akirby Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 And people who NEED trucks for daily work will buy an F150 (or other full-size truck). Those that use Rangers for commuters because they want it for the occasional Lowe's/Home Depot run will keep their Ranger (or buy a used one, or other cheap used truck, or rent a truck from Lowe's/HD) as a second vehicle and buy a car/small SUV for their commuter. Which truck is similarly equipped that only gets 1mpg less than the EB? Curious... The closest equipped F150 has the 6.2, and it is several (4??) mpg less than the EB. These. ^^^^^^^^^^ sranger - go look at what happened to F150 sales when gas hit $4 - they tanked big time. The F150 is now selling half what they used to, but Ranger sales (or any other small pickups) have not increased accordingly. Ranger buyers went to Escapes, Edges, Focuses and similar vehicles. And a new Ranger would only change that a little bit. From what the insiders have been hinting at there will a big weight reduction AND a totally new propulsion system for the F150 resulting in a huge increase in FE. Of course the Ranger Mafia wants to ignore these reports because it totally kills their case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Which truck is similarly equipped that only gets 1mpg less than the EB? Curious... The closest equipped F150 has the 6.2, and it is several (4??) mpg less than the EB. I have the ecoboost and it does not get more than 1mpg better than the 5.0l under real world driving...... The ecoboost is mostly hype and ONLY gets good gas milage under ideal situations. It has to be completely flat and you cannot stop ov long distances and the speed has to be kept to under 65mph. Under the same situations I doubt that the 6.2 will get much less.... I have friends with the 6.2 and they get about the same mileage as me with the ecoboost.... Edited November 23, 2011 by sranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) These. ^^^^^^^^^^ sranger - go look at what happened to F150 sales when gas hit $4 - they tanked big time. The F150 is now selling half what they used to, but Ranger sales (or any other small pickups) have not increased accordingly. Ranger buyers went to Escapes, Edges, Focuses and similar vehicles. And a new Ranger would only change that a little bit. From what the insiders have been hinting at there will a big weight reduction AND a totally new propulsion system for the F150 resulting in a huge increase in FE. Of course the Ranger Mafia wants to ignore these reports because it totally kills their case. Probably because the ranger had not been updated in over ten years and offered no better gas milage. If it had had a modern fuel efficient engine, I think people would have switched. I know that they will move to other manufactures who have updated their designs the next time the gas prices surge.... I will believe a light f150 when I see it.... Edited November 23, 2011 by sranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I know that they will move to other manufactures who have updated their designs the next time the gas prices surge.... Then Ford will pull the pickle out and make a small pickup — if enough people start buying Colorados, Tacomas, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I think the next issue really to discuss is, Price wise, WHAT is the breaking point? I mean, just looking at it, people aren't complaining much about $3.50 for gas, and it flunctuates quite a bit and they are ok with it...They seem to be ok at $4 as well...will $5 a gallon be that point again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Probably because the ranger had not been updated in over ten years and offered no better gas milage. If it had had a modern fuel efficient engine, I think people would have switched. I know that they will move to other manufactures who have updated their designs the next time the gas prices surge.... I will believe a light f150 when I see it.... I guess we'll just have to wait for the new Colorado to see what kind of effect modern 25mpg "small" trucks have on 25mpg SUV/CUV sales. Plenty of potential sales out there with the demise of both the Dakota and the Ranger. Plus recovery of buyers who have been settling for mid-size SUV's but prefer trucks. Regarding these "Ranger length" standard cab/short bed F-150's, you hardly ever see them on the roads. Standard cabs are useless to a lot of buyers because they can't do double duty as a family hauler. If it's a standard cab, it's usually a work truck with the long bed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Standard cabs are useless to a lot of buyers because they can't do double duty as a family hauler. So is a Ranger extended cab. There were plenty of Tacomas and Frontiers available with more modern engines and features when F150 sales tanked and they didn't go up either. You can pretend the small truck market will make a comeback but there is absolutely no evidence to support it. To keep implying otherwise is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I have the ecoboost and it does not get more than 1mpg better than the 5.0l under real world driving...... The EB is not comparable to the 5.0. Compare tow ratings...a big difference! Plus, the EB has more HP (only 5) and more torque (30?) than the 5.0. I have friends with the 6.2 and they get about the same mileage as me with the ecoboost.... About the same...yeah, only about 3-4 MPG less....which is considerable. You can't compare your mpg numbers with your friends. Driving styles, terrain, traffic, etc. are all different. Compare the EPA numbers...or drive them all back to back, for two weeks, over the same roads, at the same times, and then get back with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheri/ck Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I guess we'll just have to wait for the new Colorado to see what kind of effect modern 25mpg "small" trucks have on 25mpg SUV/CUV sales. Plenty of potential sales out there with the demise of both the Dakota and the Ranger. Plus recovery of buyers who have been settling for mid-size SUV's but prefer trucks. Regarding these "Ranger length" standard cab/short bed F-150's, you hardly ever see them on the roads. Standard cabs are useless to a lot of buyers because they can't do double duty as a family hauler. If it's a standard cab, it's usually a work truck with the long bed. So, I post from a long time ago when I was told on this forum Ford would not build me a new Ranger or a smaller F-150 just because I wanted one. Appears that won't happen for a lot of people too now. I predict that most people pay little attention, will go to the dealer's show room looking for something to replace their incredibly reliable, old Ranger and what? I have to buy a huge F-150 that I can't park, won't fit in the garage and just doesn't work for me? Maybe I am wrong, but there is more distrurbing news here to me. Considering we have both F-150's and Rangers, I considered what would a replacement for our 2007 F-150 XL, regular cab, 5.4 auto, 4X4, limited slip cost now? Guess we could give up the room behind the seats of the extended cab Ranger for another good truck like this one. Didn't like the idea that the dual little rear doors went away either on the regular cab F-150. (They have never rattled on this truck, driven on mostly rural unpaved roads and they are nice to have.) It's been a very good truck. Wrong. Ford does not build my vehicle - again. Could not see this base F-150 XL, regular cab, 4X4 with short wheel base and V-8 available and I tried various pricing websites and could not believe it. The 4X4 with the new 5.0 V-8 is only available in XL trim in the 8 foot bed? Or you have no other option than the 3.7 V-6 in 6.5 bed. Granted this would be a nice engine in a new 4,500 pound Ranger, but a 6,000+ pound F-150? With 4X4 and needs to tow a little here and there? I don't want these F-150's. The truck is already way too big - add a longer wheel base and sorry, Ford - no. Are you marketing these short wheel base, V-6 only trucks as replacement for a Ranger? Or do you just want me to check onto the FX-4 or Lariat? Somebody please correct on my misinformation. But at the moment, I don't think Ford wants to build a truck for me. So, I can get the short wheel base F-150 with either the 5.0 or Ecoboost in a higher trim package. Now that truck is about $10,000 more than the last 4X4 Ranger I bought which has served me really well for rural/urban driving. And, by the way - those that complain about an average of 17 mpg on a 4x4 4.0 Ranger don't have the rather nice manual tranny. My 2003 extended cab, 4X4 with 4.10 gears truck is fun to drive and it is a rare day that it delivers less than 19mpg on a fill-up with a lot of mixed rural/urban driving.. I check it every time. A good , strong 4X4 vehicle that parks in town easily for folks that live in a rural area and need a pick-up for some things. (Some of us have to haul trash, dogs that don't get groomed a lot - hey Ford!) Kind of wanted to buy Ford stock again today. Declined as I think there are storm clouds rising. Ford has done this before. Trying to push their customers into the vehicles they want to sell. It has never worked and won't this time either. I'll deal with the used truck market most likely. Good enough at it that the risks are not that great. Would rather buy new. Not sure I want Nissan again and Toyota is usually an experiment. Very disappointed in Ford over this "global" Ranger that we are not likely to see anytime soon. Maybe some day but some of usf can't wait forever. Guess I am waiting for news on the 2014 F-150 that might get down-sized with decent gas mileage. Likely won't wait that long. We'll see. It's time some of us repeat our repeated protests. Others probably will chime in as they go to the Ford store and can't replace their Rangers. t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) They don't care. They wouldn't know a business case if it bit them in the ass. Disagree. I see your opinion and raise you Fords profits and debt reduction in the past two years. Any company that can do that on nthe back of worst times does know exactly what it is doing. Since the US opted out early in the piece, Ranger was not developed with US Roll-Over strength requirements in mind so the truck would need heavy redevelopment to comply. IMO, a better strategy would be to adapt the next F100/150 as two closely related vehicles sharing a lot of parts but covering more of the Mis Sized truck market, a downward reach by F Truck achieves the same but gives the US scales of economy to justify the whole project.... Edited November 24, 2011 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff355 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Agreed ! The only reason the small pickup market has dried up is the selection sucks across the board. I guess Ford is ok with just handing the market to someone else like with the Freestar/Windstar or Crown Vic/ Lincoln. They've got enough customers and sales I guess..... IMO - going to another "station wagon" shaped vehicle is not an option for even compact truck customers. We just hold on to them longer. Crossover = todays station wagon, and quite frankly I wish someone would start to trend away from that look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Disagree. I see your opinion and raise you Fords profits and debt reduction in the past two years. Any company that can do that on nthe back of worst times does know exactly what it is doing. Since the US opted out early in the piece, Ranger was not developed with US Roll-Over strength requirements in mind so the truck would need heavy redevelopment to comply. IMO, a better strategy would be to adapt the next F100/150 as two closely related vehicles sharing a lot of parts but covering more of the Mis Sized truck market, a downward reach by F Truck achieves the same but gives the US scales of economy to justify the whole project.... I was talking about the people lamenting the death of the Ranger, not Ford. I totally agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Agreed ! The only reason the small pickup market has dried up is the selection sucks across the board. I guess Ford is ok with just handing the market to someone else like with the Freestar/Windstar or Crown Vic/ Lincoln. They've got enough customers and sales I guess..... IMO - going to another "station wagon" shaped vehicle is not an option for even compact truck customers. We just hold on to them longer. Crossover = todays station wagon, and quite frankly I wish someone would start to trend away from that look. How much profit would they make from a new Ranger and what would it cost them to build it right now? You must know since you think they're making a mistake. So tell us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff355 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 How much profit would they make from a new Ranger and what would it cost them to build it right now? You must know since you think they're making a mistake. So tell us. I cant tell you what kind of profit they could make right now, but a redesign was overdue 10 years ago... Some of the profits since 1982 or 83 to present maybe should have paid for it. Im sure the tooling had paid for itself 100 times over. The point is they are making a mistake leaving a segment that they once owned and could again with some forethought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I cant tell you what kind of profit they could make right now, but a redesign was overdue 10 years ago... Some of the profits since 1982 or 83 to present maybe should have paid for it. Im sure the tooling had paid for itself 100 times over. The point is they are making a mistake leaving a segment that they once owned and could again with some forethought. Yes, a redesign was due long ago and if they had done that then keeping the Ranger now would be a lot easier. If they had decided to switch to T6 along with the ROW it would be a different story. But they didn't do either one so that's all water under the bridge now. I'm sure they could own the segment with a T6 based U.S. Ranger. So what? That doesn't mean they can make a big profit because it would take a huge investment AND it would take away from other projects like a super fuel efficient F150 that would appeal to a market that is 10 times bigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheri/ck Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Yes, a redesign was due long ago and if they had done that then keeping the Ranger now would be a lot easier. If they had decided to switch to T6 along with the ROW it would be a different story. But they didn't do either one so that's all water under the bridge now. I'm sure they could own the segment with a T6 based U.S. Ranger. So what? That doesn't mean they can make a big profit because it would take a huge investment AND it would take away from other projects like a super fuel efficient F150 that would appeal to a market that is 10 times bigger. OK - I have read a lot of your responses to the reasons for the T-6 Ranger not offered in North America. Read plenty of other research/excuses as well. This is a disturbing trend for me with Ford. And, I guess I have to say at what point does bottom line profit start to determine loss of customers? How do you account for long-time customers going somewhere else? Got to rein them back in with what? Once the Ranger folks go to Tacoma, maybe they look elsewhere for cars too? Ford really isn't beating Toyota cars much yet if any. I think sometimes folks can't see beyond their nose in terms of long-term profits and providing the right choice of vehicles for their consumers. Ford is failing here without offering a real alternative to the Ranger. Maybe even failing enough to make a difference on that all important bottom line. Like I said before. We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Why does it take 10 pages to beat this dead horse? Can we resurrect the minivan one again too? Edited November 24, 2011 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheri/ck Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 What doe sit take 10 pages to beat this dead horse? Can we resurrect the minivan one again too? Actually, I look more toward the AWD Toyota Sienna as a replacement for my Ford Ranger 4X4 than anything that Ford offers currently. Maybe I could retrofit a couch/ bed into it and still have room for stuff and an old dog! Go camping easily again. At least it can be parked in town, haul some stuff and work a variety of tasks with decent fuel mileage. The low lift-over rear door isn't bad for either me or the old dog. Won't have to buy an expensive shell again for the truck.............. Just kind of kidding! I'm sure most of you city folks are cringing. We are truck folks. But, frankly, I have thought about it. Ford is making some of us "country folk" think a little harder than we really would like. Go elsewhere is mostly what will happen I suppose based on current offerings. Sad to some of us that haven't left the Ford family since the early 80's. Bought the first Nissan 4X4 small truck because Ford didn't offer a good choice then either, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 OK - I have read a lot of your responses to the reasons for the T-6 Ranger not offered in North America. Read plenty of other research/excuses as well. This is a disturbing trend for me with Ford. And, I guess I have to say at what point does bottom line profit start to determine loss of customers? How do you account for long-time customers going somewhere else? Got to rein them back in with what? Once the Ranger folks go to Tacoma, maybe they look elsewhere for cars too? Ford really isn't beating Toyota cars much yet if any. I think sometimes folks can't see beyond their nose in terms of long-term profits and providing the right choice of vehicles for their consumers. Ford is failing here without offering a real alternative to the Ranger. Maybe even failing enough to make a difference on that all important bottom line. Like I said before. We'll see. They can't make EVERY single product for every niche market. They got out of the minivan market and they went from losing billions to making billions. Ford isn't stupid - they understand they'll be losing some customers but in the end they ARE taking a long term approach - by investing in new technologies that we haven't seen yet and which could prove way more beneficial than a few more small pickup sales. Which is more important? The F150 that sells 500K in a 1.5M market or small pickups that might sell 100K in a 200K market? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheri/ck Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 They can't make EVERY single product for every niche market. They got out of the minivan market and they went from losing billions to making billions. Ford isn't stupid - they understand they'll be losing some customers but in the end they ARE taking a long term approach - by investing in new technologies that we haven't seen yet and which could prove way more beneficial than a few more small pickup sales. Which is more important? The F150 that sells 500K in a 1.5M market or small pickups that might sell 100K in a 200K market? Frankly, I understand the numbers. I crunch numbers for a living. But, I also understand losing customers that will never return. Hard earned customers that Ford got through good press from the "no bail-out" and good products. People forget quickly. When they want to go and replace their good, reliable Rangers and Ford has no offering. They will go elsewhere. Product loyalty rarely exists in this country any more. So, in my little mind. Ford will lose in the "long-run". Might should have considered a little more short-term approach to this problem before discontinuing the Ranger. Not a lot of time in this world for big long-term approaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Actually, I look more toward the AWD Toyota Sienna as a replacement for my Ford Ranger 4X4 than anything that Ford offers currently. Maybe I could retrofit a couch/ bed into it and still have room for stuff and an old dog! Go camping easily again. At least it can be parked in town, haul some stuff and work a variety of tasks with decent fuel mileage. The low lift-over rear door isn't bad for either me or the old dog. Won't have to buy an expensive shell again for the truck.............. Just kind of kidding! I'm sure most of you city folks are cringing. We are truck folks. But, frankly, I have thought about it. And there you have it...the reason the market for compact trucks have collapsed. We've heard it from a Ranger owner that doesn't want to admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheri/ck Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 And there you have it...the reason the market for compact trucks have collapsed. We've heard it from a Ranger owner that doesn't want to admit it. I certainly admit to what I said. But, then again, Toyota is the only one offering a good AWD mini-van. OK, I decline on the GM full-size offerings Maybe Chrysler/Fiat will come back with one soon............ What you didn't say is what does Ford have to offer in terms of an AWD van? Sportsmobiles that are retrofitted from the factory. Get really bad mpg because in heavy-duty 4WD mode it takes at least a V-10 to power them?. Nothing else offered. No AWD mode and hard to figure even we need a heavy-duty 4WD van. So, I don't guess I understand the response. Maybe some of the new and upcoming Transit variations will offer some hope. Nothing I have seen so far though in AWD or 4WD configuration. Maybe you know something I don't? Hope so. Maybe most of you folks will just leave us needing 4WD or AWD sitting out on a limb? I need AWD everyday to get up the hill to my house. Don't even talk about snow, rain, ice, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I was talking about the people lamenting the death of the Ranger, not Ford. I totally agree with you. Whoops, sorry. On a cruise ship off New Zealand, definitly in Maragritaville, well gin and vodka heaven... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) And, I guess I have to say at what point does bottom line profit start to determine loss of customers? The answer is everyday, in every way. This was a key point when Mullaly was brought in. Billy wanted, NO, NEEDED, a profitable company for the stock holders. Alan told Billy, we can make you a profitable company, world wide, but (at least in the US) it will be much smaller. Also key to the strategy was each vehicles needs to be profitable on its own. So Ford has abandoned the min-van market (I doubt the Flex is profitable at its volumes, so this new coat of lipstick is likely its last), the full-size RWD market (some how I don't think the MKT will sell well as a livery vehicle and that could seal its fate also), and the small pickup truck market (demand is down, the rest of the market moved mid-sized; a mid-sized pickup might cannibalize some F150 sales; the F150 IS the most profitable US vehicle for more than 10 years; doing nothing short term was an easy decision) STOP BEING SO EMOTIONAL !! IT'S BUSINESS !! The only question is, are the stock holders happy and will the company likely to be in business next year, 5 years from now, 10 years from now ? Remember the Ford family controls more votes than anyone else. Income from The Company is important for Billy and all of his relatives. The weird reverse stock split a few years ago was to get them some cash. You can bet there will be a dividend, if not for 4Q11, but for 1Q12. Edited November 24, 2011 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Ford is now simply deciding which segments ti wants to invest money into for the best returns on vehicles developed. Look around at all the BOFs that are being discontinued like Ranger, Explorer and Panther...Ford feels that substitute products on continuing platforms will convert a lot of buyers and save a bunch in product development cost. For the past four or five years, Mulally has shown that by building substantially less products, Ford can actually make more money yet some on the boards feel that Ford should be following GM off a cliff by avalanching the showroom with every new global product available..... I'm sorry but without supporting market research "if you build it, they will come" is not a valid business plan. While T6 Ranger may or may not work, I'm betting that Ford will follow a more lucrative F100-F150 path...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.