Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans

[GTwannabe]

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.

 

 

 

Numbers?

 

Ford's initial estimate for worldwide T6 Ranger sales was 400,000 units across 180 countries. Even if T6 was a complete flop and only sold 100k units in NA, that would mean 20% of all new Ranger sales would be generated by just 2 countries.

[V8-X]

Here's a question for you:

 

Why do you believe you're right?

Not saying I'm always right. But the remark I was referring to was coming from a person who doesn't own a truck and see's no purpose for having a truck. My comments are from a life-long Ford truck owner (81 F150, 85 Ranger, 99 Ranger, 02 F150, 06 F150), that uses his truck like a truck (towing/hauling) at least once a week, many times more often. Doesn't mean his observations are completely wrong. Just means his stereotype of there being no need for trucks since the bed is empty 90% is a little off base.

 

What???

 

The 3.7 liter has 300HP and roughly 290lbs of torque with a 6 speed and is quite a bit quicker than your old 2002. It may not tow as much, because it does not have as much torque, but it is quicker.

 

The EB 2.7 should have 290HP and roughly 300lbs of torque. If the other EB engines are any indication of what kind of power curve to expect in the EB 2.7, we're in for a real treat.

Um, we are taking about trucks, not sports cars? So while it's quick unloaded, how do they perform loaded?

 

And should have? Let's wait and see what the actual specs are. I'm basing my thoughts on the Explorer with the 2.0EB, which isn't going to win any races, nor tow much, but will get decent mpgs. Which I figure the 2.7EB in an F150 will be in a similar category. So a treat in fuel efficiency yes, I'll agree. In power and overall capability, I'll wait to see.

 

That's your opinion but there is absolutely ZERO objective data to back that up. That Tacoma is a perfectly capable, modern truck (as opposed to the Ranger). Anyone who would be a potential new buyer should already be buying Tacomas.

The Tacoma is out dated. It's based off a 2005 model, which most full-size trucks are 2-5yr newer models and have had significant improvements made. I'll agree it's the best mid-size option out there, but that's not saying much in the lackluster category.

 

And a lot of American's don't buy Frontier's or Tacoma's, like they don't buy Titan's and Tundra's. They are domestic biased when it comes to trucks. And either purchase a Colorado, or are now forced into a Ram or F150.

 

Sometimes it's better to divert money to products with a better return but it's stil Ford's call, just like closing Mercury.

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?

jpd & RJ: But wasn't this Fords thinking back in the 90's when they put most their resources towards trucks & SUV's? Because they have a higher transaction price and margin?

Sounds like we are going back to that philosophy, or at least members here are suggestion that. Only offer and/or update the higher transaction/margin vehicles, as to make the most $, then get caught with your pants down when trends shift and have to start over again from square one.

[V8-X]

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.

A lot more goes into towing/hauling than simply the motor, as that is only 1 aspect, but a big aspect. See the post below. Those are a few reasons why the Escape and Edge figures are lower than the certain models of the outgoing Ranger.

 

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).

[silvrsvt]

A lot more goes into towing/hauling than simply the motor, as that is only 1 aspect, but a big aspect. See the post below. Those are a few reasons why the Escape and Edge figures are lower than the certain models of the outgoing Ranger.

 

I understand that, thus why I put the curb and load ratings in there also...which also play a part.

 

I have my doubts about an Turbocharged I4 being able to do the same thing as a NA V6 and still keep its MPG numbers high in doing so...and the increase in MPG numbers aren't going to really improve your overall fleet numbers and at what cost?

 

Its like this...the V6 moves the F-150 fine, hanging two turbos and other modifications to the EB 3.5L V6 give it V8 power, but once you start using it, it seems like the MPG start going into the shitter.

 

Ecoboost is great for passenger cars or light duty trucks that do nothing but Home Depot or are used as commuters...but otherwise have to start wondering...and it goes back to the business side of it...is it really profitable to be making a mid-sized truck when a F-150 can do 85% of MPG's with more capacity?

Edited January 23, 2012 by silvrsvt

[RichardJensen]

wasn't this Fords thinking back in the 90's when they put most their resources towards trucks & SUV's? Because they have a higher transaction price and margin

I'm talking about plant utilization, not overall corporate strategy.

[GTwannabe]

I understand that, thus why I put the curb and load ratings in there also...which also play a part.

 

I have my doubts about an Turbocharged I4 being able to do the same thing as a NA V6 and still keep its MPG numbers high in doing so...and the increase in MPG numbers aren't going to really improve your overall fleet numbers and at what cost?

 

Its like this...the V6 moves the F-150 fine, hanging two turbos and other modifications to the EB 3.5L V6 give it V8 power, but once you start using it, it seems like the MPG start going into the shitter.

 

Ecoboost is great for passenger cars or light duty trucks that do nothing but Home Depot or are used as commuters...but otherwise have to start wondering...and it goes back to the business side of it...is it really profitable to be making a mid-sized truck when a F-150 can do 85% of MPG's with more capacity?

 

Which is perfect for how these trucks are actually used. 90% of the time, the bed is empty or only loaded with light bulky objects. I don't give a crap what MPG's I get on the weekends I haul firewood. But if I can get 25mpg commuting to the office, I will be very happy.

[RichardJensen]

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

I don't like doing this, but sometimes you do things you don't like doing.

 

Craigslist is a website. You access it through a browser and all of the conventions that have grown up around websites apply. Do not presume to tell me what is or is not a website. I have 12 years experience designing websites, 16 years doing design period, I have written CMS software for websites. I know what I'm talking about. You, to be blunt, do not.

 

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.

There's no point in using the SD greenhouse if you're not going to use the SD roof, back, or doors. The savings isn't there.

 

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

But, you see, you're the one arguing that an alternative course is more practical. Can you furnish any evidence that this alternative course is so? I don't need to prove that the status quo is better than any other conceivable option.

 

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

Thanks for making my point.

 

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

Thanks for the insult. How about this. How about you tell me what's missing from the models and options page instead of telling me I'm an idiot.

 

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

 

..

 

eliminate the duplication that exists, incorporate 150 into the Super Duty line

It's possible that China is the largest small pickup market in the world, and if not China, then the EU. US small truck market is only 200k units.

 

Further, you have watered down 'incorporate 150 into the Super Duty line' into nothing more than 'share the greenhouse' which isn't worth sharing, if that's all you're sharing:

 

What I suggested was you use the 250 glass house.

[silvrsvt]

Which is perfect for how these trucks are actually used. 90% of the time, the bed is empty or only loaded with light bulky objects. I don't give a crap what MPG's I get on the weekends I haul firewood. But if I can get 25mpg commuting to the office, I will be very happy.

 

What would say to a "light" duty F-150 that could get that alot easier then finding a way to make the ROW Ranger in the US?

 

I have no doubts that Standard cab 6foot bed F-150 lightened up (heck call it an F-100) could do that with no problems....its already almost there.

[Mackintire]

I understand that, thus why I put the curb and load ratings in there also...which also play a part.

 

I have my doubts about an Turbocharged I4 being able to do the same thing as a NA V6 and still keep its MPG numbers high in doing so...and the increase in MPG numbers aren't going to really improve your overall fleet numbers and at what cost?

 

Its like this...the V6 moves the F-150 fine, hanging two turbos and other modifications to the EB 3.5L V6 give it V8 power, but once you start using it, it seems like the MPG start going into the shitter.

 

Ecoboost is great for passenger cars or light duty trucks that do nothing but Home Depot or are used as commuters...but otherwise have to start wondering...and it goes back to the business side of it...is it really profitable to be making a mid-sized truck when a F-150 can do 85% of MPG's with more capacity?

 

 

The point is the F150 is HUGE.

 

Its a pain in the ars to drive/own for some of us.

 

It does not fit down trails.

It does not get 25mpg+ while hauling a deer in the back.

It sometimes fits in a city public garage

It has higher associated maintenance costs, compared to a ranger or tacoma

The few you can purchase under $23,000 are stripped.

 

 

A midsize truck needs only 65% of the tow capacity or 6500lbs

+ 12-40% better fuel economy, 25-30 mpg

75-100% of the bed capacity 1500-2000lbs

 

 

All are possible without breaking the bank. The primary reason the compact truck market shrank is that the trucks available in that market stink. The full size trucks got better and no money was invested in them.

 

That and the compact trucks were too small for those that want to have a truck that can double as a family vehicle.

 

So the solution is to build a midsize truck, (that CAN double as a family vehicle) fit on trails, haul deer, bricks or anything else we want from home depot, gets reasonable fuel economy and is not unusable for those of us that work in the city.

 

The closest vehicle we currently have to that is the Tacoma. The last we had from Ford was the sport trek. The sport trek was ergonomically a mess, was heavy, had with inefficient engines, a small bed, slightly overpriced almost $2k , with no stripped down models available or any models with outstanding fuel economy.

 

My father wants a 30 MPG truck single cab as inexpensively as possible. He doesn't can about towing, he just wants it to have a 1000lb bed capacity.

 

Now that low metric is ridiculously low to me, but I believe that a 2x4 T6 ranger with a 1.6 liter ecoboost engine in XL trim would get him what he wish probably for under $20k.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mackintire

[silvrsvt]

Now that low metric is ridiculously low to me, but I believe that a 2x4 T6 ranger with a 1.6 liter ecoboost engine in XL trim would get him what he wish probably for under $20k.

 

The problem is Ford can't make money on it...so why are they going to make something they are going to lose money on?

 

 

 

 

[GTwannabe]

What would say to a "light" duty F-150 that could get that alot easier then finding a way to make the ROW Ranger in the US?

 

I have no doubts that Standard cab 6foot bed F-150 lightened up (heck call it an F-100) could do that with no problems....its already almost there.

 

Nobody wants single cab trucks anymore. If I'm going to buy a dedicated 2nd vehicle, it's going to be a cheap well used beater, not a shiny new F-150 standard cab. Scratch that, because I already own a reliable beater pickup.

 

The whole point of a mid-size is that it's a "do it all" vehicle. I can commute to work with reasonable MPG's. I can fit in my parking space and garage. I can take 3 or 4 friends with me when I go wheeling/hunting/fishing/shooting. I can drop off my elderly parents at the airport. I can pick up bulky items on a whim. Etc, etc.

Edited January 23, 2012 by GTwannabe

[RichardJensen]

I can commute to work with reasonable MPG's. I can fit in my parking space and garage. I can take 3 or 4 friends with me when I go wheeling/hunting/fishing/shooting. I can drop off my elderly parents at the airport. I can pick up bulky items on a whim. Etc, etc.

OMG, it's a CUV with a roof rack. Oh wait. You want a pickup bed for some reason.

[silvrsvt]

OMG, it's a CUV with a roof rack. Oh wait. You want a pickup bed for some reason.

 

not mention that a Ranger Super Cab is only 10 inches shorter then a regular cab F-150, and nor can you fit adults in the back of the Ranger Super Cab with its horrible jumpseats

[GTwannabe]

OMG, it's a CUV with a roof rack. Oh wait. You want a pickup bed for some reason.

 

Really... I can strap 1000lbs of firewood to the roof of a Ford Edge? Does deer blood wipe right off modern Ford seats and carpets?

[Mackintire]

Nobody wants single cab trucks anymore. If I'm going to buy a dedicated 2nd vehicle, it's going to be a cheap well used beater, not a shiny new F-150 standard cab. Scratch that, because I already own a reliable beater pickup.

 

The whole point of a mid-size is that it's a "do it all" vehicle. I can commute to work with reasonable MPG's. I can fit in my parking space and garage. I can take 3 or 4 friends with me when I go wheeling/hunting/fishing/shooting. I can drop off my elderly parents at the airport. I can pick up bulky items on a whim. Etc, etc.

 

Technically a all wheel drive, lifted, transit connect with a low range transfer case and washable interior and modular seating might work....Oh wait it only gets 24mpg.

 

Scratch that...

[akirby]

The primary reason the compact truck market shrank is that the trucks available in that market stink. The full size trucks got better and no money was invested in them.

 

You could make that argument for the Ranger but not for the Tacoma. It sold 170K+ in 2007 but fell to 144K in 2008 and hit 106K in 2010. That wasn't a slow erosion of sales due to an aging vehicle like the Ranger.

 

What happened is that gas went up and the economy tanked. People who previously bought trucks for personal use switched to cars and crossovers with much better fuel economy including hybrids. The people who still needed full sized trucks or were not affected by gas prices or the economy continued to buy full sized trucks, just at a slower pace.

 

But let's say you're right and a new more modern truck could increase the market from 200K to 300K and that Ford could garner 50% market share. That's still only 150K units and at least a portion of those would come from F150 sales so you're looking at an incremental gain of 100K units maximum.

 

The full sized market is over 1.5M. A 10% bump in market share is 150K units at much higher ATPs in a factory that already exists.

 

It's a simple question of priorities and maximizing ROI with limited resources. Speculation and wishing won't change that.

[RichardJensen]

Really... I can strap 1000lbs of firewood to the roof of a Ford Edge? Does deer blood wipe right off modern Ford seats and carpets?

Nice reversal there.

 

Deer goes on roof, firewood goes in back. And a thousand pounds of firewood? Really? I'm gonna guess that if you have room for a thousand pounds of firewood, you've got room for a full size pickup.

 

How many people in this country 1-have these problems and 2-insist on solving them with a brand new vehicle?

 

Where I live, people rely on *used* vehicles to handle these tasks.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if your midsize pickup can haul a thousand pounds of firewood, it's probably not getting great fuel mileage.

Edited January 23, 2012 by RichardJensen

[fordmantpw]

Really... I can strap 1000lbs of firewood to the roof of a Ford Edge? Does deer blood wipe right off modern Ford seats and carpets?

 

You already have a beater pickup...why don't you use those for those purposes? How many people buy brand new shiny mid-size $30k pickups to haul firewood or deer? The people that can afford to buy brand new pickups for those purposes ain't gonna buy a midsize!

[akirby]

You already have a beater pickup...why don't you use those for those purposes? How many people buy brand new shiny mid-size $30k pickups to haul firewood or deer? The people that can afford to buy brand new pickups for those purposes ain't gonna buy a midsize!

 

The same hypothetical ones that are just waiting to buy a new Panther or Minivan............

[GTwannabe]

Nice reversal there.

 

Deer goes on roof, firewood goes in back. And a thousand pounds of firewood? Really? I'm gonna guess that if you have room for a thousand pounds of firewood, you've got room for a full size pickup.

 

How many people in this country 1-have these problems and 2-insist on solving them with a brand new vehicle?

 

Where I live, people rely on *used* vehicles to handle these tasks.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and if your midsize pickup can haul a thousand pounds of firewood, it's probably not getting great fuel mileage.

 

Wood is heavy. My B3000 squats on the rear overload springs when I fill the bed with firewood. That's over 1000lbs, since the truck is only rated for ~1200lbs payload. Very dense loads like topsoil, rocks, bags of cement, etc can approach 1 ton in a little 5 foot box. For reference, this is 1200lbs in a 5ft box:

 

1200lbs concrete mix

[GTwannabe]

You already have a beater pickup...why don't you use those for those purposes? How many people buy brand new shiny mid-size $30k pickups to haul firewood or deer? The people that can afford to buy brand new pickups for those purposes ain't gonna buy a midsize!

 

180k miles and years of road salt exposure are eating away the frame. That's if Ford's flawed cam sync doesn't grenade my motor first. Buying an econobox daily driver means I'd need to buy a used truck in 2-3 years. I'd rather have one vehicle that does everything.

[Mackintire]

The same hypothetical ones that are just waiting to buy a new Panther or Minivan............

 

O' contrair mon fraer.

 

I have hauled over 1700lbs of locust "wet" in my ranger.

 

10% of the F150 market is under $30k

 

That is probably the group most likely to purchase a midsize truck (well equipped)

 

There's probably a 100-150k market for the midsized ford truck. As we move closer to 2017 I would expect the F150 market to start to shrink and the midsized truck market to grow.

 

By 2020 it would probably be a 250k+ sized market for Ford alone in the US Market. Following that trend assume the 2017 T6 Ranger in the US would have to compete with the VW Amarok.

 

The entry price for the F150 will have grown 3-6k due to extensive use of exotic materials required to improve fuel economy.

[Mackintire]

Wood is heavy. My B3000 squats on the rear overload springs when I fill the bed with firewood. That's over 1000lbs, since the truck is only rated for ~1200lbs payload. Very dense loads like topsoil, rocks, bags of cement, etc can approach 1 ton in a little 5 foot box. For reference, this is 1200lbs in a 5ft box:

 

1200lbs concrete mix

 

 

There was no spring left after I loaded my truck with locust up to the roofline.

 

The primary spring was starting to bend backwards over the edge of the overload spring.

 

Good thing I only had to drive 3 minutes down the road. I didn't want to go back for a 3 rd load.

 

That was some heavy wood.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mackintire

[fordmantpw]

Wood is heavy. My B3000 squats on the rear overload springs when I fill the bed with firewood. That's over 1000lbs, since the truck is only rated for ~1200lbs payload. Very dense loads like topsoil, rocks, bags of cement, etc can approach 1 ton in a little 5 foot box. For reference, this is 1200lbs in a 5ft box:

 

1200lbs concrete mix

 

Only a Ridgline owner would be bragging about hauling 1200 lbs in his "truck"!

 

And unless there is another bag hiding somewhere, that's only 1120 lbs.

[fordmantpw]

There was no spring left after I loaded my truck with locust up to the roofline.

 

The primary spring was starting to bend backwards over the edge of the overload spring.

 

Good thing I only had to drive 3 minutes down the road. I didn't want to go back for a 3 rd load.

 

That was some heavy wood.

 

Sounds to me like you need a 3/4 ton truck...otherwise, you are dangerously overweight.