Dear Mr. Doug Scott

[Bob Rosadini]

Mr Scott,

 

Put your Kool-Aid aside and take a deep breath. Yes you said all the right things about the Ranger and your next performance appraisal will reflect that. You probably will get promoted out of your truck job-which you probably have no passion for- and will be the new "General Manager of Fleet Sales to the Hairdresser Supply Industry. But hey, I understand, you have a family to take care of and corporate life is tough.

 

The truth of the matter is, no one has the stones to tell Alan that the truck that should go away is the F-150 in its current bulk. Think about it. The T-6 would grab most of the smaller truck market including a big percentage of the 150 market. The balance of the 150 buyers who truly need a "full size" truck would end up with a 250- ok-take a leaf or two out of the rear springs and call it an F-200! Statistics 101-how to lie with numbers. Common sense should tell you where the REAL overlap is!

 

Unfortunately, that will not happen. The Aussies have painted you into a tough corner! And yes, when you say there is no small truck market-should I say "smaller truck market"- the reason is, the choices are lousy. And one last thing- who is the marketing genius that thinks a potential Ranger buyer would opt for a Focus instead?

 

Another minority opinion from a 40+ year customer-including many Louisvilles in the old days- stockholder and Ford owner. Five of them in my yard but I'm off to the barn to work on my B-61X-any truck guys left at Ford who know what a "B Model" is?

[RichardJensen]

Sorry, Bob. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

 

That's the size of all full size trucks, and with the best truck market research in the biz (quick: name two customer friendly innovations launched by other brands. You can't.) I'm pretty sure Ford would anticipate demand for a smaller halfton before anyone else.

[Bob Rosadini]

Sorry, Bob. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

 

That's the size of all full size trucks, and with the best truck market research in the biz (quick: name two customer friendly innovations launched by other brands. You can't.) I'm pretty sure Ford would anticipate demand for a smaller halfton before anyone else.

Richard, I would hope you are correct-but I do believe what I am saying makes sense- the problem would be monumental to correct. If you relied on Super Duty to fill in the high side of 150, KTP could not handle that. ercentage of 150 sales- even on the commercial side. And totally dominate the market at the expense of GM, Yoda and Fiat.

 

Oh and my apologies to Mr Scott. My sarcasm should be directed to the corporate culture that forces guys to sing the party line-not to individuals.

[Bob Rosadini]

Richard, I would hope you are correct-but I do believe what I am saying makes sense- the problem would be monumental to correct. If you relied on Super Duty to fill in the high side of 150, KTP could not handle that. ercentage of 150 sales- even on the commercial side. And totally dominate the market at the expense of GM, Yoda and Fiat.

 

Oh and my apologies to Mr Scott. My sarcasm should be directed to the corporate culture that forces guys to sing the party line-not to individuals.

Should have previewed my post. What I meant to say was I doubt that KTP could handle the 150 volume that would upgrade to Super Duty. But I do believe T-6 would keep the 150 buyers on the lower end of the weight range and totally dominate the small truck market now shared by GM, Yoda, and Fiat.

[RichardJensen]

Should have previewed my post. What I meant to say was I doubt that KTP could handle the 150 volume that would upgrade to Super Duty. But I do believe T-6 would keep the 150 buyers on the lower end of the weight range and totally dominate the small truck market now shared by GM, Yoda, and Fiat.

It's like this: I thought the 2008 Focus was a monumentally ugly vehicle. I still do.

 

But the market likes it.

 

Also, you realize you're just changing the section of the buying public that's getting stuck with a vehicle that's too big for their needs, right?

 

Those who want higher payload/towing (let's say 8,500lbs towing) will now have to buy a Super Duty instead of an F150.

 

And I think *those* buyers are a more profitable subset than the guys who don't need that capacity.

 

Why?

 

(this is speculation, of course)

 

First, you'll be buying more options (not the least of which is the engine and tow and/or payload packages), and paying more for your truck

 

Second, with a certain minimum list of requirements, you're less likely to shop based on price.

 

Third, if you're hauling toys, you're probably going to buy a higher trim. If you're a business owner, you may either buy one of the business packages, or you may buy a higher trim because you will use your truck with clients/fellow businessmen/prospects (I mean there has to be a reason why you'd buy new instead of used in the first place).

 

In short, I think Ford is leery of forcing more demanding F150 customers to buy a Super Duty.

 

Also, I suspect Ford looks seriously at this question every 3-4 years--as often as the F150 comes up for reengineering/updating.

Edited October 15, 2010 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

I've been reading with interest about some people saying that the Ranger size truck is still needed.

The concerns of those people seems to be the width of the F150 (79" excl. mirrors) in terms of

parking ease and weight with respect to fuel economy. The current Ranger (69" excl. mirrors) is

about a 10" narrower than the 2011 F150, I get that but when you look at T6 Ranger, it's much

wider than the current Thai Ranger (approx. 71") and looks like being much closer to the out going

Sport Trac (73.7" excl mirrors) so the width difference between T6 and F150 is not as much.

The only other objection remaining would be fuel consumption, with the 3.7 V6 F150 looking good

at 16 / 23 mpg, I'd say that Ford is pretty comfortable with the package they have today.

 

It is possible to have F100 and F150 being the same truck built in two widths but that would move customers

down and up and squeezing F250 sales, I don't think Ford wants all that upset in a stable mature market.

Why change or disrupt what's working, customers like F150 and the 2011 V6 will start North of $23,000.

Ford is after all, in the business of making money and they still make a lot thanks to F Truck and its buyers.

Edited October 15, 2010 by jpd80

[BrewfanGRB]

Ford is after all, in the business of making money and they still make a lot thanks to F Truck and its buyers.

 

Maybe. But that's irrelevant. They should be in the business of making whatever an individual wants, no matter if those individuals add up to fractional percentage of the overall market, no matter if the requested product would be unprofitable even if built by children, no matter if the requested product would damage the image or profitability of the company's product.

 

Remember, it's easier to complain that Ford sucks or is terrible or is run by idiots because they don't build what I want, rather than simply purchasing their desired product from a company that is already building it.

[RichardJensen]

c'mon Brewer fan (didn't they move to a AAA league a few years ago? Whatever happened to them?), Bob deserves better than that.

 

BTW the question of whether the F150 is too big is probably addressed on a regular basis at Ford.

Edited October 16, 2010 by RichardJensen

[BrewfanGRB]

c'mon Brewer fan (didn't they move to a AAA league a few years ago? Whatever happened to them?), Bob deserves better than that.

 

BTW the question of whether the F150 is too big is probably addressed on a regular basis at Ford.

 

What happened to the Brewers is they have a General Manager who couldn't find good pitching if Roy Halladay himself called Doug Melvin and volunteered to pitch for the league minimum and hired a manager who seemed annoyed at having to actually pay attention to the game.

 

As for Bob, I admit I was probably a bit harsh...and I apologize. But it just seems like there is SO MUCH of this "if Ford doesn't build X, it must be because it's run by people with no sense of what people want" going around. I get no company is perfect and decisions with the best intentions can still be wrong. But, I just don't see the evidence that they ARE wrong.

[Mark B. Morrow]

What happened to the Brewers is they have a General Manager who couldn't find good pitching if Roy Halladay himself called Doug Melvin and volunteered to pitch for the league minimum and hired a manager who seemed annoyed at having to actually pay attention to the game.

 

As for Bob, I admit I was probably a bit harsh...and I apologize. But it just seems like there is SO MUCH of this "if Ford doesn't build X, it must be because it's run by people with no sense of what people want" going around. I get no company is perfect and decisions with the best intentions can still be wrong. But, I just don't see the evidence that they ARE wrong.

 

 

Look on the bright side Brewfan, you're not Piratesfan. Hey we're getting some great draft picks again this year. They will soon be available for trade in exchange for a bunch of mediocre players no one has ever heard of and never will.

[BrewfanGRB]

Look on the bright side Brewfan, you're not Piratesfan. Hey we're getting some great draft picks again this year. They will soon be available for trade in exchange for a bunch of mediocre players no one has ever heard of and never will.

 

Ouch! You got me there, Mark. I really feel bad for Pirates fans. You've gone one of THE best parks in baseball, IMO (but it seems like it rains there a lot...haha) and management that really seems without direction.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

As for Bob, I admit I was probably a bit harsh...and I apologize. But it just seems like there is SO MUCH of this "if Ford doesn't build X, it must be because it's run by people with no sense of what people want" going around. I get no company is perfect and decisions with the best intentions can still be wrong. But, I just don't see the evidence that they ARE wrong.

No problem- I don't think I said Ford was .."run by people with no sense of what people want". If I came across that way, sorry about that. what I did try to say is that if there is a glaring product overlap, its 150/250. The T-6 in my mind would let Ford capture all the people who truly don't need a 150 but don't want a compact, while also getting the people who would not have any reservation about getting something a bit bigger than a Ranger.

 

Perhaps Richard summed it up best with his comment about what we might see when the current 150 cycle is due for a complete upgrade. Could be that the design work has been done by the Aussies, and four years from now, new ballgame.

 

As for Mr Scott, after 44 years in the corporate world, I sure do recognize that sometimes the party line is the only option you have.

[BrewfanGRB]

No problem- I don't think I said Ford was .."run by people with no sense of what people want". If I came across that way, sorry about that. what I did try to say is that if there is a glaring product overlap, its 150/250. The T-6 in my mind would let Ford capture all the people who truly don't need a 150 but don't want a compact, while also getting the people who would not have any reservation about getting something a bit bigger than a Ranger.

 

I understand what you're saying. I think what I mean is that you and I just think about things (generally) differently. Ford being wrong is not impossible, but I'm not a market researcher, a sales analyst or a product designer. Ford has literally thousands of people that ARE in those roles. The F-series is Ford's golden goose (to an extent). I am certain Ford knows what it is doing.

 

That said, I actually don't think there IS an overlap between the F150 and the F250. If I was in the market for a truck--and wanted to tow a normal trailer or a decent boat, I would buy the F150. To me, the F250 is just HUGE (just like many here see the F150 as "huge"). F250's (in my mind) are for pulling big RVs or boats...or for contractors.

 

A Ranger or T6 would be good for those that just need a truck to pick up lumber or flooring at Home Depot...or mulch at the garden center. I think there's no problem with a compact truck, a "normal" full-size and a "Super Duty". But Ford's analysis says the demand for compact trucks isn't there. There's a difference between there being "some" demand or it being a good idea and it being a profitable product. That's all it is for me--profit, yes or no?

[silvrsvt]

WTF?

[mackinaw]

I gotta say, wyatt's first post is colorful. And why resurrect a two year old thread? The moderators are going to love this guy.

[RichardJensen]

"Flag User as Spam Account"

 

"Are you sure?"

 

Problem solved.

[mogur]

It's pretty simple for me: A Ranger will fit in my garage, a F150 will not. Plus, even the current F150 fuel mileage is not something that is good enough that I would be willing to accept it. I used to have a 1998 ranger, and it was the perfect size for me and got appreciably better gas mileage than the current F150.

 

I've been reading with interest about some people saying that the Ranger size truck is still needed.

The concerns of those people seems to be the width of the F150 (79" excl. mirrors) in terms of

parking ease and weight with respect to fuel economy.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mogur

[silvrsvt]

I used to have a 1998 ranger, and it was the perfect size for me and got appreciably better gas mileage than the current F150.

 

At the expense of capabilities...

[mogur]

One person's capabilites are another person's failings... I, for one, don't need to do most-any of the things that a F150 type of truck is best suited for... And I hate driving such a lumbering beast.

 

At the expense of capabilities...

[RichardJensen]

One person's capabilites are another person's failings... I, for one, don't need to do most-any of the things that a F150 type of truck is best suited for... And I hate driving such a lumbering beast.

You should ask yourself, "Do I really need a truck?"

 

Unless you make a habit of hauling small amounts of stinky stuff or rocks, pretty much any CUV comes with the same payload rating as a 4-cylinder Ranger and gets better gas mileage.

[silvrsvt]

You should ask yourself, "Do I really need a truck?"

 

Unless you make a habit of hauling small amounts of stinky stuff or rocks, pretty much any CUV comes with the same payload rating as a 4-cylinder Ranger and gets better gas mileage.

 

Then again he does have a 2013 Escape....hmmm

[RichardJensen]

And the CUVs, I think, can be pegged with no small role in the death of the compact truck.

 

 

 

In the utility sphere, there are few people who use a compact truck bed often enough for purposes that are best served by trucks (e.g. hauling things like refrigerators, rocks, manure or yard waste), who do not need or cannot use a full size truck. And for everyone else, a CUV is better most of the time. And it's got usable 2nd row seats.

[silvrsvt]

In the utility sphere, there are few people who use a compact truck bed often enough for purposes that are best served by trucks (e.g. hauling things like refrigerators, rocks, manure or yard waste)

 

and all of those things listed can be done for you (ok maybe not the manure thing) by a 3rd party. Refrigerators and Rocks can be delivered and yard waste can be taken care of during bulk pick up days if you have garbage pickup...

 

Trucks are nice for the 2-5% time that you actually need all that space in the bed...otherwise its wasted space.

 

Another spin is look at all the pickups over the years with caps on them...more or less pseudo-SUV

[akirby]

and all of those things listed can be done for you (ok maybe not the manure thing) by a 3rd party. Refrigerators and Rocks can be delivered and yard waste can be taken care of during bulk pick up days if you have garbage pickup...

 

Trucks are nice for the 2-5% time that you actually need all that space in the bed...otherwise its wasted space.

 

Another spin is look at all the pickups over the years with caps on them...more or less pseudo-SUV

 

Most people did not buy Rangers to haul stuff. They bought them because they were cheap.

 

In 1990 I got a std cab 4 cylinder with sliding rear window, chrome wheels, chrome bumper, 4 speaker am/fm cassette and air conditioning for $7995. I bought it because it was cheap and got decent gas mileage and came in handy for some chores. I traded that for a 4.0L supercab in 95 (manual also). I traded that one in on a car in 1999 and I've had cars ever since.

[mogur]

It is really hard to put 4' tall, dirty, and other very bulky items in a CUV... They fit great in a Ranger or other compact pickup, however.

 

You should ask yourself, "Do I really need a truck?"

Unless you make a habit of hauling small amounts of stinky stuff or rocks, pretty much any CUV comes with the same payload rating as a 4-cylinder Ranger and gets better gas mileage.