need for them

As there is a need for minivans. Let someone else supply it. There's no money there.

ALL truck sales fell 24% in 2008.

So, all trucks fell 24% and compact/midsize trucks also fell 24%. That doesn't exactly bode well for the recovery of this segment.

 

The thing you're forgetting here is that Ford replaced the Panther's needs

No they didn't. The panther mafia wanted a panther--they viewed the Taurus the same way you view the F150.

 

As you like to point out to FORDBUYER so often Prove it.

See cites above. Some extrapolation required for compact truck buyers--but the Taco probably has the most loyal customer base of any Toyota apart from the Prius. It's probably got *the* most dedicated enthusiast following, and more internet 'chatter' than any other Toyota product.

 

The Taco is Toyota's F150. You're not going to budge it.

[Sevensecondsuv]

There is a difference between the Camry/Fusion and Tacoma/Ranger.

 

In the case of the sedans, Camry had been a market leader for years and Ford introduced a brand new model without any name recognition or history. 4 Years later, the Fusion is considered a success by any reasonable person.

 

In the case of the pickups, Ranger has a very established name and history and dominated the market for years. Tacoma definately has its core buyers who won't even consider any thing else, but I'd venture to guess that these are not the majority of Tacoma buyers (I don't have the data to prove it, but you don't have the data to disprove it either). Rather, a lot of Tacoma buyers are just in the market for a well-appointed, class leading compact/midsize pickup, and the Tacoma happens to be it. Heck, even as much as I dislike Toyota, I'd have bought one by now was the manual trans available in the crew cab.

 

To think that Ford couldn't come out with a new Ranger and, building off it's strong history, once again dominate the market, is naive. Toyota sells a lot of $25K-$35K Tacomas. The market isn't all about 15K 2wd regular cabs like some here make it out to be. Throw in a new purpose-built offroad SUV on the platform to help the business case. To say that the current compact/midsize truck market won't support a devoted platform is ludicrous, given that it's apparently possible to make money on products like the Flex and Mustang.

 

A new Ranger is coming. Mulally and Ford's other brass have unofficially stated as much. The coming CAFE regs demand it. No, it probably won't be here by the time the current Ranger quits production. Ford is just keeping mum about it. I, personally, can't wait to see what they have planned.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[RichardJensen]

Polk loyalty figures show a pretty big drop-off from fullsize trucks to compact/midsize trucks:

 

http://usa.polk.com/News/LatestNews/2009_0120_loyalty_winners.htm

 

However, the Taco has the most loyal customer base it its class.

 

(note: I can't figure out their methodology)

[Chester]

 

See cites above. Some extrapolation required for compact truck buyers--but the Taco probably has the most loyal customer base of any Toyota apart from the Prius. It's probably got *the* most dedicated enthusiast following, and more internet 'chatter' than any other Toyota product.

 

The Taco is Toyota's F150. You're not going to budge it.

 

 

I just hate giving this market to Toyota. I see it hurting F150 sales over time. Those Taco buyers could very well turn into Tundra buyers over the years. And the Taco or Hilux or whatever it's called, use to play second fiddle to the Ranger way back when. I could see that more than a few Taco buyers would move over to FORD if a new Ranger happens. Especially if you put things like Sync, and MyFord Touch in it.

[Mackintire]

Here is what we know:

 

We aren't getting T6, at least not right away.

 

TCAP won't be making Rangers after next year.

 

There is a small market for small trucks. Some people want a small truck and are willing to pay for it. We don't know how many.

 

A lot of current Ranger sales are just because it's cheap, but we don't really know how many.

 

Small truck sales do eat into large truck sales but we don't really know how much.

 

Ford wants a more fuel efficient pickup to hedge against a big increase in fuel prices.

 

Mulally and others have mentioned "new Ranger" several times in relation to the U.S. Market.

 

 

 

 

It seems to be a given that Ford will bring a new Ranger and it will be more fuel efficient than a F150 and it won't be built at TCAP. Everything else is sheer speculation.

 

We aren't getting T6, at least not right away.

Agreed

 

TCAP won't be making Rangers after next year.

Agreed

 

There is a small market for small trucks. Some people want a small truck and are willing to pay for it. We don't know how many.

Agreed

 

 

A lot of current Ranger sales are just because it's cheap, but we don't really know how many.

Agreed

 

Small truck sales do eat into large truck sales but we don't really know how much.

We do. Examine the cheapest F150 sales that are within $2k of a Ranger. Assume about 50% of those are someone whom would have purchased a Ranger.

 

Ford wants a more fuel efficient pickup to hedge against a big increase in fuel prices.

Of course you would have to be able to afford this new fuel efficient truck.

 

Mulally and others have mentioned "new Ranger" several times in relation to the U.S. Market.

Agreed

 

It seems to be a given that Ford will bring a new Ranger and it will be more fuel efficient than a F150 and it won't be built at TCAP.

Agreed

 

Everything else is sheer speculation.

disagree

 

 

Part of the problem is the same issue that the Festiva faced and solved. There are no quality comfortable well appointed Rangers. A loaded Ranger is like a bare XLT F150. If the smaller truck doesn't offer the equipment that the customer demands they won't get the sale.

 

I mentioned previously in another thread the three distinct classes of Ranger owners:

 

The bare bones guys: parts runners, cheap transportation, inexpensive truck that can haul 1000lbs if needed.

 

The 4x4 extcab XLT crowd: 30% of all rangers sold fall into this category

 

The sport trek crowd: this is the potential untapped market, these are also the buyers whom would most strongly consider moving up into an F150. The old sportrek was heavy, thirsty and overpriced by near $2k

 

 

The T6 if brought to America needs to meet the expectations of all three of these groups. Its possible but not starting at the $12k entry point.

 

Few of these guys need to tow over 5000lbs but they do need to be able to actually tow 5000lbs SAE rated.

 

They also need to beat the F150 fuel economy by 3 mpg across the board.

 

I would suggest the EB 1.6 liter, an EB 2.0 liter and the 3.7 liter engines. If they are do some of the same magic to the EB 2.0 that they did to the EB 3.5 and flatten the torque curve they may not even need the 3.7 liter.

[RichardJensen]

Those Taco buyers could very well turn into Tundra buyers over the years.

I don't think so.

 

I think the Taco outsells the Tundra.

[RichardJensen]

To think that Ford couldn't come out with a new Ranger and, building off it's strong history, once again dominate the market, is naive.

What's the point of investing heavily to be a dominant player in a shrinking market?

Edited September 21, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Sevensecondsuv]

What's the point of investing heavily to be a dominant player in a shrinking market?

 

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask Mulally himself since he has spoken of a new Ranger in regards to the US market multiple times recently.

 

Market trends are not static (now we're talking about 2nd-order derivitives for those of us who remember calculus ). The compact/midsize market could just as well pick up again. If gas prices increase substantially, it only makes sense that it would. With CAFE coming, the auto makers might not even have a choice.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[Critic]

I don't think so.

 

I think the Taco outsells the Tundra.

BUT the point is, the Taco Buyer will be stepping up into the Tundra fullsize rather than a F-Series. Just as the Ranger buyer would be looking at a F-ullsize rather than a Tundra.

 

So Ford will take a chance of no small pickup for one to two years, if they have a replacement, and the people that buy during that time will probably look to a fullsize from that manufacture. I believe it's the idea of retaining current customers and working hard to capture others.

 

So you'd be back at square one again, A new day with a new product and trying to capture buyers into it, AKA Flex, possible Lincoln-C,

 

Sounds to me like people have pretty well disproved Ford's contention about a 90% size vehicle with doublespeak. But to tell them to look for a Fiesta or Transit Connect is an affront to a small pickup buyer. You just told them goodbye, we don't need you.

[akirby]

Small truck sales do eat into large truck sales but we don't really know how much.

We do. Examine the cheapest F150 sales that are within $2k of a Ranger. Assume about 50% of those are someone whom would have purchased a Ranger.

 

That's an assumption and a weak one at that. You have no idea how many of those buyers would buy an updated Ranger. There are way too many variables and there is no research that even gives a hint AFAIK.

 

Everything else is sheer speculation.

disagree

 

So where are the known facts other than what I've already posted? There aren't any because most of our conjecture while fun, is nothing more than speculation. Only Ford has any real data about the Ranger market and they're not sharing it with us.

 

Part of the problem is the same issue that the Festiva faced and solved.

 

The sport trek crowd:

 

It's the Fiesta and Sport Trac.

[fordmantpw]

BUT the point is, the Taco Buyer will be stepping up into the Tundra fullsize rather than a F-Series. Just as the Ranger buyer would be looking at a F-ullsize rather than a Tundra.

 

So Ford will take a chance of no small pickup for one to two years, if they have a replacement, and the people that buy during that time will probably look to a fullsize from that manufacture. I believe it's the idea of retaining current customers and working hard to capture others.

 

If they won't look at an F150 when going from a Taco to a Tundra, then chances are they won't look at a Ranger before buying the Taco in the first place.

[akirby]

There are 3 reasons that make it POSSIBLE that a good business case could be made for a new Ranger. This doesn't GUARANTEE there is a positive business case. It just makes it POSSIBLE.

 

1 - Ford once sold 300K Rangers per year. Who knows how many loyal Ranger buyers were forced to go to other brands (ahem.....Tacoma). Wasn't this the same argument used for making a new Explorer? And don't forget Mazda B series and Sport Tracs.

 

2 - Small fuel efficient vehicles are necessary to hedge against a spike in fuel prices. The current 2.3L Ranger gets 22/27. An updated 2.0L or EB1.6L could probably get 25/30. I don't see F150 coming close to that.

 

3 - Entry level vehicle to win and keep new buyers. I bought a Ranger as my first vehicle after buying a home. A Ranger owner will be much more likely to move up to a F150 or Edge or Fusion than a Tacoma owner. Ford learned the hard way that if you don't have a specific type of vehicle and the customer leaves for another brand that it's very difficult to get them back.

 

However, none of this means that Ford could make a new Ranger profitably. It depends on the platform and where it could be built and whether it can be exported, etc. I'm just saying it's possible even though the market is relatively small right now and shrinking. Just like a new minivan - if Ford said it wasn't worth the investment then I'd be ok with that answer.

[Critic]

Once again and people will be saying WHY don't they ever learn

 

$4.29 a gallon of gas

 

 

[RichardJensen]

If gas prices increase substantially, it only makes sense that it would. With CAFE coming, the auto makers might not even have a choice.

A few things:

 

1) during the last gas price spike, small pickups did not take market share from fullsize pickups, the reason, IMO, is because small trucks offer a negligible fuel economy savings over full size trucks.

 

2) the small truck market has shrunk pretty steadily over the last 15 years. OAC makes mention of the 400k small truck market. Time was when Ford sold 400k Rangers.

 

3) I don't think CAFE will force small trucks, as there's still the E85 exception (IIRC) and the standards for trucks are apparently still 'footprint' based.

 

BUT the point is, the Taco Buyer will be stepping up into the Tundra fullsize rather than a F-Series.

That was Toyota's thinking when they upsized the Tundra, and it hasn't panned out.

 

IMO--and I don't have research to support it, but it seems to pass the sniff test: people don't 'graduate' to full size trucks from small trucks.

 

Why?

 

- Full size trucks are almost as cheap as compact/midsize trucks, making the choice more about preferences than finances

 

- If an individual or business needs the capacity of a full size truck they will buy a used full size truck before settling for a compact/midsize that does not adequately meet their needs.

 

I'm not saying that *nobody* graduates from a small truck to a larger one, I'm just saying that I doubt that the realm of first time new full size truck buyers is dominated by people who are replacing a small/midsize truck.

[RichardJensen]

Once again and people will be saying WHY don't they ever learn

 

$4.29 a gallon of gas

The last time that happened, it didn't result in market share gains for small trucks.

 

Here's the deal: You want a 30mpg pickup? Guess what: You're going to be the proud owner of a short bed standard cab with 2 wheel drive and you'll max out the payload with a shed kit from Lowe's.

 

If you want anything approaching full size capacity (1,500lb payload, 5,000lb towing) you'll be getting roughly full size fuel economy: TAANSTAFL lives man.

Edited September 21, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Critic]

2) the small truck market has shrunk pretty steadily over the last 15 years. OAC makes mention of the 400k small truck market. Time was when Ford sold 400k Rangers.

On this : there is a lot more to it than just that statement. You have to remember the times that are involved. 15 years ago = 1995 Robust times. Low and steady gas prices. I think even the Excursion Valdez was being made around that time. Basically The best economy in the history of the country and Ford was on a roll. Buying up foreign nameplates, paying dividends, lack of competition too, etc.

A blanket statement like that isn't appropriate until put into perspective.

 

BUT now I will agree with you, AS I walked a sales floor and checked out a Ranger vs. a F-series, I'm going, same gas mileage, same price.. I would probably go F-series.

 

Which brings up the future. F-series can not continue an onward climb in size and price without a greater mileage payoff. So there will probably be that day when the T6 IS the F-series. And yes, a new Escape Ranchero from LAP!

[Sevensecondsuv]

If you want anything approaching full size capacity (1,500lb payload, 5,000lb towing) you'll be getting roughly full size fuel economy.

 

That used to be the case. Not so much any more. Given the mileage ratings coming from Fords lastest powertrains in other models, a 3.7L should get upper 20s and a 2.0 EB should best 30 in the current sized Ranger. Either of those powertrains should easily handle the 1500 payload / 5000 trailer rating of the current Ranger platform. Now if Ford switches to a unibody or FWD platform, then I have my doubts about those payload ratings.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[FordBuyer]

Hmmmm...I wonder how many Rangers are still on the road? Over a million easy? We seem to focus only on the 75,000 yearly sales now, but there are so many more Rangers on the road than that. Ford kept the Taurus around because of all the older Tauruses on road and there are also over 1 million old Explorers on the road. The names are too iconic and too many older models on road to walk away from. I don't buy the argument that a new Ranger will cannibalize sales any more than Escape cannibalizes Explorer sales. A full line manuafacturer offers cars and trucks in all sizes. The Ranger is too valuable a name and product to walk away from.

[RichardJensen]

15 years ago = 1995 Robust times. Low and steady gas prices.

Which, of course, is why I pointed out that the market has been shrinking consistently. It's not as though it fell off a cliff due to hard economic times. Not only has it been shrinking in absolute terms, it has been shrinking as a percentage of all car sales.

 

That used to be the case. Not so much any more.

Here's the problem:

 

The current Ranger is too small. Yes, there are a very small group of very loyal customers that like its small size. But those people aren't buying enough Rangers.

 

You make the Ranger bigger, which is almost mandatory, and you start losing highway MPGs due to the increased aerodynamic drag.

 

Maybe a 3.7L V6 could hit 27MPG in the current Ranger form factor, but put it in a slightly larger model and maybe you're hitting 26 or 25. With the F150 projected to hit 24 with the 3.7L V6, you've got a negligible difference in efficiency.

 

In the end the chief selling point for Ranger die-hards is the size, and I believe Ford's internal numbers that say there aren't enough of you to please. Sorry.

Edited September 21, 2010 by RichardJensen