No New Ranger, but...

[Bob Rosadini]

I recognize this has been beat to death and I understand, Ranger is dead. However in looking at the recent sales stats I note that Ranger is up slightly at around 51,000 units ytd and Flex is down slightly at around 31,000 units. Yah I know- big dollars per transaction. What did it cost to bring the Flex to market? How much overlap is there with other Fords? Plenty I say. And what is the overlap with the Ranger?- NONE.

 

As for the argument that the new 150 will give Ranger like economy, bad argument. Put a modern powertrain in a Ranger sized vehicle and see what you get. And as for size, again,I don't want a big vehicle. And to support what someone said on another thread, my wife has no objection to driving my 04 Ranger Super Cab. My son's F-150? She wouldn't go near it!. Her Explorer is plenty big enough and she thinks she wants a 2011. But I can assure you if it comes across as a large vehicle, her next vehicle will be an Edge or an Escape.

 

Size IS a factor.

 

And please- no FWD mini truck!

[akirby]

How much overlap is there with other Fords? Plenty I say. And what is the overlap with the Ranger?- NONE.

 

That's actually one of the problems - nothing with which to share platform engineering costs AND more importantly - nothing to share a factory with.

 

If the Ranger used a shared platform and factory then you could make a better business case.

[chucky2]

I will not be buying another Ranger (unless they really really re-designed it), so I've got 'no dog in this fight', but, I find it somewhat hard to believe that throwing in current powertrains from new vehicles and getting those proved out and certified would be all that expensive to do for a Ranger - and Mazda would likely be onboard with that as well for NA. With new powertrains, Ranger would increase gas mileage and driveability, all while not requiring custom expensive updating.

 

Given that the factory has to be paid for by now, given how long Ranger has been in production and how little money has been spent on it to keep it updated, one has to wonder why Ford would be abandoning the tens of thousands of folks each year who don't want a hulky fullsize but do want a dependable smaller truck.

 

Sure would be nice to see the true cost/benefit numbers (the true ones, the ones before BS is applied to support whatever Leadership wants to happen).

 

Same could be said for CV/GM too I'd think...

 

Chuck

Edited December 2, 2010 by chucky2

[OAC_Sparky]

...one has to wonder why Ford would be abandoning the tens of thousands of folks each year who don't want a hulky fullsize but do want a dependable smaller truck.

 

Worse than that, is that you are basically handing at least 40,000 Ranger customers (being generous in assuming 15,000 of the 55,000 Ranger buyers DO buy an F150) to Toyota, the only manufacturer with a dog still in this fight.

 

Those customers may be gone for good once they set foot in a Toyota dealership.

[RangerM]

Worse than that, is that you are basically handing at least 40,000 Ranger customers (being generous in assuming 15,000 of the 55,000 Ranger buyers DO buy an F150) to Toyota, the only manufacturer with a dog still in this fight.

 

Those customers may be gone for good once they set foot in a Toyota dealership.

I doubt that. Obviously if Ford isn't going to sell anything smaller than an F-150, the customers will either be forced go elsewhere, or just keep buying used Rangers. Not sure that really would carry over to the cars, though.

 

I keep reading rumors of a new GM small truck (the latest being that the former Saturn plant in Spring Hill, TN will build it). Even though I won't buy GM (in protest), there might be others who would. If the rumors are real, and GM finds success in a new small truck, then I'd think Ford would have to reconsider their decision not to sell a Ranger-sized truck.

Edited December 2, 2010 by RangerM

[akirby]

I will not be buying another Ranger (unless they really really re-designed it), so I've got 'no dog in this fight', but, I find it somewhat hard to believe that throwing in current powertrains from new vehicles and getting those proved out and certified would be all that expensive to do for a Ranger - and Mazda would likely be onboard with that as well for NA. With new powertrains, Ranger would increase gas mileage and driveability, all while not requiring custom expensive updating.

 

Given that the factory has to be paid for by now, given how long Ranger has been in production and how little money has been spent on it to keep it updated, one has to wonder why Ford would be abandoning the tens of thousands of folks each year who don't want a hulky fullsize but do want a dependable smaller truck.

 

Sure would be nice to see the true cost/benefit numbers (the true ones, the ones before BS is applied to support whatever Leadership wants to happen).

 

Same could be said for CV/GM too I'd think...

 

Chuck

 

I don't think Mulally puts up with doctored business cases. He's too smart for that.

 

It's not always a matter of whether a specific vehicle can be made profitably - that's just the first hurdle. You then have to look at the amount of money required to keep the plant running (plants with one less than full shift is not usually cost effective) and the investment required for safety upgrades in addition to new engines, interiors and exteriors.

 

Then you decide whether the investment is worth the ROI or if there is another project where the money can be spent more wisely. Ford still has limited funds to invest and they can't do everything at once.

[J-150]

I don't think Mulally puts up with doctored business cases. He's too smart for that.

 

It's not always a matter of whether a specific vehicle can be made profitably - that's just the first hurdle. You then have to look at the amount of money required to keep the plant running (plants with one less than full shift is not usually cost effective) and the investment required for safety upgrades in addition to new engines, interiors and exteriors.

 

Then you decide whether the investment is worth the ROI or if there is another project where the money can be spent more wisely. Ford still has limited funds to invest and they can't do everything at once.

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Dearborn a flex plant capable of making F150s, Rangers and Mustangs on the same line? If so, the Ranger could occupy 1 week of production out of every 4 or 5 weeks.

[FordBuyer]

Ranger gets to join the Crown Vic and Lincoln Town Car as dead litter on the side of the road in 2011. Mariner, Milan, Grand Marquis, and Mountaineer this year. Hard to keep up with all the Ford discarded nameplates, isn't it? Arguably, the Explorer name has the most negative baggage, but that is the name Ford decided to keep. The other nameplates are thrown away. I once drove a Bronco ll, but Ford ended it because of its tendancy to roll over. The Explorer had a far worse name for that than the Bronco ll. But the Explorer name stays, and the Bronco name stays dead. Btw, the Ranger originally was built off the Bronco ll platform or vice versa.

[NLPRacing]

Ford should just re-badge the Mahindra as the new Ranger. From what I hear it's been ready to go since 2008...

[chucky2]

Worse than that, is that you are basically handing at least 40,000 Ranger customers (being generous in assuming 15,000 of the 55,000 Ranger buyers DO buy an F150) to Toyota, the only manufacturer with a dog still in this fight.

 

Those customers may be gone for good once they set foot in a Toyota dealership.

 

15k would be very generous I think, but I'd be willing to say 10k, at most. And I agree, lots of people that buy Rangers also shop American for their car needs. Next time they want a Ranger replacement and they can chose from Hulk 1 (Ford), Hulk 2 (Chevy), or Hulk 3 (Dodge), they're going to look around and go, Hey, look at that, Toyota has what I need, I'll go there. Then when their car is due to be replaced, why, lets stop on back at the Toyota stealership and see what they've got....

 

Chuck

[chucky2]

Ford should just re-badge the Mahindra as the new Ranger. From what I hear it's been ready to go since 2008...

 

Snicker...well, they did finally get it ready for the US, only to decide it appears they didn't want to deal with Global Vehicles (which I thought odd to have done in the first place myself). Mahindra won't be hurting for lack of entering the US market though, they're already at full+ capacity for their plants now, and building more.

 

One thing is for absolute certain:

 

If Ford brought the equivalent of the Mahindra, with one of their EU diesel's (heck, even with the EB), it'd absolutely sell like hotcakes. I think that's one reason why Ford isn't bringing the T6 here, they know they'll take a hit on F-150 sales, and protecting the 'best selling full size for the past half century' tagline is uber important apperantly...

[akirby]

Ranger gets to join the Crown Vic and Lincoln Town Car as dead litter on the side of the road in 2011. Mariner, Milan, Grand Marquis, and Mountaineer this year. Hard to keep up with all the Ford discarded nameplates, isn't it? Arguably, the Explorer name has the most negative baggage, but that is the name Ford decided to keep. The other nameplates are thrown away. I once drove a Bronco ll, but Ford ended it because of its tendancy to roll over. The Explorer had a far worse name for that than the Bronco ll. But the Explorer name stays, and the Bronco name stays dead. Btw, the Ranger originally was built off the Bronco ll platform or vice versa.

 

Go ask 100 people randomly at the local mall which name they recognize - Explorer and Bronco II. I bet Explorer would be close to 75% or higher while Bronco or Bronco II would be way down in the 20% range.

 

And any negativity towards Explorer is long since gone except for a few negatards.

 

As for killing nameplates - let's compare Ford's profitability before they killed them and now. There is no reason for Ford to keep nameplates if they can't make money on them.

[chucky2]

I don't think Mulally puts up with doctored business cases. He's too smart for that.

 

It's not always a matter of whether a specific vehicle can be made profitably - that's just the first hurdle. You then have to look at the amount of money required to keep the plant running (plants with one less than full shift is not usually cost effective) and the investment required for safety upgrades in addition to new engines, interiors and exteriors.

 

Then you decide whether the investment is worth the ROI or if there is another project where the money can be spent more wisely. Ford still has limited funds to invest and they can't do everything at once.

 

Mulally might not, but that doesn't mean much in reality. There's probably at least 5 major Leadership levels below him, and the reality is, they all have their own spin and direction on how things will/should go. The people under the lowest Leadership level are the ones that will be told what to compile, and that info is screened and collated before even hitting the lowest Leadership person, who then asks questions and "questions", gives direction and "direction", and finally it goes up to his boss, who does the same thing.

 

By the time anything gets to Mulally, there will be a total lack of any real all encompassing data (Mulally and the other big shots at his level are too important to spend time wading through that), any and all qualifiers from the original group that actually worked for the data will be long long long gone (unless needed for CYA or to support the direction desired), none of the assumptions (that's disclosed assumptions, and undisclosed, an important difference) from the worker bees who actually understand the data will be there.

 

In short: Leadership at Ford wants the Ranger gone, and it will be so. End of story.

 

Chuck

[FordBuyer]

Go ask 100 people randomly at the local mall which name they recognize - Explorer and Bronco II. I bet Explorer would be close to 75% or higher while Bronco or Bronco II would be way down in the 20% range.

 

And any negativity towards Explorer is long since gone except for a few negatards.

 

As for killing nameplates - let's compare Ford's profitability before they killed them and now. There is no reason for Ford to keep nameplates if they can't make money on them.

 

How long ago was it that U-Haul said it would not rent its trailers to Explorer owners? And most of those vehicles are still on road, since it was present generation Explorer that just ended production last month that was targeted by U-Haul and of course previous generations also. I'm really not saying Ford should have used the Bronco name instead, only that Ford should do a Jeep like competitor and call it a Bronco. Ford name has always connoted a ruggedness theme, and ironic that Ford doesn't really build a rugged vehicle other than Raptor and maybe Expedition. The Ranger is a rugged, little truck, but it's going bye-bye with no replacement. My Bronco ll was a very rugged, little SUV that you could take anywhere and beat up.

[akirby]

Mulally might not, but that doesn't mean much in reality. There's probably at least 5 major Leadership levels below him, and the reality is, they all have their own spin and direction on how things will/should go. The people under the lowest Leadership level are the ones that will be told what to compile, and that info is screened and collated before even hitting the lowest Leadership person, who then asks questions and "questions", gives direction and "direction", and finally it goes up to his boss, who does the same thing.

 

By the time anything gets to Mulally, there will be a total lack of any real all encompassing data (Mulally and the other big shots at his level are too important to spend time wading through that), any and all qualifiers from the original group that actually worked for the data will be long long long gone (unless needed for CYA or to support the direction desired), none of the assumptions (that's disclosed assumptions, and undisclosed, an important difference) from the worker bees who actually understand the data will be there.

 

In short: Leadership at Ford wants the Ranger gone, and it will be so. End of story.

 

Chuck

 

I do these types of business cases all the time for a fortune 100 company so I know how they work. I've worked for leadership who didn't have a clue and would go along with whatever they were presented but I've also worked for very smart leaders who know the types of questions to ask and can spot when someone is trying to blow smoke. I perceive Mulally as the latter and I believe his executives are the same way. I also don't think he would put up with anyone fudging a business case for individual gains if they were caught.

 

If Ford wants to kill the Ranger it's because they have a solid business case for it. The reasons could be anything from manufacturing/engineering costs to perceived impact on F150 market share to dozens of other reasons having nothing to do with sheetmetal or factories. But you can bet it's all part of a larger overall plan that's based on valid information.

[akirby]

How long ago was it that U-Haul said it would not rent its trailers to Explorer owners? And most of those vehicles are still on road, since it was present generation Explorer that just ended production last month that was targeted by U-Haul and of course previous generations also.

 

Note to Fordbuyer - that was 2002, not 2010. Although I understand that parts of metro Detroit are at least 10 years behind the rest of the country.

 

Ford name has always connoted a ruggedness theme, and ironic that Ford doesn't really build a rugged vehicle other than Raptor and maybe Expedition.

 

Seriously? A regular F150 or Superduty isn't rugged?

 

How many "rugged" (by your definition) vehicles are sold every year? Certainly not enough to invest a new platform.

And you complain about Fiesta sales being low? Good grief.

 

The Ranger is a rugged, little truck, but it's going bye-bye with no replacement.

 

That's your opinion (no replacement). There will be a replacement - it just may not be the current Ranger platform.

Edited December 2, 2010 by akirby

[chucky2]

I do these types of business cases all the time for a fortune 100 company so I know how they work. I've worked for leadership who didn't have a clue and would go along with whatever they were presented but I've also worked for very smart leaders who know the types of questions to ask and can spot when someone is trying to blow smoke. I perceive Mulally as the latter and I believe his executives are the same way. I also don't think he would put up with anyone fudging a business case for individual gains if they were caught.

 

If Ford wants to kill the Ranger it's because they have a solid business case for it. The reasons could be anything from manufacturing/engineering costs to perceived impact on F150 market share to dozens of other reasons having nothing to do with sheetmetal or factories. But you can bet it's all part of a larger overall plan that's based on valid information.

 

I too...

 

I perceive Mulally to be that way as well, but, am less confident in the other aspects of Ford Leadership. It takes a long time from what I've seen for entrenched Leadership to truly change. Fake change, they can accomplish that from call to call, e-mail to e-mail, at a moments notice. True change though...much less convinced. No better example of that than GM, IMO.

 

So Mulally might not put up with it, but, that would mean he'd have to know so as to not put up with it...and there is the problem with Leadership: They never know, as they're 30k feet above Reality. Mulally may see a very solid business case for it, Yes, but that doesn't mean everything that has gone into that business case is Reality solid - Mulally would never know unless something was just incredibly skewed...and even then he very well could not.

 

Not saying that Ranger doesn't validly need to die, maybe it really does. From a consumer perspective though looking inside, w/o any of the Reality inside info, all we can do is speculate and obviously Ford will be doing whatever they're going to be doing...

 

Chuck

[akirby]

I too...

 

I perceive Mulally to be that way as well, but, am less confident in the other aspects of Ford Leadership. It takes a long time from what I've seen for entrenched Leadership to truly change. Fake change, they can accomplish that from call to call, e-mail to e-mail, at a moments notice. True change though...much less convinced. No better example of that than GM, IMO.

 

So Mulally might not put up with it, but, that would mean he'd have to know so as to not put up with it...and there is the problem with Leadership: They never know, as they're 30k feet above Reality. Mulally may see a very solid business case for it, Yes, but that doesn't mean everything that has gone into that business case is Reality solid - Mulally would never know unless something was just incredibly skewed...and even then he very well could not.

 

Not saying that Ranger doesn't validly need to die, maybe it really does. From a consumer perspective though looking inside, w/o any of the Reality inside info, all we can do is speculate and obviously Ford will be doing whatever they're going to be doing...

 

Chuck

 

I agree except in this case I think the business case is more like different options for keeping Ranger on current platform, move to T6, etc. with each one having costs and ROI which may all show a profit. But Ford has either decided that there are other projects that are more important so new Ranger ended up "below the line" or it's a casualty of a bigger picture/longer term project.

 

I think the future plan just doesn't include the current Ranger platform or factory so it's a convenient time to kill it. Don't forget that Ford and Mazda are no longer chummy so that may have played a part.

[chucky2]

I agree except in this case I think the business case is more like different options for keeping Ranger on current platform, move to T6, etc. with each one having costs and ROI which may all show a profit. But Ford has either decided that there are other projects that are more important so new Ranger ended up "below the line" or it's a casualty of a bigger picture/longer term project.

 

I think the future plan just doesn't include the current Ranger platform or factory so it's a convenient time to kill it. Don't forget that Ford and Mazda are no longer chummy so that may have played a part.

 

My wish would be, since they're going to kill it, is scale down the F-150 into a "F-100", "F-100 Ranger", or "Ranger", that is built off the F-150 platform. Doesn't need to be as wide, doesn't need to - obviously - be as long, doesn't need to be as high. Base engine in the F-150 could be the upscale engine in the new smaller variant, with something like the 2.0L I-4 Ecoboost being the fuel efficient option (or whatever small Ecoboost Ford eventually puts into the Edge or Explorer). Towing should still be Class III. Make the sides and tailgate height actually usable, instead of monster sized.

 

Ford could have a nice little usable pickup, for on the cheap (relatively at least; all the driveline costs would be negated as they'd already be vetted for F-150), that should be less expensive, that folks could still buy. Thereby keeping them in the Ford family, and still, being able to count for the F series trucks best sellers of the millennium tagline (so Leadership that is concerned about that wouldn't have to fear lost F-150 sales). Any F-150 sales it did siphon away would be built in the same plant...so no plant loss worries.

 

It sounds relatively doable, shouldn't need a trillion in R&D, material, proving, and plant costs, and it'd get all the Ranger-type buyers to stay Ford. Other than the money, what's not to like?

 

Or, they could just drop a couple of new engines in the current Ranger, and call it a day.

 

Chuck

Edited December 2, 2010 by chucky2

[silvrsvt]

Ranger gets to join the Crown Vic and Lincoln Town Car as dead litter on the side of the road in 2011. Mariner, Milan, Grand Marquis, and Mountaineer this year. Hard to keep up with all the Ford discarded nameplates, isn't it? Arguably, the Explorer name has the most negative baggage, but that is the name Ford decided to keep. The other nameplates are thrown away. I once drove a Bronco ll, but Ford ended it because of its tendancy to roll over. The Explorer had a far worse name for that than the Bronco ll. But the Explorer name stays, and the Bronco name stays dead. Btw, the Ranger originally was built off the Bronco ll platform or vice versa.

 

Ford just figured out recently its easier to keep an damaged name with reconginztion and fix it then it is to start with a whole new ball of wax...thats what they get for following GM who is the king of doing this over the past 30 years.

 

PS the Ranger name has a been a trim level for a LONG time

[akirby]

PS the Ranger name has a been a trim level for a LONG time

 

My favorite truck of all time is a SWB regular cab 1977 F-100 Ranger XLT. (Red of course)

 

Not to be confused with the F-100 Explorer.

[Noah Harbinger]

15k would be very generous I think, but I'd be willing to say 10k, at most. And I agree, lots of people that buy Rangers also shop American for their car needs. Next time they want a Ranger replacement and they can chose from Hulk 1 (Ford), Hulk 2 (Chevy), or Hulk 3 (Dodge), they're going to look around and go, Hey, look at that, Toyota has what I need, I'll go there. Then when their car is due to be replaced, why, lets stop on back at the Toyota stealership and see what they've got....

 

Chuck

 

I'd be interested to see what percentage of multi-car households are one-brand house holds. I would dare a guess that it is a small margin over a random distribution weighted by each automaker's total sales.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Noah Harbinger

[jpd80]

Worse than that, is that you are basically handing at least 40,000 Ranger customers (being generous in assuming 15,000 of the 55,000 Ranger buyers DO buy an F150) to Toyota, the only manufacturer with a dog still in this fight.

 

Those customers may be gone for good once they set foot in a Toyota dealership.

And this is where the whole idea begins to fall apart because Tacoma sales have

been steadily declining for several years now so Ranger buyers aren't going there...

Edited December 3, 2010 by jpd80

[goinbroke2]

I'd be interested to see what percentage of multi-car households are one-brand house holds. I would dare a guess that it is a small margin over a random distribution weighted by each automaker's total sales.

 

Around here I notice either both veh's are one brand (ford/chev/dodge) or domestic truck with an import car. This seems like a "well, duh" statement but hold on.

You don't see car/truck imports.

You don't see intermixed domestic's (ford truck/chev car)

I know 1 family that has two silver hyundai's (identical cars, wtf???)

There are a couple of 2 import car homes.

In the sub-division, there are equal number of rangers and full size trucks. (notice I said ranger and not small trucks? 1 dakota is the only non ranger small truck, one street has a row of 7 or 8 of them, all at duplex's)

 

What does this mean? Well, public perception around here is domestic trucks are the best and import cars are the best. And/or if someone buys domestic they buy everything domestic.

In my own driveway, we have two fords, next door is two fords and a dodge minivan, the other side (rcmp) he has a subaru and chev truck. Across the street is a honda and vw.

Street behind me is rangers/imports....

 

I would say that, now that ford is producing good cars, there will be more ford/ford homes around here. Yes I do think it makes a difference if a person buys and drives a ford truck then needs a car. I think they will look at the dealership they got the truck from if they think they were treated fairly/feel good about the last purchase there.

[OAC_Sparky]

And this is where the whole idea begins to fall apart because Tacoma sales have

been steadily declining for several years now so Ranger buyers aren't going there...

You don't know that for certain, that's only your theory without research on Tacoma owners.

 

As the segment decreases and some buyers move to other vehicle types for their needs, it is just as easily plausable that the declining Tacoma numbers were tempered by ex-Ranger owners or prospective Ranger owners defecting.

 

If you look at these numbers (what I can easily find):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_(North_America)

Max Ranger Sales: 348,358 (1999)

Min Ranger Sales: 55,600 (2008)

Ratio: 84% drop

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Tacoma

Max Tacoma Sales: 178,351 (2006)

Min Tacoma Sales: 144,655 (2008)

Ratio: 19% drop

 

Big difference.

 

As a matter of fact, let's look at the sales trend. When did the Ranger really start dying off?

 

Hmmm.... 1999 and 2000, we sold over 330,000 Rangers. Since 2000 the Tacoma has been holding a steady 150,000 ish with a minor rise in '05='07 while Ranger sales fell off a cliff.

 

Why do you think that is?

Edited December 3, 2010 by OAC_Sparky