2015 Chevy Colorado

[PRM]

Good looking truck. Based on their numbers, it is about the size of the now gone Sport Trac, and a couple hundred pounds lighter.

[fordmantpw]

 

please round out the wheel wells. From an aesthetics standpoint, boxy wells always conflict with round wheels.

 

GM truck designers have apparently all lost their compasses. They just can't do round wheel wells, and it looks horrible!

[PRM]

Can't say I think the wheel wells are great, but I don't mind them either. When was the last time a Chevy truck didn't have the squared wheel wells? Doesn't seem to have hurt sales too much. Overall I think they have a very good looking truck in the Z71 configuration. Much nicer than Ford's world Ranger. I'd love to see a Ford that looks like a Raptor, but roughly the size of a Sport Trac. That would be a cool truck. I know, I know, that might put a dent in F150 sales, oh nooo!

Edited November 25, 2013 by PRM

[silvrsvt]

For as much talk of the "Ranger-mafia" most comments here are the same Anti-Ranger comments recycled again and again and... Just to return the vitriol... If Chevy is successful and Toyota continues to be successful will you guys STFU?

 

What do you define as successful? Do you really think Toyota is making that much money off the Tacoma?

 

As for Ford, its far easier to upsell someone to a F-150 then it is to limit their choices (and Ford Profit) by bringing out a Ranger. IMO the small truck market went to small/midsize CUV market for everyday usage...they are far more comfortable for everyday driving, have room for kids or extra passengers in the back, but still over a fairly large cargo area to put things. Just look at the sales of the Ranger vs the Escape when it came out...the sales numbers went down in proportion vs Escape sales increasing.

 

Having a bed is nice, but I think offering a rear seat and an optiona cargo area is better.

[NickF1011]

What do you define as successful? Do you really think Toyota is making that much money off the Tacoma?

 

As for Ford, its far easier to upsell someone to a F-150 then it is to limit their choices (and Ford Profit) by bringing out a Ranger. IMO the small truck market went to small/midsize CUV market for everyday usage...they are far more comfortable for everyday driving, have room for kids or extra passengers in the back, but still over a fairly large cargo area to put things. Just look at the sales of the Ranger vs the Escape when it came out...the sales numbers went down in proportion vs Escape sales increasing.

 

Having a bed is nice, but I think offering a rear seat and an optiona cargo area is better.

I think you make a valid point. When Ranger was still successful for Ford, their cheapest SUV was the Explorer, which still started a lot higher up the price scale than Ranger. I see a lot of Escapes being used as utility vehicles for various agencies and companies. That used to be Ranger territory.

[CurtisH]

. . . . . GM built this truck to attract people who "haul bicycles."

I use a bike rack on my Mustang to haul my bike. Or I put it in the back of my wife's Edge. My next daily driver will probably be a Focus hatchback so I can haul the bike more securely than I can with the Mustang.

[silvrsvt]

I think you make a valid point. When Ranger was still successful for Ford, their cheapest SUV was the Explorer, which still started a lot higher up the price scale than Ranger. I see a lot of Escapes being used as utility vehicles for various agencies and companies. That used to be Ranger territory.

 

But at the same time, the Explorer was more of a white-space product then anything, yes the the Cherokee was out quite a bit before it, but it was too "niche" in its market (not to mention the rear seat room was horrible in it, which limited its appeal)

 

I remember in 1997 or so, Ford selling 400K Explorers...which was partly due to the lack of competition on the market, but as more players entered the market, the sales went down to more normal numbers.

 

I took a look at the Ranger vs Escape sales numbers and this is what I got:

 

Ranger Escape

'98 328K

'99 348K

'00 330K 42K

'01 272K 164K

'02 226K 145K

 

Getting info past 2003 is a PIA since Ford changed their media site and the links on BON don't work anymore, but you can see how the same numbers change over the years...2002 is a slip because of the 9/11 attacks.

[Kris Kolman]

 

What do you define as successful? Do you really think Toyota is making that much money off the Tacoma?

 

As for Ford, its far easier to upsell someone to a F-150 then it is to limit their choices (and Ford Profit) by bringing out a Ranger. IMO the small truck market went to small/midsize CUV market for everyday usage...they are far more comfortable for everyday driving, have room for kids or extra passengers in the back, but still over a fairly large cargo area to put things. Just look at the sales of the Ranger vs the Escape when it came out...the sales numbers went down in proportion vs Escape sales increasing.

 

So should a car company drop everything except for their most profitable vehicles? Are the Fiesta, Taurus, C-Max, and Expedition failures and not worthy of follow-ups because none make lots of money? The question is will GM recoup its investment, and will Toyota do the same when they are forced to upgrade the Tacoma. I understand Ford having limited resources, can't compete in every market, and most make risk/reward based decisions. I can understand in that equation the small truck market is lower on the priority list. But the small truck, just like the supersports and minivan markets, aren't non-viable smaller markets just because Ford doesn't compete. Just like the minivan market there appears to be enough volume to support 2 nameplates at around 100k units per year.

 

I'll agree with you that SUVs compete and are shopped against pickup trucks in all regards... But SUVs have their limitations in terms of hauling dirty stuff, or oversized stuff. I have run into those restrictions when I went and bought a dozen 2x6's to work on a deck for example. The argument as a consumer for a mid-sized truck is that you can get those rear seats at much lower price. So thanks for supporting me with that argument... For me the now defunct Ranger was severely hampered by the lack of a CrewCab configuration for today's market. The RegularCab truck in all classes is going the way of the dodo, RegularCab full-sized sales have collapsed as well. I see plenty of newer Tacomas up in the mountains and back in town and not a single one is a RegularCab... In fact I can't remember the last time that I saw a retail sold RegularCab truck of any size. Only ones that come to mind are commercial chassis cab heavy duties with a custom box on the back. When I priced out what a XLT F150 SuperCrew earlier in the year, and I didn't see one under $32k. While the high end Tacoma DoubleCab cames in around $28k. With that $4k in saving I could buy a dirt bike, and a small used camper. And if those cross-shopping with SUVs will be looking for the full doors and rear seats of a CrewCab, not the jumpseats of an ExtendedCab.

 

But we are making the same arguments again... and again... Both sides have established our trenches and there is no need for me to hit reply

[NickF1011]

So should a car company drop everything except for their most profitable vehicles? Are the Fiesta, Taurus, C-Max, and Expedition failures and not worthy of follow-ups because none make lots of money?

Of course not. The difference between the vehicles you point out and the Ranger is that Ford feels there aren't enough people who would buy a Ranger that wouldn't already buy an F-150 instead. Those other vehicles you mention, if they did not exist, those buyers likely wouldn't buy a Ford product at all.

[PRM]

 

What do you define as successful? Do you really think Toyota is making that much money off the Tacoma?

 

As for Ford, its far easier to upsell someone to a F-150 then it is to limit their choices (and Ford Profit) by bringing out a Ranger. IMO the small truck market went to small/midsize CUV market for everyday usage...they are far more comfortable for everyday driving, have room for kids or extra passengers in the back, but still over a fairly large cargo area to put things. Just look at the sales of the Ranger vs the Escape when it came out...the sales numbers went down in proportion vs Escape sales increasing.

 

Having a bed is nice, but I think offering a rear seat and an optiona cargo area is better.

Successful to me as a consumer is having choices of high quality vehicles that do what I want. I really don't see how building a Ranger/F100 (whatever) is limiting choices. I completely agree with small SUVs taking a dent out of the small truck market. No getting around that. However, I also think the evolution of the F150, Silverado, etc. has left an opening in the market. Looking at the new Colorado and a 6700 lb towing capacity, decent bed space, four seats, I tend to think that would meet the needs of the vast majority of F150/Silverado owners. And it would do so in a package that is smaller, lighter and potentially cheaper with better MPG. If they need more, an F250 is probably a better choice. For Ford, the question to me is not only whether the F150 would be impacted (it would), but would a product line of F150 and F100 be better than F150 alone. Ford apparently feels having only the F150 is the way to go. My opinion only, but I feel a truck better suited to the typical homeowner who commutes most of the time but also needs to tow a dirt bike trailer, boat, small RV, do house renovations, etc., and then a real work truck (F250), is potentially a bitter mix for me as a consumer.

 

Now that I think about it, an Explorer (high mpg eco-boost and 4x4) without the third row seats and a more ruggedized cargo area would be pretty cool.

[NickF1011]

Now that I think about it, an Explorer (high mpg eco-boost and 4x4) without the third row seats and a more ruggedized cargo area would be pretty cool.

 

Envoy XUV!!

 

[PRM]

 

Envoy XUV!!

 

Ugh, I think I just threw up a little. I actually drove one of those things. I have no idea how it was ever released. It was the biggest pig of a vehicle I have ever driven. Unspeakably bad.

[NickF1011]

Ugh, I think I just threw up a little. I actually drove one of those things. I have no idea how it was ever released. It was the biggest pig of a vehicle I have ever driven. Unspeakably bad.

 

Approved by the same committee that brought us the Aztek, SSR, and Malibu Maxx.

[PRM]

Hideous, one and all. Well, at least the SSR is unique.

[NickF1011]

Hideous, one and all. Well, at least the SSR is unique.

 

The SSR could have been a much better product. Compromised in too many areas to live up to what it was intended to be, sort of like the Plymouth Prowler.

[PRM]

I give them style points for trying to build something that was unique. It did not look like the design result of a computer optimization routine. Like Today's small SUV offerings.

[NickF1011]

It did not look like the design result of a computer optimization routine. Like Today's small SUV offerings.

 

I don't buy that argument. Most vehicles of all generations have followed similar styling themes. Ask a kid to tell you the differences between the styling of a 56 Chevy and a 56 Ford and he'd probably look at you funny.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2013 by NickF1011

[RichardJensen]

I really don't see how building a Ranger/F100 (whatever) is limiting choices

 

It's not limiting choices, it's limiting profits.

[PRM]

 

It's not limiting choices, it's limiting profits.

If you assume an F150 only market is more profitable than a combined F100 and F150 market. Yes they would lose some F150 sales, but there is the potential for additional sales that would not be part of the existing F150 market. Ford seems to agree with you though. I still think they could sell a bunch of V6 powered Raptor look-a-likes scaled down to the size of the former Sport Trac.

[silvrsvt]

If you assume an F150 only market is more profitable than a combined F100 and F150 market. Yes they would lose some F150 sales, but there is the potential for additional sales that would not be part of the existing F150 market

Why spend an extra billion or two to divide up your market? It just doesn't add up at this point in time. As for the other products like the Fiesta, Taurus and whatnot..they off set in costs by being sold around the world or having multiple products on the same platform.

[akirby]

If you assume an F150 only market is more profitable than a combined F100 and F150 market. Yes they would lose some F150 sales, but there is the potential for additional sales that would not be part of the existing F150 market. Ford seems to agree with you though. I still think they could sell a bunch of V6 powered Raptor look-a-likes scaled down to the size of the former Sport Trac.

 

IF you could get incremental sales then it might be worth it, but then you have to consider the cost of a new assembly plant which would likely wipe out any additional profit. If you could build it in an existing plant that would help a lot.

 

And it's not that it wouldn't be a net profit increase. Even if it was there are other projects that Ford would rather do that involve better ROI and/or lower investment and/or represent investment in growth segments. It's never as simple as is it profitable.

[RichardJensen]

there is the potential for additional sales that would not be part of the existing F150 market.

 

But how profitable are those sales? Vehicles are not equally profitable. There are considerable 'first unit' costs with any vehicle, and if you can't spread those costs out over enough additional vehicles, it doesn't make sense to build that vehicle.

[jpd80]

The assumption most observers make is that a combined Ranger- F150 sales ticket would increase revenue

but would it increase nett profit after all those extra development and production costs are deducted?

 

It's easy to start increasing business activity and production without adding to the bottom line but not only that,

it could also tie up investments funding that could have been used to better effect elsewhere.

 

In recent years, Ford cut out BOF Ranger, BOF Exoplorer and BOF Crown Victoria and reaped the benefit

of eliminating products that could be replaced by existing platforms. aking profit is about controlling costs

at all steps of manufacture - even to the point of avoiding the decision to make some vehicles..

Edited November 29, 2013 by jpd80

[PRM]

Why spend an extra billion or two to divide up your market? It just doesn't add up at this point in time. As for the other products like the Fiesta, Taurus and whatnot..they off set in costs by being sold around the world or having multiple products on the same platform.

Ford does make a smaller truck they sell around the world. They could have made it suitable for US sales and gained the benefits. They've done the math and chosen to limit their offerings to the F150 market and above, I get that. And I just sold my Ford ('08 Sport Trac) and bought elsewhere.

[RichardJensen]

Ford does make a smaller truck they sell around the world. They could have made it suitable for US sales and gained the benefits.

 

When a very large corporation that makes billions in profits annually does something that seems stupid, which seems more likely:

 

That they know more than you do, or that you know more than they do?