danup Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Also, as for Mulally's "wisdom" that a Fiesta or Focus would make a viable replacement for my Ranger - I'm kind of dumbfounded and insulted to hear such patently false drivel from someone with as much knowledge and foresight as Big Al. First they drop the manual transmission offering from the F-Series, and now suggest replacing my Ranger with a Fiesta. This doesn't bode well for my future with Ford. This is the fundamental misunderstanding here—Mulally isn't saying it's a viable replacement for your Ranger, he's saying that most people who bought Rangers bought them for reasons that don't track with yours, something Ford has probably done extensive market research about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Maybe people should stop whining until they see what Ford IS going to offer as a smaller fuel efficient pickup. They will not need to make it smaller the next generation F-150 will be a game changer, and i will not comment further on it. Edited November 21, 2011 by lquidspine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 They will not need to make it smaller the next generation F-150 will be a game changer, and i will not comment further on it. Forget Andrew Luck. I'd pick the F-150 first in next year's draft. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I really, really, wish people would stop saying that the 2011 F-150 gets equivalent gas mileage to the 2011 US Ranger. It's just not true. The 2.3L does substantially better than any configuration 2011 F-150, even though the Ranger's 2.3L is 10-year old technology versus the state-of-the-art engines in the F-150. If you want to compare EPA numbers, the Ranger wins by 4 mpg (27 vs. 23). If you want to compare real-world, the Ranger wins by 5 mpg (29 mpg avg. for my 2011 vs. 24 mpg for the V6 F-150 BORG was posting about earlier in this thread). Yes, the 4.0L V6 Ranger gets horrendous mileage and we all know it - you'd have to be an idiot to buy a V6 Ranger these days (I don't mean any offense to those who have). Which leads to my next point: since no one in their right mind would buy a 17 mpg V6 Ranger when they can get a roomier 20 mpg F-150, we can conclude that much of Ranger's 2011 volume is 4-cylinder, 2wd, non-crew cab (since it isn't offered). That means Ford is selling 50K+ of an ancient truck with a 10-year 4 cylinder engine, 2wd, no-real 4-passenger option, and little to no advertising. If Ford were to expand the offerings to include a real 4-passenger option, as well as modern engines (I'm thinking a 25/31 4-cylinder and 22/28 V6), they would be able to take advantage of the rest of the market. This would allow them to compete for the 4-passenger and 4x4 segments of the small/midsize truck market, in addition to the 2wd 4-cylinder part of the market. While the small/midsize truck market isn't exactly on fire at the moment, 30+ mpg 4-cylinder and high-20s V6 offerings wouldn't do anything but help the market. I see no reason why Ford couldn't move 120,000+ of these in a year. If that's not enough volume to make a business case for such a truck, I'd have to seriously question some of Ford's other current offerings, as well as those of other brands. But what do I know? - I'm just an engineer... Thoughts? Yes, the 4.0L Rangers get terrible mileage. (see my sig for the fuelly stats) I also contemplated buying something else better on fuel for my commute that would try and maintain some utility as well. It has been difficult. The first vehicle I wanted was a new Focus hatch. I still love the Focus but I have a hard time justifying it when the truck is useful. Granted, I don't use it as a truck every day, but the times I have to, I am glad to own the vehicle. Plus, it's paid off, and the $7K or so premium I would have to cover in the switch to a new Focus would have a very long ROI, along with not being as useful for larger, dirtier "truck" work. Perhaps a downsizing to a 4 banger would be nice, but... that's a hard decision to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 This is the fundamental misunderstanding here—Mulally isn't saying it's a viable replacement for your Ranger, he's saying that most people who bought Rangers bought them for reasons that don't track with yours, something Ford has probably done extensive market research about. I don't know how many times we have to keep pointing this out. The facts do not support a market increase in this segment. There is more profit and market share in making the F150 more fuel efficient which I assume will include some type of hybrid technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Perhaps a downsizing to a 4 banger would be nice, but... that's a hard decision to make. The 2.3L is, realistically speaking, more than enough power for anything you can put in the bed, and will even make due pulling a trailer. What you give up going with the 4-banger is quick starts from red lights, and it can get a little slow in some merging and passing situations. I also wouldn't recommend it for pulling a 4000 lb trailer on an interstate, even though the truck itself is capable. The only real reason to get the 4.0L in a Ranger is to get 4x4. However, even I agree that the F-150 is a much better deal if you need a 4x4. I can load up the bed with anything that will fit, and do 75 mph on the interstate, and get 30 mpg doing it. I can deal with the 10 second 0-60 time for an extra 12 mpg over the 4.0L. However, the 4-banger works for me in part because I keep a 4x4 F-250 parked next to it. If I have serious hauling to do, I don't mess with the Ranger. Edited November 21, 2011 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 They will not need to make it smaller the next generation F-150 will be a game changer, and i will not comment further on it. Is the new F-150 going to fold up so it fits in a mall parking space or a standard garage? Or maybe Ford has found a way to violate the laws of physics so that barn-size frontal areas no longer affect MPG's? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) Maybe people should stop whining until they see what Ford IS going to offer as a smaller fuel efficient pickup. Smart man ! Mullaly was not about to announce anything before the contract and while Twin Cities head is still on the chopping block. I expect an announcement in 6-18 months. I will be SHOCKED if it is not a US version of the T6. Ford has a lot of major projects that have to get out the door first : 2013MY Escape/Kuga 2013MY Fusion/Mondeo 2014MY next-gen Transit Connect 2014MY US Transit The first 2 are multi-plant launches, on different continents. Edited November 21, 2011 by theoldwizard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 But what do I know? - I'm just an engineer... Thoughts? 1) Ford opted out of T6 Ranger developemnt at the start in 2006 2) Did it occur to anyone that by not replacing Ranger, Ford could save a whole bunch of cash? 3) Did it occur to anyone that Ford will make more money by pushing covered utilites instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 1) Ford opted out of T6 Ranger developemnt at the start in 2006 2) Did it occur to anyone that by not replacing Ranger, Ford could save a whole bunch of cash? 3) Did it occur to anyone that Ford will make more money by pushing covered utilites instead? They don't care. They wouldn't know a business case if it bit them in the ass. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 They don't care. They wouldn't know a business case if it bit them in the ass. I think there are supporters of a smaller pick up who DO understand the business case. Likewise it is understood that there are only so many dollars to go around when it comes to picking projects. However, having said that, I get tired of the F-150 pablum that says .."it gets better mileage than a Ranger". And as so many have said, not everyone wants a vehicle with the bulk of a 150. And to those who say -"well the numbers have gone downhill", true statement. However, if someone had a state of the art small truck, do you think that the numbers would be better. I say they would. So, recognizing that TC and all the fuel efficient small cars of today make a good alternative to someone that 10 years ago was driven to a small truck for the economy and utility, I go back to my original thought: The overlap that exists between the 150 and the 250 makes no sense. the dilema is, how do you make the T-6 the "new 150" and go back to the days when there was but one pick up cab structure for 150, 250, 350 etc. Again spoken as a stockholder and old Ford loyalist. PS. Yesterday, I picked up a 700 lb. PTO driven chipper in my 04, 4.0, Super Cab FX-4 Off Road- the ultimate bad spec-stock 31-10.5 Wranglers . 18.6 MPG over 183 miles at 60/65. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The overlap that exists between the 150 and the 250 makes no sense. the dilema is, how do you make the T-6 the "new 150" and go back to the days when there was but one pick up cab structure for 150, 250, 350 etc. Simple enough...There is a need for a "low rent" F-250 for people who actually need it for real (heavy duty) work and the higher end/expensive/bigger F-150s are for consumers that want 4 door F-150s as a family car or just want Penis extensions. The only reason the F-150 got so big/heavy is Ford wanting to keep it the #1 truck....the competition kept going big/better and we winded up where we are now with Full-sized trucks. The reason Ranger sales died off is that CUV's and SUV's are a better fit for Consumers and the TC can take up the slack in Fleet usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Made a handy dandy chart at work today comparing the sales numbers of the Ranger vs CUV/SUVs (besides the Explorer) and how F-Series sales in the same time period to prove my point. Biggest impact to Ranger sales was the intro of the Escape, then the other big hit was the Edge. F-series sales took a bad hit in 2006..which if I remember right was right around a gas spike, then the wheels came off around the time the recession hit but sales numbers are starting to climb again as of last year...and Ford is far more efficient only having 3 plants instead of 5-6 building the F-series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Made a handy dandy chart at work today comparing the sales numbers of the Ranger vs CUV/SUVs (besides the Explorer) and how F-Series sales in the same time period to prove my point. Biggest impact to Ranger sales was the intro of the Escape, then the other big hit was the Edge. F-series sales took a bad hit in 2006..which if I remember right was right around a gas spike, then the wheels came off around the time the recession hit but sales numbers are starting to climb again as of last year...and Ford is far more efficient only having 3 plants instead of 5-6 building the F-series Thx for the effort. the F series is 150's only correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Made a handy dandy chart at work today comparing the sales numbers of the Ranger vs CUV/SUVs (besides the Explorer) and how F-Series sales in the same time period to prove my point. Biggest impact to Ranger sales was the intro of the Escape, then the other big hit was the Edge. F-series sales took a bad hit in 2006..which if I remember right was right around a gas spike, then the wheels came off around the time the recession hit but sales numbers are starting to climb again as of last year...and Ford is far more efficient only having 3 plants instead of 5-6 building the F-series 13 years without a platform update. When a Ranger owner walks in after 3-5 years and wants to trade in, why would they buy the EXACT SAME TRUCK THEY ALREADY OWN? When a new buyer walks in, why should they pay $20k+ for a new Ranger when the used trucks have the same features and cost much less money? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Thx for the effort. the F series is 150's only correct? No Super Duties also... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 13 years without a platform update. When a Ranger owner walks in after 3-5 years and wants to trade in, why would they buy the EXACT SAME TRUCK THEY ALREADY OWN? When a new buyer walks in, why should they pay $20k+ for a new Ranger when the used trucks have the same features and cost much less money? Chicken or Egg principal...I didn't see the updated Chevy Colorado set the sales charts on fire either when it replaced the S-10...its a newer product then the Ranger....not to mention the big part of the sale drop with the Ranger only came 3-4 years after its last update in 1998 (and after the introduction of the Escape)....its been losing 25% of its sales year to year after that till 2007 or so and sales have more or less flatlined. Obliviously there is a market trend where people are moving from Small pickups into something else...no matter who sells it. Also keep in mind that 11-12 yrs ago the market was about 17 million sales, I think its around 12 million now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 13 years without a platform update. When a Ranger owner walks in after 3-5 years and wants to trade in, why would they buy the EXACT SAME TRUCK THEY ALREADY OWN? When a new buyer walks in, why should they pay $20k+ for a new Ranger when the used trucks have the same features and cost much less money? You just don't get it. It's not about the Ranger by itself - the ENTIRE SMALL TRUCK MARKET is now very small and shrinking because a large number of former buyers have found other alternatives in hybrids and small cars and CUVs. If Ford wanted to keep a small pickup they can easily modify the T6 platform and bring it to the U.S. (which could still happen). If they're not doing that it's because they have a better plan based on the F150 or some other vehicle or because there isn't enough profit in a U.S. T6 Ranger right now. Just because a few people want them doesn't mean Ford should spend billions on it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 You just don't get it. It's not about the Ranger by itself - the ENTIRE SMALL TRUCK MARKET is now very small and shrinking because a large number of former buyers have found other alternatives in hybrids and small cars and CUVs. If Ford wanted to keep a small pickup they can easily modify the T6 platform and bring it to the U.S. (which could still happen). If they're not doing that it's because they have a better plan based on the F150 or some other vehicle or because there isn't enough profit in a U.S. T6 Ranger right now. Just because a few people want them doesn't mean Ford should spend billions on it right now. Many seem to think the market segment is dead. I think it is one gas price hike away from exploding. Especially as Chevy and Toyota introduce new modes with more fuel efficient engines CUV/SUV's will not replace the need/desire for an open bed truck. The F150 is far to big to be their only offering. Even with the new engines, the 6000lb truck still get poor gas mileage.... It happened in the 80's and IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.. .( I think sooner rather than later ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 An interesting article about the small truck market in today's Bloomberg. Too bad this thread has run its course and most folks won't see or read it. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-23/ford-sees-bigger-profits-exiting-small-pickups-gm-embraces-cars.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Many seem to think the market segment is dead. I think it is one gas price hike away from exploding. Especially as Chevy and Toyota introduce new modes with more fuel efficient engines CUV/SUV's will not replace the need/desire for an open bed truck. The F150 is far to big to be their only offering. Even with the new engines, the 6000lb truck still get poor gas mileage.... It happened in the 80's and IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.. .( I think sooner rather than later ) What happened a few years ago when gas hit $4/gallon for the first time? Here's a clue - people didn't flock to small trucks. There is absolutely no evidence that higher gas prices will cause a spike in small truck sales. Back in the 80s we didn't have hybrids and crossovers. Wishful thinking but not backed up with any empirical evidence. Besides, it appears the new F150 will be revolutionary when it comes to fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 What happened a few years ago when gas hit $4/gallon for the first time? Here's a clue - people didn't flock to small trucks. There is absolutely no evidence that higher gas prices will cause a spike in small truck sales. Back in the 80s we didn't have hybrids and crossovers. Wishful thinking but not backed up with any empirical evidence. Besides, it appears the new F150 will be revolutionary when it comes to fuel economy. I'm curious as to the sales numbers of the F-150 and Ranger back in the late 1970s through the mid 1980's when gas prices came back down... Like you said, there is ALOT more choices out there for people these days then their was 15-20 years ago...and even more so then 30 years ago. Personally I think that small/medium pickups are a niche market since a CUV can do 85% of a what a truck can do for a family and is far more flexible when you have kids vs a pickup. As for those complaining about the F-150's size...how about you quit comparing a quad or super cab F-150 (which I'd say better then 85% of them are used as family cars) to Ranger? The Ranger's interior is hopelessly undersized (I can't fit into a standard cab Ranger) and the SuperCab Ranger is only 10 inches shorter then the Regular Cab F-150 Guess what? The T6 Ranger is 211 inches long...only 2 inches shorter then the current Standard Cab F-150....so whats the point of the T6 again in the States? Same people complaining about the size of the current F-150 won't find recourse in the T6 either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) What happened a few years ago when gas hit $4/gallon for the first time? Here's a clue - people didn't flock to small trucks. There is absolutely no evidence that higher gas prices will cause a spike in small truck sales. Back in the 80s we didn't have hybrids and crossovers. Wishful thinking but not backed up with any empirical evidence. Besides, it appears the new F150 will be revolutionary when it comes to fuel economy. The difference is that the $4/gal only lasted a few months. The next hike will put the price firmly over $4.00/gal and it will NOT come back down. It is the sustained price that will make the difference.... Also if the new F150 still weighs in at 6000lb I predict that it WILL NOT get any better gas mileage... For all the hype of the Ecoboost, it only get 1mpg (it the real world) or so better than any othe similarly equipped full size truck.... Edited November 23, 2011 by sranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The difference is that the $4/gal only lasted a few months. The next hike will put the price firmly over $4.00/gal and it will NOT come back down. It is the sustained price that will make the difference.... Also if the new F150 still weighs in at 6000lb I predict that it WILL NOT get any better gas mileage... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 For all the hype of the Ecoboost, it only get 1mpg (it the real world) or so better than any othe similarly equipped full size truck.... 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. 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.