The new Bronco/Ranger/MAP thread

[rmc523]

 

This dives into the determining what selling well means, and if sales are good indicator of the success of a product.

 

 

this is not to say that sales are irrelevant but that the threshold for success is Fluid, and not a solid line that some here perceive it to be.

 

Ok, I can agree with that. But what if sales are "fluid," but you end up with Flex type numbers? Or worse? Does that justify the effort of making it? And I'm not saying that in a 'firmly against' way, as it's a debate. Take Flex for example - its numbers are low, but they seem within a fairly consistent range, with high ATPs, and it's also been able to tap into coastal markets where Ford has traditionally (at least as of late) struggled.

 

I just think for a product that would use the Bronco name, they'd want something that could tap into a larger market than that. Like I could understand if they debuted some new niche model with a new name, and had low sales expectations, but it works because of a high volume platform, but I think they want to play up the Bronco name into larger, Wrangler-like success.

[blazerdude20]

 

Ok, I can agree with that. But what if sales are "fluid," but you end up with Flex type numbers? Or worse? Does that justify the effort of making it? And I'm not saying that in a 'firmly against' way, as it's a debate. Take Flex for example - its numbers are low, but they seem within a fairly consistent range, with high ATPs, and it's also been able to tap into coastal markets where Ford has traditionally (at least as of late) struggled.

 

I just think for a product that would use the Bronco name, they'd want something that could tap into a larger market than that. Like I could understand if they debuted some new niche model with a new name, and had low sales expectations, but it works because of a high volume platform, but I think they want to play up the Bronco name into larger, Wrangler-like success.

Depends on the margin. The flex may not sell well but it has a high ATP and comparably low development costs because it shares everything under the skin.

 

Better to sell 50k a year a profit than 200k at a loss.

[RichardJensen]

 

the threshold for success is Fluid, and not a solid line that some here perceive it to be.

 

Again, knock it off.

[jpd80]

It would work if it was seen as incremental product on an existing platform that has a better than likely change of higher ATPs.

A Single cab F150 XLT(~$31K) based Bronco may start off at say, $35K and boost sales of SC based vehicles.

Just a thought if Ford was looking at filling out F150 product...maybe move SC and Bronco to MAP?

[rmc523]

It would work if it was seen as incremental product on an existing platform that has a better than likely change of higher ATPs.

A Single cab F150 XLT(~$31K) based Bronco may start off at say, $35K and boost sales of SC based vehicles.

Just a thought if Ford was looking at filling out F150 product...maybe move SC and Bronco to MAP?

 

But at that point, why would they not build this F-150-based 2 door Bronco at KTP alongside the Expedition (I think I have the plant right)? I mean wouldn't in have more in common with the Expy than F-150?

 

 

EDIT: Plant correction, per jpd80.

Edited September 10, 2015 by rmc523

[jpd80]

 

But at that point, why would they not build this F-150-based 2 door Bronco at Louisville alongside the Expedition (I think I have the plant right)? I mean wouldn't in have more in common with the Expy than F-150?

Kentucky Truck Plant, (Louisville does Escape and MKC)

 

It may be of more advantage to bundle SC F150 and Bronco variant at say MAP with Ranger/Everest

and free up KCAP/DTP for more super Cab and Crew Cab F150 production - simplify the lines a bit more.

 

My vision of Bronco is different to an Expedition and has much more in common with SC F150 than the SUVs.

like, Rear Suspension,, short wheelbase, 2-door body modified to suit?

 

So maybe leave the Expedition/Navigator where it is , keeping KTP Full.with SDs and full sized utilities.

 

It's only my POV and I could be equally swayed by a plan like yours to bundle all Full sized Utes together..

Edited September 10, 2015 by jpd80

[wildosvt]

If Ford is going the heritage route. It wouldn't be a full sized Bronco. Please be this and go after some Jeep sales..

 

Edited September 10, 2015 by wildosvt

[rmc523]

If Ford is going the heritage route. It wouldn't be a full sized Bronco. Please be this and go after some Jeep sales..

 

 

I believe that's exactly the route they'll go. I still have a hard time believing it'll be compact, though. Just doesn't seem to fit with the current lineup. So I think they'll go that exact route styling wise (heck, I still think that concept looks good as is!), but more toward a small midsize.

 

Kentucky Truck Plant, (Louisville does Escape and MKC)

 

It may be of more advantage to bundle SC F150 and Bronco variant at say MAP with Ranger/Everest

and free up KCAP/DTP for more super Cab and Crew Cab F150 production - simplify the lines a bit more.

 

My vision of Bronco is different to an Expedition and has much more in common with SC F150 than the SUVs.

like, Rear Suspension,, short wheelbase, 2-door body modified to suit?

 

So maybe leave the Expedition/Navigator where it is , keeping KTP Full.with SDs and full sized utilities.

 

It's only my POV and I could be equally swayed by a plan like yours to bundle all Full sized Utes together..

 

Thanks for correcting that!

 

I understand where you're coming from, but then they're investing in another F-150 plant? Seems then like they'd be going back to the all eggs in one basket thing with that approach.

 

Also, I just remembered something to consider - there's the rumor of one of the MAP products being for a 2nd brand. Ford is obviously one of the two brands. The other would have to be either Lincoln (barring some T6/7 Aviator surprise -which I see as highly doubtful- I don't see what it'd be for them), or Troller. And given how it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to give the Troller Bronco styling (as I've proposed before, it and Bronco would be identical, aside from regional safety requirement differences), I see that as the likely outcome. But who knows?

[RichardJensen]

Kentucky Truck Plant, (Louisville does Escape and MKC

 

 

 

Plant correction, per jpd80.

 

FYI: Both Kentucky Truck (KTP) and Louisville Assembly (LAP) are in Louisville. But they are nowhere near each other.

 

http://binged.it/1JVDrku

[Mark B. Morrow]

This thread is not lacking for pulp culture references.

[Moosetang]

I may be alone on this but I believe the old Bronco concept's styling, as nice as it was when it first showed up, is now dangerously close to being stale. Maybe the new Mustang and GT have simply spoiled me on how a vehicle can hold onto its heritage while being thoroughly modern.

[rmc523]

I may be alone on this but I believe the old Bronco concept's styling, as nice as it was when it first showed up, is now dangerously close to being stale. Maybe the new Mustang and GT have simply spoiled me on how a vehicle can hold onto its heritage while being thoroughly modern.

 

Oh, it would certainly need to be modernized. So while it still looks great because it's a simple, clean design, they could definitely push the envelope more. And you're right they've definitely moved the bar up with their latest designs.

[silvrsvt]

Speaking of old concept cars....I shuddered at the news that the new Charger suppositly looked like the 1999 concept car...one that is 16 years old and IMO hasn't aged well. Looks like it has a mid-1990s Camaro grill/front end on it.

 

 

Thats like making the 1980 Mustang look like a concept that was done in 1965!

[Biker16]

 

Knock it off.

 

What rule did I break?

 

I think you believe that I and few others are the problem here, when the consistent problem that was brought up earlier is the vocal moderation here, that leads to bad behavior.

[Biker16]

It depends on where the company is financially and what else is in the pipeline (or what should be in the pipeline).

 

If you're recovering from bankruptcy/near bankruptcy and you're trying to shore up your highest volume/highest profit vehicles and add diversity to your lineup then you shouldn't be pursuing these niche vehicles.

 

If you have your core products and platforms in line and you're in a good financial position and you want to pursue niche vehicles that's perfectly fine.

 

Ford had a lot of things to do the last few years - consolidating platforms, updating Mustang, moving F series to Aluminum, bringing TC and Transit here, etc. Shutting down Aussie production. Now they can go after lower volume and more niche vehicles without impacting their bread and butter models.

 

This is your opinion.

 

I am not Asking you to answer the question because there isn't a right answer.

 

Bringing back the ranger and the bronco were dumb ideas until this rumor leaked a few weeks ago.

[akirby]

 

What rule did I break?

 

I think you believe that I and few others are the problem here, when the consistent problem that was brought up earlier is the vocal moderation here, that leads to bad behavior.

 

Calling other posters, including moderators, Minions, is not allowed. Discuss the issues, not the people.

 

You and Blackhorse are the only ones still doing it. If you see anyone else doing it, including moderators, please report it. I certainly haven't seen it. Remember, RJ and I aren't the only moderators now.

 

If you want to keep doing it and keep complaining about it after being warned twice, you too can earn a 2 week vacation.

[Biker16]

 

Calling other posters, including moderators, Minions, is not allowed. Discuss the issues, not the people.

 

You and Blackhorse are the only ones still doing it. If you see anyone else doing it, including moderators, please report it. I certainly haven't seen it. Remember, RJ and I aren't the only moderators now.

 

If you want to keep doing it and keep complaining about it after being warned twice, you too can earn a 2 week vacation.

 

Minions......

 

 

fine.

[Biker16]

Thinking about it more

 

Today MAP has a capacity of 240,000 on 2 shifts, 360,000 on 3 crew. lete say a recongfigured MAP with a more flexible configuration and Slower Line speed, would reduce that capacity by 20% for 200,000 2C and 300,000 3C.

 

 

Tentative lineup

 

Transit Connect 70,000

Bronco Pickup 70,000

Bronco SUV 70,000

Escape 50,000

 

That's 260,000 units per year, if postal contract add another 40,000 TCs.

 

for 300,000 units.

 

I am Still skeptical that Ford would commit this much to a untested Segment.

[bzcat]

 

I am Still skeptical that Ford would commit this much to a untested Segment.

 

I mentioned that in the original thread before it went south...

 

The assumption that Ford will commit this much capacity and capital on segments (BOF SUV and midsize pickup) that are in terminal decline, and fraught with CAFE challenges requires many leaps of faith.

 

The more logical guess is the Ranger and Bronco are part of the new C-car platform program (as derivatives of Transit Connect or Escape). But I'm happy to be proven wrong because I think a revitalized BOF Bronco somewhat similar to Wrangler in concept is far more interesting product than another CUV.

[RichardJensen]

I'm still kind of thinking of a "Commercial C" theory: Sort of a mini Transit that's unibody, but with frame rails that can be used to accommodate various cab and bed sizes, as well as a tougher underpinning for a Bronco. Bronco/Ranger/Transit Connect/hybrid whatsis/Escape (maybe) on C3 and C2 or C3 derived "Commercial C"

[fordmantpw]

I'm still kind of thinking of a "Commercial C" theory: Sort of a mini Transit that's unibody, but with frame rails that can be used to accommodate various cab and bed sizes, as well as a tougher underpinning for a Bronco. Bronco/Ranger/Transit Connect/hybrid whatsis/Escape (maybe) on C3 and C2 or C3 derived "Commercial C"

 

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking too. Personally, I think the commercial market is the only thing that is going to make the Bronco viable. The commercial side will be the big seller and pay for the platform while the Bronco will just be a little icing on the cake.

[RichardJensen]

Overall, yeah, but on an individual basis, I could see the Bronco outselling both the TC and the Ranger.

[blazerdude20]

Thinking about it more

 

Today MAP has a capacity of 240,000 on 2 shifts, 360,000 on 3 crew. lete say a recongfigured MAP with a more flexible configuration and Slower Line speed, would reduce that capacity by 20% for 200,000 2C and 300,000 3C.

 

 

Tentative lineup

 

Transit Connect 70,000

Bronco Pickup 70,000

Bronco SUV 70,000

Escape 50,000

 

That's 260,000 units per year, if postal contract add another 40,000 TCs.

 

for 300,000 units.

 

I am Still skeptical that Ford would commit this much to a untested Segment.

You are right to be skeptical about an untested market. I think Fords recent history of being methodical and avoiding risk points towards the C platform underpinning these vehicles. If the bronco/truck fail then Ford could switch to more escape, transit connect, etc quickly.

[rmc523]

You know, I was just thinking about the new MKX ad. In part of one of them, it shows him pulling in between a DB9, an old Continental (is it a '62? I'm too lazy to check the video), and an original Bronco.

 

The DB9 is unrelated to anything, but here's the thought I just had on the other two...

 

We know a new Continental is coming. So its inclusion is somewhat of a preview of what's coming. That turns us to the inclusion of the Bronco.......what if that was Ford dropping a big hint on Bronco's return and that the rumors are indeed true? Obviously it doesn't help us with the platform debate, but it could be a "hidden in plain sight" hint at its return.

[silvrsvt]

I'm still kind of thinking of a "Commercial C" theory: Sort of a mini Transit that's unibody, but with frame rails that can be used to accommodate various cab and bed sizes, as well as a tougher underpinning for a Bronco. Bronco/Ranger/Transit Connect/hybrid whatsis/Escape (maybe) on C3 and C2 or C3 derived "Commercial C"

 

 

That would make the most sense...I was looking at XJ Cherokee today on Wikipedia and it was a unibody with ladder frame in it...and it also came as a pickup. The XJ also is considered Tough enough to be a rock crawler etc...so a C platform with a ladder frame would make lots of sense.