Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans

[RichardJensen]

the T-6 will satisfy most people who want a smaller package

If the T6 were an adequate replacement for the F150 it would be here. It isn't and it isn't.

 

Ford knew they could sell a twin turbo V6 to this segment. That struck many as a huge gamble, but their research told them otherwise.

 

If they are not consolidating the T6 and the F150, it's with good reason.

[Kris Kolman]

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

 

Fusion got great fuel economy improvements because of the engine upgrades... Same engine upgrades as the T6 Ranger would get. No longer forcing old out dated engines on poor small truck buyers. T6 could be all 4 cylinder, D25 and EB20... We already know that a T6 Ranger fuel milage with the D25 would get a full 6 mpg better than the best F150. And the higer spec EB20 would still get 3 mpg better than the best F150. The Ranger is already ~1000 lb lighter than the F150, without expensive technology development dependant upgrades, and has a smaller frontal area to push thru the air.

 

So are you telling me there is an engine out there that would support F150 capability requirements and get 15-30% fuel milage improvements? About the only thing I could think of is the 32TDi... But then I'd point out the T6 Ranger has a 22TDi... Hmmmm

Edited January 14, 2012 by Kris Kolman

[GTwannabe]

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.

 

Non-competitive? F-150 has grown so much due to the 1/2 ton spec wars that it has blurred with the F-250 capability-wise. SRW F-250 overlaps very badly with F-350 as well. Just engineer the next-gen F-150 to accept HD suspension components for the F-250/F-350 variants.

 

A T6-sized F-100 would start a full 1000lbs lighter and have better aero than the equivalent config F-150. Better CAFE numbers, prevents the need to downsize the F-150 and lose the payload/towing crown. F-150 sales would be lower, but combined F-series sales would be higher. Ford has already figured out that consumers will buy smaller cars if they are available with premium content. Why not trucks?

[Kris Kolman]

I can hear the laughing now from Aichi, Japan... For years Toyota tried to market the 9/10-ths sized T100 as a full-sized truck. Ford, GM, and even Dodge was able to easily undercut it. That market pressure still exists and anyway if people want a 9/10-ths pickup truck Ford has a turnkey option in the T6 Ranger. What's the Not-Invented-Here-Sydrom that says the F150 should shink, but the T6 isn't the solution? What make you think Ford should repeat that development effort. How about instead of tring to shink the F150 Ford is inovative and introduces the 32Tdi as an option to allow commerical customers to drop down a size.

[FordBuyer]

In this reset economy, it seems to me that Ford has made the decision that it's not going be all things to all people anymore meaning it's not going to be in all segments anymore. Thus no minivan, RWD sedan, and small pickup truck. Looks like it will only be in segments where it feels it can be very profitable, competitive, and in many cases class leading. Now of course as times change along with CEO's, this could all change. But for now looks to me like Ford is concentrating its resources into segements it can do well in and is doing doing well in. I don't think it's a big deal since if Ford doesn't make what you want, lots of competitors do and all major manufacturers make fine products in this global economy. I would prefer to buy Ford as daily driver, but if they don't make what I want, I don't feel guilty buying competitor's product. Luckily though, Ford does for most part make what I like as daily driver.

[atvman]

This segment is dying, it's not one worth investing heavily in. Even the best vehicles in this segment are seeing sales decreases. Most of the people complaining about the demise of the Ranger are people who wouldn't buy a new one anyways, just like Crown Vic slappies.

[akirby]

Fusion got great fuel economy improvements because of the engine upgrades... Same engine upgrades as the T6 Ranger would get. No longer forcing old out dated engines on poor small truck buyers. T6 could be all 4 cylinder, D25 and EB20... We already know that a T6 Ranger fuel milage with the D25 would get a full 6 mpg better than the best F150. And the higer spec EB20 would still get 3 mpg better than the best F150. The Ranger is already ~1000 lb lighter than the F150, without expensive technology development dependant upgrades, and has a smaller frontal area to push thru the air.

 

So are you telling me there is an engine out there that would support F150 capability requirements and get 15-30% fuel milage improvements? About the only thing I could think of is the 32TDi... But then I'd point out the T6 Ranger has a 22TDi... Hmmmm

 

Here's a clue - starts with HY and ends with BRID. I think that's the only way for Ford to make huge mpg gains. They were working on a hydraulic hybrid several years ago. I don't know if that's the plan - I'm just saying that it is a possibility that you aren't considering.

[blksn8k2]

This segment is dying, it's not one worth investing heavily in. Even the best vehicles in this segment are seeing sales decreases. Most of the people complaining about the demise of the Ranger are people who wouldn't buy a new one anyways, just like Crown Vic slappies.

 

Absolutely ridiculous. If the T6 were available here I would buy one tomorrow and it would probably be with most if not all of the high end options. I don't need an F-150 size truck and I don't care how cheap they are or how great the fuel mileage is, they are just too BIG. And I don't want to buy a Toyota or Chevy or whatever but if those are the only choices...

[Kris Kolman]

Here's a clue - starts with HY and ends with BRID. I think that's the only way for Ford to make huge mpg gains. They were working on a hydraulic hybrid several years ago. I don't know if that's the plan - I'm just saying that it is a possibility that you aren't considering.

 

Wow... Never considered that...

 

The same hydraulic hybrid that the government funded development of, Ford showed in a concept, the US Army installed in a test project, and the government funded to be installed in some trash trucks. That was what 5 years ago... And yet it hasn't gone further... Every wonder why? The US military has a few on again off again "small" vehicle programs (small for US miliary = SuperDuty) and yet there is no talk of this system being in the requirements set. While buses have shown progress with an electric hybrid system. And desiel electrics have a long history, think train... This seems to be the prefered direction because no alternatives have gone beyond the test phase.

 

And once again a Ranger could also be outfitted with a hybrid system, and once again would have 1000 lb less to haul around and less aero-frontal area than an F150. Heck I only need to point out that Ford has already sold an Electric Ranger in the form of the Ranger EV. Think rationally... Everything that can be done for the F-150 to improve fuel economy can be done for the Ranger... and with a higher ROI because when it comes to fuel effeciency nothing beat size. The buissness case for the Ranger might not be there, but physics are physics, material costs are what they are, commerical customer requirements are what they are... Lets stop ignoring it.

[Kris Kolman]

This segment is dying, it's not one worth investing heavily in. Even the best vehicles in this segment are seeing sales decreases. Most of the people complaining about the demise of the Ranger are people who wouldn't buy a new one anyways, just like Crown Vic slappies.

 

And yet Ford sold more Rangers than Mustangs last year on an ancient 19 year old design, no marketing, and a boat anchor of an engine... Hmmm.... Toyota, Nissan, GM, and Honda (in their way) are still comitted to the segment. And Chrysler is making noise about potentially two porducts for the segment (Jeep Wrangler based version and unibody SUV/Van based version). But then Ford is the smart people in the room... Isn't that what they sued to say about Enron?

[Bob Rosadini]

Absolutely ridiculous. If the T6 were available here I would buy one tomorrow and it would probably be with most if not all of the high end options. I don't need an F-150 size truck and I don't care how cheap they are or how great the fuel mileage is, they are just too BIG. And I don't want to buy a Toyota or Chevy or whatever but if those are the only choices...

10-4- but I'm just another Ranger/CV "slappie"!

[Bob Rosadini]

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?

 

Non competitive with its peers as in the 1500/2500/3500 Chebby or Mopar, one of which also has a V-8 diesel and the other has a crappy Cummins which is the same engine Ford uses in its class 6 and 7 trucks? (I'm amazed that Mopar hasn't rubbed thast fact in Fords face........"Our ram diesel is so good, Ford uses it in their class 6 and 7 trucks!"

 

Again boys- I'm saying 150 will be redesigned. Super duty will be redesigned. THAT will be the time to bring T-6 here-call it F-100 or Ranger, and the "new" 150 will be a Super Duty wrapper with lighter specs. Just like it was in 1999.

 

Or is "platform sharing" not applicable to trucks?

[akirby]

Everything that can be done for the F-150 to improve fuel economy can be done for the Ranger... and with a higher ROI because when it comes to fuel effeciency nothing beat size.

 

People who need real work trucks don't buy Rangers - they buy F150s and they buy 600K/yr. If gas goes up and Ford has a super efficient F150 they'll not only keep their current sales but add volume from the other full size mfrs that can't match the fuel economy. That could be a huge volume and huge profits for Ford. Compared to a much smaller gain in a much smaller market with a new Ranger.

 

You also have to consider manufacturing - they already have F150 plants with enough volume to support them. Ranger would be difficult to build in a dedicated plant at 100K units.

 

Mustang production was shared with other vehicles.

[Kris Kolman]

What does "work truck" have to do with it? Are you confussing buissness case and physics... Smaller is more efficient... That is basic physics. And Ford has a commerical vehicle the size of the F150 and weight of the Ranger. It is the Transit... Hopefully that gives you an idea of how far the F150 has to go.

 

I'm not getting your last point... Are you saying the Mustang has more part sharing then the Ranger? That doesn't make sense... Or are you saying it is impossible for the Ranger to share a plant with some other product? Thought Ford's plants were all to a high flexible standard...

[blksn8k2]

Just a little history from one of the Ranger "slappies". I am not afraid to say that I have owned some sort of Ford truck since 1976. Everything from Rangers to one F-250 with F-150s in between. I finally found the perfect size truck for me in 2007 when I bought my Sport Trac. It does everything I need and more. I have tried bigger and smaller but this is the perfect size truck for me and I suspect it would work just fine for the majority of non-commercial buyers. When Ford cancels the truck you have found to be just right and then builds another truck that is almost identical in size but refuses to sell it to you, you might have a tendency to be a little upset. No, make that pissed.

Edited January 14, 2012 by blksn8k2

[blksn8k2]

Non competitive with its peers as in the 1500/2500/3500 Chebby or Mopar, one of which also has a V-8 diesel and the other has a crappy Cummins which is the same engine Ford uses in its class 6 and 7 trucks? (I'm amazed that Mopar hasn't rubbed thast fact in Fords face........"Our ram diesel is so good, Ford uses it in their class 6 and 7 trucks!"

 

Again boys- I'm saying 150 will be redesigned. Super duty will be redesigned. THAT will be the time to bring T-6 here-call it F-100 or Ranger, and the "new" 150 will be a Super Duty wrapper with lighter specs. Just like it was in 1999.

 

Or is "platform sharing" not applicable to trucks?

 

Hmmm...sounds an awful lot like GM's current truck strategy. But that would never work. Why would Ford ever want to follow their lead? Probably makes too much sense. :shades:

[jpd80]

Wow... Never considered that...

 

The same hydraulic hybrid that the government funded development of, Ford showed in a concept, the US Army installed in a test project, and the government funded to be installed in some trash trucks. That was what 5 years ago... And yet it hasn't gone further... Every wonder why? The US military has a few on again off again "small" vehicle programs (small for US miliary = SuperDuty) and yet there is no talk of this system being in the requirements set. While buses have shown progress with an electric hybrid system. And desiel electrics have a long history, think train... This seems to be the prefered direction because no alternatives have gone beyond the test phase.

 

And once again a Ranger could also be outfitted with a hybrid system, and once again would have 1000 lb less to haul around and less aero-frontal area than an F150. Heck I only need to point out that Ford has already sold an Electric Ranger in the form of the Ranger EV. Think rationally... Everything that can be done for the F-150 to improve fuel economy can be done for the Ranger... and with a higher ROI because when it comes to fuel effeciency nothing beat size. The buissness case for the Ranger might not be there, but physics are physics, material costs are what they are, commerical customer requirements are what they are... Lets stop ignoring it.

1) An energy conservation hybrid bears more fruit in a heavy vehicle than possibly a plug in hybrid.

Consider the effectiveness of regenerative braking and launch assist on a heavier truck.

I could see that achieving just as much fuel economy gain as a diesel without emissions hassles.

 

2) Aerodynamics, on highway cycle the larger F150 has terrible coefficient of drag and huge wind resistance,

there's an opportunity to really prune some fuel usage by designing a more slippery front end.

 

3) Weight, Ford has expressed a desire in their mid term goals to reduce vehicle weights in the 25o-750 lb area,

A drop of 750 lbs in F150 is probably quite possible, bring the lightest example down from 5350 lbs to 4600 lbs,

enabling more use of the NA 3.7 V6 option as well as increasing fuel economy across the whole range.....

[Bob Rosadini]

People who need real work trucks don't buy Rangers - they buy F150s and they buy 600K/yr. If gas goes up and Ford has a super efficient F150 they'll not only keep their current sales but add volume from the other full size mfrs that can't match the fuel economy. That could be a huge volume and huge profits for Ford. Compared to a much smaller gain in a much smaller market with a new Ranger.

 

You also have to consider manufacturing - they already have F150 plants with enough volume to support them. Ranger would be difficult to build in a dedicated plant at 100K units.

 

Mustang production was shared with other vehicles.

Take a drive through any dealer's lot, check the inventory and tell me the percentage of high end 150's vs true work trucks-i.e, non super cab/crew cabs.vs XL pick ups. My bet -80% pretty trucks vs. the work trucks-at least that is the way it is in my back yard. And I say most of the buyers of those high end 150's will not be turned off by T-6. Plus you get the lift of the Tacoma/Frontier/Canyon/Durango whatever crossover. and those that truly need the bigger truck, will buy the "150" which will be the lighter spec "new" Super Duty"

 

If anyone can find a breakdown on 150 product mix I'm sure it would be interesting

[Kris Kolman]

Call me unconvinced that the F150 could ever reach T6 Ranger type fuel efficiency vs. tow/haul balance... I think the fundamental final straw is that the T6 Ranger can be as a compact truck sold as a fully 4-cylinder lineup (at least as gasoline/petrol engine are concerned). I don't see the full-size PU (class 2) market segment accepting a 4 cylinder engine for the foreseeable future. What I do see is that as fuel prices increase making even 6-cylinder engines non-desirable the consumer preferences will change to diesels. This will occur before 4 cylinder engines are accepted... At least for commercial customers who likely already have a high% of diesels in their fleet (Super Duties to Construction Equipment). And those accepting of 4 cylinder options are probably going to move to smaller pickups first. At least this is what I see in terms of the consumer demands... I'll accept that I could be wrong, and have an open mind but haven't read anything yet to convince me otherwise.

 

Now this doesn't speak to the business case... I understand that when it comes to the T6 Ranger Ford has made a decision based on limited ROI and limited resources. Ford can't be everything to everybody and this is where the line was drawn. Just saying what I see as limitations of how far I think the F-150 can go, and how that compares to the T6 Ranger with minimal investment (make the already test fitted EB20 a production option). Consider this because I won't buy an F150, while an EB20 Ranger would be very hard to pass up... This decision is based on the size of the F150 simply too long to fit in my garage and the fairly high occurrence of hail where I live. I am only keeping hope alive that Ford will change its mind before I decide to replace the Volvo (my old Ranger is for sale). I'm keeping an eye on the midsized truck segment because that is the most likely vehicle I'm going to buy (either that or a 5 seat SUV). And if Ford doesn't sell a midsized pickup I'm more than willing to change allegiance before compromising on my desires.

[akirby]

You said Mustang was built on a stand alone platform as a justification for the Ranger doing the same and the difference is the Mustang shared a plant with Mazda while the Ranger did/does not. That makes a huge difference in the ROI.

 

My point was simple - Ford is better off if they can come up with a high fuel economy F150 that maintains some towing and hauling capability and sells 600K+ and already has full production facilities in place. The Ranger will never sell more than 100K or so, would require a totally new production facility and would not provide the same capability as a full sized F150.

 

I'd love to see a T6 Ranger personally, but I also understand why Ford isn't doing it right now. But a super fuel efficient F150 or F100 would be far more successful and profitable than a super fuel efficient T6 Ranger. It's that simple. The people who used to buy 4 cylinder Rangers as cheap commuter vehicles are switching to hybrids and small cars and T6 can't approach that type of efficiency or cost.

 

I think we need to wait and see what drastic changes Ford has in store for the new F150 before making any judgements.

[Edstock]

But a super fuel efficient F150 or F100 would be far more successful and profitable than a super fuel efficient T6 Ranger. It's that simple. The people who used to buy 4 cylinder Rangers as cheap commuter vehicles are switching to hybrids and small cars and T6 can't approach that type of efficiency or cost.

It is that simple.

 

Ranger owners have a discount mind-set. But NVH expectations and collision requirements mean that any T-6 is going to be expensive to offer the same quality as the Toyota/Chevy trucks, or it's a POS, like a Mahindra.

 

 

So, IMHO, Ford should build a small FWD pickup. Fewer parts, cheaper.

 

 

[mackinaw]

Apparently the recently discontinued Ranger has been a topic at the NAIAS. An excerpt from today's Detroit Free Press:

 

"It has been only a month since the last Ranger rolled off the assembly line at a closing Minnesota plant, but the repercussions are still rolling through Ford.

 

Twice during the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Ford executives were called upon to defend their decision to kill the Ranger in the U.S. and Canada. Part of the reason the issue resurfaced is the same executives' buoyant predictions that a redesigned Ford Ranger for the rest of the world is going to be a great success. And this from an automaker that brags at every turn about how it has democratized more of its same cars across all markets. A Ford Fusion in America is now a Ford Mondeo in Europe. Different name. Same car.

 

Ford's Ranger danger with reporters began at a dinner where Ford's Asian chief talked about how excited he is about the new Ranger. But Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas, says the same vehicle can't succeed in the U.S. Too close in size to the Ford F-Series. A shrinking market of small-pickup buyers, only 2% of the market. One Canadian journalist, a Ranger owner, was incensed, saying that even if it isn't popular in the lower 48, Ranger remains popular in Canada.

 

The vibe continued at the Automotive News World Congress. Now it was Jim Farley, Ford's marketing chief, on the hot seat. He, too, predicted the new one will be a hit, with plants making it in Argentina, Thailand and South Africa."

 

Full article here:

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20120115/BUSINESS01/201150425/Inside-autos?odyssey=nav|head

[RichardJensen]

Folks, it's like this:

 

The segment is shrinking, despite Nissan, Toyota and GM throwing fully reengineered new vehicles in it over the last 6 years. Also despite volatile gas prices.

 

You guys in favor of a new Ranger tell me why the segment is shrinking and why the Ranger would be able to combat that trend.

 

---

 

For my part, I note that while most businesses and business owners are concerned about fuel costs, they are a very small portion of the total operating cost for a significant number of businesses.

 

Let's take, for example, Bob Paint Contractor. Bob Paint Contractor is, not surprisingly, a paint contractor. In a given week he goes through 30 gallons of gas in his F150, and 50 gallons of paint, as well as 5 meals for himself and 40 hours of labor for an employee.

 

His costs:

 

Food: $50

Labor: $600

Paint: $1500

Gas: $100

 

Now assume that he upgrades to a Ranger and gets a 15% savings in fuel economy.

 

That's going to be a savings of far less than 1% of his weekly expenses.

[jpd80]

It's more about focusing on maximizing F Truck sales and less about refusing to do T6 Ranger,

Ford just wants to put its money where it gets best bang for bucks.

[RichardJensen]

It's more about focusing on maximizing F Truck sales and less about refusing to do T6 Ranger,

Ford just wants to put its money where it gets best bang for bucks.

I dunno.

 

Ford split the F-Series range in '98, in a move that did not reduce their costs.

 

I don't think that Ford is keeping out the T6 in order to protect the F150's margins.

 

Rather, I think the T6 comes here as soon as the chicken tax goes away or the compact truck segment shows signs of life. Say the South Africa free trade agreement is passed. I think Ford reevaluates the Ranger at that point, because it can bring in a hefty number of ZA sourced Rangers at comparatively high transaction points (say 5-6k per month). Good for plant utilization, good for profitability.

 

On the other hand--assuming no trade agreement--you'd have to tool up a NA plant to produce the T6 (thanks to the tax). Okay, now what's the opportunity cost of that volume? Say you produce T6s at KTP in lieu of Expeditions & SDs.

 

Which product is going to be more profitable? compact trucks, or SDs and Expys? That's why, IMO, Ford won't add the T6 to an existing plant.

 

And you're not likely to see Ford refit, say, TCAP for the T6 because there's not enough demand, and exporting the T6 elsewhere from the US isn't a paying proposition, given labor costs and the popularity of the Ranger in generally emerging markets.

Edited January 15, 2012 by RichardJensen