Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans

[Edstock]

IMHO, one reason the Ranger was so successful was that it was the smallest of the mid-size pack.

 

There is a market for a smaller pickup. But it won't be RWD BOF. Why? If it's RWD, then there's just about the same number of parts as an F-150 and it costs too much, with the same NVH, or do you want a cheap POS? It's either - or.

 

Because of that, and because the parts bin has all the necessaries thanks to EU commercial sleds, any small Ford pickup will probably be FWD. No driveshaft to the rear axle. Simplify construction and assembly. You could even try some imagination: how about a Focus ST-Ranchero? They could even get the tailgate to configure like a giant spoiler, like Jim Hall's Chaparral.

 

That way, Ford covers the small end effectively at a lower price-point, and the full-size F-150, and the BOF diehards get a hell of a deal on a Tacoma. Somebody has to buy 'em, and it all works out.

 

 

[Mackintire]

You should try using a bit of both at some point.

 

 

 

Another factor that is being overlooked(not shocking at all) is that three years ago, the fuel economy of small trucks was about the same as a full size. Simply put, there was no incentive to buy a small truck in terms of fuel economy.

 

 

Yes, exactly.

[Mackintire]

How did Ford increase the fuel economy of the Fusion from 22/30 to 41/37 (almost a 50% increase in city fuel economy)? And how does the 2013 Fusion get 47/41 mpg?

 

Its called make it a hybrid. And YES it costs an additional $4000.

 

Apply that to an F150 and its probably + $6000

 

 

That's completely out of my price range.

[Mackintire]

Why not? If these sales opportunities are just sitting there waiting for somebody to make a modern small truck then why hasn't Toyota already upgraded the Tacoma? Why hasn't Nissan updated the Frontier? Why did Ford let the Colorado die? Why didn't Dodge reinvent the Durango?

 

Why not?

 

Why not?

 

Why not?

 

Is every automaker incompetent for overlooking such an obviously easy opportunity to gain market share and make money?

 

Why do you think you know more about the new truck market than all the people at all of the automakers who make their living and bet their careers on making the right product decisions?

 

 

Tacoma is already #1 in sales. Injecting cash into improving the tacoma is not needed as they are #1 already. As soon as a threat or competition exists we will see improvements. Toyota could just drop in the drive train improvements in the current 4 runner and the Tacoma would gain 30HP and 2 MPG. Done with no other changes. But it would hurt their profit margin. Why invest when you already are the best and you KNOW competition is coming in a year or two.

 

Nissan builds the Frontier on a shrunken version of the full size platform. They were going to build something based on the RAM, but that deal fell apart and now Nissan is 3 years behind on their new truck. As soon at the new titan gets here we will have a new frontier.

 

Ford did not let the colorado die..... or as the common MEME states "Y U make no sense?"

 

Umm... Dodge did reinvent the durango.... its unibody now, released in 2011. They intend to build and release a unibody Dakota within the next 24 months. Where have you been?

 

"Is every automaker incompetent for overlooking such an obviously easy opportunity to gain market share and make money?"

 

See above.

 

"Why do you think you know more about the new truck market than all the people at all of the automakers who make their living and bet their careers on making the right product decisions?"

 

I obviously know more than you. I am not complaining about other manufactures, I am complaining about what FORD is doing. Or in this case, not doing.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mackintire

[Mackintire]

IMHO, one reason the Ranger was so successful was that it was the smallest of the mid-size pack.

 

There is a market for a smaller pickup. But it won't be RWD BOF. Why? If it's RWD, then there's just about the same number of parts as an F-150 and it costs too much, with the same NVH, or do you want a cheap POS? It's either - or.

 

Because of that, and because the parts bin has all the necessaries thanks to EU commercial sleds, any small Ford pickup will probably be FWD. No driveshaft to the rear axle. Simplify construction and assembly. You could even try some imagination: how about a Focus ST-Ranchero? They could even get the tailgate to configure like a giant spoiler, like Jim Hall's Chaparral.

 

That way, Ford covers the small end effectively at a lower price-point, and the full-size F-150, and the BOF diehards get a hell of a deal on a Tacoma. Somebody has to buy 'em, and it all works out.

 

I'm going to disagree on the successful because its the smallest argument. It was successful due to being cheap, reliable and for its size capable.

 

If you dig into my old posts you'll see my listing for the perfect Ranger replacement. Its the same size as the 2002-2006 explorer. That is smaller than the T6 folks.

 

Ford needs to have Cheap, reliable and capable for its size. It also needs to fit into the family lifestyle and be able to be optioned up into a platinum trim level.

 

It needs to be a one size fits most under $30k, as opposed to the F150 one size fits most over $30k.

 

Small FWD truck is coming via Toyota A-bat. Midsize unibody truck is coming via Ram Dakota. The point is If Ford reenters the market, they will be competing with someone else whom is already established. The opportunity is almost passed.

[GTwannabe]

Why not? If these sales opportunities are just sitting there waiting for somebody to make a modern small truck then why hasn't Toyota already upgraded the Tacoma? Why hasn't Nissan updated the Frontier? Why did Ford let the Colorado die? Why didn't Dodge reinvent the Durango?

 

Why not?

 

Why not?

 

Why not?

 

Is every automaker incompetent for overlooking such an obviously easy opportunity to gain market share and make money?

 

Why do you think you know more about the new truck market than all the people at all of the automakers who make their living and bet their careers on making the right product decisions?

 

I assume you meant GM and Dakota.

 

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Why waste money updating your product when it's already considered best-in-class? Toyota consistently sells 100k Tacomas a year without advertizing or big rebates/incentives. They're milking it like Ford did the Ranger from 98-2011.

[akirby]

Its called make it a hybrid. And YES it costs an additional $4000.

 

Apply that to an F150 and its probably + $6000

 

 

That's completely out of my price range.

 

Who said it was an electric hybrid? There are other technologies that could be cheaper. Even so - you're not the only one buying a pickup.

[RichardJensen]

as the common MAME Y U make no sense????

Since you're holding others to this standard:

 

It's MEME.

[akirby]

I obviously know more than you. I am not complaining about other manufactures, I am complaining about what FORD is doing. Or in this case, not doing.

 

If you took your argument to the Board of Directors to get funding you'd be laughed out of the board room.

 

If it makes sense for FORD to do what you want then it would make sense for other mfrs to do it also. And if it was such a good business plan then SOMEBODY would have jumped on the bandwagon years ago.

 

It's like saying Ford should offer manual transmissions on every vehicle because it would increase sales just because you and a few other people want them. If it was a viable market strategy then SOMEBODY would have jumped on it already.

 

Ford needs to have Cheap, reliable and capable for its size.

 

Why? Why does Ford need to have Cheap anything - especially Cheap trucks that replace more profitable F150 sales?

 

Another case of what YOU want Ford to build - not necessarily what makes sense for Ford to build.

 

I assume you meant GM and Dakota.

 

Of course I did. Sorry.

[jpd80]

If you dig into my old posts you'll see my listing for the perfect Ranger replacement. Its the same size as the 2002-2006 explorer. That is smaller than the T6 folks.

Actually the 2003 Explorer Sport trac is very close to T6 but Ford canceled it because it was too expensive and lack of sales.

If ever Ford wanted a mid sized truck they could have just reworked Sport Trac with Ecoboost 2.0 and 3.7 V6.

But no, they wanted out of the segment because every option most likely cost more money than it earned.

[RichardJensen]

If it was a viable market strategy then SOMEBODY would have jumped on it already.

Not necessarily.

 

Sometimes it pays to anticipate the segment. But if you're going to suggest going against the grain, you'd better have a dang good argument.

 

Not a list of rationales for the failure of every other entry in the segment.

 

The midsize segment reminds me of the single RWD platform for every purpose argument, where it's asserted that "the LX didn't work for the Challenger because...." and "Sigma didn't work because....." and "Zeta didn't work because........" and "Alpha is going to work, although....." which is typically concluded by "Ford can't upgrade the Mustang without incorporating it with the Falcon"

 

If the margin for success is so narrow, that you have to hit it perfectly time and time again, it's a bad segment to be in.

 

Maybe there's some magic formula for success in the midsize truck segment, maybe Toyota, Nissan, GM, Dodge, etc. have just missed it over and over and over again. But if one of these companies can't hit it, then why assume Ford can get it right, repeatedly?

[Sherminator98]

Some Food for thought:

 

2007 RWD V6 Durango MPG: 14/19/16 Combined

 

2012 RWD V6 Durango MPG: 16/23/19 Combined

 

2012 RWD F-150 V6 MPG 17/23/19 Combined

 

Anyways...I have my doubts that mid-sized pickup with a V6 (the one you'll actually be able to do "work" with) will be able to improve upon the current F-150 MPG's by that much.

 

Your sure as hell not going to see 30 MPG out of one either...

[Mackintire]

Since you're holding others to this standard:

 

It's MEME.

 

 

You caught me. Lol!

[Mackintire]

Some Food for thought:

 

2007 RWD V6 Durango MPG: 14/19/16 Combined

 

2012 RWD V6 Durango MPG: 16/23/19 Combined

 

2012 RWD F-150 V6 MPG 17/23/19 Combined

 

Anyways...I have my doubts that mid-sized pickup with a V6 (the one you'll actually be able to do "work" with) will be able to improve upon the current F-150 MPG's by that much.

 

Your sure as hell not going to see 30 MPG out of one either...

 

Ifa unibody dakota is more comfortable has a decent payload, the same fuel economy and better equipment options at the same price point as the F150. They will probably sell. Getting over the concept that unibody is terrible for a truck is something that they will be up against.

 

Now if RAM has an option for a Fiat built 4 cyl or a high fuel economy diesel....that brings other possibilities. I'm mentioning it because Ram is committed to offering the diesel in the grand Cherokee and Durango...and since the new Dakota is expected to be created from the same platform it too could receive a diesel.

[GTwannabe]

Some Food for thought:

 

2007 RWD V6 Durango MPG: 14/19/16 Combined

 

2012 RWD V6 Durango MPG: 16/23/19 Combined

 

2012 RWD F-150 V6 MPG 17/23/19 Combined

 

Anyways...I have my doubts that mid-sized pickup with a V6 (the one you'll actually be able to do "work" with) will be able to improve upon the current F-150 MPG's by that much.

 

Your sure as hell not going to see 30 MPG out of one either...

 

There's no reason to put a V6 in a mid-size. They're light enough to be powered by modern 2-300hp 4 and 5-bangers. Besides, it helps differentiate them from 300hp+ full-sizes. Durango is also quite heavy with curb weights between 4800 and 5300lbs.

[fordmantpw]

Why waste money updating your product when it's already considered best-in-class? Toyota consistently sells 100k Tacomas a year without advertizing or big rebates/incentives. They're milking it like Ford did the Ranger from 98-2011.

 

If there were sales to gain by offering a better mid-size truck (as you are insinuating), then it wouldn't be a waste of money, correct? You see how your logic just doesn't jive? It makes sense for Ford to make a better mid-size truck, but it doesn't make sense for Toyota to do it?

Edited January 26, 2012 by fordmantpw

[RichardJensen]

Ifa unibody dakota is more comfortable has a decent payload, the same fuel economy and better equipment options at the same price point as the F150.

See?

 

You're creating this vehicle description that has so many qualifiers attached to it that success, per your standards, is almost impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, this is why car companies don't let consumers design cars.

[fordmantpw]

See?

 

You're creating this vehicle description that has so many qualifiers attached to it that success, per your standards, is almost impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, this is why car companies don't let consumers design cars.

 

I highlighted the most important part...this is one person's standards!

[Sherminator98]

There's no reason to put a V6 in a mid-size. They're light enough to be powered by modern 2-300hp 4 and 5-bangers. Besides, it helps differentiate them from 300hp+ full-sizes. Durango is also quite heavy with curb weights between 4800 and 5300lbs.

 

Show me this mythical 300 HP I4 that doesn't require Premium fuel and can still tow and haul a worth of shit and get great MPG numbers

 

As for the Durango being heavy, my point was that even with a "modern engine and transmission" its MPG's didn't improve up to your "standards"

 

Some Curb weights:

 

Tacoma ranges from 3250 to 4190lbs

 

A Edge with a EB 2L weighs a shade under 4K, has no AWD nor any towing capabilities and gets 21/30 MPG...

 

So using that as a baseline, start adding 4X4 (using the Tacoma numbers) results in a 16% loss in MPG to start, then add in gearing and what not, that number starts dropping fast...down to 25 MPG...which is only slightly higher then a V6 F-150...

[Mackintire]

If there were sales to gain by offering a better mid-size truck (as you are insinuating), then it wouldn't be a waste of money, correct? You see how your logic just doesn't jive? It makes sense for Ford to make a better mid-size truck, but it doesn't make sense for Toyota to do it?

 

your logic = fail

 

Thanks for making my point for me. Ford's midsize truck is already developed and was built and tested to pass US standards.

 

Toyota has their upgraded power train to fall back on, in case they need to compete quickly with someone else. But for the moment they don't care as they are the market leaders.

 

 

Take notice of who has a midsize truck developed, who has a midsize truck in development, and who does not.

 

Toyota isn't nervous, the Tacoma's drive train upgrade can be done at any time if needed. The new Tacoma is scheduled for 2014.

 

Nissan is scrambling to finish their full size truck for 2014, The frontier will be built on a shrunken version of that platform. ETA of 2015. They could drop the 6 speed auto into the frontier, as that work is already finished, just not implemented.

 

GM is bring the midsize Colorado. The chassis will be the same as the international model, but the power train options are all speculation.

 

RAM is building a midsize unibody Dakota.

 

 

It looks like there's a midsize market revival coming to me. Only Ford decided not to show up to the beginning of the party.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Mackintire

[Edstock]

your logic = fail

 

It looks like there's a midsize market revival coming to me. Only Ford decided not to show up to the beginning of the party.

Looks like a lot of midsize wishful thinking.

[fordmantpw]

your logic = fail

 

Thanks for making my point for me. Ford's midsize truck is already developed and was built and tested to pass US standards.

 

Toyota has their upgraded power train to fall back on, in case they need to compete quickly with someone else. But for the moment they don't care as they are the market leaders.

 

 

Take notice of who has a midsize truck developed, who has a midsize truck in development, and who does not.

 

Toyota isn't nervous, the Tacoma's drive train upgrade can be done at any time if needed. The new Tacoma is scheduled for 2014.

 

Nissan is scrambling to finish their full size truck for 2014, The frontier will be built on a shrunken version of that platform. ETA of 2015. They could drop the 6 speed auto into the frontier, as that work is already finished, just not implemented.

 

GM is bring the midsize Colorado. The chassis will be the same as the international model, but the power train options are all speculation.

 

RAM is building a midsize unibody Dakota.

 

 

It looks like there's a midsize market revival coming to me. Only Ford decided not to show up to the beginning of the party.

 

By all those measures, Ford could, if they wanted, beat ALL of them to the punch.

 

Explain to me what point I made for you??? If it was so important, and there are so many sales to be had, why should Toyota wait to drop in the new drive train if they could do it today?

[akirby]

Ford's midsize truck is already developed and was built and tested to pass US standards.

 

Citation?

 

And even if that was true it doesn't eliminate the investment required to ramp us U.S. production.

 

If it was as easy as you make it out to be then it would have already been done.

 

Toyota has their upgraded power train to fall back on, in case they need to compete quickly with someone else. But for the moment they don't care as they are the market leaders.

 

The new Tacoma is scheduled for 2014.

 

If they don't need to do anything because they're the market leader then why are they doing a new one for 2014? And if they need to do something for 2014 to be competitive then why aren't they doing things NOW?

 

It looks like there's a midsize market revival coming to me. Only Ford decided not to show up to the beginning of the party.

 

That's entirely possible, but you can't come to that conclusion just because new vehicles are being developed. You think there are untapped sales just waiting for new products but you don't have any objective data to back that up.

[Mackintire]

Citation?

 

And even if that was true it doesn't eliminate the investment required to ramp us U.S. production.

 

If it was as easy as you make it out to be then it would have already been done.

 

 

 

If they don't need to do anything because they're the market leader then why are they doing a new one for 2014? And if they need to do something for 2014 to be competitive then why aren't they doing things NOW?

 

 

 

That's entirely possible, but you can't come to that conclusion just because new vehicles are being developed. You think there are untapped sales just waiting for new products but you don't have any objective data to back that up.

 

 

Citation I would have to go dig for. I like pickuptrucks.com or leftlanenews.com

 

Toyota believes that they won't loose significant market share between now and 2014, which makes sense considering the Tacoma's present position.

 

I 've spent time at multiple dealerships talking to salesmen and have been present in the small truck online communities since 1994. There is a market there, of that I have no doubt.

[Sherminator98]

I 've spent time at multiple dealerships talking to salesmen and have been present in the small truck online communities since 1994. There is a market there, of that I have no doubt.

 

How big is the market? Is worth pursuing now?

 

I'm sure Ford has much better research then any of us and decided that its not worth doing at this time...it might change, but at this time its not...

 

How hard is that to figure out?