Mulally: No Small Pickup for U.S.

[mackinaw]

the next F-150 intrigues me, I always wondered whay a body on frame vehicle couldnt have a chassis thyat could be shortened, lengthened, narrowed....etc etc...so a part of me wouldnt be surprized at some sort of "mini" F-150...then again Im not an engineer...

 

From what I remember, this idea (taking a "standard" frame and making it shorter/bigger, narrower/wider) was seriously considered back in the mid-1990's for the F-150. But there was just too many engineering challenges that couldn't be (economically) solved, so they shelved the idea.

[Deanh]

From what I remember, this idea (taking a "standard" frame and making it shorter/bigger, narrower/wider) was seriously considered back in the mid-1990's for the F-150. But there was just too many engineering challenges that couldn't be (economically) solved, so they shelved the idea.

maybe, just maybe 15 years on its more viable...we shall see, but i will maintain ford should NOT ignore this market, its all about having choices....and that choice shouldnt be laid at the feet of competitors...

[jpd80]

What would be wrong with rebirthing Sport Trac as an F-100 in single and dual cab configurations?

All it needs is new engines, interiors and of course F-truck external styling to match the range.

[mackinaw]

maybe, just maybe 15 years on its more viable...we shall see, but i will maintain ford should NOT ignore this market, its all about having choices....and that choice shouldnt be laid at the feet of competitors...

 

No argument from me. This has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with size. Just as some people prefer a Focus over a Taurus, some people (me) prefer a Ranger to an F-150.

 

It will be interesting to see how well the new little Chevy pickup sells.

[V8-X]

The next F-150 can be a Ranger replacement if it can beat 22/27 MPG. Otherwise, it's a not a Ranger replacement and can never be. I don't think the people on here who say "F-150 is the perfect Ranger replacement" have ever owned a Ranger... or an F-150. My 1995 is hard to park as it is and I'm at eye-level with the door handles on the new 2011 F-150s, can't imagine how much more bloated the next gen will be.

I've owned 2 Rangers (1985 & 1999) and three F150s (1981, 2002, 2006).

 

The F150 will never, ever be an equal replacement for the Ranger. Size being the biggest difference, whether driving in traffic or trying to park. And no, a TC or CUV will never be able to replace all that the Ranger was capable of doing. Now the Ranger was never great at getting good MPGs, but still better than the F150's I've owned. Heck, just dropping one of the newer powertrains into the Ranger would have made a drastic difference. And seriously, like others have said, those who think a V6 F150 is a good replacement for the Ranger, simply do not know what they talk about.

 

What would be wrong with rebirthing Sport Trac as an F-100 in single and dual cab configurations?

All it needs is new engines, interiors and of course F-truck external styling to match the range.

Only if it's more like the 1st Gen ST and not the 2nd Gen ST. And please do not build it on the current Explorer platform. Talk about another useless Ridgeline.

[jpd80]

Only if it's more like the 1st Gen ST and not the 2nd Gen ST. And please do not build it on the current Explorer platform. Talk about another useless Ridgeline.

 

I suggested Sport Trac because the last one was very close to T6 in size and thinking that FNA already has it covered.

 

I do have a strong suspicion that Ford might change the design of F150 so that a narrower version (F100) is possible

without affecting the size and capability of the larger truck. If Ford does that, they then have access to major plants

without needing to reconfigure another plant.

[Deanh]

I suggested Sport Trac because the last one was very close to T6 in size and thinking that FNA already has it covered.

 

I do have a strong suspicion that Ford might change the design of F150 so that a narrower version (F100) is possible

without affecting the size and capability of the larger truck. If Ford does that, they then have access to major plants

without needing to reconfigure another plant.

Sport trac was WAY overpriced and that in combo with too small a bed killed it....

[jpd80]

Sport trac was WAY overpriced and that in combo with too small a bed killed it....

Marketing 101,

- who will buy it and for what price?

- what features does it need to have, a longer bed?

- does it need to have new engines?

- why would someone buy that over the competition?

 

No doubt Ford asked all the right questions:

 

- Is it worth importing the T6 Ranger?

- If Sport Track had a better price, a slightly longer bed and was called F100?

- What if we narrowed our F150, can we change the design to get two trucks?

Edited November 14, 2011 by jpd80

[GTwannabe]

Yeah, because GM compact pickups have performed so well over the past decade. What makes you think a new one will suddenly be a success where the past ones were failures?

 

Maybe because the new Colorado is not an Isuzu-polished turd like the previous model. People in the know are knocking around terms like "world class."

[PREMiERdrum]

Maybe because the new Colorado is not an Isuzu-polished turd like the previous model. People in the know are knocking around terms like "world class."

 

Really?

 

In terms of perceived quality, the 2013 Chevrolet Colorado doesn't genuinely represent a huge step forward. Although the interior feels well bolted together, it's still filled with hard and tacky plastics. Fine for a base truck maybe, but we expected a little more from a loaded LTZ.

 

LINK - Inside Line

 

It might be a dramatic improvement over the current model, but world class?

[GTwannabe]

Really?

 

 

 

LINK - Inside Line

 

It might be a dramatic improvement over the current model, but world class?

 

The domestic Thai version has hard plastics? Boo freaking hoo. Hard plastic is still a big step up from say, an ox cart.

[Deanh]

Maybe because the new Colorado is not an Isuzu-polished turd like the previous model. People in the know are knocking around terms like "world class."

those people in the know probably work for GM.....

[Deanh]

The domestic Thai version has hard plastics? Boo freaking hoo. Hard plastic is still a big step up from say, an ox cart.

not sure what you mean by that statement, but as far as Hard Plastics go, on ecan also look at the Toyota competition....its EVERYWHERE.

[jpd80]

not sure what you mean by that statement, but as far as Hard Plastics go, on ecan also look at the Toyota competition....its EVERYWHERE.

I'm seeing Ford's point of view on this, F150 and SD is where the main action is, so no doubt reaching down from F150

suits their plan going forward, not sure if that will involve a dedicated narrower vehicle or not but I can see them nipping

at Toyota with variations of F150, just how far they are prepared to go is the big question...

[156n3rd]

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't the just keep building it? hah? Revolutionary, right. Chrysler kept making PT"s until sales were nearly nil. You know what I mean. Why all the hand-wringing and mis-understandings?

[silvrsvt]

1321313382[/url]' post='745367']

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't the just keep building it? hah? Revolutionary, right. Chrysler kept making PT"s until sales were nearly nil. You know what I mean. Why all the hand-wringing and mis-understandings?

 

Can't pass safety regs

[mnm]

Can't pass safety regs

plus twin cities assembly is due to close up shop in about 5 weeks.

[jpd80]

Can't pass safety regs

Is that to do with roll over test and supporting three times vehicle weight?

I could see how that would be a problem for "cars" masquerading as Utilities..

My sister in law has a PT, not a bad little beast but a long way from home in AUS.

[Edstock]

Is that to do with roll over test and supporting three times vehicle weight?

I could see how that would be a problem for "cars" masquerading as Utilities..

My sister in law has a PT, not a bad little beast but a long way from home in AUS.

 

Plus side impact.

[Bob Rosadini]

There's an interview with Mulally in today's Automotive News (subscription required). One excerpt:

"Mulally: We don't have any plans for it now. The market segment is really small. Most people were in it for fuel efficiency in a smaller vehicle. Now we have a fantastic offering of small and medium-sized cars and utilities, so we essentially have what the customers say they really want and value."

I'm a fan of "Big Al", but I think he is hurting his credibility with this one. So current Ranger owners are going to be happy with a Fiesta?, Focus? Transit Connect? A crock if I ever heard one. And I don't care about F-150 mpg numbers with their new fuel efficient powertrains. When gas again starts pushing 4 bucks, those "fuel efficient powertrans" will look a lot better if they are in a ranger sized vehicle

 

And as so many have said....."We don't need or want a truck that is as big as a 150"!!!!!

 

I have to believe Al and his boys fully understand this. It's not rocket science. weight reduction is probably the easiest way to get good CAFE numbers- and guess what? A lot of people want a ranger sized vehicle.

[akirby]

So current Ranger owners are going to be happy with a Fiesta?, Focus? Transit Connect? A crock if I ever heard one.

 

That's not what he meant. When gas hit $4/gallon a few years ago, did Ranger sales go up? Nope. People did not flock to small trucks then and they won't flock to small trucks in the future due to high gas prices. They bought smaller vehicles just like Mulally said. There is no reason to think the small truck market is going to magically start growing again.

 

Ford has a plan - we just haven't seen it yet.

[630land]

Sales have been so poor, there are not many 'current Ranger owners' other than low profit fleets. Most of them I see are 1990's purple ones beat up looking ofr scrap metal.

 

Example, my neighbor had a 90's Ranger with a bed cover for 7-8 years, and traded in for a Lexus RX SUV 6 years ago. What really hurt mini truck sales in past decade were SUV's, since most don't use the bed all that much, and wanted a closed compartment in the back. When more four door SUV's debuted, more small trucks traded in.

 

So, move on darn it!!!!! :shades:

[GTwannabe]

That's not what he meant. When gas hit $4/gallon a few years ago, did Ranger sales go up? Nope. People did not flock to small trucks then and they won't flock to small trucks in the future due to high gas prices. They bought smaller vehicles just like Mulally said. There is no reason to think the small truck market is going to magically start growing again.

 

Ford has a plan - we just haven't seen it yet.

 

The US Ranger was pigeonholed because it could only seat 2 adults. Had the quad cab been offered with an efficient off-the-shelf motor, sales would have improved drastically.

[GTwannabe]

Sales have been so poor, there are not many 'current Ranger owners' other than low profit fleets. Most of them I see are 1990's purple ones beat up looking ofr scrap metal.

 

Example, my neighbor had a 90's Ranger with a bed cover for 7-8 years, and traded in for a Lexus RX SUV 6 years ago. What really hurt mini truck sales in past decade were SUV's, since most don't use the bed all that much, and wanted a closed compartment in the back. When more four door SUV's debuted, more small trucks traded in.

 

So, move on darn it!!!!! :shades:

 

Ah, nothing like hauling a load of firewood or lawnmower in the back of your Lexus SUV. Dirt and grease add a lot of character to the leather and carpets.

[BlackHorse]

?

 

"Mulally: We don't have any plans for it now. The market segment is really small. Most people were in it for fuel efficiency in a smaller vehicle. Now we have a fantastic offering of small and medium-sized cars and utilities, so we essentially have what the customers say they really want and value."

 

Except they absolutely don't otherwise I wouldn't have just bought a 2011 Tacoma.