Jump to content

Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans


Recommended Posts

As Ford continues to sit back and monitor the market some of the competitors have come out with interesting news...

 

Nissan has come out and publically said it is aiming for Ranger buyer disenfranchised by the decision to not make the T6 available. That’s hardly surprising… But the interesting part is that the latest Frontier media campaign was all about this. To step up awareness just as the Ranger plant closed down and the stock disappeared.

 

Pickuptrucks Article 1

 

With the Dodge Dakota production ended and GMs statement on the next Colorado Marchionne was asked this week on Chrysler's future plans for the segment. He mentioned that the next generation has a “better than 50 percent chance of being a unibody truck.” I think Chrysler is well positioned to do this with the platform that underpins the Grand Cherokee and Durango. And on top of that Jeep is continuing to let it be known they are interested in a Wrangler based pickup to expand that platform's usage.

 

Pickuptrucks Article 2

 

Just keeping an eye out as I'm certain Ford is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM will just have a feild day with the current midsized trucks as buyers would go to an another US make

 

But it won't be with the current midsize trucks as GM has already announced that they will build and sell the next generation of the Colorado in the US. BTW, from the A pillar back it looks very similar to the T6 Ranger.

 

http://jalopnik.com/5848219/new-chevy-colorado-coming-to-us

 

http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-colorado-2013.html

 

Oh, and all the Corporate Bobbleheads had best rush right over to motortrend.com and inform all these people who actually buy trucks that they just don't get it:

 

http://wot.motortrend.com/thread-of-the-day-would-you-like-to-see-the-new-global-ranger-in-the-u-s-125737.html

Edited by blksn8k2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford is in a far better position to understand the market and its margins than bloggers and non-consumers.

You hope! IMO, as a consumer I happen to disagree. Yes- I know, the market is ..."too small blah blah"-...."in decline, people will by Fiestas as an alternative, blah blah".

 

I still say, the reality of the situation is F-150 is a sacred cow-perhaps rightfully so when you look at the numbers. But I still say, the problem and the ultimate solution is to go back to ONE pick up line-just like it was before the advent of Super Duty. that will eliminate lot of du[plication and make room once again for a smaller TRUCK. Not a Ridgeline look alike, but a TRUCK.

 

Oh, as to your comment that they understand the market, I assume that the same bunch that wasted my shareholder money on Blackwood, Lincoln 150's, Flex, etc are no longer on the payroll?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hope! IMO, as a consumer I happen to disagree. Yes- I know, the market is ..."too small blah blah"-...."in decline, people will by Fiestas as an alternative, blah blah".

 

I still say, the reality of the situation is F-150 is a sacred cow-perhaps rightfully so when you look at the numbers. But I still say, the problem and the ultimate solution is to go back to ONE pick up line-just like it was before the advent of Super Duty. that will eliminate lot of du[plication and make room once again for a smaller TRUCK. Not a Ridgeline look alike, but a TRUCK.

 

Oh, as to your comment that they understand the market, I assume that the same bunch that wasted my shareholder money on Blackwood, Lincoln 150's, Flex, etc are no longer on the payroll?

 

 

You're proposing Ford completely change the F-Series product strategy just so they have a reason to sell a Ranger again? Yeah, I don't think so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, as to your comment that they understand the market, I assume that the same bunch that wasted my shareholder money on Blackwood, Lincoln 150's, Flex, etc are no longer on the payroll?

 

They're no longer making the decisions and they're not using the same processes. If you don't understand the HUGE change in Ford management the last 5 years then you simply haven't been paying attention.

 

I love Rangers. I owned 2 of them. But you simply can't deny the realities of the small truck market just because you want a new Ranger. It's not so much the F150 is a sacred cow - it just has so much volume and high ATPs that the ROI from a F series investment is so much bigger than the ROI from the same amount invested in a new Ranger. 600K volume (and growing) versus a potential 100K (and shrinking).

 

We've all heard there are major architectural changes in store for the F150 in 2 years. A full sized F series that gets significantly better fuel economy is a much wiser investment.

 

You people need to start thinking with your heads instead of your heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're proposing Ford completely change the F-Series product strategy just so they have a reason to sell a Ranger again? Yeah, I don't think so.

No-first and foremost I'm saying that the duplication in having two pick up lines should be addressed. What is the justification for a 150 cab structure and a Super Duty cab structure? when you look at commonality of components, plant utilization etc. I say it makes no sense. Kirby says that the gang that was responsible for Blackwood is gone-can I assume that those same people were also responsible for two pick up lines 12 years ago?

 

And how about this- you win-I'm a minority, to hell with the small truck market! Given that, I still say -and to your point Kirby-you can't justify building a 150 cab structure AND a separate Super Duty cab structure. I don't know what the justification/rationale was when those plans were made in the late 90's but I don't think they would hold up today.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that, I still say -and to your point Kirby-you can't justify building a 150 cab structure AND a separate Super Duty cab structure. I don't know what the justification/rationale was when those plans were made in the late 90's but I don't think they would hold up today.

 

Good question, but given the mindset of Ford back then (visions of selling 80/20 Trucks vs Cars), I think the die was cast and it is what it is...

 

If anything, have the F-150 separated from the Super Duty might make things easier down the road...it allows Ford to offer a F-100, which would be basically a lightened up/smaller F-150

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You people need to start thinking with your heads instead of your heart.

 

Using my head... Frontal area has a huge influence into fuel economy. Its basic physics... So the F150 will have to actually be much lighter than the T6 Ranger to get equivalent fuel economy. Additonally one thing the Ranger has over the F150 is that I see Ford being able to sell the Ranger as a 4-cylinder only product. While fullsized pickup truck buyers aren't giving up V8s in the foreseeable future. It just seems to me no mater how much money Ford dumps into the F150 they will never equal what a Ranger can do in terms of fuel economy. Physics and market segment requirements are against it... Additionally in terms of ROI Ford is going to reach a point where you just can't get more weight out without large costs increases or reduction in tow/haul capability. I have doubts Ford will be able to get the low side of the targeted 500-700lb before they reach that point. Remember some of these people set the Explorer weight target at 4000 lb... Which in retrospect was unattainable, and they should have been known from day one since the significantly smaller Edge is already at 4000 lb and the lightest 7 seater is the 4300 lb Pilot. This isn’t a rant on the business case… I understand it… It is a rant that people think they can ignore the physics that a smaller vehicle on an even plane will always have better fuel economy than the larger. Additionally that you can only pull out so much weight from a vehicle before running into compromises in terms of capability and/or cost/profit.

 

:beatdeadhorse:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

68,000 F trucks in December is pretty compelling evidence that F 150 and SD are back on the boil and Ford's

attention is clearly planted there and not on the mid sized sector, maybe putting your eggs in one basket works...

 

GM does have a ton of unsold Silverados sitting there, maybe they should be addressing that issue rather than

racing to bring more trucks onto the market, just a thought.....

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replace F150 with Fusion and midsized with Euro-Focus and that would similar to what we all heard a couple years ago... And for note Ford sold as many Rangers this year as Feistas and Mustangs, and over twice as many Transit Connects. And that was with a 19 year old design and no marketing... Just saying

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replace F150 with Fusion and midsized with Euro-Focus and that would similar to what we all heard a couple years ago... And for note Ford sold as many Rangers this year as Feistas and Mustangs, and over twice as many Transit Connects. And that was with a 19 year old design and no marketing... Just saying

 

They engineered those 7,000/mth sales with incentives and sharp pricing......

up to $2,500 cash back or $500 cash +0% for 60 months....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transit FS / T-Series will add a dimension to the truck market that, as of yet, has not been revealed....the architecture of the vehicle lends itself to exploitation into other areas.... i.e. Ranger-esque style replacement, chassis dynamics for a new unibody version of Expedition and Navigator...the fact that this chassis architecture can be had in front wheel drive OR rear wheel drive AND/OR all wheel drive leads to a lot of design flexibility for future product. The next 12-18 months in truck development will be interesting indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using my head... Frontal area has a huge influence into fuel economy. Its basic physics... So the F150 will have to actually be much lighter than the T6 Ranger to get equivalent fuel economy. Additonally one thing the Ranger has over the F150 is that I see Ford being able to sell the Ranger as a 4-cylinder only product. While fullsized pickup truck buyers aren't giving up V8s in the foreseeable future. It just seems to me no mater how much money Ford dumps into the F150 they will never equal what a Ranger can do in terms of fuel economy. Physics and market segment requirements are against it... Additionally in terms of ROI Ford is going to reach a point where you just can't get more weight out without large costs increases or reduction in tow/haul capability. I have doubts Ford will be able to get the low side of the targeted 500-700lb before they reach that point. Remember some of these people set the Explorer weight target at 4000 lb... Which in retrospect was unattainable, and they should have been known from day one since the significantly smaller Edge is already at 4000 lb and the lightest 7 seater is the 4300 lb Pilot. This isn’t a rant on the business case… I understand it… It is a rant that people think they can ignore the physics that a smaller vehicle on an even plane will always have better fuel economy than the larger. Additionally that you can only pull out so much weight from a vehicle before running into compromises in terms of capability and/or cost/profit.

 

:beatdeadhorse:

 

How did Ford increase Fusion fuel economy dramatically? It's not just about ICE and weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They engineered those 7,000/mth sales with incentives and sharp pricing......

up to $2,500 cash back or $500 cash +0% for 60 months....

 

F-150 comes with $1000 cash back on the 2012 and $1500 cash back on the 2011's. $2500 cash back on a vehicle as crappy and outdated as the US Ranger is hardly firesale pricing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-150 comes with $1000 cash back on the 2012 and $1500 cash back on the 2011's. $2500 cash back on a vehicle as crappy and outdated as the US Ranger is hardly firesale pricing.

 

You have to compare it to price...incentives aren't absolute, they are relative.

 

Let's do it like this (for arguments sake, I guessed at some numbers to make a point):

 

Let's say average purchase price of Ranger is $20k. $2500 cash back is 12.5% of purchase price.

Let's say average purchase price of F150 is $32k. $1500 cash back is 4.7% of purchase price.

 

So, incentives on the Ranger are 2.67 times what they are on the F150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to compare it to price...incentives aren't absolute, they are relative.

 

Let's do it like this (for arguments sake, I guessed at some numbers to make a point):

 

Let's say average purchase price of Ranger is $20k. $2500 cash back is 12.5% of purchase price.

Let's say average purchase price of F150 is $32k. $1500 cash back is 4.7% of purchase price.

 

So, incentives on the Ranger are 2.67 times what they are on the F150.

 

Ranger MSRP's have always been in fantasy land. $27k for a freaking no-option 4x4 Sport? That's loaded 4x4 crew cab Tacoma/Frontier territory.

Edited by GTwannabe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't justify building a 150 cab structure AND a separate Super Duty cab structure

Why not?

 

The SD already needs a different grille and engine bay due to the 6.7L. You're already talking about a different subframe, a different set of fenders, hood, bumper and grille. At that point, you're probably talking about a taller cab overall, which means you can't share door stampings or the back of the cab, so where are you?

 

Not to mention, the marketplace has justified Ford's approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not?

 

The SD already needs a different grille and engine bay due to the 6.7L. You're already talking about a different subframe, a different set of fenders, hood, bumper and grille. At that point, you're probably talking about a taller cab overall, which means you can't share door stampings or the back of the cab, so where are you?

 

Not to mention, the marketplace has justified Ford's approach.

 

Agreed. My guess is that the next gen F150 and SD will not share an engine, so there would be too many trade-offs with the F150 to have the two trucks share sheetmetal, or really much at all. The costs of sharing would outweight the benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger MSRP's have always been in fantasy land. $27k for a freaking no-option 4x4 Sport? That's loaded 4x4 crew cab Tacoma/Frontier territory.

 

The Ranger has more or less been the same price as it has been back in 1998...I was looking at a 2011 Ranger and it had basically the same options as my dad's 98 Ranger (XLT Extended cab, no 4x4) and the price was just about identical

 

The SD already needs a different grille and engine bay due to the 6.7L. You're already talking about a different subframe, a different set of fenders, hood, bumper and grille. At that point, you're probably talking about a taller cab overall, which means you can't share door stampings or the back of the cab, so where are you?

 

Can't they always use the Cab from the SD on Medium Duty trucks also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not?

 

The SD already needs a different grille and engine bay due to the 6.7L. You're already talking about a different subframe, a different set of fenders, hood, bumper and grille. At that point, you're probably talking about a taller cab overall, which means you can't share door stampings or the back of the cab, so where are you?

 

Not to mention, the marketplace has justified Ford's approach.

You are implying that the 150 would survive and therefore require modification to accept the 6.7. No way.

 

What I am suggesting is when the time comes for a total redesign, that is when the T-6 comes here. The 150 then becomes a lighter spec version in the Super duty line.. IMO, the T-6 will satisfy most people who want a smaller package and it can also be upgraded from a GVW perspective to satisfy those who want a heavier truck. I also think in any case, it will satisfy the needs of a high percentage of the current 150 customer base.

 

The bottom line there has to be a huge savings in having one pick up/commercial chassis line with shared sheet metal up to 19,000 GVW. Recognizing that class 4 and 5 currently served by 450/550, might be served by whatever the new medium platform will be-which I believe will have many Transit cab components.

 

As for your comment on the market justifying Ford's approach, it has. Does that mean you don't make plans to improve? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I am suggesting is when the time comes for a total redesign, that is when the T-6 comes here. The 150 then becomes a lighter spec version in the Super duty line.. IMO, the T-6 will satisfy most people who want a smaller package and it can also be upgraded from a GVW perspective to satisfy those who want a heavier truck. I also think in any case, it will satisfy the needs of a high percentage of the current 150 customer base.

 

 

But at the same doing this will make the F-150 noncompetitive with its peers..why in world would you give up all that just to sell a smaller truck?

 

I'm sure Ford has this figured out..and F-150 sales have bored this out.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...