Ranger, and Bronco, going to MAP?

[BlackHorse]

And what if T7 is not BOF? What if it's unibody a la the Transit?

 

 

A unibody pickup truck / Bronco? Utter waste of time and most likely a complete sales failure. Ford is currently selling five different unibody SUV's, but hey, let's add another so we can be just like Toyota.

[rmc523]

 

That was his wording.

 

FWIW, the Troller T4 was redesigned off of the T6 platform for 2014. It seemed odd at the time, however...

 

**EDIT**

One more cryptic message from him:

 

Pickup and two utilities. I didn't say brand.

 

Hmm.....so a possible Lincoln......Aviator on T6/7?? Or something else? It probably isn't, but what if CD6 for Explorer/Aviator is actually T6/7, while the sedans/crossovers (like Edge, etc) go on "CD6" (improved CD4....and what happened to 5? haha).

 

My guess is they're downsizing T6 and T7 will be smaller and probably use aluminum as well. In that case I could see a Ranger, Bronco and a small Lincoln SUV.

But not at the current T6 Ranger size. You can't get the mpg savings over the F150.

 

That would make sense to me. More sense than just plopping the ROW Ranger here.

 

Two interesting notes from some BON alums on GMI:

 

Ausrutherford:

 

 

...and Wes...

 

 

Hmm....definitely some interesting info in there.

[RichardJensen]

 

It is about a 15% smaller frontal area for the T6.

 

 

Right--but that's such a huge piece of the highway mileage puzzle. Like if you can only get 15% better aerodynamically, how much weight do you have to trim, and how much do you have to improve engine efficiency to get to 33%?

[RichardJensen]

 

 

A unibody pickup truck / Bronco? Utter waste of time and most likely a complete sales failure. Ford is currently selling five different unibody SUV's, but hey, let's add another so we can be just like Toyota.

 

First of all, the Transit is unibody and you can put a separate box on it and you can order it in a number of wheelbases, so it's not as though unibody = 'no cab/box/wheelbase flexibility'.

 

Secondly, Toyota's pretty profitable, so why not be like Toyota? Better them than trying to be like FCA.

[BlackHorse]

 

First of all, the Transit is unibody and you can put a separate box on it and you can order it in a number of wheelbases, so it's not as though unibody = 'no cab/box/wheelbase flexibility'.

 

Secondly, Toyota's pretty profitable, so why not be like Toyota? Better them than trying to be like FCA.

 

 

Meh, Ford is plenty profitable without trying to mimic Toyota. Truth be told Ford has five unibody SUV's while Toyota only has three. I personally would have zero interest in a unibody pickup or SUV and why would Ford need to add yet another unibody SUV to the lineup?

[RichardJensen]

Ausrutherford:

 

 

I'm really, really not buying that 'common F150 platform' thing: Here's why

 

The F150 "platform" is a frame provided by a Tier 1 supplier. Having a substantially common frame makes the part cost on the Expedtion cheaper.

 

If you start talking about sharing common frame rails up front (which are, IIRC among the most expensive parts of the frame to fabricate), then you're kind of tied into making these other vehicles roughly as wide as the F150, which does not seem like a good idea. Sharing stamped bits between a Bronco and an F150 seems like a very bad idea.

 

If, on the other hand, you're going to call a common truck parts bin (seat frames, transmissions, wiring harnesses, etc.), a "platform"......

 

I still wonder if Ford is going to fabricate this stuff as a unibody so they can run this stuff down the same trim/final line as C3 stuff, because I can't see 250k worth of BOF stuff.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

Meh, Ford is plenty profitable without trying to mimic Toyota. Truth be told Ford has five unibody SUV's while Toyota only has three. I personally would have zero interest in a unibody pickup or SUV and why would Ford need to add yet another unibody SUV to the lineup?

 

Your numbers are off. Ford has the Escape, Edge, Flex and Explorer. Thats four. With one most likely sunsetted.

 

And Ford would add another unibody CUV because they can sell another unibody CUV.

Edited August 27, 2015 by RichardJensen

[BlackHorse]

 

Your numbers are off. Ford has the Escape, Edge, Flex and Explorer. Thats four. With one most likely sunsetted.

 

And Ford would add another unibody CUV because they can sell another unibody CUV.

 

 

You forgot the Transit Connect which Ford counts under it's Crossover / SUV offerings.

 

And yea, that Flex is just a sales juggernaut, lol.

Edited August 27, 2015 by BlackHorse

[PREMiERdrum]

 

I'm really, really not buying that 'common F150 platform' thing: Here's why

 

 

I thought it sounded far fetched as well.

 

However, he isn't one to just make things like this up. No matter how true it is or isn't, I trust that he heard it from someone he trusted.

[RichardJensen]

 

 

You forgot the Transit Connect which Ford counts under it's Crossover / SUV offereings.

 

Yes. Let's call a thing with sliding doors a CUV.

 

Here's a picture of my neighbor's pet dog:

 

[BlackHorse]

 

Yes. Let's call a thing with sliding doors a CUV.

 

Here's a picture of my neighbor's pet dog:

 

 

 

 

I really couldn't care less what you call it. Ford considers it a CUV. It's no worse than calling the Flex a CUV (which you just did) when in fact the Flex is just a station wagon. By the way the Mazda 5 has sliding doors as well and guess what category Mazda puts it under. (Hint, it's not minivan).

[jasonj80]

 

Right--but that's such a huge piece of the highway mileage puzzle. Like if you can only get 15% better aerodynamically, how much weight do you have to trim, and how much do you have to improve engine efficiency to get to 33%?

15% is huge, it can also be helped by a more slopped windshield, lower it another 1/2" to 1" for the U.S. Version for a SFE edition. Aerodynamics isnt a linear line, every time you make it larger it exponentially increases drag. So 15% reduction in frontal area will yield a greater increase that just 15%. Also toss in a new diesel and you're at 15/20% better mileage, a 10speed auto will give 8% over a 6speed. Smaller Mirrors, better air curtains, higher cowl to hide the wipers(need a heated wiper park then) all little things that can be done all depends how far and at what cost you want to incur to hit those numbers and if you have to hit those numbers for CAFE.

[blazerdude20]

 

 

You forgot the Transit Connect which Ford counts under it's Crossover / SUV offerings.

 

And yea, that Flex is just a sales juggernaut, lol.

Ford splits Transit connect sales under SUV/crossover for wagon models and under truck for cargo versions.

 

It's just a simple label to help joe dumbass figure what's available. Not like there is a difference in the platform between the versions.

 

A unibody ranger wouldn't be that bad for 90% of what rangers get used for. Bronco, maybe you have a point there but again the Grand Cherokee is unibody.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Hey - how about we start arguing about whether or not the new Ranger/Bronco/Lincoln Everest will be available with a manual transmission!

 

I think it's the price of admission if they are serious about capturing some of Wrangler's market share. Plus it's not like the Troller and T6 platforms lack one.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv

[BlackHorse]

Ford splits Transit connect sales under SUV/crossover for wagon models and under truck for cargo versions.

 

It's just a simple label to help joe dumbass figure what's available. Not like there is a difference in the platform between the versions.

 

A unibody ranger wouldn't be that bad for 90% of what rangers get used for. Bronco, maybe you have a point there but again the Grand Cherokee is unibody.

 

A unibody Ranger would fail in spectacular fashion.

 

Unibody sells well in the SUV segment because women are by and large the most common buyers of SUVs and women don't really want a real SUV that has that SUV ride that one gets from a body on frame configuration. What women want is the look and ride height of an SUV and the ride of a car, hence crossovers and unibody SUV's. Women do not buy pickup trucks, men do and men are not going to be inclined to buy a unibody pickup.

 

If that's what men wanted in a pickup this would still be for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

And this vehicle would not have been so broadly criticized, even on this very website.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2015 by BlackHorse

[92LX302]

I'd love to see a new Ranger.

I traded my 2011 on a '14 Wrangler Sport last year (ugh). 8 months later I traded the Wrangler on a '13 Mustang GT + a winter beater. I'd buy a new Ranger in a heartbeat again to replace the beater in 2-3 years.

[fordmantpw]

I'd love to see a new Ranger.

 

I traded my 2011 on a '14 Wrangler Sport last year (ugh). 8 months later I traded the Wrangler on a '13 Mustang GT + a winter beater. I'd buy a new Ranger in a heartbeat again to replace the beater in 2-3 years.

 

If your heart only beats once every 2-3 years, you should probably drive the Mustang more often.

[RichardJensen]

women don't really want a real SUV

 

If that's what men wanted

 

Yes, it's marketing advice from an angry guy in Arkansas. Are you listening Ford?

[RichardJensen]

Yes.

 

Unibody trucks are so awful.

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

I'm trying to sketch out a plausible business plan for MAP based on the following:

 

All numbers below are annual and assume NAFTA zone sales, not just US.

 

75k T6 (or T7?) Ranger

25k Bronco (Everest)

 

100k Transit Connect (van version) - current US sales is about 60k a year and if Ford wins USPS tender, it can easily go over 100k a year

50k Transit Connect (truck and cab chassis version)

50k TBD PHEV/hybrid car

 

Total MAP volume 300k on 2 lines working two shifts. Ford will need to build a 2nd paint booth at MAP to make it happen.

Forget the 2 lines wish. There's no room for 2 lines

[blazerdude20]

 

A unibody Ranger would fail in spectacular fashion.

 

Unibody sells well in the SUV segment because women are by and large the most common buyers of SUVs and women don't really want a real SUV that has that SUV ride that one gets from a body on frame configuration. What women want is the look and ride height of an SUV and the ride of a car, hence crossovers and unibody SUV's. Women do not buy pickup trucks, men do and men are not going to be inclined to buy a unibody pickup.

 

If that's what men wanted in a pickup this would still be for sale.

 

 

And this vehicle would not have been so broadly criticized, even on this very website.

 

You REALLY think ford wouldn't produce a far more competent truck than the Subaru Baja? Seriously. Ford doesn't screw around with their trucks. Trucks are Ford. No way the produce a truck that can't handle the tasks of the previous ranger.

 

No idea if it will be unibody or BOF but it will be a competent, reliable trucks just like its big brothers.

Edited August 27, 2015 by blazerdude20

[jpd80]

 

 

Meh, Ford is plenty profitable without trying to mimic Toyota. Truth be told Ford has five unibody SUV's while Toyota only has three. I personally would have zero interest in a unibody pickup or SUV and why would Ford need to add yet another unibody SUV to the lineup?

 

I think Richard thew you off the scent with that comment when Integral ladder Frame would be a better description.

 

Does this transit look like a Unitbody to you?

 

[silvrsvt]

Still find making a BOF pickup and SUV to be a bit far fetched at MAP, given the uncertainty of gas prices (yeah they'll be cheap in the next 12-18 months, but then what?) and CAFE ratings going higher...coming out with a mid-sized pickup that gets nearly the same MPG as a full sized F-150 with the 2.7 V6 doesn't seem like a smart move long term.

[Pioneer]

Nobody has said it had to be the "World Ranger" or BOF.

 

I can't see anything going into that plant without enough production to run three shifts, and you can't jeopardize the F-150 sales.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

Yes, it's marketing advice from an angry guy in Arkansas. Are you listening Ford?

Well Richard I'm not angry and I'm not from Arkansas and I agree that a cheesebox unibody pick up would be a poor choice. How'd the Ridgeline do? The great mighty Honda falls on their ass!

 

No argument the T-6 is too close to 150 and would lead to minimal net gains in total market share. However a true BOF Ranger size truck I believe would sell. And to those who say..."look at the decline in Ranger sales over the years" I say.."Duh-put nothing new in the truck and what do you expect???"