Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans

[jpd80]

A sales rep that tells you to leave, go look at the competition, and then come back? Please. That guy's going to be delivering pizzas if he's not careful.

 

Any car sales person worth their salt will tell you, never let a buyer walk out of the dealership without a signed contract.

If they look at other cars, chances are high that they won't buy yours. That is simply sales 101.

The salesman's job is to eliminate obstacles to a customer buying their product,

knock down the walls and the resistance goes and most will sign.

but don't ever let them go see what's down the road.....

[Noah Harbinger]

A sales rep that tells you to leave, go look at the competition, and then come back? Please. That guy's going to be delivering pizzas if he's not careful.

 

That kind of attitude is everything that's wrong with humanity.

[Captainp4]

Nobody has said they can't make money on it or that it will never show up. What we're saying is that RIGHT NOW there is no business case to keep the current Ranger and that Ford has decided there are other projects more important than bringing T6 here RIGHT NOW. That can and probably will change.

 

Why is that so FREAKIN' hard for you people to understand?

 

What we did say is there is no business case that says higher gas prices will drive people to smaller trucks and that it would be silly for Ford to divert resources away from F150 and a 1.5M+ market segment to go after a 200K market segment. Priorities and projects could be totally different in 2 years.

 

 

Ever consider that I wasn't replying to you? I'm talking about the people that keep saying it's a shrinking segment, dying segment, money can't be made, blah blah blah

 

It may not be a question of money. It may be a question of *enough* money.

 

Opportunity cost, my good man, opportunity cost.

 

I understand the concept, but I still don't see it with a Ranger that has already been designed it would seem to require minimal investment to make it viable for our market. I admit to not fully understanding the capabilities and design of the factories, but isn't the idea behind all of the flex plants Ford has so that they can be reconfigured relatively cheaply and quickly?

 

Believe me, I've read all of the arguments on both sides over and over and over, but I still don't think it's a good decision to not bring the Ranger here. Admittedly without the knowledge that Ford has, but neither does anyone else here.

 

Further, Ford is apparently spending a lot of time and money trying to lighten the F150 to get better mileage for CAFE, why not bring something smaller here and save all of the hassle? You're already that much ahead when you have that much less size, you apply all of the same technology to the smaller truck and your mileage is that much better. If anything they should bring it here to help with the CAFE numbers. Edit - Rephrasing again, Ford should still be doing the work on the half tons to get the weight down, but why not add the smaller T6 with better mileage to your CAFE average to help out?

 

Richard-you make many very good posts-on subjects that I think you seem to have some good knowledge of-why are you damaging your credibility? Craig's list? Use it all the time. But when I want specs on a product? I do my research-upfront on the Internet. And I form an opinion often on the material I find when I do a cross comparison. By the way, some of the Ford sites for other countries indicate to me that these people know their market and their product and want their customers to get the right message. In this day and age, you need every edge you can get

 

I don't think Ford will do a major upheaval in their truck strategy as far as cab structures are concerned and don't really see the need, but how about this just for the sake of conversation:

 

F100 - t6 ranger

F150 - keep it about the same size as current, maybe a little bigger to make room for the t6 underneath and add some size for sharing F250 size.

F250 - beef up the current F150 some and add heavier duty axles, suspension, add some beef to the frame, add the I5 diesel, it would share the body with the F150

F350 - updated superduty, share a cab structure and body with medium duty on up, or F350-550 share teh same cab, then medium duty and up share structure?

 

As is, there isn't much capability difference between F250 and F350 except the stickers on them, they share all of the same parts. This way you get an F250 that rides nicer, gets better mileage, and can still dabble in towing heavier loads some, but still comfortable enough to drive daily for someone that only needs to tow on occasion. (Not that I personally have any problem driving a superduty, I daily drive mine, but apparently some here can't even drive/park an F150).

Edited January 22, 2012 by Captainp4

[RichardJensen]

I understand the concept, but I still don't see it with a Ranger that has already been designed it would seem to require minimal investment to make it viable for our market. I admit to not fully understanding the capabilities and design of the factories, but isn't the idea behind all of the flex plants Ford has so that they can be reconfigured relatively cheaply and quickly?

Here's the point:

 

Why make a product that will carry a lower transaction price and a lower margin when you can make a product with a higher transaction price and a higher margin?

 

Yes, Ford may be able to build the Ranger profitably. But will it be more profitable than what they're already building?

[RichardJensen]

That kind of attitude is everything that's wrong with humanity.

It's not an attitude, it's an expectation.

 

You don't get sales by letting customers walk out the door, let alone encouraging them to leave and look at a competitor's website, and I know more than a few pizza deliverymen that are working to supplement income from their day job.

 

Does it play to certain stereotypes? Yes. Is it absurd to suggest that a sales rep who wants customers to 'check out Ford's website because it really sucks' is not going to succeed? In my experience, no. Will an unsuccessful sales rep pull a part time stint doing menial low paying work? It's not unheard of. Heck, I did it myself for a brief period (painting, not pizza delivery, though).

Edited January 22, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Captainp4]

Here's the point:

 

Why make a product that will carry a lower transaction price and a lower margin when you can make a product with a higher transaction price and a higher margin?

 

Yes, Ford may be able to build the Ranger profitably. But will it be more profitable than what they're already building?

 

No, I understand what you're saying. I get it. My point is; is the relatively minimal investment required to bring the Ranger here really big enough that it is going to prevent them from investing in other products? It isn't like Ford is hurting for money right now.

[RichardJensen]

No, I understand what you're saying. I get it. My point is; is the relatively minimal investment required to bring the Ranger here really big enough that it is going to prevent them from investing in other products? It isn't like Ford is hurting for money right now.

No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

 

say you've got 250k units of production available at a plant

 

say you're building 200k F150s at that plant.

 

Building them at, say $2500 profit per unit.

 

That's $500M profit.

 

Now say you add the Ranger to that plant. Now you're building, say, 100k Rangers and 150k F150s.

 

Say the profit for the Ranger is $1000 per unit. That's $100M profit from the Ranger and $375M profit from the F150s. Now you're making $475M profit on the more volume.

 

I have no idea what the true values for these vehicles would be, but be assured that Ford's management knows and that this was an important consideration regarding the Ranger.

Edited January 22, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Captainp4]

oooh, plant utilization. Thought you meant the cost to federalize - my mistake.

 

Still, they wouldn't necessarily build less F150's to build Rangers. They would possibly build Rangers in addition to F150s. Now, Ranger could cannibalize F150 sales to a certain extent, but do we know how many?

 

 

 

Just to be clear, I don't really care if they bring it here or not, I'm not in the market for something that small. Just don't buy what's been said. Some Focus sales cannibalize Fusion, some Fiesta take from Focus, some Fusion take from Taurus. Some escape take from edge. Some edge take from explorer. Some explorer take from Flex. Some F150 take from superduty, etc, etc, etc.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Captainp4

[RichardJensen]

I don't think federalization is a major issue.

 

I think the objections are as follows:

 

- insufficiently better value proposition (fuel economy improvements vs. usability sacrifices) vs the F150

 

- bad plant options in the NAFTA zone

 

which, combined, makes it very expensive for Ford to do a Transit Connect type thing where you take a flyer on it.

[Captainp4]

Not sure on the value proposition. I think fuel economy would be pretty darn good with ecoboost and the possibility of diesel (and it could be shared with F150, transit, possibly superduty fuel economy option). Even a 5mpg increase is huge when you're only getting 20 or so mpg in the F150. As far as space goes, T6 is decently sized from what I've gathered. Certainty bigger than our ranger, but not quite as big as the F150. Though Ford would have you believe it is nearly the same size as F150. Usability, I assume you mean tow rating and payload? Guessing again here, but I would venture a guess that a large percentage of F150 buyers don't come anywhere near using it's capabilities.

 

Logic says that it probably comes down to not having a place to build it right now. How is the utilization at the current truck (F150/superduty) plants? Is there any plant that is currently underutilized that could support the Ranger and Everest? I wonder if they could add another shift somewhere. Build all the F150's that the market demands and to stay best selling. Whatever space is left use to build ranger and everest, they could even use this to artificially increase demand and therefore ATPs if they build few enough of them. I would think they could find a balance between having enough volume and keeping the demand high enough that would be profitable and not eat into F150 profit. I'm not familiar with where everything is built and where there's space for more product, etc. So my question comes down to this more or less - is there any plant that they could fit Ranger and T6 in that would help with plant utilization while not costing them a significant amount of money in retooling, renovating, etc?

Edited January 22, 2012 by Captainp4

[RichardJensen]

I have doubts that you'd see anything like a 5MPG gain over the F150.

[Captainp4]

Really? I was guessing something like 26, 27 highway out of a smaller EB, larger than the 2.0, but smaller than the current v6. N/A 3.7 get's 23 in the F150 I believe. You don't think they could eek out 2 extra mpg in the smaller cod, and lighter T6? (Considering the 3.7 a mid level engine for T6 ranger about comparable to the 5.0 (20/21 mpg?) in F150).

 

If they were able to get a diesel in there we would see at LEAST 5mpg advantage I'd think. Though, apples to oranges, obviously.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Captainp4

[GTwannabe]

I have doubts that you'd see anything like a 5MPG gain over the F150.

 

The laws of physics apparently don't apply to Ford trucks for some reason...

 

T6 is 1000lbs lighter than a similarly equipped F-150. It's also smaller in every dimension, which means less air to push out of the way. And it currently averages 25-31mpg with its available engines (2.5L gas, 2.2/3.2 diesels). Bolt a 2.0 EB in there and it will definitely average at least 25mpg.

[silvrsvt]

1327279792[/url]' post='758529']

Bolt a 2.0 EB in there and it will definitely average at least 25mpg.

 

The problem is that using a vehicle like Explorer as baseline equivalent to a medium truck...the EB 2.0 isn't rated to tow anything!!!

Even the Edge isn't rated to tow with it!

Also these mpg numbers aren't EPA rated.

[sullynd]

The problem is that using a vehicle like Explorer as baseline equivalent to a medium truck...the EB 2.0 isn't rated to tow anything!!!

Even the Edge isn't rated to tow with it!

 

Lots of items play into a vehicles tow rating, and the engine is only part of it. The EB F150 can tow more than the 5.0. I'd bet it is an FE related decision such as gearing which leads to the lack of towing in the Ex and Edge.

[Boss444]

...the EB 2.0 isn't rated to tow anything!!!

 

 

It's rated to tow 3500 pounds in the Escape.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Boss444

[GTwannabe]

Lots of items play into a vehicles tow rating, and the engine is only part of it. The EB F150 can tow more than the 5.0. I'd bet it is an FE related decision such as gearing which leads to the lack of towing in the Ex and Edge.

 

This. Cooling, braking, transmission durability, rear spring rates, ability to mount a Class IV hitch, etc, etc. EB 2.0 puts out the same power numbers as Tacoma's V6 (which is rated 6500lbs).

[RichardJensen]

it currently averages 25-31mpg with its available engines (2.5L gas, 2.2/3.2 diesels)

You can't compare EU and US FE ratings. Especially with diesels.

[cheri/ck]

The laws of physics apparently don't apply to Ford trucks for some reason...

 

T6 is 1000lbs lighter than a similarly equipped F-150. It's also smaller in every dimension, which means less air to push out of the way. And it currently averages 25-31mpg with its available engines (2.5L gas, 2.2/3.2 diesels). Bolt a 2.0 EB in there and it will definitely average at least 25mpg.

 

 

Apparently no laws of physics enter into these discussions. Or how Ford advertises these numbers. The MPG numbers for F-150 are routinely presented on this forum in base V-6, 2WD form, something like 3.25 rear gears? Which are good for the EPA if you drive 60 mph at low altitude.

 

Otherwise, load that heavy truck down with 4X4 and a small V-8 or boosted V-6 and the real mpg numbers start to go away. Our 2007 4X4 F-150, 5.4 (regular cab - the last one with 4 doors) and with the old 4-speed auto tranny is at least as good. And, the 4X4 V-6 Rangers that average very close to 20 mpg no matter how you drive them, look pretty good.

 

Where is this huge improvement for the F-150? Why do I want to buy a new $35,000 F-150? Ford is likely to lose a really good customer base because there is no choice in vehicles. Of course, I talk about personal use - I don't need to tow nearly 10,000 pounds. If I did I would buy a Super Duty and not a F-150.

 

Wonder if anyone has a cost basis for Ford in the future winning these customers back in a highly competitive field of vehicles?

[Edstock]

Wonder if anyone has a cost basis for Ford in the future winning these customers back in a highly competitive field of vehicles?

I doubt it. Ford might, come to think of it. Compared to the cost of tooling up a North American plant and supplier base for a highly competitive declining market, it's less, if only because those economic conditions will preclude re-entry, so Ford won't be spending to win those customers back, because they need a vehicle size that Ford doesn't make. Currently, they cannot provide you with what you want. That might change, in 2-3 years, when the T-6 gets a re-fresh, especially if South Africa gets a free trade agreement with North America, if tooling up in North America is not feasible. So maybe a new Colorado is the best choice for you, if GM actually builds it.

 

 

Markets change, over time. Some who buy new mid-size may need larger pickups, and maybe they'll be back, if they have the bucks, and appreciate why an F-150 is the best full-size. Or not. But them's the risks, when you can't be everything to everybody.

 

 

[Bob Rosadini]

it's an ugly, disorganized, unfriendly, poorly monitored website, and a success in spite of that. So don't tell me that bad websites are bad for business. It's not that simple.

Its not a "website"! Its a want ad medium! How can you even infer CraigsList is a website?

To your other points:

 

 

Frontal area will be the same, cowl height will be the same. Thus, you're making it that much harder for yourself on CAFE.

Correct-very good-frontal AREA is the same. Drag? an entirely different number-or do you now want to say that drag makes no difference in fuel economy? What I suggested was you use the 250 glass house. The front clip? Much smaller-lower, smaller radiator (not cooling a 6.7 Power Stroke) etc.

 

 

You have market research that supports the "WILL" in that sentence above?

No more than you have facts to say it won't.

Again, where's your proof that truck buyers will downsize? You think they want smaller cabs? IMO (note the qualifier-this is "my opinion"), cab size is a big reason why small business owners, etc., end up with fullsize trucks even when they don't need the payload or the trailer rating. It's about cab space. Look at what's happened--ain't nobody buying standard cabs anymore.

Really? that is why Ford dropped the four door standard cab? In anycase, yes -some do. see my closing comment

Here's a question for you.

 

Does standing pat make sense in blackjack-yes or no?

Don't know-I'm not a gambler!

 

You don't need to have a fleet number to go to that website.

Correct- to get all the options you do.

 

A sales rep that tells you to leave, go look at the competition, and then come back? Please. That guy's going to be delivering pizzas if he's not careful.

I didn't say that- I said in a discussion I would tell my customer .."to look at Ford's website" . "I"- the Navistar/Hino etc sales guy_would capitalize on what I have-and ford doesn't. Like YOU said-its stinks!

Also, take a look at this:

 

http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/f650-f750/trim/?trim=f650sdproloaderxlgas#categoryPower_and_Handling

 

They have a separate section for optional equipment, which contains (by extension) most of the specs.

[/quote]Really? I don't think you know what constitutes "specs". Beyond "cupholders" !

 

AGAIN....I am not, and have not said..."Bring T-6 here now!. I HAVE said:

-150 will undergo a major redesign

-Super Duty will undergo a major redesign

-A lot of money has been spent on a new small size truck-I can't imagine that the US market was NOT taken into consideration when that was done. Are we the largest small pick up market in the world? Yes- now if every Third World citizen comes out of the bush and learns how to drive perhaps we won't be-but today we are. The "one Ford" concept had to be considered as T-6 progressed through the design process.

 

-Therefore, when the redesigns of 150/Super Duty take place, eliminate the duplication that exists, incorporate 150 into the Super Duty line, and take advantage of all that has been done to bring T-6 to market. 150 is top dog today. Conditions in forward years willnot be the same.

 

Fire away!

[akirby]

-A lot of money has been spent on a new small size truck-I can't imagine that the US market was NOT taken into consideration when that was done.

 

It WAS taken into consideration by Ford NA - and dismissed because at the time they were planning to keep the current Ranger. At the time it probably made sense but maybe not today.

 

You're also overlooking the obvious - that Ford has big plans for F150 that has a much bigger ROI (not hard considering the full sized market is 10 times the size of the small truck market) and that's where Ford is concentrating their investment for now.

 

Are we the largest small pick up market in the world? Yes

 

Numbers?

[silvrsvt]

It's rated to tow 3500 pounds in the Escape.

 

The Escape weighs 3,769 lbs in AWD guise...

 

The Edge weighs 3,998 and when is equipped with the 2L EB, is limited to 2000 lbs towing and total of 909 lb load rating

 

The Explorer weighs 4,503 lbs when equipped with the 2L EB. I can't find info about towing on Ford's website (no class II is offered as an option with the EB Explorer) and no Load rating.

 

The current US Ranger weighs 3136 lbs in regular cab guise with 4x2 and I4

 

The ROW New Ranger weighs 3957 lbs...so using the Edge as a baseline, your going to have a truck with an EB 2L that is less capable then the outgoing I4 model....

[silvrsvt]

 

Otherwise, load that heavy truck down with 4X4 and a small V-8 or boosted V-6 and the real mpg numbers start to go away. Our 2007 4X4 F-150, 5.4 (regular cab - the last one with 4 doors) and with the old 4-speed auto tranny is at least as good. And, the 4X4 V-6 Rangers that average very close to 20 mpg no matter how you drive them, look pretty good.

 

 

My old mans 4x2 4L Ranger is lucky to see 20 MPG..and he had a 40 mile commute to work at the time!

 

Keep in mind that putting an EB 2L into a Ranger replacement wouldn't do much of anything when it comes to improving MPGs...

 

See my posting above...

[silvrsvt]

It's rated to tow 3500 pounds in the Escape.

 

That isn't the point, what about load capacity on the Truck itself? I haven't found the Escapes load capacity, but the Edge (bigger/heaver vehicle) is only 909lbs, the old ranger with an I4 is at like 1100 or 1300 lbs...and its also 900 pounds lighter then the new ROW Ranger.