Kris Kolman Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just because Ford has decided to not pursue NA manufacturing of the T6 Ranger at this time there are many people here that assume it wouldn't make money. Well you know what they saying about assuming... There is plenty of evidence out there that says Ford could and would make profit on NA production of the Ranger. I only need to point out that Ford is making profit on the Transit Connect. This on top of performing an extensive bereakdown and rebuild after arrival to get around the chicken tax. This is with a vehilcle with production limited sales of 30,000 and more a limited ATP than the Ranger. Those of us wanting a Ranger would be happy it Ford did something similar, setup a 30,000 or so limited CKD production line at a plant close to a shipping port (helping to increase said plant's utilization). Only sell the higher end spec versions, and slap a $1000 extra on the price for the production trouble. If Ford can make profit on the Transit Connect than they can on the Ranger with similar production difficulties. The Ranger decision I believe isn't a matter of profit/loss numbers but a matter of priorities and limited resources. Ford has too many balls in the air with a complete revitilization of its Car and Utility lineup right now (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, Escape, Edge, and Explorer all new within 4 years). And the fuel effecient improvements on the F150 have helped stem the tide of not producing the Ranger. Maybe when Ford is able to get thru the C/EUCD revolution they can move into a deeper consideration of the Ranger. Just as they have postponed decisions on the Taurus and Falcon for another 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is plenty of evidence out there that says Ford could and would make profit on NA production of the Ranger. Links? Sources? I only need to point out that Ford is making profit on the Transit Connect. Links? Sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I only need to point out that Ford is making profit on the Transit Connect. This on top of performing an extensive bereakdown and rebuild after arrival to get around the chicken tax. This is with a vehilcle with production limited sales of 30,000 and more a limited ATP than the Ranger. Couple things here: All thats involved with converting the Transit connect is removing seats and windows, and installing solid windows and new rugs them. They are brought in as passenger Vans (Chicken tax not applied to them AFAIK) and stripped down to Work vans as described as above or sold as a van. The left over seats and materials are recycled and money is recovered that way. Next up, the next Gen TC will most likely be built in Louisville or MAP, since the EU Transit Connect is moving from Turkey to Spain. Finally, its just about impossible to bring the T6 over as a knockdown kit that gets assembled in the USA...your adding on much bigger costs there and I'm not sure if the Chicken Tax could be avoided that way (VW used to ship the bed separatly from its Truck back in the day till the law got changed) As for the Taurus and Falcon, I doubt that the Taurus isn't going to get changed in the next 5 years...it got a refresh this year and I'd expect a new model based on the new Fusion platform by 2015 at the latest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Just because Ford has decided to not pursue NA manufacturing of the T6 Ranger at this time there are many people here that assume it wouldn't make money. Well you know what they saying about assuming... There is plenty of evidence out there that says Ford could and would make profit on NA production of the Ranger. I only need to point out that Ford is making profit on the Transit Connect. This on top of performing an extensive bereakdown and rebuild after arrival to get around the chicken tax. This is with a vehilcle with production limited sales of 30,000 and more a limited ATP than the Ranger. Those of us wanting a Ranger would be happy it Ford did something similar, setup a 30,000 or so limited CKD production line at a plant close to a shipping port (helping to increase said plant's utilization). Only sell the higher end spec versions, and slap a $1000 extra on the price for the production trouble. If Ford can make profit on the Transit Connect than they can on the Ranger with similar production difficulties. The Ranger decision I believe isn't a matter of profit/loss numbers but a matter of priorities and limited resources. Ford has too many balls in the air with a complete revitilization of its Car and Utility lineup right now (Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, Escape, Edge, and Explorer all new within 4 years). And the fuel effecient improvements on the F150 have helped stem the tide of not producing the Ranger. Maybe when Ford is able to get thru the C/EUCD revolution they can move into a deeper consideration of the Ranger. Just as they have postponed decisions on the Taurus and Falcon for another 5 years. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) As for the Taurus and Falcon, I doubt that the Taurus isn't going to get changed in the next 5 years...it got a refresh this year and I'd expect a new model based on the new Fusion platform by 2015 at the latest. Would one large car suit both regions or should not even try to do that? Is it better to just source parts from other vehicles and make regional specific work? I have the feeling that Large cars are such a Niche with low volumes that regional designs will prevail. 1) FNA will get a new Taurus but judging by new Fusion's cabin size, next Taurus will have to be wider and longer whilst reducing external dimensions. 2) Falcon will probably continue after 2016 but must then share "One Ford" FoE and FNA parts and engineering to make the business case sound. Edited January 18, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is plenty of evidence out there that says Ford could and would make profit on NA production of the Ranger. I only need to point out that Ford is making profit on the Transit Connect. This on top of performing an extensive bereakdown and rebuild after arrival to get around the chicken tax. Silvrsvt is dead-on correct about the TC. It's not shipped over as a CKD. It's shipped over as a 'wagon' (with windows/seats), and is converted to a truck, when windows and seats are removed. Further, the 'opportunity cost' of building the Ranger is keeping it out of Ford's plants. It's not a question of the Ranger losing money, so much as it not being as profitable to build as what's already being built in those plants. It's my understanding that the US is nearing a FTA with South Africa. If/when this occurs, I think Ford will revisit the Ranger question. In fact, I'm certain they've already game-planned that contingency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Kolman Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ford has made it quite clear in all the reorganization that they will not approve any product that doesn't make money. So I don't consider it a stretch for me to assume that the Transit Connect makes money based on them approving the limited production buissness plan with the associated MSRP. Only thing that would make me question that was if the TCs were pilling up at the dealers, and everything I've heard is that is not the case. One thing to note about the Transit Connect is that the breakdown and rebuild is done by an outside company, not be Ford itself... That in and of itself results in extra cost, paying that outside company profit on top of costs to do the work. Basic reality of outsourcing... The Ranger plan I proposed would be to keep it in house. Ford performs CKD on a varity of products worldwide, Russia for example, and in each of those the Ford runs the plant where this is done. I would expect the same for the Ranger. It is true that the chicken tax has been modified such that you would not be able to do a Transit Connect like modification plan. Law was modified when the Japanese used to get around it by mounting temporary seats in the bed. To get around it Ford would need to send seperate bodys and frames and then assemble them once they get into a free trade zone. The chicken tax doesn't require you to send a bunch of piece parts, but most of the final assembly has to be in a free trade zone (NAFTA). Mahindra has turned out to be a cluster, but this was how I understood they were planning to import their pickup (they didn't fail because of the chicken tax). To see if the US market pricing for a small pickup could cover CKD I only need to point out again the UK Transit Connect Pricing marketup for the US market: - Transit Connect LWB Trend = 15,000 pound UK and 22,000 dollars US -> 1.15x factor - T6 Ranger XLT CrewCab 22TDi = 19,000 pound UK and the US market for such a vehicle is 29,000 dollars US ->1.52x factor (note US version would have to have a EB20 not 22TDi) So Ford can sell a Ranger at a higher markup than the Transit Connect, which would seem it indicate that the profit margin is there (~$2000) to cover the additonal CKD costs. And the EB20 has already been test fitted as part of the Falcon EB20, and there would be some work to activate that as production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ford has made it quite clear in all the reorganization that they will not approve any product that doesn't make money. And the Ranger wasn't approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 And the Ranger wasn't approved. Well to be fair no one really knows why it wasn't approved. It very well could make a good profit especially considering it is a "world" truck, however chances are it would not make as much profit as the F-150. Chances are a T6 Ranger especially in a CrewCab configuration would likely steal some sales away from the F-150 in addition to other mid-sized trucks. Ford probably wouldn't be losing money on it since the engineering is already bought and paid for on a world wide level, but would it be as profitable as sending more F-150's down the assembly line? Probably not. Now personally I'd love to see the T6 Ranger in the U.S. because for someone like me it would be a perfect pickup, but I guess there just aren't a lot of people looking for a truck like that in the U.S. I do think it would be interesting to see how a "good" high fuel economy modern mid-sized truck would do in the market because what is being offered right now from the other automakers just aren't very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Well to be fair no one really knows why it wasn't approved. I have heard that the global regions wanted the existing size of the Global Ranger to continue while FNA wanted a smaller (narrower) truck. Unfortunately, the T6 team wasn't able to make it fit under the product envelope and with that, FNA opted out of the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 When Ford cancels the truck you have found to be just right and then builds another truck that is almost identical in size but refuses to sell it to you, you might have a tendency to be a little upset. No, make that pissed. Christ. I'd hate to be around you when actual real things go badly in your life, if something like "Ford won't sell me the truck I want!" makes you "pissed". Good Lord, if it's that damned important just buy a Tacoma. I mean, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Christ. I'd hate to be around you when actual real things go badly in your life, if something like "Ford won't sell me the truck I want!" makes you "pissed". Good Lord, if it's that damned important just buy a Tacoma. I mean, seriously. I expect a class action lawsuit any day now. What makes Ford think they can get away with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I expect a class action lawsuit any day now. What makes Ford think they can get away with this? I have no doubt there will be congressional hearings and a condemnation by the UN Security Councel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I have heard that the global regions wanted the existing size of the Global Ranger to continue while FNA wanted a smaller (narrower) truck. Unfortunately, the T6 team wasn't able to make it fit under the product envelope and with that, FNA opted out of the project. Doubt that; T6 is quite narrow. US Ranger = 70.3" wide. T6 = 72.8" wide. FWIW, Nissan Frontier is the same 72.8" and Tacoma is 74.7" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRM Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And while we shouldn't have to be "forced" into a larger vehicle, the market dictates whats available. Don't disagree, but I think the mid-size truck market is a bit unique in that the lack of availability is driving sales too. There simply is not a real good selection of mid-size trucks. In order for a mid-size to be viable it has to capture capability benefits for being smaller to offset the capability costs. The obvious one that comes to mind is MPG. If you are going to have something with less room in the bed, lower towing capability, it should have a measurably better mileage. The current level of engineering on the mid-sized trucks has not really met that. A competitive mid-size should reflect a different set of metrics than a full size. My personal needs indicate a 4/5ths scale truck that maneuvers in parking garages and lots easily with adequate towing and bed space for homeowner duties and hobbies, as well as room to haul the family and respectable mileage for daily commuting. Obviously the marketing people at Ford don't believe there are enough like me. It's their company, fine. But my next vehicle will not be Ford unless something changes. As a lifelong Ford owner that disappoints me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The Tacoma current sales are what happens when you have a category leading product and want to squeeze maximum profits out of a platform. This is the same thing Ford did with the old Ranger. Why update it when you have no competition or no guaranteed return on investment. There definitely IS a market for a midsize truck, as there is a market for the compact truck. Toyota came up with something that sells 100k vehicles a year. Why invest in it when its already paid for and there's no competition other than Nissan. The tacoma lives off of the Toyota mindset that they build reliable products, and for the most part the Tacoma is reliable. Nissan USED to believe that they should shrink the Frontier as the Ranger was selling higher volume. I still am of the opinion that the primary problem with the Frontier is the interior quality is sub-par and outdated for what one expects these days. The second problem and the affects all the midsize trucks is a lack of significant improvement in fuel economy. Nissan has a updated 4.0 and a 6 speed auto available. They could drop both into the Frontier with almost zero modifications and see 1-2mpg improvement. Toyota has been putting off the engine update for the Tacoma because a lack of competition. The newer 4.0 has shown a 2 mpg improvement in the 4runner so I would expect something similar in the Tacoma. And all the above suggested changes are 2010 tech. A unibody Dakota based on the Grand Cherokee with a 7200lb tow capacity does not sound like a bad option. I would much rather drive that then a ugly, over-sized and overpriced Honda Ridgeline. I think 2014 is going to be an interesting year for the midsize truck market. I'm just hoping that the price of those vehicles doesn't price them out of reach. I will still need to purchase something in the 2013-2014 year and if nothing is available I may just have to try to find a southern owned, low mileage sport trek. That said I 'd rather have a quad cab T6 with either a Eco-boost 2.0, a Eco-boost 2.7 or the DI 3.7 liter V6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And yet Ford sold more Rangers than Mustangs last year on an ancient 19 year old design, no marketing, and a boat anchor of an engine... Hmmm.... Toyota, Nissan, GM, and Honda (in their way) are still comitted to the segment. And Chrysler is making noise about potentially two porducts for the segment (Jeep Wrangler based version and unibody SUV/Van based version). But then Ford is the smart people in the room... Isn't that what they sued to say about Enron? What kind of transaction prices were those Rangers fetching? How many of them were discounted fleet sales or stripped out $13K out the door specials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atvman Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The business case for a new Ranger in the U.S. will get a lot worse in a couple of years. With all the work Ford is putting into the next F150 to make it several hundred pounds lighter, it should come out with some pretty eye popping fuel economy. Drop 500lb and the 2.7L Nano EcoBoost might be the ideal engine in that truck. A 3.5L EB truck gets 16/22 today, a 2.7L Nano with 500lb less to lug around might get 17/24 or better with plenty of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 With all the work Ford is putting into the next F150 to make it several hundred pounds lighter, it should come out with some pretty eye popping fuel economy. Drop 500lb and the 2.7L Nano EcoBoost might be the ideal engine in that truck. A 3.5L EB truck gets 16/22 today, a 2.7L Nano with 500lb less to lug around might get 17/24 or better with plenty of power. This is the big issue that everyone seems to be missing...you can't destroy the laws of physics when it comes to putting out engine power vs mpg vs weight. Seems like everyone around here is expecting 28 MPG + out of a new 4x4 Ranger with an Ecoboost V6...Not gonna happen. If you want that, you'll be stuck with a I4 EB Ranger that will be limited to less then 1500 lbs load capacities and towing with RWD or FWD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) This is the big issue that everyone seems to be missing...you can't destroy the laws of physics when it comes to putting out engine power vs mpg vs weight. Seems like everyone around here is expecting 28 MPG + out of a new 4x4 Ranger with an Ecoboost V6...Not gonna happen. If you want that, you'll be stuck with a I4 EB Ranger that will be limited to less then 1500 lbs load capacities and towing with RWD or FWD. Not out of an Ecoboost V6... but entirely possible with an Ecoboost 2.0 or 4-5 cylinder turbodiesel. Which is exactly what would help differentiate the Ranger/F100 (4 and 5-bangers) from the F-150 (V6/V8's). Oh, and don't forget that the F-150 has more drag due to its barn-like frontal area. Edited January 19, 2012 by GTwannabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 This is the big issue that everyone seems to be missing...you can't destroy the laws of physics when it comes to putting out engine power vs mpg vs weight. Seems like everyone around here is expecting 28 MPG + out of a new 4x4 Ranger with an Ecoboost V6...Not gonna happen. If you want that, you'll be stuck with a I4 EB Ranger that will be limited to less then 1500 lbs load capacities and towing with RWD or FWD. A EB 2.7 liter in the mustang is expected to get over 32MPG. A EB 2.7 liter in a lightened F150 is expected to get 24-25MPG A EB 2.7 liter in a T6 ranger SHOULD achieve 26-27 MPG A EB 2.0 liter in a T6 ranger SHOULD achieve about 27-29 MPG A EB 1.6 liter in a T6 ranger SHOULD achieve about 30-32 MPG IMO, there is no way the 2014 F150 is going to see 27-32 MPG for 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) This is the big issue that everyone seems to be missing...you can't destroy the laws of physics when it comes to putting out engine power vs mpg vs weight. Seems like everyone around here is expecting 28 MPG + out of a new 4x4 Ranger with an Ecoboost V6...Not gonna happen. If you want that, you'll be stuck with a I4 EB Ranger that will be limited to less then 1500 lbs load capacities and towing with RWD or FWD. I wouldn't be so certain that the carry capacity would be 1500lbs. Considering the current configurations with the 2.2 diesel have nearly the same torque as the EB 2.0. I wouldn't be surprised if the carry capacity was near the full 3000lbs. I know what my 2001 ranger 4.0 is capable and I would have to guess that a EB 2.0 would be more capable. Edited January 19, 2012 by Mackintire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 barn-like frontal area. It's not like the new larger Ranger would have a significantly smaller frontal area. I'd say on the order of 10% less frontal area, which might equate to what? a 5% improvement in fuel economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And why would Ford put a diesel in the RANGER and not in the more expensive higher volume more profitable F150? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And why would Ford put a diesel in the RANGER and not in the more expensive higher volume more profitable F150? Because there are people who want to buy one! DUH! Haven't you been paying attention? Ford has to build whatever anybody wants to buy. It's their God given right as car consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts