2010 FY Pickup trucks & fullsize SUVs

[waymondospiff]

Full-size pickup trucks

Ford F-Series - 528,349

Chevy Silverado - 370,135

Dodge Ram - 199,652

GMC Sierra - 129,794

Toyota Tundra - 93,309

Nissan Titan - 23,416

Chevy Avalance - 20,515

Cadillac Escalade EXT - 2,082

 

Less than full-size pickup trucks

Toyota Tacoma - 106,198

Ford Ranger - 55,364

Nissan Frontier - 40,427

Chevy Colorado - 24,642

Honda Ridgeline - 16,142

Dodge Dakota - 13,047

GMC Canyon - 7,992

Suzuki Equator - 1,447 (A Frontier by any other name is clearly not as sweet.)

 

Fullsize SUVs

Chevy Tahoe - 75,675

GMC Yukon - 52,578 (Inc. XL sales)

Chevy Suburban - 45,152

Ford Expedition - 37,336

GMC Yukon - 52,578

Cadillac Escalade - 24,792 (Inc. ESV sales)

Nissan Armada - 19,334

Toyota Sequoia - 13,848

Kia Borrego - 9,835

Lincoln Navigator - 8,245

Lexus LX - 3,983

Toyota Land Cruiser - 1,807

[NickF1011]

Isn't the Borrego more Explorer-sized?

 

Anywho, jolly good showing for the F-series.

 

And my, how the Dakota has fallen from grace.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Ford has to be laughing at how the decades-old Ranger managed to outsell (by a wide margin no less) multiple models that are all much newer. What I don't understand is why they won't just go ahead and make something out of the value they've built up with the Ranger nameplate.

[NickF1011]

Ford has to be laughing at how the decades-old Ranger managed to outsell (by a wide margin no less) multiple models that are all much newer. What I don't understand is why they won't just go ahead and make something out of the value they've built up with the Ranger nameplate.

 

The Ranger sells because it is the cheapest pickup on the market. Period.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The Ranger sells because it is the cheapest pickup on the market. Period.

 

Oh, that's certaintly part of it, but it also has to do with the fact that Ranger offers some of the best value around.

 

Think about it: A reputation for rock-solid reliability and longetivety, reputation for being able to take serious abuse without damage, excellent gas mileage (4 banger anyways), low maintenance costs, and best of all, low price!

 

It's no wonder that the things still sell (albeit not as good as they used to, when the model was still fresh). It's also no wonder there are so many of us [consumers] that are angry with Ford for cancelling the Ranger.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Sevensecondsuv

[NLPRacing]

Fullsize SUVs

Chevy Tahoe - 75,675

GMC Yukon - 52,578 (Inc. XL sales)

Chevy Suburban - 45,152

Ford Expedition - 37,336

Cadillac Escalade - 24,792 (Inc. ESV sales)

Nissan Armada - 19,334

Toyota Sequoia - 13,848

Kia Borrego - 9,835

Lincoln Navigator - 8,245

Lexus LX - 3,983

Toyota Land Cruiser - 1,807

 

GM sells almost 200,000 full size SUV's while FoMoCo can barely muster 45,000. Ford really needs an update that looks "prettier", doesn't share front doors with the 1997 Expedition and offer the new engines ASAP! People I know that have Expeditions, it's because of the interior & the fold flat 3rd row. People I know that have Yukons, Tahoes, Suburbans, etc., it's because they thought they were pretty.

[Edstock]

What I don't understand is why they won't just go ahead and make something out of the value they've built up with the Ranger nameplate.

Because you wouldn't want to pay what a new Ranger would cost.

 

Why? Because Ford doesn't make POS vehicles. Today's Ranger would have to offer NVH levels matching the F-150, because that's what the market expects. So, make an F-150 20% smaller. Same number of parts and build-quality. A turbo-4 is required because it's not a POS. A NA 2.5 is too weak. With today's quality expectations, how cheap can it be?

 

Unless you think the market will buy and that the Ford brand is enhanced by a no-frills basics junior pickup.

[NickF1011]

Oh, that's certaintly part of it, but it also has to do with the fact that Ranger offers some of the best value around.

 

Think about it: A reputation for rock-solid reliability and longetivety, reputation for being able to take serious abuse without damage, excellent gas mileage (4 banger anyways), low maintenance costs, and best of all, low price!

 

It's no wonder that the things still sell (albeit not as good as they used to, when the model was still fresh). It's also no wonder there are so many of us [consumers] that are angry with Ford for cancelling the Ranger.

 

That's all part of it being cheap.

 

Once you replace all the tried-and-true things with new bits you lose a lot of that value.

[Sevensecondsuv]

That's all part of it being cheap.

 

Once you replace all the tried-and-true things with new bits you lose a lot of that value.

 

 

I keep thinking I should buy a new one before they quit making them next summer. If I did, it would be a 2wd supercab XLT with the 2.3 and stick. The EPA ratings went up 1 mpg this year - the 4 banger is now 21/27. Most owners I know are reporting averaging close to 30. Honestly, what other vehicle is there on the market that offers Ranger's load capacity, size, and level of usefullness at comparable gas mileage?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Sevensecondsuv

[NickF1011]

Honestly, what other vehicle is there on the market that offers Ranger's load capacity, size, and level of usefullness at comparable gas mileage?

 

None. But on the flipside how many other vehicles have its same lack of creature comforts, safety, NVH, and fit & finish?

[PREMiERdrum]

None. But on the flipside how many other vehicles have its same lack of creature comforts, safety, NVH, and fit & finish?

 

And a 16 year old interior design? Literally. 16 years old.

[akirby]

And a 16 year old interior design? Literally. 16 years old.

 

I had a 1995 and 1990. I'd say the interior design dates back to at least 1990. The 1995 update didn't change much.

 

Edit: come to think of it, neither did the exterior. Or the powertrain.

Edited January 5, 2011 by akirby

[PREMiERdrum]

I had a 1995 and 1990. I'd say the interior design dates back to at least 1990. The 1995 update didn't change much.

 

Edit: come to think of it, neither did the exterior. Or the powertrain.

 

The current interior layout debuted for MY 94 93. The interior and exterior were a pretty big departure from the previous model.

 

EDIT: It was MY93. My apologize. My grandfather had a '94.

Edited January 5, 2011 by PREMiERdrum

[630land]

To me, the Ranger pretty much is a 1982 model all dolled up. New safety regs is killing the old design, finally. And most of those new Rangers sold were white, and have stickers on side, or a big NAPA hat on the roof. Retail truck buyers want modern designs, not cheapness.

[Biker16]

Ford has to be laughing at how the decades-old Ranger managed to outsell (by a wide margin no less) multiple models that are all much newer. What I don't understand is why they won't just go ahead and make something out of the value they've built up with the Ranger nameplate.

Still not enough volume, to pay for a redesign. can't share the costs with the ROW ranger because it's too big.

 

even at the

 

options?

 

I say if we take a step back and 'reevaluate the market.

 

Think of the Bronco Concept from 2004.

 

 

Think of the Ranger as a lifestyle vehicle. with a 6ft and 5ft bed. but would also be available in a 5 door wagon, and 2+2 short door wagon (w 2 suicide door ala FJ cruiser) open bed, (3.5ft) and open roof.

 

vehicle would be body-on-Frame

 

should be able to maintain volume of 200,000 units, it would have to be made as simple as possible, minimizing the investment needed to develop and build it.

[ANTAUS]

I believe begining this year, the Ranger, is the new Crown Vic ;-) They did add Stability Control system to the Ranger so it lets us know it'll be around about 2 more years, I think there's a federal regulation crash standard that needs to be inplace in the next 2 years so that'll be another moment where Ford will either have to revamp totally, or kill, to meet it.

[akirby]

I believe begining this year, the Ranger, is the new Crown Vic ;-) They did add Stability Control system to the Ranger so it lets us know it'll be around about 2 more years, I think there's a federal regulation crash standard that needs to be inplace in the next 2 years so that'll be another moment where Ford will either have to revamp totally, or kill, to meet it.

 

They already announced that the plant will close later this year and no announcement of production moving elsewhere.

[akirby]

The current interior layout debuted for MY 94 93. The interior and exterior were a pretty big departure from the previous model.

 

EDIT: It was MY93. My apologize. My grandfather had a '94.

 

I owned a 1990 model and a 1995 model for 5 years each. Trust me - there wasn't much of a difference and there certainly wasn't any improvement except maybe for the grille. The interior was the same.

[PREMiERdrum]

I owned a 1990 model and a 1995 model for 5 years each. Trust me - there wasn't much of a difference and there certainly wasn't any improvement except maybe for the grille. The interior was the same.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, but...

this is a '92 Ranger:

 

 

this is a '93 Ranger

 

The interior wasn't changed until MY1995. My bad.

[akirby]

They rounded out the slab body sides and changed the grille. It wasn't a huge change. And it hasn't changed at all except for the hood since 95.

[Sixt9coug]

They rounded out the slab body sides and changed the grille. It wasn't a huge change. And it hasn't changed at all except for the hood since 95.

 

 

Not a huge change? It's a totally different body. Interior was totally different too. The last "big" change to the Ranger was in 2001. It had a a facelift and well, not much else since then. Mostly minor interior changes really.

 

I love my Ranger. I bought it new, and yes, price was part of the reason I bought NEW. The size of the vehicle and my prior experience with owning another Ranger got me into a new one. I could have bought a used F150 for less, but I don't want or need a vehicle that big. Period. Price wasn't everything.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The cab actually got 1.5" longer (both regular and supercab) for 1998 redesign. They also went to IFS from TTB/TIB in the 1998 Redesign. Somewhere around 1998 4 doors became an option. In 2001, the 4.0L SOHC replaced the 4.0L OHV. The 3.0L V6 got flex fuel in 1998. The 2.3L SOHC cast iron 4-banger (110 HP) was stroked out to 2.5L (120 HP) for 1998-2001.5. Finally the all-aluminum 2.3 DOHC "Duratech" (145 HP) replaced the old cast-iron "Lima" 4-banger in 2001.5.

 

So there have been changes.

[Sevensecondsuv]

None. But on the flipside how many other vehicles have its same lack of creature comforts, safety, NVH, and fit & finish?

 

1. NVH is much better than what I'm driving now, so it sounds good to me!

2. Fit and Finish is the same as any other mass-produced non-luxury brand as far as I can tell.

3. Creature comforts? The only ones I like are power steering, power brakes, A/C, Intermittant wipers and an AM/FM radio. Oh and leather seats if I can get them. If by creature comforts you mean stuff like Sync or MyFord Touch, then I don't want the vehicle. I really don't want LCD displays, touch screens, and voice recognition in a vehicle I have to drive everyday. That sort of stuff would drive me nuts. Please stick to the good old knobs and buttons. I'm fine concentrating on driving - I don't need to be entertained by a bunch of cheesy gizmos as I'm moving down the road.

4. As far as safety, I've seen enough crashed Rangers to trust my life and even family in one during an accident. As I've mentioned here before, there are some serious flaws with using the government/insurance company crash test ratings to compare the safety of one model versus another.

 

Now I know that obviously not all buyers are like me. But I'm not the only one who thinks like this and that's why the Ranger is so appealing to consumers like myself.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Sevensecondsuv

[akirby]

I guess my definition of "totally different' and yours are "totally different". I went directly from one to the other and from my perspective it was just a minor facelift. Whatever. I guarantee that if you put my 95 next to a new 2011 you'd have to look hard to find any major differences.

[Sixt9coug]

I guess my definition of "totally different' and yours are "totally different". I went directly from one to the other and from my perspective it was just a minor facelift. Whatever. I guarantee that if you put my 95 next to a new 2011 you'd have to look hard to find any major differences.

 

 

I've put my 2009 next to my neighbors 1996 and I see many, MANY differences. Same with a previous neighbors 1997.