Five Reasons Ford Should Bring Ranger Back to U.S.

[akirby]

It's certainly possible, but again it depends on where it would fit in the lineup. Would it be smaller than a T6 Ranger? Can it be sold as a premium vehicle with higher ATPs? If it's just a cheap vehicle there may not be enough profit. I don't think Bronco will be a cheap vehicle.

 

It also depends on how much capacity Ford has in the plant where it's going to be built along with capacity for drivetrains, etc. It's never a simple answer.

[630land]

Well, all the posts, screaming [typing in CAPS}, hadn wringing, preaching, and crying will not bring the truck back. Just like "Humpty-Dumpty".

 

Go look at the Chevy Colorado and ask if its the right size and price, that is what Ford would have to sell. Like it, then effing buy it! Ford is doing fine not having to try to coax owners of 1990 Rangers to get a new one, when they would complain that a new one is "too big and expensive!"

 

"I wont pay more then $9999 for any new vehicle" they say, well dream on, ;-)

[J-150]

Yes cutaway vans have been available here for decades. To this day they've never even so much as made a dent in the pickup market.

What's the point when the F - Series does everything a cutaway van does but better and in more style.

[J-150]

Well, all the posts, screaming [typing in CAPS}, hadn wringing, preaching, and crying will not bring the truck back. Just like "Humpty-Dumpty".

 

Go look at the Chevy Colorado and ask if its the right size and price, that is what Ford would have to sell. Like it, then effing buy it! Ford is doing fine not having to try to coax owners of 1990 Rangers to get a new one, when they would complain that a new one is "too big and expensive!"

 

"I wont pay more then $9999 for any new vehicle" they say, well dream on, ;-)

None of the mid size trucks are selling at that price so it's a moot point.

[J-150]

 

Of course you can (in the commercial/fleet sector). 90% of what businesses carry in Rangers will fit in a TC just fine. You're confusing what YOU use pickups for with what businesses use them for. They buy them because they're cheap, not because they can carry a yard of topsoil or concrete.

I'm guessing you don't see a lot of work trucks at work.

 

For every stripped cargo van, there is a 4x4 crew cab pickup in mid level trim or higher.

 

Ford's trim level mix has been discussed ad nauseum on this board and it is overwhelmingly lux trucks being sold.

 

even in fleet contractors are buying their foremen nice trucks as a tax free perk. And even in construction, there are foremen's trucks with virgin paint in the bed.

 

I see this every day on job sites.

[akirby]

I'm not talking about construction - we're talking about businesses that have traditionally used Rangers.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Well, all the posts, screaming [typing in CAPS}, hadn wringing, preaching, and crying will not bring the truck back. Just like "Humpty-Dumpty".

 

Go look at the Chevy Colorado and ask if its the right size and price, that is what Ford would have to sell. Like it, then effing buy it! Ford is doing fine not having to try to coax owners of 1990 Rangers to get a new one, when they would complain that a new one is "too big and expensive!"

 

"I wont pay more then $9999 for any new vehicle" they say, well dream on, ;-)

You're excessively steriotyping Ranger buyers. That's not at all an accurate portrayal of the current compact pickup market.

[jpd80]

You're excessively steriotyping Ranger buyers. That's not at all an accurate portrayal of the current compact pickup market.

Not when you see the strong prices used mid sized trucks are still fetching, I wonder if the used market would be strengthen or weakened

by the addition of more new mid sized truck offerings. Sticker shock could end up polarizing the market as those buyers are forced to choose

between rebuilding a used mid sizer or buying a new version at near half ton prices..

 

These days, buyers want mostly crew cabs and the transaction prices are now much closer to half ton trucks. Gone are the days of the majority

of mid sized buyers wanting a $15K single cab 2WD, lower volumes today but with much better ROI, so maybe 12K/mth is enough to make it work..

Edited May 29, 2015 by jpd80

[akirby]

You're excessively steriotyping Ranger buyers.

 

And you're not? You think they all need to carry thousands of pounds of dirt, concrete, etc.

[Sevensecondsuv]

All I'm saying is that the market generally expects a truck to be a truck rather than a chopped compact car.

[akirby]

All I'm saying is that the market generally expects a truck to be a truck rather than a chopped compact car.

 

And all we're saying is most Rangers were cheap commuter/light duty vehicles, not work trucks. I drove Rangers for 10 years (manuals in fact) and I can count on one hand the number of times I had something in the bed that would not have fit in a SUV/CUV/TC just as well. Around here even F150s (personal vehicles not work vehicles) don't get used very much for heavy loads or towing.

[Edstock]

Here's a nice rendering of what a FWD pickup could like:

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Edstock

[akirby]

And that would be every bit as capable as a Ranger was for 90% of the owners. And it wouldn't be stealing F150 sales.

[bzcat]

You're excessively steriotyping Ranger buyers. That's not at all an accurate portrayal of the current compact pickup market.

 

There is no current compact pickup truck market. The market disappeared because not enough people wanted a compact pickup truck. Fleets don't want them and retail buyers drifted towards CUVs or larger pickups.

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

There is no current compact pickup truck market. The market disappeared because not enough people wanted a compact pickup truck. Fleets don't want them and retail buyers drifted towards CUVs or larger pickups.

Huh? Better tell GM and Toyota that there is no market. They'd probably disagree!

[RichardJensen]

Huh? Better tell GM and Toyota that there is no market. They'd probably disagree!

 

Those are not compact trucks.

[jpd80]

Ranger XLT Crew Cab 3.2 I-5 4x2 weighs 2052 Kg or approx 4,500 lbs

 

F150 XLT Crew Cab 3.5 V6 4x2 weighs 4,471 lbs

[jpd80]

And this from GMI:

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

I don't really see a problem with those numbers. Margins are plenty fat on crew cab 4x4 Colorados. Plus buyers are getting the size they really want AND staying with GM.

 

That and the number of cannibalized Silverado sales is a drop in the bucket relative to total Silverado sales. Chances are margins on the Colorado are better than some of the other GM models on the list too (Cruze anyone?)

 

One curious note is that Ranger is no where to be found on either list. That confirms what I've long suspected - Ranger buyers are fiercely loyal to ..... Rangers. Which explains why prices on used Rangers are climbing rapidly.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[RichardJensen]

The first caveat is the date range: It's quite preliminary.

 

The second observation: There is nothing in this small and preliminary list of trade-ins to suggest that Ford has made a mistake by ignoring this market.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The first caveat is the date range: It's quite preliminary.

 

The second observation: There is nothing in this small and preliminary list of trade-ins to suggest that Ford has made a mistake by ignoring this market.

You're probably right, but I don't think GM's decision was wrong either.

[RichardJensen]

You're probably right, but I don't think GM's decision was wrong either.

 

I think they do need to look at how they ended up in a situation where they were edged out of a consistently viable market segment like vans (first in Europe, then in the US), and why they need CAFE offsets for their best selling vehicles.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I can see the profit in Transit, but I'm hesitant to take everyone's word on TC. I mean, it's sales volume is lower than the old Ranger was at the end of its run. The TC is not a pricey model and stripper fleet models can't possibly have any more margin than the old Ranger did.

 

Are we sure that TC is really more profitable than Ranger was? Or was it just a case of TCAP was dead meat and the old Ranger design just wasn't meeting crash and CAFE targets anymore and Ford didn't have/want to spend the resources for a full redesign? Meanwhile all they needed for TC was some room on an existing assembly line...

Edited May 30, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[J-150]

I'm not talking about construction - we're talking about businesses that have traditionally used Rangers.

Why?

 

You like talking about what happened 10 years ago? It's 2015 so let's talk about what buyers want now.

 

Ranger was dead for years before it was cancelled.

Edited May 30, 2015 by J-150

[RichardJensen]

Are we sure that TC is really more profitable than Ranger was? Or was it just a case of TCAP was dead meat and the old Ranger design just wasn't meeting crash and CAFE targets anymore and Ford didn't have/want to spend the resources for a full redesign? Meanwhile all they needed for TC was some room on an existing assembly line...

 

You've pretty much answered your own question: Profitable products pay for their ongoing development.