For those who want Ford to build a New Ranger...

[Sevensecondsuv]

Are you kidding me? You really do live in some alternate reality.

 

I guess you're right. I do get a lot of strange looks when I'm going down the highway in my Explorer with a small car on a 2-axle flatbed in tow (which is right at the 5000 lb limit for that year Explorer).

 

I guess most people think they need a 4x4 Crew Cab Dually Powerstroke for that kind of trailer

 

I know I'm not the only one though. The other day I saw a newer supercab 4x4 Ranger going down the road with a gooseneck camper in tow that was nearly twice as long as the Ranger itself. Yes, there are a few of us that actually dare to get close to the manufacturers published tow ratings rather than buying 5x as much truck as we actually need.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[Sevensecondsuv]

Are you kidding me? You really do live in some alternate reality.

 

Maybe so, but you better believe Ford considers the fringe buyers like me when they're analyzing what they're willing to put a warranty on.

[akirby]

I guess you're right. I do get a lot of strange looks when I'm going down the highway in my Explorer with a small car on a 2-axle flatbed in tow (which is right at the 5000 lb limit for that year Explorer).

 

I guess most people think they need a 4x4 Crew Cab Dually Powerstroke for that kind of trailer

 

I know I'm not the only one though. The other day I saw a newer supercab 4x4 Ranger going down the road with a gooseneck camper in tow that was nearly twice as long as the Ranger itself. Yes, there are a few of us that actually dare to get close to the manufacturers published tow ratings rather than buying 5x as much truck as we actually need.

 

I wasn't commenting on your personal usage - I was commenting on your view of what the average buyer wants and needs and how the average buyer uses the products. Forget average - we're talking 90th percentile at least.

 

And anyone who continually pushes their vehicles to 9/10th or 10/10ths usually ends up on the side of the road calling AAA at some point. And I'm sure it's never happened to you and never will so you don't even need to say it.

 

I'm just saying that a sport trac/Ranger replacement would work just fine for 90% of prospective buyers because they don't tow large trailers. Most probably don't tow anything bigger than a jetski or utility trailer to/from Home Depot.

[Sevensecondsuv]

And anyone who continually pushes their vehicles to 9/10th or 10/10ths usually ends up on the side of the road calling AAA at some point.

 

Not AAA, I just call a buddy with a bigger truck (or my wife with my bigger truck).

 

It's only happened to me once - I blew a heater hose and lost all the coolant. The only problem was that it was in the middle of the night on the side of the road and I thought it was the water pump. Had I known it was just a heater hose, I could have fixed it in 10 minutes with the pocket knife, screw driver, and gallon of antifreeze I had in the truck.

 

The key to never having to sit on the side of the road with a broken vehicle is preventative maintenance. The only way to successfully accomplish this is to regulary spend much time analyzing every system on the vehicle, pay a mechanic (or dealership) big $$$ to do it for you, or (the most common option) buy a new vehicle every 3 years and never have to deal with worn out parts.

 

I'm just saying that a sport trac/Ranger replacement would work just fine for 90% of prospective buyers because they don't tow large trailers. Most probably don't tow anything bigger than a jetski or utility trailer to/from Home Depot.

 

I agree with you there. All I'm saying is that I doubt Ford will do a small truck built off the Explorer platform for a multitude of reasons:

1) It wouldn't sell any better than any current small truck (BOF or Ridgeline-type)

2) Ford already said they don't see a need to cater to the compact pickup market segment.

3) Ford realizes that warranting a FWD car platform for real truck duties is a bad proposition - even if only 10% of buyers actually use it as a real truck.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

1) It wouldn't sell any better than any current small truck (BOF or Ridgeline-type)

2) Ford already said they don't see a need to cater to the compact pickup market segment.

3) Ford realizes that warranting a FWD car platform for real truck duties is a bad proposition - even if only 10% of buyers actually use it as a real truck.

 

1) Maybe not, but it sure would be cheaper if it can share both a platform and assembly facilities with the Explorer and other D3/D4 vehicles. And a fuel efficient 4 cylinder version would be a good hedge against future CAFE and gas price problems (yes, Richard I know that small pickup sales didn't increase much when gas prices went up, but the next round could be worse and we know CAFE will be a concern)

 

2) I think they just said there's no future in the current Ranger. There is a difference.

 

3) I bet an Explorer would see more towing and "real truck duties" than the light truck would. This would be a commuter vehicle plus home depot runner, not a work truck.

[jpd80]

Tacoma's sales are now around half of what the were four years ago, the trend isn't just with the Ranger.

People are buying other types of vehicles, that's why Ford is following the market and getting out of small trucks.

[BrewfanGRB]

Maybe so, but you better believe Ford considers the fringe buyers like me when they're analyzing what they're willing to put a warranty on.

 

You're absolutely right, probably with 10% on top of that. The problem is they warrant the vehicles for the fringe...but they don't SELL them to the fringe. This is what we've all been going round and round about in at least 4 different threads in the last month....Ford needs to make decisions based on what it can SELL--based on finding a tipping point number of buyers. I said it before and I'll put it a different way: Buyers like you will never have their needs met by ANY manufacturer. Your needs are fringe.

 

I get that your arguments are still just opinion and you don't really (I hope) expect Ford to build something because you think they should. Frankly, I see the need for the Home Depot/Garden Center getter that can fit in the garage. But again, you THINK there's some huge demand for an up-to-date, double cab small truck...well, the leader in this category sells fewer of it's entry than basically it EVER has sold. It's not because someone hasn't built one that people want to buy...it's because people don't want to buy them. It's waaay simpler than you think.

[goinbroke2]

One thing I'll say on what type of truck you need to build for the N/A market is this;

While living in europe I notice dump trucks with little flatbeds and small sides, I was curious and asked why. "because it is rated for XXX kg's" was the answer. I have no doubt asia has the same mentality. A 1/2ton is good for 1000lb's.

 

But,

Here in N/A trucks are filled until their full. The guts are run out of them and then in 5 years when they are completely worn out they are replaced. (I'm talking dumptrucks)

If you look at pick ups here, it's the same mindset. How much do you load? Until either 1) the box is full or 2) until it's squating low enough.

I think this is exactly why the tundra is such a piece of shit when it comes to real work. It has been made to carry 1/2 ton and a smidgen more. Used like that it might work ok. But anybody who actually uses a truck, does what I said previously. And, where a f-150 or a chebby 1500 will take 3000 lb's of gravel "it's only just up the road" because it's overbuilt for that, the tundra which is built for 1000lb's will not.

 

So, ford builds a little ranger. Commonly known as a 1/4 ton. Our shop truck in Gagetown REGULARLY would take a pallet of tank tracks out to Worthington tank park. Yes it did squat, yes it was WAY overloaded. But that's the shop truck we had for getting parts from base and that's what we used. Now if ford built a FWD 1/4 ton? If it's got a box, it will be filled. It would be squated down until "it looked low enough". The first time it spun tires trying to go up a hill loaded or something broke in the drivetrain? THE COMPLAINTS AND BAD PRESS WOULD NEVER STOP. The few guys who had/have honda's will tell you, it's a car with an open trunk. AWD or not, NONE would load it like a pick up, they know it wouldn't handle it. (and yes that is from talking to two honda truck owners, one who is a die hard honda/import lover)

[Sevensecondsuv]

...Buyers like you will never have their needs met by ANY manufacturer...

 

 

They've met them in the past.... Why not now?

[Sevensecondsuv]

One thing I'll say on what type of truck you need to build for the N/A market is this;

While living in europe I notice dump trucks with little flatbeds and small sides, I was curious and asked why. "because it is rated for XXX kg's" was the answer. I have no doubt asia has the same mentality. A 1/2ton is good for 1000lb's.

 

But,

Here in N/A trucks are filled until their full. The guts are run out of them and then in 5 years when they are completely worn out they are replaced. (I'm talking dumptrucks)

If you look at pick ups here, it's the same mindset. How much do you load? Until either 1) the box is full or 2) until it's squating low enough.

I think this is exactly why the tundra is such a piece of shit when it comes to real work. It has been made to carry 1/2 ton and a smidgen more. Used like that it might work ok. But anybody who actually uses a truck, does what I said previously. And, where a f-150 or a chebby 1500 will take 3000 lb's of gravel "it's only just up the road" because it's overbuilt for that, the tundra which is built for 1000lb's will not.

 

So, ford builds a little ranger. Commonly known as a 1/4 ton. Our shop truck in Gagetown REGULARLY would take a pallet of tank tracks out to Worthington tank park. Yes it did squat, yes it was WAY overloaded. But that's the shop truck we had for getting parts from base and that's what we used. Now if ford built a FWD 1/4 ton? If it's got a box, it will be filled. It would be squated down until "it looked low enough". The first time it spun tires trying to go up a hill loaded or something broke in the drivetrain? THE COMPLAINTS AND BAD PRESS WOULD NEVER STOP. The few guys who had/have honda's will tell you, it's a car with an open trunk. AWD or not, NONE would load it like a pick up, they know it wouldn't handle it. (and yes that is from talking to two honda truck owners, one who is a die hard honda/import lover)

 

Yeah I'm with you. Out in the real world, a vehicle with a bed gets used like a truck. I think the people here arguing against that fact spend too much time in suburbia where the only use for a truck is picking up flowers from home depot.

 

It's kind of sad that the buyers who actually use a truck for its intended applications are labled "fringe" buyers

Edited November 2, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[OAC_Sparky]

Yeah I'm with you. Out in the real world, a vehicle with a bed gets used like a truck. I think the people here arguing against that fact spend too much time in suburia where the only use for a truck is picking up flowers from home depot.

 

It's kind of sad that the buyers who actually use a truck for its intended applications are labled "fringe" buyers

Yep, when my cap comes off the Ranger it gets pretty loaded up. I have an AIrLift kit in mine, I can pump it up so it doesn't squat (rides like a brick though) the bed can take a yard and a half a shot; that's about 2500 pounds give or take. Moved 8 yards of soil and 6 yards of wet mulch.

 

But I don't need to do it all the time; that's the thing. But when you need it you need it.

Edited November 2, 2010 by OAC_Sparky

[akirby]

One thing I'll say on what type of truck you need to build for the N/A market is this;

While living in europe I notice dump trucks with little flatbeds and small sides, I was curious and asked why. "because it is rated for XXX kg's" was the answer. I have no doubt asia has the same mentality. A 1/2ton is good for 1000lb's.

 

But,

Here in N/A trucks are filled until their full. The guts are run out of them and then in 5 years when they are completely worn out they are replaced. (I'm talking dumptrucks)

If you look at pick ups here, it's the same mindset. How much do you load? Until either 1) the box is full or 2) until it's squating low enough.

I think this is exactly why the tundra is such a piece of shit when it comes to real work. It has been made to carry 1/2 ton and a smidgen more. Used like that it might work ok. But anybody who actually uses a truck, does what I said previously. And, where a f-150 or a chebby 1500 will take 3000 lb's of gravel "it's only just up the road" because it's overbuilt for that, the tundra which is built for 1000lb's will not.

 

So, ford builds a little ranger. Commonly known as a 1/4 ton. Our shop truck in Gagetown REGULARLY would take a pallet of tank tracks out to Worthington tank park. Yes it did squat, yes it was WAY overloaded. But that's the shop truck we had for getting parts from base and that's what we used. Now if ford built a FWD 1/4 ton? If it's got a box, it will be filled. It would be squated down until "it looked low enough". The first time it spun tires trying to go up a hill loaded or something broke in the drivetrain? THE COMPLAINTS AND BAD PRESS WOULD NEVER STOP. The few guys who had/have honda's will tell you, it's a car with an open trunk. AWD or not, NONE would load it like a pick up, they know it wouldn't handle it. (and yes that is from talking to two honda truck owners, one who is a die hard honda/import lover)

 

I put a cubic yard of topsoil in my 95 Ranger supercab 4.0L manual w/load package. The guy loading it said he'd never seen a Ranger take that much dirt. Drove it home 15 miles with no problems. According to answers.com a yard of topsoil weighs close to one ton. Not sure about that but it was a lot of weight and the Ranger handled it just fine.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I put a cubic yard of topsoil in my 95 Ranger supercab 4.0L manual w/load package. The guy loading it said he'd never seen a Ranger take that much dirt. Drove it home 15 miles with no problems. According to answers.com a yard of topsoil weighs close to one ton. Not sure about that but it was a lot of weight and the Ranger handled it just fine.

 

I think we need a new thread titled "biggest load you've ever hauled with your Ranger".

 

We had one going over at www.therangerstation.com with pictures. A lot of the loads were downright scary - Like the guy who hauled an old fullsize blazer filled to the roof with scrap steel on a flatbed trailer. When it comes down to it, it's absolutely amazing just how much the little Ranger is capable of. It's not surprising though - if you take one apart you'll find much of the frame, suspension, and drivetrain looks auspiciously similar to what you'll find in the 1980-1996 F-150/250/350.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

I put a cubic yard of topsoil in my 95 Ranger supercab 4.0L manual w/load package. The guy loading it said he'd never seen a Ranger take that much dirt. Drove it home 15 miles with no problems. According to answers.com a yard of topsoil weighs close to one ton. Not sure about that but it was a lot of weight and the Ranger handled it just fine.

 

Global Ranger is rated as a 1 tonner and can haul 6,000 lbs at the same time....

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Global Ranger is rated as a 1 tonner and can haul 6,000 lbs at the same time....

 

 

Maybe thats why we buy more Transit 3.5 ton Tippers in Europe, they cost almost the same price as a Global Ranger. But the diesel Transit Tipper (Best of all the Transit is made here) is more capable than an the overpriced foreign Thai/South African global made Ranger.

 

 

[V8-X]

Any interest in an Explorer based pick up?

Ridgeline or Baja anyone? No thanks! Would be a horrible mistake.

 

Seems like most people here either drive cars, or have never truly worked their truck like it's built to be worked. No my F150 doesn't tow 6K+ lbs everyday. No it doesn't always have a bed full of gravel or what not. But it gets plenty of work throughout the year that I would not trust in a FWD uni-body setup.

 

And I might agree that 80% or so of truck buyers TODAY simply buy a truck to have a truck, with practically no intentions of using the bed or towing. That's why truck sales, similar to SUV sales of the 90s, sky rocketed over the last decade or so.

 

So now for those people that use their truck to their full capability, whether everyday, on weekends or a couple times a year, have to compromise the capabilities they have been accustomed to, so that soccer mom can buy a truck for the "got to have it factor", when they have no intentions of using their truck like a truck? All this just so the company could get more sells? That's a great way to piss off and drive off die hard followers who've been buying said trucks for decades.

 

Being I've driven practically nothing but Ford trucks all my life, if this was done to the Ranger or the F-150, I know I'd have to start looking at the competition for a capable truck. And after the loss of X number of sales, and consumer complaints about how horrible said truck is for actual work, I'm sure Ford would come around and realize their mistake.

[Sevensecondsuv]

So now for those people that use their truck to their full capability, whether everyday, on weekends or a couple times a year, have to compromise the capabilities they have been accustomed to, so that soccer mom can buy a truck for the "got to have it factor", when they have no intentions of using their truck like a truck? All this just so the company could get more sells? That's a great way to piss off and drive off die hard followers who've been buying said trucks for decades.

 

That's pretty much what happened to SUVs over the last two decades. In about 1990, you had your choice of all kinds of nice heavy duty, off-road ready, rough and tumble wagons - in all sizes from the little Jeep YJ to a 3/4 ton Suburban and everything in between. Then they got popular with soccor moms and yuppies and now there are very few available from any manufacturer that makes an acceptable replacement for the 20 year old real SUV parked out in the barn.

 

I was hoping that now that the SUV craze is dying off, the manufacturers could get back to low-volume, purpose-built SUVs that are built directly off the pickup platform with very few different parts. Instead, in an effort to keep the SUV craze going, they decided to move them completely onto the car platform, leaving the people who actually want a true SUV empty handed.

 

Ah well, that's the way it goes I guess.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[silvrsvt]

I was hoping that now that the SUV craze is dying off, the manufacturers could get back to low-volume, purpose-built SUVs that are built directly off the pickup platform with very few different parts. Instead, in an effort to keep the SUV craze going, they decided to move them completely onto the car platform, leaving the people who actually want a true SUV empty handed.

 

 

Why would manufactures want to invest in something that isn't going to make money for them? I bet that the people who want a "true" SUV make up less then 5% of the real retail market.

 

 

 

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Why would manufactures want to invest in something that isn't going to make money for them? I bet that the people who want a "true" SUV make up less then 5% of the real retail market.

 

I don't know. You tell me. They made them continuously from the 60s well into the 90s, probably never selling to more than 5% of the retail market. And yet I can only assume that they made money on them (since they continued to sell them year after year...)

 

The problem is that you're assuming that Ford couldn't make money doing it. Building an SUV off the pickup platform is quite cheap and easy. I don't see why it couldn't be done profitably (that's assuming you have a suitable pickup platform, which isn't the case currently with the Ranger). For instance, have you ever taken apart a 1980-1996 full size Bronco? As someone who has, I can tell you that probably 95% of the parts are the same as the F-150 of those years.

 

I never understood why they took the Explorer and Expedition off their respective pickup platforms in the early part of this decade. I guess they were chasing the almighty dollar at the time, but it has cost them money in the long term now that SUVs don't sell like they used too and they now have separate SUV and pickup platforms to upgrade.