Some Ford Dealers miss Small Pickup

[156n3rd]

After doing some remedial research about the Colorado, I can understand why the American consumer will turn away from Chevy's little bastard truck. It is just a horrible little machine, stuck with lousy GM engineering. Ya know, when a car company builds a machine, they should do so with the idea that it represents the company that builds. I will not say that GM makes crap trucks, except when it comes to small trucks. Then, it's true that theu build junk. I have seen the Ranger from the UK because I have family in Scotland and I wonder why it's not on sale here? All the reasearch has been done so where is the extra costs to develop it?

 

[156n3rd]

This is what we're lookin' for.

[akirby]

All the reasearch has been done so where is the extra costs to develop it?

 

See post 150.

[jpd80]

I have the impression that when people downsize from F150/Silverado/Ram 1500, they downsize all the way to something else, not a mid sized truck

Edited March 19, 2013 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

I have the impression that when people downsize from F150/Silverado/Ram 1500, they downsize all the way to something else, not a mid sized truck

 

Well whatever it is it certainly won't be a small or mid sized Ford truck, now will it? As for the next generation GM and Fiat smaller trucks I think it is a bit premature to dismiss those vehicles since we haven't seen them yet. And for those who want a reasonably sized personal use truck those would be options worth considering, especially since Ford seems more bent on killing the segment than participating in it. Makes me wonder if they're still trying to carry on the company founder's penchant for social engineering.

[akirby]

As for the next generation GM and Fiat smaller trucks I think it is a bit premature to dismiss those vehicles since we haven't seen them yet.

 

Sure we have. The "new" Colorado is the same truck that they sell in Thailand.

 

[NLPRacing]

I have the impression that when people downsize from F150/Silverado/Ram 1500, they downsize all the way to something else, not a mid sized truck

Exactly. For the most part, Ranger and F150 buyers are different animals. From what I've seen, not many Ranger buyers "upgrade" to an F150, nor do many F150 buyers "downsize" to Rangers. Rangers sold best when it was the cheapest vehicle in the Ford showroom. Ranger stopped getting updates because the market for small trucks was shrinking. If everybody that said they would buy a new Ranger would go out and buy a Tacoma causing a sales surge, Ford would have a T6 here in less than a year.

 

I am intrigued by the idea of a true compact pickup. That is a niche, if done right, could really be profitable for Ford.

[FordBuyer]

A smart move in my book would be for Ford to bring the Ranger here, but call it the F-100 and just make it part of F-Series lineup at other end of spectrum with Super Duty on one side, and F-100 at other. No loss of F-Series sales as F-100 becomes the low end and gives them pickups for every customer need. I don't think Toyota or GM would like seeing that development. A crew cab F-100 would run more than an F-150 XLT 3.7L V6 XLT and give them lots of possible profit. I imagine the 2.0 EB could be standard engine and 3.2 Diesel optional.

[156n3rd]

Well, there are many small pickup trucks built all over the world. Fiat has some and they will soon own all ove Chrysler. What's to stop them from importing some? After all, the Dakotah pickup is gone. And what about the Chinese? Will they ever enter this market? They have the products to do so. Look at Brazil and all of South America, they have many varinats and purpuse built trucks all over the place. Is it just because the sales of this segment are so flat in this country that it's just not worth anyone moving in on it? These are all just guesses on my part. But some of those trucks not only look cool, they are certainly capable.

[156n3rd]

Just some examples out there. I know, it's not apples to apples, but they do work where they are built.

[silvrsvt]

Rangers sold best when it was the cheapest vehicle in the Ford showroom.

 

It finally dawned on me why Ford suggested people buy a Fiesta instead of a Ranger...because the Fiesta is the cheapest Ford product now. The Ranger was great because it was cheap and it was also a truck (extra versatility), but not so much for Ford's profit margin

 

I am intrigued by the idea of a true compact pickup. That is a niche, if done right, could really be profitable for Ford.

 

I'm interested in what they would do with also...it would be a great second or 3rd vehicle or entry level vehicle...but at the same time it needs to make Ford money

 

A smart move in my book would be for Ford to bring the Ranger here, but call it the F-100 and just make it part of F-Series lineup at other end of spectrum with Super Duty on one side, and F-100 at other. No loss of F-Series sales as F-100 becomes the low end and gives them pickups for every customer need. I don't think Toyota or GM would like seeing that development. A crew cab F-100 would run more than an F-150 XLT 3.7L V6 XLT and give them lots of possible profit. I imagine the 2.0 EB could be standard engine and 3.2 Diesel optional.

 

Your ignorance is legendary....the ROW Ranger is 7/8 size of a standard cab/bed F-150 and would get about the same MPG's as one...whats the point? There is too much overlap with a mid-sized pickup and the lowend F-150 to make it business case for it.

 

Well, there are many small pickup trucks built all over the world. Fiat has some and they will soon own all ove Chrysler. What's to stop them from importing some? After all, the Dakotah pickup is gone. And what about the Chinese? Will they ever enter this market? They have the products to do so. Look at Brazil and all of South America, they have many varinats and purpuse built trucks all over the place. Is it just because the sales of this segment are so flat in this country that it's just not worth anyone moving in on it? These are all just guesses on my part. But some of those trucks not only look cool, they are certainly capable.

 

25% Chicken Tax on Pickups...and the loopholes have been closed for importing them into the USA (leaving the beds off etc) The only way Ford gets around it with the TC is that the scrap prices of the glass etc from the conversion helps off set the cost of converting them.

[Noah Harbinger]

A smart move in my book would be for Ford to bring the Ranger here, but call it the F-100 and just make it part of F-Series lineup at other end of spectrum with Super Duty on one side, and F-100 at other. No loss of F-Series sales as F-100 becomes the low end and gives them pickups for every customer need.

 

Since it represents such a different class of truck (which is, after all, the argument for why it "needs" to be sold here), I doubt many news outlets would let Ford get away with not breaking out the F-100 sales. It would be like calling the Focus the "Fusion SFE" and trying to bundle it together - it would defy any usefulness and only serve to obfuscate matters.

[jpd80]

spotted this bad boy this morning in Brisbane Australia, Right Hand Drive converted and looking a treat..

 

[silvrsvt]

I have really no need for a truck, but if I was gonna get one, it would be a Raptor

[Kris Kolman]

Just for note... I reference everyone to the pickuptrucks.com aritcle... People are watching:

 

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/02/where-have-ford-ranger-buyers-gone.html

 

And while definitive... As the Dakota, Ranger, and current Colorado/Canyon were pulled from the market Tacoma sales have increased. So there might be something to the idea that small pickup truck buyers are exactly that, and aren't likely to move to another type of vehicle. One thing is that in the current environment we are seeing people hold onto their vehicles longer than in the past. This would be even more in place for Ranger buyers who would have to debate joining the Toyota enemy or buy a used Ranger as they wait to see what Ford, GM, or Chrysler do.

 

And also I don't think a 10% or greater improvement is a small difference in fuel economy... The old Ranger best was 28 mpg on the highway, which is 5 mpg better than the best the F-150. The T6 Ranger uses the same 2.5L I4 engine and with a 6-speed should get get within 1 mpg of that. But in order to perform a fair comparison to the base V6 F-150 the Ranger would have to jump up to an Ecoboost. Based on the Escape and F-150 experience we would expect a 1 mpg loss if the Ranger traded in the 2.5L NA for the 2.0L Ecoboost. This would put the T6 Ranger 2.0L Ecoboost around 26 mpg... Hardly insignificant as some have suggested as that is a 13% improvement over the equivalent V6 F-150. And if we could possibly get the 2.2L DI I would expect another 2-4 mph improvement, which would be a ~25% improvement over the equivalent F-150. But I'm certain people will think I'm pulling things out of a dark place again...

Edited March 23, 2013 by Kris Kolman

[sullynd]

spotted this bad boy this morning in Brisbane Australia, Right Hand Drive converted and looking a treat..

I wonder how a Raptor-like Ranger would do as a global product...

[saintlaz1]

I miss the thunderbird; get over it! Ford gives a lot of detail because a small pickup may cannibalize f150 sales, but they don't seem to care they have 3 SUVs basically offering the same thing and people cross shopping them. Like everything if people start buying more small pickups from competitors than I'm sure you will get your ranger

[silvrsvt]

And also I don't think a 10% or greater improvement is a small difference in fuel economy... The old Ranger best was 28 mpg on the highway, which is 5 mpg better than the best the F-150. The T6 Ranger uses the same 2.5L I4 engine and with a 6-speed should get get within 1 mpg of that. But in order to perform a fair comparison to the base V6 F-150 the Ranger would have to jump up to an Ecoboost. Based on the Escape and F-150 experience we would expect a 1 mpg loss if the Ranger traded in the 2.5L NA for the 2.0L Ecoboost. This would put the T6 Ranger 2.0L Ecoboost around 26 mpg... Hardly insignificant as some have suggested as that is a 13% improvement over the equivalent V6 F-150. And if we could possibly get the 2.2L DI I would expect another 2-4 mph improvement, which would be a ~25% improvement over the equivalent F-150. But I'm certain people will think I'm pulling things out of a dark place again...

 

The issue is one again, your comparing the Ranger I4 that had a max payload of 1100 lbs, where as the F-150 V6 that a minimum does 600lbs or more then that.

[silvrsvt]

And while definitive... As the Dakota, Ranger, and current Colorado/Canyon were pulled from the market Tacoma sales have increased.

 

Tacoma sales over the years:

 

 

Ranger Sales

 

 

Colorado/Canyon Sales

 

 

Dakota sales

 

 

I'd say the 30K sales increase the Tacoma saw wasn't anything impressive vs. what products left the market.

[NLPRacing]

 

I don't think the Ranger or a Ranger replacement would cannibalize sales from the F150. The small truck market share has been decreasing for years because people aren't willing to spend more than $15K on one. Ford won't offer the T6 Ranger here until Toyota starts selling at least 300K Tacomas a year at over $22K per truck.

Edited March 23, 2013 by NLPRacing

[PRM]

But considering the Tacoma really hasn't seen a major upgrade in years, I'm sure Toyota is pleased with the increase. While the market may not support the numbers the Rangers once had, I do think there may be a market for a small truck with modern interior and exterior styling, lighter construction techniques and the latest engine/transmissions combinations. Nobody builds a truck like that to grab anyone's attention so it's hard to compare today's sales to what could be. Just my opinion.

[NLPRacing]

But considering the Tacoma really hasn't seen a major upgrade in years, I'm sure Toyota is pleased with the increase. While the market may not support the numbers the Rangers once had, I do think there may be a market for a small truck with modern interior and exterior styling, lighter construction techniques and the latest engine/transmissions combinations. Nobody builds a truck like that to grab anyone's attention so it's hard to compare today's sales to what could be. Just my opinion.

Good point. A new, revolutionary small pickup might do well. I see Ford building something like that before the T6 comes here.

[Kris Kolman]

The issue is one again, your comparing the Ranger I4 that had a max payload of 1100 lbs, where as the F-150 V6 that a minimum does 600lbs or more then that.

 

Once again... Go read up on the T6 Ranger... From the Aussi Ranger spec sheet I pulled all engines share the same chassis, and as such the 2.5L I4 is rated to the same payload rating as the 3.2L DI. There is a difference between standard 4x2, hi-rise 4x2, and 4x4 versions but no difference between the rating for the various engines. There will of course be a significant difference in performance between the engines, but Ford decided to rate all engines the same overall capability. What this tells me is that unlike the old Ranger which had the cheaper Mazda transmission the T6 I4's must be using the DI engine transmission.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Kris Kolman

[jpd80]

Another point to be aware of is the overall strategy of Ford NA, they didn't just eliminate Ranger, they got rid of BOF Expolrer and Explorer Sport Trac, and the BOF Crown Victoria, and Town Car..All of those products have been eliminated and buyers offered alternatives on continuing platforms. This is the true epicenter of why Ford is proceeding on this course of action, to increase internal efficiency and while it's of cold comfort to existing Ranger owners, I have a feeling that once Ford contracts all of its business, an opportunity may exist to roll out "niche" products to fill demand in product gaps....

[cheri/ck]

I am getting calls from local car dealers wanting my 10 year-old Ranger. My only reply is how could I possibly replace it? Oh, just buy one of our CUV's - they are great and get a combined 22+ mpg with AWD.

 

My reply is that my old Ranger with 4.0 and manual tranny rarely ever sees less than combined 19 mpg. A little better on the highway in good conditions. I wouldn't much mind selling it to them for almost what I paid for it nine years ago, but those AWD cars (CUV's) sure won't pull through the winter like this little truck with 4WD, 4.10 limited slip rear. And it sure would be a mess trying to haul the stuff I do with the Ranger.

 

Nothing out there for me. I do look at the Frontiers and the Tacomas, just having a hard time with either of them considering the price tag. Ford has left us with a big gaping hole in the truck market.