Curious about the thought process...

[povertyknob]

While I'm not happy that Ford chose to kill the Ranger and Sport Trac programs I'm willing to concede that they have people who know lots more about maintaining profitability than I. I'm willing to have patience to see what their plans are to bring what appears to be a terrific mid-sized vehicle, the T-6 Ranger, to North America.What I'm baffled about is the unwillingness to even discuss the decision to not build any truck that will fit in the average garage and carry a family of 4/5 people. A Ford V.P. was recently on a car talk show and , when a caller specifically asked about the T-6 coming here because the F-150 had grown too large, immediately launched into a description of Ford's efforts to achieve better MPG on the F-150. It seems Ford's response to people who ask why the F-150 keeps growing larger is to pretend not to hear the question.With the demise of the Ranger in December, Ford will offer no truck meeting the aforementioned criteria, and that admittedly small share of the market will have been ceded to the competition. I'm curious why the decision was made to eliminate the option of getting an F-150 Super Cab with a 5.5 foot bed and shorter wheelbase. That vehicle would seem to be just as profitable as any other F-150 . IIRC, mine was around $36,000 in 2005. If it was in low demand when it was canceled, wouldn't it make sense to think that would change with the Ranger and Sport Trac going away? Was it canceled because it was the only truck using that wheelbase? If that's the case, it still begs the same question: Would it still have been too costly to produce with additional sales from Ranger/Sport Trac buyers? The shortest 2011 Super Cab is nearly 2 feet longer than my Sport Trac and 14 inches longer than my 2005 F 150. Were the savings from eliminating the short wheelbase F-150 Super Cab so significant as to justify doing it from 2012 forward, without the Ranger/Sport Trac?

[NLPRacing]

Companies are in business to do one thing, make money. After doing their research, Ford must of found that supplying a compact PU in NA wasn't profitable enough for them. Does that suck for us consumers? Yes. Was it the right decision for them? Only time will tell. The good news for Ford and Ford fans is that they have enough resources to offer a compact PU here just about anytime they want. So if the market shifts back to compact trucks, they will be prepared.

 

Also, there are still some pretty strong rumors about an Explorer based F100 and/or Sport Trac coming up soon. Stay tuned.

[akirby]

A Ford V.P. was recently on a car talk show and , when a caller specifically asked about the T-6 coming here because the F-150 had grown too large, immediately launched into a description of Ford's efforts to achieve better MPG on the F-150. It seems Ford's response to people who ask why the F-150 keeps growing larger is to pretend not to hear the question.

 

What do you expect them to say? They can't talk about future products so what other answer could they possibly give?

[povertyknob]

What do you expect them to say? They can't talk about future products so what other answer could they possibly give?

I understand they can't talk about future products. I used her evasive response only to illustrate what seems to me like short sighted planning in not offering any pickup at all to individuals who haul both multiple passengers and whatever goes in the bed...and fits a garage. I'd have been happier if she'd said " I understand what you're asking and Ford will make every effort to offer a product if the demand is there." It's just puzzling to me why Ford would eliminate all but their full sized trucks and then effectively stretch the Super Cab by a foot. My question isn't whether they'll offer new product,but if they could have retained some of the " leisure truck " market by continuing a product they already offered. I didn't expect her to divulge future products but I was surprised when she completely dodged the question about the F-150 outgrowing the average garage. I don't know if it would have been prohibitively expensive to continue to build the smaller Super Cab. That' s why i posed the question of whether Ford had considered sales numbers for that vehicle after Ranger/Sport Trac were gone. BON seems to be split about 80/20 on the issue of why people buy smaller trucks.Small means "fuel sipper" to most. Obviously I'm in the minority that wants a well appointed,capable truck that I can park inside. Ford already made such a vehicle , yet chose to cancel it along with the Ranger and Sport Trac. I'd hoped Ms Samardzich could shed some light on the corporate mindset toward "leisure trucks" and I was disappointed that she wouldn't or couldn't offer any insight. I understand Ford is in the business to make money and I'm all for that.That's why I ask why they felt they couldn't make money on the short Super cab until they decide whether to re-enter the mid size market.

[povertyknob]

Companies are in business to do one thing, make money. After doing their research, Ford must of found that supplying a compact PU in NA wasn't profitable enough for them. Does that suck for us consumers? Yes. Was it the right decision for them? Only time will tell. The good news for Ford and Ford fans is that they have enough resources to offer a compact PU here just about anytime they want. So if the market shifts back to compact trucks, they will be prepared.

 

Also, there are still some pretty strong rumors about an Explorer based F100 and/or Sport Trac coming up soon. Stay tuned.

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just wondering why they chose to cancel the only other option available to fill in while they decide what they're going to do.

[NLPRacing]

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just wondering why they chose to cancel the only other option available to fill in while they decide what they're going to do.

 

I would have to guess it's due to them not finding a business case for it. Otherwise, there would be an option.

[akirby]

I used her evasive response only to illustrate what seems to me like short sighted planning in not offering any pickup at all to individuals who haul both multiple passengers and whatever goes in the bed...and fits a garage.

 

I don't think it was so much short-sighted planning as it was a change in corporate direction and a change in the market that occured after the T6 program was locked in.

 

Under the old mgt strategy where North America made their own decisions I have no doubt the Ranger would have been updated and soldiered on while the ROW got the new T6. That was certainly the plan when FoNA opted out of the T6 program

 

Enter Mulally and the mandate for global shared platforms plus the downturn in the small truck market and the economics to keep the current Ranger just didn't make sense and it was too late to get the current T6 ready for NA.

 

The cost to keep running a dedicated plant for such a small volume vehicle along with the investment to upgrade the platform was likely more than Ford wanted to spend and the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

People mistakenly believe the only decision criteria is whether a project will turn a profit and that's simply not the case. At any point in time a large business will have dozens of profitable projects waiting for funding but there simply isn't enough funds available to do them all, so you have to pick and choose the ones that will give you the most bang for the buck.

 

In this case I'm sure Ford will save more by shutting down the plant than they would have made in profits over the next couple of years. And it clears the path for a new clean sheet small truck based on a shared platform.

[povertyknob]

The people who made the decision to cancel Ranger/Sport Trac know a lot more about the industry than I, and hopefully they will see a business case in the future to replace one of them. What I'm curious about is the thinking that led them to concurrently eliminate the short wheelbase, short bed F-150 Super Cab. This was an existing platform that might have sufficed for those looking for a "leisure truck/lifestyle vehicle", at least in the absence of any alternative from Ford. It may have been doomed by the fact that it used a different wheelbase, a 132.5 inch IIRC. Ford has survived by cutting everything that was deemed unnecessary. I realize it's selfish of me,but I wish they'd let this one ride.

[akirby]

The people who made the decision to cancel Ranger/Sport Trac know a lot more about the industry than I, and hopefully they will see a business case in the future to replace one of them. What I'm curious about is the thinking that led them to concurrently eliminate the short wheelbase, short bed F-150 Super Cab. This was an existing platform that might have sufficed for those looking for a "leisure truck/lifestyle vehicle", at least in the absence of any alternative from Ford. It may have been doomed by the fact that it used a different wheelbase, a 132.5 inch IIRC. Ford has survived by cutting everything that was deemed unnecessary. I realize it's selfish of me,but I wish they'd let this one ride.

 

I'm sure the take rate just wasn't enough to justify the expense. Do they even make SWB standard cabs any more? I saw one in the parking lot the other day (a few years old) and it just looked so strange. I remember back in the late 70s all you could really find were standard cabs with short or long beds. Super and crew cabs were nonexistent except for the odd work truck.

[timmm55]

I'm sure the take rate just wasn't enough to justify the expense. Do they even make SWB standard cabs any more? I saw one in the parking lot the other day (a few years old) and it just looked so strange. I remember back in the late 70s all you could really find were standard cabs with short or long beds. Super and crew cabs were nonexistent except for the odd work truck.

 

Not quite "non-existent" as my next door neighbor who was the Dean of Students at the local college had a 72 or 73 F series Super Cab (4 doors) XLT in two tone green. It has A/C, cloth seats, and every option I'd ever seen on a truck. A far cry from the 60 6 cylinder/3 on the tree faded red F100 my dad had! LOL

[theoldwizard]

Any corporate "spokesperson" has been well taught Rule #1.

 

Never say anything negative about any product or decision that are already been made. (You'll never hear anyone in Ford management say they are disappointed in Flex sales, even though they are well below projections)

 

I have also heard that a 3.7L short bed 2 door F150 gets about the same fuel economy as a Global Ranger with a smaller V6.

 

 

 

Now for you conspiracy theorists ....

 

Ford wants to shed another plant and Twin Cities was put in the cross hairs a long time a go. Once it is closed for a couple of years, don't be surprised if Global Ranger shows up in the US either as an import or added to one of the existing modernized plants.

[GTwannabe]

Hopefully Ford has something in the works... maybe a pickup based off the new Explorer. Dakota and Colorado will be all-new. Tacoma, Frontier, and Ridgeline are all overdue for a redesign. 25mpg and seating for 4 should be achievable with modern powertrains. Full-size truck sales are declining and will accelerate once smaller trucks show MPG benefits.

[theoldwizard]

Hopefully Ford has something in the works... maybe a pickup based off the new Explorer.

PLEASE NO !

 

No ANOTHER attempt at a pickup truck built on a unibody platform. VW and Honda have both tried and they were NOT successful.

[povertyknob]

Any corporate "spokesperson" has been well taught Rule #1.

 

Never say anything negative about any product or decision that are already been made. (You'll never hear anyone in Ford management say they are disappointed in Flex sales, even though they are well below projections)

 

I have also heard that a 3.7L short bed 2 door F150 gets about the same fuel economy as a Global Ranger with a smaller V6.

 

 

 

Now for you conspiracy theorists ....

 

Ford wants to shed another plant and Twin Cities was put in the cross hairs a long time a go. Once it is closed for a couple of years, don't be surprised if Global Ranger shows up in the US either as an import or added to one of the existing modernized plants.

Twin Cities has been a "dead plant walking' for a decade. I like your conspiracy theory so long as there is an option for more than a fuel sipper version. I don't see the diesels coming over here and the 2.5 isn't going to sell many crew cabs or Wildtraks. Ford has the capacity to build plenty of the 3.5 or 3.7 for those models. BTW,the V-6 short bed regular cab won't work for me. The State Highway Patrol frowns upon vehicles going on the interstate with two folks sitting in the bed..... The crew cab T-6 is only a little smaller than the F-150. Which would make it just about right for a lot of us.

[NLPRacing]

PLEASE NO !

 

No ANOTHER attempt at a pickup truck built on a unibody platform. VW and Honda have both tried and they were NOT successful.

 

Ford already successfully builds unibody pickups for other markets (Courier & Falcon Ute). If ANYBODY could build a successful unibody pickup, it would be Ford. How many successful pickups have VW and/or Honda ever build? I think it could work, as long as it doesn't look like a Ridgeline.

[jlames]

Hey-= I'm still smoldering over Lincoln-Mercury's decision to quit the "Mark" line and no, the MKX isn't a "Mark" line. I mean one of the most beautiful sport coupes made, the Collector's Edition Mark VIII. Leased a 97 and when I heard they were going to me no more, bought #0880 to keep. "The sport coupe market" was dying they said. I don't know, I just know I love dat car... or I mean work of art. But the company can't survive on my 2 trucks and Mark VIII!!

[GTwannabe]

Ford already successfully builds unibody pickups for other markets (Courier & Falcon Ute). If ANYBODY could build a successful unibody pickup, it would be Ford. How many successful pickups have VW and/or Honda ever build? I think it could work, as long as it doesn't look like a Ridgeline.

 

Ridgelines are very popular up here. New, used, doesn't matter, they don't spend any time sitting on the lot. Last time a checked out a large Honda dealer, they had no RL's and had no idea when the RL's they had on order would arrive. They could order one with deposit and no guarantee when it would be built/delivered

[povertyknob]

I'm sure the take rate just wasn't enough to justify the expense. Do they even make SWB standard cabs any more? I saw one in the parking lot the other day (a few years old) and it just looked so strange. I remember back in the late 70s all you could really find were standard cabs with short or long beds. Super and crew cabs were nonexistent except for the odd work truck.

Do you have any idea if the Raptor uses a separate assembly line? I was researching the Raptor ( which would actually fit in my garage) when it occurred to me that my 2005 F-150 SWB Super Cab would actually compete with the Raptor if it were still being built today. It may be that Ford killed that particular model so as to lessen the gamble it took in producing the Raptor. The dimensions were similar, with the standard model being a bit narrower. I'd think an FX-4 with SWB Super Cab and an Eco-Boost 3.5 might put a dent in Raptor sales if enough people opted for a bit less performance with better fuel economy. That 2005 model was pretty low volume ( requiring some separate assembly?) and I suppose I can understand the corporate thinking if that was the case. They must have done something right,as Raptor sales seem pretty strong to date.

FWIW, the "shortest" STD cab you can find today is 213 in. long and has a six and a half foot bed. Other than Crew Cab, the short bed seems to have been axed due to low volumes.

[NickF1011]

Ridgelines are very popular up here. New, used, doesn't matter, they don't spend any time sitting on the lot. Last time a checked out a large Honda dealer, they had no RL's and had no idea when the RL's they had on order would arrive. They could order one with deposit and no guarantee when it would be built/delivered

 

Just because they don't have any in stock doesn't mean they are popular. It could be very much the opposite. Why would a dealer want to take vehicles into inventory that will probably just sit and collect dust? Ridgeline sales have been poor. Very poor. If by "popular" in your area you mean they've sold 12 at that dealership instead of 4 like all of those others around the country, then yeah, I suppose it's "popular" there. :shrug:

[akirby]

Do you have any idea if the Raptor uses a separate assembly line? I was researching the Raptor ( which would actually fit in my garage) when it occurred to me that my 2005 F-150 SWB Super Cab would actually compete with the Raptor if it were still being built today. It may be that Ford killed that particular model so as to lessen the gamble it took in producing the Raptor. The dimensions were similar, with the standard model being a bit narrower. I'd think an FX-4 with SWB Super Cab and an Eco-Boost 3.5 might put a dent in Raptor sales if enough people opted for a bit less performance with better fuel economy. That 2005 model was pretty low volume ( requiring some separate assembly?) and I suppose I can understand the corporate thinking if that was the case. They must have done something right,as Raptor sales seem pretty strong to date.

FWIW, the "shortest" STD cab you can find today is 213 in. long and has a six and a half foot bed. Other than Crew Cab, the short bed seems to have been axed due to low volumes.

 

The Raptor doesn't compete with any regular F-150. If they stopped making a particular configuration it had to be due to low volume and/or cost savings, not to protect Raptor sales.

[silvrsvt]

The crew cab T-6 is only a little smaller than the F-150. Which would make it just about right for a lot of us.

 

 

But your contradicting yourself..why not step up to the F-150 instead?

 

 

[Marginal Economist]

Do you have any idea if the Raptor uses a separate assembly line? I was researching the Raptor ( which would actually fit in my garage) when it occurred to me that my 2005 F-150 SWB Super Cab would actually compete with the Raptor if it were still being built today. It may be that Ford killed that particular model so as to lessen the gamble it took in producing the Raptor. The dimensions were similar, with the standard model being a bit narrower. I'd think an FX-4 with SWB Super Cab and an Eco-Boost 3.5 might put a dent in Raptor sales if enough people opted for a bit less performance with better fuel economy. That 2005 model was pretty low volume ( requiring some separate assembly?) and I suppose I can understand the corporate thinking if that was the case. They must have done something right,as Raptor sales seem pretty strong to date.

FWIW, the "shortest" STD cab you can find today is 213 in. long and has a six and a half foot bed. Other than Crew Cab, the short bed seems to have been axed due to low volumes.

The Raptor goes down the same line at DTP. Raptor sales would not be affected by a 5.5ft box on a Super cab. 90% of raptor sales for the 2011MY are Crew. The price difference without rebates is fairly substantial as well. I can get a nice Crew FX4 for 12-15K less than a Crew Raptor.

[Bob Rosadini]

In my book the thought process is simple- Ford put themselves in a box when they created two pick up lines-150 and Super Duty. T-6 is too close to 150 -both in size and economy. If 150 wasn't built-and the segment leader, the T-6 would be here.

 

Fuel economy is not my issue- I just don't want a 150 sized vehicle. In the meantime, with 48,000 miles on my 04 Ranger FX4 Level II I think I'll just put up with the lousy mpg the 4.0 puts out.

[J-150]

My understanding is that DTP, as a flex plant, is flexible enough to build Rangers along side the F150. If this still hold true, the closure of Twin Cities is irrelevant to making a T6.

 

As was suggested above, I'm sure Ford has a plan to be able to start a NA T6 within 12 months of a "Go" decision. Just as the 4.4 diesel can go into an F150 without much lead time. OAP can no doubt accommodate an Explorer based ute alongside the Flex. Seems to me the Ford has most of their ducks in a row and are going to let market forces direct the decision to proceed.

[povertyknob]

But your contradicting yourself..why not step up to the F-150 instead?

I didn't mean to be vague when I said it's " a little smaller". The shortest F-150 available in 2011 that will seat more than 3 adults is 231.8 inches long (with 144 in. wheelbase). The T-6 Crew Cab is 5080 mm , or roughly 201 inches long, according to my conversion. The 2005 Super Cab that I leased was 218 inches long (133 in. wheelbase) and was about as much as I wanted to put in my garage. It's just odd to me that Ford elected to discontinue that model at nearly the same time that they 1. decided to discontinue the Ranger, 2. decided to discontinue the Sport Trac, and 3. elected not to bring the T-6 Ranger to North America.Those of us who would like to have a truck that is both capable and "nimble" are out of luck unless the T-6 is brought here.