Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans

[jpd80]

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.

Not what I meant, the question Ford would have asked is, in a shrinking market, do we want to

reinvest in a new plant and new product?

Is it better to close the existing plant, avoid the cost of setting up an new plant and invest the cash

than would have be spent on other higher value products?

Do we sacrifice production space on +30,000 vehicles to put in a +$20,000 product line or is it better

to upgrade our existing products and keep them fresh?

 

 

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

.

 

oops, you've just answered the questions I posed above, sometimes it is better to do nothing than invest capital in products that may divert it away from better strategies in other directions, I'm not necessarily talking about F150 here, it could be Utilities, Lincoln oi just other products in general.

[GTwannabe]

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.....

 

1. A hybrid system would add hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars to the F-150. A good number of F-150 buyers won't buy Ecoboost because they're afraid turbos are unreliable. Do you really think they're going to spring for an expensive battery pack that only has a 7-8 year service life?

 

2. F-150 aero sucks because of the faux Big Rig styling all the full-size players are doing.

 

3. Let's say that Ford does manage to get the F-150 down to 4600lbs with a combination of carbon fiber, composite, aluminum, and unicorn farts. Why can't Ford's competitors apply similar technologies to make their new 4500lb trucks even lighter? Why can't Ford apply those same technologies to a T6-sized vehicle?

[RichardJensen]

oops, you've just answered the questions I posed above, sometimes it is better to do nothing than invest capital in products that may divert it away from better strategies in other directions, I'm not necessarily talking about F150 here, it could be Utilities, Lincoln oi just other products in general.

 

I think the Ranger has a high opportunity cost as an insert into an existing NA plant, vs. other products, due to its relatively unique structure and likely low volume.

 

Opportunity costs hit in at least two different levels in this business... One on the new product development end, and another when it comes to arranging production.

Edited January 15, 2012 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

I think the Ranger has a high opportunity cost as an insert into an existing NA plant, vs. other products, due to its relatively unique structure and likely low volume.

 

Opportunity costs hit in at least two different levels in this business... One on the new product development end, and another when it comes to arranging production.

Perhaps as KDK or even CKD to make the process simpler with less investment..

RJ, I marvel at the changes made by FNA, five years later we are contemplating niche products

that don't take production capacity away ffrom existing products, what a transformation from the

excess capacity days of 2006

Edited January 15, 2012 by jpd80

[Edstock]

1. A hybrid system would add hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars to the F-150. A good number of F-150 buyers won't buy Ecoboost because they're afraid turbos are unreliable. Do you really think they're going to spring for an expensive battery pack that only has a 7-8 year service life?

 

Yes, I really think they're going to spring for an expensive battery pack that only has a 7-8 year service life, if the savings are there. Why? Because, if it's used for work, it's an asset that is fully written-off in 5 years.

 

 

 

2. F-150 aero sucks because of the faux Big Rig styling all the full-size players are doing.

 

Maybe, maybe not. That's your opinion. Do you have any drag measurement figures?

 

 

 

3. Let's say that Ford does manage to get the F-150 down to 4600lbs with a combination of carbon fiber, composite, aluminum, and unicorn farts. Why can't Ford's competitors apply similar technologies to make their new 4500lb trucks even lighter? Why can't Ford apply those same technologies to a T6-sized vehicle?

 

For the same reason that Ford can't use a lot of that on the next F-150, except for aluminum: you couldn't afford it. Carbon fiber and composites are expensive, no matter what the volume. That will change, but it's 20 years away.

 

 

 

[jpd80]

1. A hybrid system would add hundreds of pounds and thousands of dollars to the F-150. A good number of F-150 buyers won't buy Ecoboost because they're afraid turbos are unreliable. Do you really think they're going to spring for an expensive battery pack that only has a 7-8 year service life?

1) At the moment around 45% of F150 sales are Ecoboost v6, that says a lot accept it without needing the test of time.

2) wher did I day the hybrid system was electrical, check my post again, that's right I could be talking Hydraulic assst or electric.

 

2. F-150 aero sucks because of the faux Big Rig styling all the full-size players are doing.

I get the feeling this is more about you than F150 buyers in general, let's wait and se what improvements in wind resistance Ford comes up wit.

 

3. Let's say that Ford does manage to get the F-150 down to 4600lbs with a combination of carbon fiber, composite, aluminum, and unicorn farts. Why can't Ford's competitors apply similar technologies to make their new 4500lb trucks even lighter? Why can't Ford apply those same technologies to a T6-sized vehicle?

Yes they can, this is not about Ford choosing F150 over Ranger, there was some slight overlap but as pointed out above

Ranger will require investment in a new line to build it, is that capital better investd in something else, maybe several other products,

I'm not takling replacements here, maybe completely different allocation of money across many other products.

Since Ford has chosen not ot bring Ranger, I'd say that's most likely what has happened....

 

And BTW, that 250- 750 lb weight reduction range is not unicorn farts, it's a stated objective in Ford's mid term plans regarding all vehicles.

The assumption on my behalf and I suspect quite a few others is that 750 lb target applies to the biggest vehicle, namely the F150/SD

Edited January 15, 2012 by jpd80

[Pioneer]

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.

 

KCAP or DTP would be a more logical choice. KCAP only produces F-150's on one shift. Add production to KCAP or shift some F-150 production to KCAP and add the Ranger to DTP.

 

Win-win. The more the plant runs, the less each vehicle that comes out of it costs to produce.

[jpd80]

KCAP or DTP would be a more logical choice. KCAP only produces F-150's on one shift. Add production to KCAP or shift some F-150 production to KCAP and add the Ranger to DTP.

 

Win-win. The more the plant runs, the less each vehicle that comes out of it costs to produce.

 

Thanks pioneer, i thought there had to be somewhere

[Pioneer]

Thanks pioneer, i thought there had to be somewhere

 

 

Something will have to be added to one of these plants. I can't see the second shift at KCAP Truck that will be added in April sustainable. I think it will be used to keep people working until the retooling is done on the SUV side, then those workers will go back.

 

So you have 4 shifts of F-150's being built by two plants capable of running 6 shifts. Another product seems inevitable.

[jpd80]

Something will have to be added to one of these plants. I can't see the second shift at KCAP Truck that will be added in April sustainable. I think it will be used to keep people working until the retooling is done on the SUV side, then those workers will go back.

 

So you have 4 shifts of F-150's being built by two plants capable of running 6 shifts. Another product seems inevitable.

 

Mind you, 68,000 F trucks in December is welcome news, looks like buyers that have been holding off on purchases are coming back,

Fingers crossed that Ford has to scramble with demand and starts building 70,000-80,000/months this spring, summer and beyond....

Edited January 16, 2012 by jpd80

[mackinaw]

Mind you, 68,000 F trucks in December is welcome news, looks like buyers that have been holding off on purchases are coming back,

Fingers crossed that Ford has to scramble with demand and starts building 70,000-80,000/months this spring, summer and beyond....

 

Don't read too much into the F-series December sales number. There were tax advantages that many businesses could claim for 2011 which resulted in a lot of trucks being sold in December.

[cheri/ck]

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...

 

 

Could not agree more - absolutely ridiculous rhetoric that has been bashed around forever now. If T-6 were here now, I would be a serious looker and likely buyer. As it is, I am heading for the Nissan dealer next week. Won't just drive the Frontier either. I am interested in the Titan and how it has been improved over the years. And, what the future direction might be. It's a better size for us than the current F-150. We need both a new F-150 and Ranger. The Frontier could easily upgrade our main Ranger. A T-6 might have solved both problems.

 

Been a very long time since I cross-shopped Ford. But there isn't any choice. Our trucks are getting old. I like the Nissan offerings better than Toyota. We need stout 4X4 trucks that are not huge. Don't tow that much either - maybe 5,000 pounds every now and then. Rarely haul a lot either, but need to sometimes. Don't need or want the current F-150.

 

Ford is leaving us without options.

[Bob Rosadini]

Could not agree more - absolutely ridiculous rhetoric that has been bashed around forever now. If T-6 were here now, I would be a serious looker and likely buyer. As it is, I am heading for the Nissan dealer next week. Won't just drive the Frontier either. I am interested in the Titan and how it has been improved over the years. And, what the future direction might be. It's a better size for us than the current F-150. We need both a new F-150 and Ranger. The Frontier could easily upgrade our main Ranger. A T-6 might have solved both problems.

 

Been a very long time since I cross-shopped Ford. But there isn't any choice. Our trucks are getting old. I like the Nissan offerings better than Toyota. We need stout 4X4 trucks that are not huge. Don't tow that much either - maybe 5,000 pounds every now and then. Rarely haul a lot either, but need to sometimes. Don't need or want the current F-150.

 

Ford is leaving us without options.

While I share your feelings on the T-6 I'm confused as to why you would check out the Titan but not a 150. They are very close in size and setting my prejudice for Ford aside, from everything I know the Titan for sure is an "also ran".

[cheri/ck]

While I share your feelings on the T-6 I'm confused as to why you would check out the Titan but not a 150. They are very close in size and setting my prejudice for Ford aside, from everything I know the Titan for sure is an "also ran".

 

 

I like a proven V-8 engine and strong 5-speed tranny. Ford is having a few problems with both of late in the F-150. The mileage claims by Ford do not really apply in 4X4. Maybe a little better than our trucks, but not exceptional. Count me out on Eco-Boost. The 5.0 V-8 would be the choice which is smaller and probably not quite as capable as the Titan.

 

Nissan has sure had their problems with the rest of the Titan truck. Interested in seeing the progress and how it might continue. A few inches here and there make a difference for some of us. I think an extended cab Titan is still about the same size as our 1999 F-150 extended cab. Which is as big as we are going. We are in the minority - not the least bit interested in the 4-door trucks but want some room behind the front seats.

 

And, I am really curious about a manual tranny V-6 Frontier. Good reviews for the most part and I do like having some on demand power plus fuel economy in my commuting vehicle. There again, extended cab (4X4).

 

The 4X4 option is something most of the posters seem to forget about when talking about options with replacing the Ranger. Some of us cannot live without it.

[Bob Rosadini]

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.

Richard, I know its an example, but your hypo example is a good one of someone who does NOT need the bulk/capacity of a 150. The typical guy you describe usually has a need for ladder racks, perhaps a back of cab tool box, and the ability to carry say a gas powered pressure washer.-an old Ranger can do that-never mind a T-6. And quite frankly, he probably can't afford a new 150!

 

But it seems you can't resist focusing on the reasons why a T-6 makes no sense rather than the point that the 150 market could be served by what amounts to a 250 with a 150 badge and lighter components. Tell me why that won't work.

 

What are the internal cab dimensions of a 150 vs a 250? You made the case that you can't put a 6.7 in a 150. I responded and said that was not the objective-rather the existing 150 engine options would go into the Super Duty wrapper- as a 150 "Super Duty" what is wrong with that?

 

You talk about the cost of bringing the T-6 here? You are telling me that with ALL the hype about "ONE Ford", all that money was spent on T-6 with NO thought/provision that it ultimately WILL be here? Your head is in the sand if you think fuel is going to remain at the current per gallon price. That alone says a somewhat smaller package is the answer. And composites/aluminum/ titanium or whatever super lightweight material you want to use will not be a sensible substitute for a smaller package that can serve a very large percentage of the existing market.

 

KIRBY You raised the point that 600 thousand units a year of "work trucks" justified the 150 in its current package. I raised the issue that the majority of 150 sales remain yuppie/gentleman farmer vehicles that could most likely be served by a T-6 vehicle. Likewise, those buyers who truly need the added capacity would be equally well served by a 250 at the light end of the option list or the 250 with the 150 wrapper.

 

And as others have pointed out-with all the emphasis on flex manufacturing, and given the thought that KTP will remain the home of Super Duty when the next generation arrives, it seems to me that bringing the T-6 here to one of those flex plants and designing the new Super duty so it can serve the true 150 market where such GVW, towing capacity is needed, is the answer that gives Ford the broadest appeal to a maximum number of buyers.

 

You guys say there "is no market". I say "build it the right way, and you will create the market". Just cut out the duplication and maximize what you have-namely T-6 and a next generation Super Duty- to cover ALL the bases

[RichardJensen]

Richard, I know its an example, but your hypo example is a good one of someone who does NOT need the bulk/capacity of a 150.

I'm pointing out that fuel efficiency is not a primary concern.

 

And, in fact, most of these guys use full size vans, and need the space. And I know a fair number of painting contractors. Only one of them uses a midsize pickup.

 

--

 

As to the F150 engines going into a SuperDuty, that's a non-starter. Not when CAFE is kicking in. The SD is worse than the F150 in terms of aerodynamics. And it's probably heavier too.

Edited January 16, 2012 by RichardJensen

[cheri/ck]

Richard, I know its an example, but your hypo example is a good one of someone who does NOT need the bulk/capacity of a 150. The typical guy you describe usually has a need for ladder racks, perhaps a back of cab tool box, and the ability to carry say a gas powered pressure washer.-an old Ranger can do that-never mind a T-6. And quite frankly, he probably can't afford a new 150!

 

But it seems you can't resist focusing on the reasons why a T-6 makes no sense rather than the point that the 150 market could be served by what amounts to a 250 with a 150 badge and lighter components. Tell me why that won't work.

 

What are the internal cab dimensions of a 150 vs a 250? You made the case that you can't put a 6.7 in a 150. I responded and said that was not the objective-rather the existing 150 engine options would go into the Super Duty wrapper- as a 150 "Super Duty" what is wrong with that?

 

You talk about the cost of bringing the T-6 here? You are telling me that with ALL the hype about "ONE Ford", all that money was spent on T-6 with NO thought/provision that it ultimately WILL be here? Your head is in the sand if you think fuel is going to remain at the current per gallon price. That alone says a somewhat smaller package is the answer. And composites/aluminum/ titanium or whatever super lightweight material you want to use will not be a sensible substitute for a smaller package that can serve a very large percentage of the existing market.

 

KIRBY You raised the point that 600 thousand units a year of "work trucks" justified the 150 in its current package. I raised the issue that the majority of 150 sales remain yuppie/gentleman farmer vehicles that could most likely be served by a T-6 vehicle. Likewise, those buyers who truly need the added capacity would be equally well served by a 250 at the light end of the option list or the 250 with the 150 wrapper.

 

And as others have pointed out-with all the emphasis on flex manufacturing, and given the thought that KTP will remain the home of Super Duty when the next generation arrives, it seems to me that bringing the T-6 here to one of those flex plants and designing the new Super duty so it can serve the true 150 market where such GVW, towing capacity is needed, is the answer that gives Ford the broadest appeal to a maximum number of buyers.

 

You guys say there "is no market". I say "build it the right way, and you will create the market". Just cut out the duplication and maximize what you have-namely T-6 and a next generation Super Duty- to cover ALL the bases

 

 

 

Exactly when did the F-150 become a work truck? We bought our first one in the mid-80's for the simple purpose of hauling a 4,000 pound boat around on the weekends. And camping in the back. It was a 5.0 EFI with manual tranny. Did everything we asked for a long time without much complaint to nearly 200,000 miles. And got about 15 mpg doing it no matter how we drove it or what we hauled at high altitude. Back then, it was an exceptional half-ton truck.

 

In my mind, the F-150 is still a personal use truck, maybe mostly for the weekender. Not the one trying to haul an 8,000 pound camping trailer, but someone doing simple weekend tasks. Then play time too - the boat, jet skis, small camping trailer - whatever, but we don't need or want a 3/4 ton truck for these things. And, it needs to fit in a regular house's garage without people trying to find every spare inch or modify their garage to fit it. It needs to be a decent commuting vehicle and able to fit in tight parking spaces. Without finding ways to back in or taking up two of them.

 

This is what the F-150 used to be. Won't be going there again until it returns to those roots, if ever. As far as no market for the T-6 - well, the truck market has a tendency to follow Ford. With no replacement for the Ranger even rumored for a few years now and no updates for about forever, the mid-sized trucks have not had much development. Except the Frontier - based on a smaller, fully boxed frame of the Titan with a nicely upgraded V-6 engine- and still offering a good manual tranny.

 

Will still probably be waiting on Ford to make some kind of move in the right direction. But not forever. Need to learn more about the competition and intend to do so for the first time since the early 80's.

 

 

 

The current F-150 is too big for its intended purpose from years back. Maybe it has a new intended purpose. It just won't be my purpose.

[jpd80]

I don't doubt there are buyers for mid sized trucks, i would like to see T6 Ranger in the US too but obviously Ford see the score differently.

 

It's them that you have to convince, not RJ and me.

[RichardJensen]

Exactly when did the F-150 become a work truck?

?

[cheri/ck]

?

 

 

If the F-150 is the new work truck, where is the personal use truck? Ford does not have one. Guess the F-150 is supposed to cover all grounds. When we needed a heavy duty truck, we bought an F-250 back when they were about as heavy duty as personal trucks could get. The difference between the F-150 and the F-250 twenty years ago was a lot. You bought the F-150 for a nice personal use vehicle, the F-250 if you had something really big to carry or haul on a regular basis. And, you paid for it in terms of empty ride quality and fuel mileage.

 

Now, Ford has morphed the two together without a Ranger replacement. And in so doing, the F-150 has simply become a 3/4 truck that is both too big and too heavy to fit a lot of what many need a basic truck to do. Ford does scramble to offset the weight/size with newly improved drivetrains to be competitive with the competition that still offers simple half-ton trucks. Seems like a losing battle in some ways.

 

Anyway, the F-150 is the only Ford option for personal use now. Take it or leave it.

[akirby]

I probably shouldn't have called it a "work truck" - what I meant was people who want and need a full sized truck, and there are 600K of them that buy Fords (1M in the past). Add in the GMs, Rams and the imports and you have a market of at least 1.5M, probably more. Small trucks might be 200K. While a more fuel efficient, modern T6 would be desirable, the same thing in a F150 would be even more desirable and more profitable. And they can build it with current facilities whereas the T6 requires importing or a new plant. It's such an easy business decision for Ford that arguing about it is silly.

[GTwannabe]

Exactly when did the F-150 become a work truck? We bought our first one in the mid-80's for the simple purpose of hauling a 4,000 pound boat around on the weekends. And camping in the back. It was a 5.0 EFI with manual tranny. Did everything we asked for a long time without much complaint to nearly 200,000 miles. And got about 15 mpg doing it no matter how we drove it or what we hauled at high altitude. Back then, it was an exceptional half-ton truck.

 

In my mind, the F-150 is still a personal use truck, maybe mostly for the weekender. Not the one trying to haul an 8,000 pound camping trailer, but someone doing simple weekend tasks. Then play time too - the boat, jet skis, small camping trailer - whatever, but we don't need or want a 3/4 ton truck for these things. And, it needs to fit in a regular house's garage without people trying to find every spare inch or modify their garage to fit it. It needs to be a decent commuting vehicle and able to fit in tight parking spaces. Without finding ways to back in or taking up two of them.

 

This is what the F-150 used to be. Won't be going there again until it returns to those roots, if ever. As far as no market for the T-6 - well, the truck market has a tendency to follow Ford. With no replacement for the Ranger even rumored for a few years now and no updates for about forever, the mid-sized trucks have not had much development. Except the Frontier - based on a smaller, fully boxed frame of the Titan with a nicely upgraded V-6 engine- and still offering a good manual tranny.

 

Will still probably be waiting on Ford to make some kind of move in the right direction. But not forever. Need to learn more about the competition and intend to do so for the first time since the early 80's.

 

 

 

The current F-150 is too big for its intended purpose from years back. Maybe it has a new intended purpose. It just won't be my purpose.

 

CC Frontiers are very popular here in NY. I almost pulled the trigger on a CC PRO4X with the 6-spd. Main issue was the cramped rear seat. 6' adults don't fit in the second row (knees jammed into front seats). T6 is about the same size and weighs the same 4500lbs, but doesn't have that problem:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_Oq9LUbOw

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

Part of being a successful business entity, especially with products which take considerable time and money to develop, is being able to accurately anticipate where the market is going. This is where I have some umbrage with Ford, both past and present. In the regimes between Petersen and Mullaly, there were a lot of misses which seemed fairly predictable. Under Mullaly the record has been much better with getting the right product to market at the right time. I do wonder if he is starting to go too far towards simplifying the global product line, however. The most successful business strategies can become the worst mistakes when they are taken too far. Let's remember how VW drastically cut supplier costs about fifteen years ago (under Jose Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua) and became an industry star. But they went too far down that path and suffered disastrous slides in quality.

 

My personal crystal ball is that interest in mid-sized trucks and SUV's is starting to build. I work for a federal natural resource agency with lots of well educated people, who live outdoor lifestyles. These people reside in a diversity of urban, suburban and rural locations. Most conversations I hear regarding Ford are about the potential to use EcoBoost in a smaller than F150 truck or in a midsize SUV to get close to 30 MPG. People want good MPG while retaining true functionality. I consider my coworkers often a little ahead of where society is going to end-up going. One guy in our office bought a SuperCrew with EcoBoost and half the people or more who know him have been following his mileage. He is claiming to consistently get 23 MPG driving Montana highway speeds. Nearly everyone then says something like, gosh a mid-sized truck or SUV could get nealy 30 MPG and most of the time be right-sized". Personally, I covet an SUV based on the new Ranger powered by the upcoming 2.7L, V6 EcoBoost. The Everest could very successfully replace the Expedition. If they are already going to build it, then bring it here and people will come. I don't get how the "lets offer choices in small cars, but only offer large trucks" strategy really passes the red-face test.

Edited January 16, 2012 by TBirdStangSkyliner

[cheri/ck]

CC Frontiers are very popular here in NY. I almost pulled the trigger on a CC PRO4X with the 6-spd. Main issue was the cramped rear seat. 6' adults don't fit in the second row (knees jammed into front seats). T6 is about the same size and weighs the same 4500lbs, but doesn't have that problem:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5_Oq9LUbOw

 

Like I say, we are probably in the minority. Rarely carry anyone in the back seat but do indeed want some space back there for things, occasional people airport duty. Maybe this is where we don't fit into the scheme of things in the big picture. We have trucks to use as trucks, not people haulers, not for image. If we needed to haul people around more than once every few years, then I think we would buy a nice SUV or cross-over, probably Subaru considering where we live.

 

We don't have a need for big heavy trucks. Just nice, reasonably sized, fuel efficient half-ton trucks. Easy to drive, easy to park, easy to live with that can do some reasonable truck duties. I do believe as gas prices stay higher and probably headed higher, the people machine luxury trucks might give way back to utility type half-tons. Which means, less size, less weight and that should equal better overall efficiency of both size and fuel efficiency. Something the mid-size trucks have had a hard time progressing toward.

 

The T-6 could have filled that need as people start to worry about these things. Ford does have a winner, just not one we'll get to enjoy. For us it is either compromise or keep driving old trucks until Ford finally comes up with the right product for the U.S. market. Doubt we'll wait that long.

[akirby]

Part of being a successful business entity, especially with products which take considerable time and money to develop, is being able to accurately anticipate where the market is going. This is where I have some umbrage with Ford, both past and present. In the regimes between Petersen and Mullaly, there were a lot of misses which seemed fairly predictable. Under Mullaly the record has been much better with getting the right product to market at the right time. I do wonder if he is starting to go too far towards simplifying the global product line, however. The most successful business strategies can become the worst mistakes when they are taken too far. Let's remember how VW drastically cut supplier costs about fifteen years ago (under Jose Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua) and became an industry star. But they went too far down that path and suffered disastrous slides in quality.

 

My personal crystal ball is that interest in mid-sized trucks and SUV's is starting to build. I work for a federal natural resource agency with lots of well educated people, who live outdoor lifestyles. These people reside in a diversity of urban, suburban and rural locations. Most conversations I hear regarding Ford are about the potential to use EcoBoost in a smaller than F150 truck or in a midsize SUV to get close to 30 MPG. People want good MPG while retaining true functionality. I consider my coworkers often a little ahead of where society is going to end-up going. One guy in our office bought a SuperCrew with EcoBoost and half the people or more who know him have been following his mileage. He is claiming to consistently get 23 MPG driving Montana highway speeds. Nearly everyone then says something like, gosh a mid-sized truck or SUV could get nealy 30 MPG and most of the time be right-sized". Personally, I covet an SUV based on the new Ranger powered by the upcoming 2.7L, V6 EcoBoost. The Everest could very successfully replace the Expedition. If they are already going to build it, then bring it here and people will come. I don't get how the "lets offer choices in small cars, but only offer large trucks" strategy really passes the red-face test.

 

Because everyone SAYS they want a small truck but then they either buy a F150 or a small car or hybrid.