Sevensecondsuv Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 3. I keep coming back to the whole Bronco thing... is Ford thinking of a Jeep Wrangler competitor or a Jeep Compass competitor? If they are working on a Wrangler competitor, it is inherently a niche (but potentially lucrative) product. A Jeep Compass competitor is much higher volume mainstream product with appeals in every market around the world. Which is more likely? I don't know... The Wrangler competitor theory is a lot more exciting but the Compass competitor theory probably has more air tight business case. I just don't see any room in Ford's lineup for a Compass competitor. What space is there between Escape, Edge, Flex, and Explorer? The only reason the Compass (or Renegade) have any off-road image is because of the Jeep name. Put a Ford (or GM or Toyota, etc) badge on it and it's just another crossover. The only thing that makes sense for Bronco is a real Wrangler competitor. Obvious such a platform needs more volume, hence Ranger too. Which is why I believe the Ranger is going to have a lot more conventional truck attributes than people here think. There's no way it's going to share a platform with Focus, Fusion, or even TC. Maybe with the RWD transit but that'd be stretching it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Hmm. So the latest rumor is a "Ranger" and 2 utilities, one presumably a Bronco. I'm just going to throw out some thoughts here: What if Bronco (2- and 4-door) is actually the primary vehicle - something like Wrangler that is smaller in size than the T6 Everest and Ranger as to not step on F-150's toes like we've discussed. And it then also has a truck option - a Bronco truck. That allows them to have a smaller than ROW Ranger truck here, while also avoiding a name issue (they can't call anything other than the ROW Ranger here Ranger). Additionally, it would result in cost savings for both vehicles as they can share body panels and of course underpinnings. That leaves the second utility up in the air (assuming 2- and 4- door models aren't each considered individual utilities). I don't see much room for anything else in the Ford lineup, so that leaves us with a Lincoln? But what use would Lincoln have for a vehicle like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 All I can say is, if Ford wants to close MAP the next go-round putting nothing but the Ranger and the Bronco in it is a great way to make sure that happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 All I can say is, if Ford wants to close MAP the next go-round putting nothing but the Ranger and the Bronco in it is a great way to make sure that happens. I certainly agree that the plant will need more than those two to keep busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Or maybe the Board of Directors will veto the whole idea and none of it will ever happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Hmm. So the latest rumor is a "Ranger" and 2 utilities, one presumably a Bronco. I'm just going to throw out some thoughts here: What if Bronco (2- and 4-door) is actually the primary vehicle - something like Wrangler that is smaller in size than the T6 Everest and Ranger as to not step on F-150's toes like we've discussed. And it then also has a truck option - a Bronco truck. That allows them to have a smaller than ROW Ranger truck here, while also avoiding a name issue (they can't call anything other than the ROW Ranger here Ranger). Additionally, it would result in cost savings for both vehicles as they can share body panels and of course underpinnings. That leaves the second utility up in the air (assuming 2- and 4- door models aren't each considered individual utilities). I don't see much room for anything else in the Ford lineup, so that leaves us with a Lincoln? But what use would Lincoln have for a vehicle like that? A BOF truck smaller than T6 seems highly unlikely because of CAFE. If you make the T6 smaller, you are shrinking the footprint geometrically (length x width) while able to improve MPG marginally at best. The math doesn't work... roughly, the footprint multiplier is essentially MPG / footprint. When you shrink a truck or utility, you are reducing the denominator at a much higher rate than you are able to reduce the numerator - the result is a CAFE disaster. Truck or utility smaller than T6 only makes sense if it delivers car-like MPG due to the small footprint. CAFE basically dictates that you have to have a light weight vehicle to have small footprint. You are not going to do that in a conventional BOF pickup truck or SUV. Wrangler has an entirely different business calculation because it is iconic and essential to the Jeep brand so FCA will take a CAFE penalty to keep it going. And you can bet everything you own that the next Wrangler is going to be longer and wider in order to achieve a higher footprint. And FCA will switch to mainly selling diesel Wrangler in the US to mitigate the CAFE hole. If Bronco is BOF, it will be at least as big as the 4 door Wrangler, and probably about the size of 4Runner to make it CAFE neutral. And Ford will need to sell a diesel (or hybrid?) version to balance out the low MPG from gasoline engine. My take on the "two utilities" rumor assuming it is BOF, is that one is a Everest (more lux oriented) and the other one is Bronco (more offroad oriented). If Everest is successful, Ford can dial back the Expedition sales (by eliminating the SWB model) in order to manage its CAFE goal. Edited August 28, 2015 by bzcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I just don't see any room in Ford's lineup for a Compass competitor. What space is there between Escape, Edge, Flex, and Explorer? The only reason the Compass (or Renegade) have any off-road image is because of the Jeep name. Put a Ford (or GM or Toyota, etc) badge on it and it's just another crossover. The only thing that makes sense for Bronco is a real Wrangler competitor. Obvious such a platform needs more volume, hence Ranger too. Which is why I believe the Ranger is going to have a lot more conventional truck attributes than people here think. There's no way it's going to share a platform with Focus, Fusion, or even TC. Maybe with the RWD transit but that'd be stretching it. There is plenty of room below Escape, which is where this unibody CUV will go. Whether or not it is called a Bronco is besides the point. Ford will have a compact CUV for sale with the next generation of C-cars. The only question is where Ford will build it...MAP? Mexico? Somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Eesh! A crossover smaller than the Escape? That'd be so tiny it'd be nearly useless. Is there really demand for such a vehicle? The Jeep Compass is certainly no smaller than the Escape.... Edited August 28, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) A thought popped into my head as I'm attaching airbags to the steering wheels of right hand drive Mustangs. Who says whatever it (be it Ranger, bronco, or something else entirely) is put in at MAP, it has to only be for NAFTA? Edited for clarity because holy crap was that bordering on gibberish Edited August 28, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Ford has low-cost assembly centers for the Ranger to serve other markets. They could source Europe from the US. I don't buy the Everest stuff. Not for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I don't buy the Everest stuff. Not for a minute. I don't either. Not if Bronco is coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thStang Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 For those speculating that the Ranger/Bronco will be mid-sized and therefore too big and thirsty, I guess you all missed this quote in the articles: "Ford’s truck group marketing manager, Doug Scott, told USA Today last year that Ford was considering bringing a smaller pickup back to the U.S. but that its price and size would need to be different enough from the F-150 to make it worthwhile. "We're looking at it,” Scott told the paper. “We think we could sell a compact truck that's more like the size of the old Ranger, that gets six or eight more miles per gallon [than a full-size truck], is $5,000 or $6,000 less, and that we could build in the U.S. to avoid the tariff on imported trucks.” A compact truck with say, the 1.5 ecoboost to start, would easily be low 30s mpgH wise. In the Fusion 25/37? AWD 2.0 is 22/31. Use the 2.5 for the base/cheap version All definitely worth it CAFE wise. My .02 Brian S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I don't either. Not if Bronco is coming back. Why not? 4 dr volume will pay for availability if a 2 dr. Just like the Wrangler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spotdog14 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Eesh! A crossover smaller than the Escape? That'd be so tiny it'd be nearly useless. Is there really demand for such a vehicle? The Jeep Compass is certainly no smaller than the Escape.... Isn't the current Escape about the same size as the first and second gen Explorer? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 For those speculating that the Ranger/Bronco will be mid-sized and therefore too big and thirsty, I guess you all missed this quote in the articles: "Ford’s truck group marketing manager, Doug Scott, told USA Today last year that Ford was considering bringing a smaller pickup back to the U.S. but that its price and size would need to be different enough from the F-150 to make it worthwhile. "We're looking at it,” Scott told the paper. “We think we could sell a compact truck that's more like the size of the old Ranger, that gets six or eight more miles per gallon [than a full-size truck], is $5,000 or $6,000 less, and that we could build in the U.S. to avoid the tariff on imported trucks.” A compact truck with say, the 1.5 ecoboost to start, would easily be low 30s mpgH wise. In the Fusion 25/37? AWD 2.0 is 22/31. Use the 2.5 for the base/cheap version All definitely worth it CAFE wise. My .02 Brian S. The issue is that people think it needs to be BOF and having a frame that small wouldn't make much sense and other people are complaining that unibody wouldn't cut it as a small/cheap pickup and CUV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Eesh! A crossover smaller than the Escape? That'd be so tiny it'd be nearly useless. Is there really demand for such a vehicle? The Jeep Compass is certainly no smaller than the Escape.... Look at this way...B-sized cars aren't really selling, but B-sized CUV's are...Ford is lacking in this dept at the moment (Ecosport is too cheap to be successful in the US and is having problems in the EU because of that) There is demand for it, but not enough to build it in the USA...can be shared with the Fiesta production in Mexico Isn't the current Escape about the same size as the first and second gen Explorer? My mom had a 2002 Explorer and her 2013 Escape Ti is smaller then it. Not sure of the First Gen Explorer...but I know an Equnionx is roughly the size of the 1st Gen Explorer, which in turn is bigger then an Escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Isn't the current Escape about the same size as the first and second gen Explorer? First gen Escape, yes they were. I've parked my 92 Explorer next my mom's old 03 Escape - almost identical in width and length. Although mine is a 2 door and hers was obviously 4. Also the Explorer has more ground clearance and is taller. Now the current kuga escape is much smaller. I guess it could be an optical illusion but it seems like it got a lot smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 IMO, this is what I see happening over the next couple years with slotting of Ford's CUV/SUV products, small to large B-CUV on Fiesta to replace Ecosport and be sold in NA C-CUV Escape/MKC C-SUV Bronco (slotted in price higher then the Escape and maxing out around where the Edge tops out at) CD4-CUV Edge/MKX CD6-SUV Explorer(called a SUV on Ford's website still)/Lincoln Aviator or whatever they call it T3-SUV Aluminum Expedition and Navigator I see the Bronco coming with only I4 cyc engines with maybe the 2.7L Ecoboost as range topping engine. The Ranger or small pickup would be only I4 engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Isn't the current Escape about the same size as the first and second gen Explorer? I own a 2014 Escape and owned a 1993 and 1997 Explorer. Explorer was about 6 inches longer in WB and overall length, but Escape is actually 2 inches wider which is surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Why not? 4 dr volume will pay for availability if a 2 dr. Just like the Wrangler. But why have 2 different nameplates? That's just silliness. Fans of the traditional 2 door Bronco will balk at the possibility of a 4 door Bronco, but if Jeep proved anything with the Wrangler Unlimited it's that there's a demand there for it. People balked at a 4 door Wrangler and look how well that ultimately worked out for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I own a 2014 Escape and owned a 1993 and 1997 Explorer. Explorer was about 6 inches longer in WB and overall length, but Escape is actually 2 inches wider which is surprising. That was from its Ranger roots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 how about this..... Ford develops a B-SUV to replace the Ecosport in 1st world markets, called the bronco. Ford then uses B-SUV to spawn a New compact pick up to replace the Courier in foreign markets. this pickup, would be a hybrid, using the Experience of the Unibody on the transit to spawn a unibody Pickup with a separate cargo box. this would allow different lengths of bed, and its commonality with the bronco would share styling and everything from the D-pillar forward. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 how about this..... Ford develops a B-SUV to replace the Ecosport in 1st world markets, called the bronco. Ford then uses B-SUV to spawn a New compact pick up to replace the Courier in foreign markets. this pickup, would be a hybrid, using the Experience of the Unibody on the transit to spawn a unibody Pickup with a separate cargo box. this would allow different lengths of bed, and its commonality with the bronco would share styling and everything from the D-pillar forward. Maybe. I really don't like the idea of making it B sized, but other than that I can see that as a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I think that going with a B-sized product would make it too small, for both the Bronco and Pickup. The TC already handles a similar weight that the old Ranger does, so it would make more sense to make the next Ranger/Small Pickup similar to the old Ranger capability wise but with much better MPGs and refinement. Though do I say that a B-sized CUV built along side a next Ranger/Small Pickup and Bronco would explain the rumors of two CUV products that have been reported. Plus it would be profitable to be built in the States too...I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) I think that going with a B-sized product would make it too small, for both the Bronco and Pickup. The TC already handles a similar weight that the old Ranger does, so it would make more sense to make the next Ranger/Small Pickup similar to the old Ranger capability wise but with much better MPGs and refinement. Though do I say that a B-sized CUV built along side a next Ranger/Small Pickup and Bronco would explain the rumors of two CUV products that have been reported. Plus it would be profitable to be built in the States too...I guess. Putting next gen Subcompact and compact vehicles on the same platform is going to bring a lot of solutions. Fiesta to Ecosport, Focus to Escape, C-Max to Transit Connect..... that's a very strategic vehicle envelope. Edited August 28, 2015 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts