RichardJensen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 And GM's 1/2 ton twins (Silverado 1500 and Sierra 1500) outsold F-150 by 80k units... your point? Did they outsell the F150 because they're smaller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) market that is shrinking? You mean the market with NO choice for a modern midsize. Tacoma was modern 6 years, this is 2012. Everything else is even more outdated. Don't you even dare compare the 20 year old Ranger to a 2012 F150. You might as well compare oranges and apples. Again, why are there no choices for a modern midsize? Nobody on that side of this argument can answer that? The answer is always "there is no choice for a modern midsize", but there is never an answer as to why other than "well, they were abandoned the little trucks for the big brother to make more $." Well, duh, the midsize market isn't there, that's why! Ford's current trajectory means that those waiting for a midsize truck from Ford are screwed until 2017 when the new CAFE rules force them to bring the second gen T6 here. So, how do you know Ford won't have something available by then? Edited January 25, 2012 by fordmantpw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) And we haven't mentioned the 2.7 Ecoboost V6 under development, an engine that will deliver 5.4 3V styled torque and horsepower but with 3.7 V6 fuel economy. that means even more pressure on the mid sized market to prove its fuel economy credentials... Who wouldn't want a capable truck that gets great mileage Edited January 25, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) 1st gen Colorado was basically an S-10 reworked by Isuzu... total POS. 2nd gen is a clean sheet in-house GM design. The market for god-awful, ancient, small, cheap, gas guzzling trucks is 200k. That's not T6. That's not new Colorado/Dakota. Let us count the logical fallacies: We have appeal to novelty: 'It's a new design, it will work!! It's new!!' We have begging the question: 'They were terrible, that's why they were failures.' We also have a bit of the gamblers fallacy, 'They're bound to get it right next time.' Edited January 25, 2012 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Let's compare the F150 to the Dodge, GM, Nissan and Toyota entries that comprise the rest of the segment. Is there a significant difference in size between any of these vehicles? No. These vehicles are within a couple inches of each other in all major dimensions (~1% variation). The most popular nameplate in the segment, the F150, is not significantly larger nor significantly smaller than its competitors. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the F150 is sized appropriately to its competition, as size is not a differentiator among entries in this segment. Furthermore, as a percentage of the overall market, the compact truck segment has declined precipitously, as compared with the full size truck segment. Therefore, the notion that people are exiting the full size segment because entries in it are 'too big' cannot be substantiated. If truck buyers were dismayed by the size of full size trucks after the most recent upgrades in capacity, one would have expected a noticeable shift into smaller trucks. Yet not only did this fail to occur at Ford, it also failed to occur at GM and Dodge where considerable money was invested in new midsize truck platforms. Again, if we saw a shift to smaller trucks at Dodge & GM while Ford saw no shift, it could be inferred that buyers were avoiding the outdated Ranger. However, Dodge and GM's new entries failed to sustain volume higher than their predecessors, which suggests that there is no correlation between the full size segment and the midsize segment. Will that do as a support for the assertion that 'F150 buyers want a vehicle the size of the F150'? Here are my assumptions with no supporting facts. My facts will reveal themselves within the next 24 months. Approx 10% of F150 owners would rather puchase a smaller vehicle with equal or better equipment options, IF the build quality was the same and fuel economy was no worse. There are approx 250k potential midsize truck owners out there. This bucket includes everyone who wants a 30MPG truck all the way up to and including the current midsize "Sport Trek" owners. If there was a quality truck that had good fuel economy, 10-20k new buyers would join that market. As fuel prices increase, assuming first point is available for purchase, more buyers would purchase such a truck. As the F150's price increases, as Ford tries to meet CAFE, some will not be able to afford a expensive fullsize truck as easily and will be looking for more affordable choices I see a market of 270K potential buyers in 2013 that will grow significantly in 2017 and become the highest selling truck category by 2022. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) 270k additional buyers? As in an established segment is going to double in size in a year? Edited January 25, 2012 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Did they outsell the F150 because they're smaller? No, but *certain people* here would have you believe that F-150 is the best selling truck in the world with 600k annual sales. It's not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Ford don't need to do anything, they have a mid sized truck they can add anytime they like. F 150 plays in a market that's huge compared to mid sized trucks, it's success is self evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 270k additional buyers? As in an established segment is going to double in size in a year? I think you missed the part where I said "a quality midsize would probably take the lower 10% of F150 sales". That's a sizable market increase for midsize trucks, but NOT in itself conducive to being more profit for Ford Motor Company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No, but *certain people* here would have you believe that F-150 is the best selling truck in the world with 600k annual sales. It's not. It is, however the best selling nameplate in the truck segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I think you missed the part where I said "a quality midsize would probably take the lower 10% of F150 sales". That's a sizable market increase for midsize trucks, but NOT in itself conducive to being more profit for Ford Motor Company. And clearly, Ford is betting that F150 will pinch enough not to need a mid sizer, Ecoboost 2.7 giving 18/24 mpg while lugging like a 54. 3V. (still speculation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) And clearly, Ford is betting that F150 will pinch enough not to need a mid sizer, Ecoboost 2.7 giving 18/24 mpg while lugging like a 54. 3V. (still speculation) 2.7 liter Ecoboost is a DI 3.7 liter replacement. Expect roughly 290HP and 310lb of torque with that wonderful mesa-like torque curve. It should get the F150 to 24mpg. The EB 2.7 is supposed to used by Lincoln first for (2014-2015), and the F150 second (ETA 2015-2016) and much later on Mustang and everything else. ETA 2016? Edited January 25, 2012 by Mackintire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Any details on this new 2.7L V6 EcoBoost? Will it be using twin turbos like the 3.5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 As fuel prices increase, assuming first point is available for purchase, more buyers would purchase such a truck. There is absolutely no evidence that supports higher gas prices driving increased small truck sales. It's nothing more than unsubstantiated wishful thinking. And you're ignoring the fact that Ford will have a new full sized pickup with significantly better fuel economy in a couple of years - and it sounds dramatic. So that would kill any sales due to fuel economy. Ford may also come out with a unibody small pickup that would also get better fuel economy than a new Ranger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Indeed, previous fuel spikes have not boosted smalller truck sales. If anything it caused them to fall faster. Perhaps more fullsize truck customers have convinced themselves that they need a fullsize truck, regardless of fuel price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 [*]As fuel prices increase, ....., more buyers would purchase such a truck. Absolutely. Common sense tells you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Indeed, previous fuel spikes have not boosted smalller truck sales. If anything it caused them to fall faster. Perhaps more fullsize truck customers have convinced themselves that they need a fullsize truck, regardless of fuel price. People that need full sized trucks need them regardless of fuel prices. Same for people that don't care about fuel prices. People that used to buy small trucks because they were cheap and/or got better fuel economy switched to small cars, hybrids and crossovers. There is a good chance that Ford will break the code on providing great fuel economy for the next F150 and that will be way more important to Ford's bottom line than a new Ranger. Not to mention a new Ranger would not be cheap. People rationalize things they want while ignoring the facts. I used to do it all the time. I still buy things I want but I understand it's a want and I don't allow myself to rationalize it into a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Absolutely. Common sense tells you that. Except it didn't happen 3 years ago. Facts trump common sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Indeed, previous fuel spikes have not boosted smalller truck sales. If anything it caused them to fall faster. Perhaps more fullsize truck customers have convinced themselves that they need a fullsize truck, regardless of fuel price. You're leveraging facts based on wrong assumptions. You are correct, Previous fuel spikes did not boost smaller truck sales....mostly because the price difference between a small and a big truck was $2000 due to huge rebates at that time. As history shows it small truck sales increased slightly during that time and full size truck sales tanked over 15%. The reason small truck sales didn't seem to increase was size. The Tacoma had a sales increase of almost 30% during that time. It was the ONLY truck with increased sales. It kind of figures as its the only choice that can fit a family of four comfortably and retain halfway decent fuel economy. The Tacoma's sales increase shows up as a 8% gain for the small truck market. Again I bring it back to....where are the higher trim better built midsize trucks.......they don't exist. Ask any sport Trek owner, He can go full size or lose equipment options and downgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 People that need full sized trucks need them regardless of fuel prices. Same for people that don't care about fuel prices. People that used to buy small trucks because they were cheap and/or got better fuel economy switched to small cars, hybrids and crossovers. There is a good chance that Ford will break the code on providing great fuel economy for the next F150 and that will be way more important to Ford's bottom line than a new Ranger. Not to mention a new Ranger would not be cheap. People rationalize things they want while ignoring the facts. I used to do it all the time. I still buy things I want but I understand it's a want and I don't allow myself to rationalize it into a need. I 'm still waiting for Ford to either break the laws of physics or make an internal combustion engine that is over 40% efficient and give that technology away below cost. Short of the two possibilities above...it ain't going to happen. A vehicle with the frontal area of the F150 is NOT going to make the over 28 MPG and stay under $20k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss444 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Except it didn't happen 3 years ago. Facts trump common sense. You should try using a bit of both at some point. You're leveraging facts based on wrong assumptions. You are correct, Previous fuel spikes did not boost smaller truck sales....mostly because the price difference between a small and a big truck was $2000 due to huge rebates at that time. As history shows it small truck sales increased slightly during that time and full size truck sales tanked over 15%. The reason small truck sales didn't seem to increase was size. Another factor that is being overlooked(not shocking at all) is that three years ago, the fuel economy of small trucks was about the same as a full size. Simply put, there was no incentive to buy a small truck in terms of fuel economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Indeed, previous fuel spikes have not boosted smalller truck sales. If anything it caused them to fall faster. Perhaps more fullsize truck customers have convinced themselves that they need a fullsize truck, regardless of fuel price. 1. Current "small" trucks don't offer any MPG advantage over full-sizes. 2. Manufacturers offered massive ($6-8k) rebates and 0% financing on their full-size trucks during the 07-08 market crash to prop up sales. 3. F-150 MPG's go to crap after you add a few options. A crew cab 4x4 with Ecoboost isn't going to do much better than 18mpg in the real world. The same configuration mid-size with an EB 2.0 should manage 25mpg. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I 'm still waiting for Ford to either break the laws of physics or make an internal combustion engine that is over 40% efficient and give that technology away below cost. Short of the two possibilities above...it ain't going to happen. A vehicle with the frontal area of the F150 is NOT going to make the over 28 MPG and stay under $20k. How did Ford increase the fuel economy of the Fusion from 22/30 to 41/37 (almost a 50% increase in city fuel economy)? And how does the 2013 Fusion get 47/41 mpg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 1. Current "small" trucks don't offer any MPG advantage over full-sizes. Why not? If these sales opportunities are just sitting there waiting for somebody to make a modern small truck then why hasn't Toyota already upgraded the Tacoma? Why hasn't Nissan updated the Frontier? Why did Ford let the Colorado die? Why didn't Dodge reinvent the Durango? Why not? Why not? Why not? Is every automaker incompetent for overlooking such an obviously easy opportunity to gain market share and make money? Why do you think you know more about the new truck market than all the people at all of the automakers who make their living and bet their careers on making the right product decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 small truck sales increased slightly during that time and full size truck sales tanked over 15% Which time are we talking about? And I must correct my earlier remark. I shouldn't have mentioned price spikes, I should've referred to the increase in fuel prices seen over the course of a decade (2002-2011) that has seen small truck sales drop about 2/3rds to 3/4s while large truck sales have fallen roughly 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts