silvrsvt Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 The Sport Trac sold like shit due to the price IMHO It did? Keep in mind it had the F-150 and the Ranger under it. The new Ranger won’t be a tweener like the Sport trac did...not to mention the SUV market started to crater in 2005 or so with gas prices increasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jqa1824 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 The first-gen Sport Trac sold well, especially on its first three years. The second gen, even though it was light-years better, never sold well. Perhaps it was because Ford was nearly at its lowest at that time? The Fusion and Edge were beginning to dig Ford out of the hole. Ford should have based the first gen off of the 2002 Explore from the very beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 The first-gen Sport Trac sold well, especially on its first three years. The second gen, even though it was light-years better, never sold well. Perhaps it was because Ford was nearly at its lowest at that time? The Fusion and Edge were beginning to dig Ford out of the hole. Well I'm sure the Firestone debacle with the Explorer didn't help sales either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 (edited) The first-gen Sport Trac sold well, especially on its first three years. The second gen, even though it was light-years better, never sold well. Perhaps it was because Ford was nearly at its lowest at that time? The Fusion and Edge were beginning to dig Ford out of the hole. Ford should have based the first gen off of the 2002 Explore from the very beginning. Remember what was going on when sales slowed up, you had Ford in trouble by 2006 and soaring fuel prices in 2007 followed by the collapse of many businesses in 2008. F Series sales were barely 30K a month - things were that bad. Ford should have probably given BOF Explorer and Sport Trac one more product cycle and kept MTP as a Truck and SUV plant, Funny how things come full circle... In my alternate universe Ford Adopts Global RWD platform based of Falcon / Fairlane / Territory SUV Ford basically keeps and improves its old line up using more RWD product and F 150 power trains. Plants stay much as they are now but with Focus being built at Cuautitlan. Edited September 30, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 Remember what was going on when sales slowed up, you had Ford in trouble by 2006 and soaring fuel prices in 2007 followed by the collapse of many businesses in 2008. F Series sales were barely 30K a month - things were that bad. Ford should have probably given BOF Explorer and Sport Trac one more product cycle and kept MTP as a Truck and SUV plant, Funny how things come full circle... In my alternate universe Ford Adopts Global RWD platform based of Falcon / Fairlane / Territory SUV Ford basically keeps and improves its old line up using more RWD product and F 150 power trains. Plants stay much as they are now but with Focus being built at Cuautitlan. If Explorer remained BOF, it would've meant the death of Taurus/MKS and Flex/MKT long ago. Not to mention no PI and PIU. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 If Explorer remained BOF, it would've meant the death of Taurus/MKS and Flex/MKT long ago. Not to mention no PI and PIU. Simple - they could have easily gotten another decade out of the panther. It just needed fresh engines and new sheet metal. Police and other fleets would have continued to gobble them up along with limited retail sales. Pretty much how Taurus sells now basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Simple - they could have easily gotten another decade out of the panther. It just needed fresh engines and new sheet metal. Police and other fleets would have continued to gobble them up along with limited retail sales. Pretty much how Taurus sells now basically. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Haha. Truth of the matter is that sales probably would have been at least 90% of what Taurus is. Fleets buyers of large cars loved the panthers and only switched when Ford quit making them. Heck - many fleets stocked up on as many panthers as they could in 2011. As for non-luxury retail buyers, interior space is the biggest driver. I doubt many would have particularly cared if it rode on the panther or D4 platform. Just think, a panther with modern shape and 3.5n/a, 5.0, and even an SHO/interceptor version with the 3.5eb. No reason that would have sold any worse than the Taurus. But obviously that's not the choice Ford made. Fun to think what could have been though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 But how much would they have had to put into it for it to match new safety regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Panther never had any trouble with safety regs. It wouldn't have taken significantly more effort than D4 did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 But how much would they have had to put into it for it to match new safety regulations? THIS! Same reason Ranger died in 2011... couldnt meet regulations. Too expensive to engineer the required air bag systems into an old platform/tophat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 (edited) The reason ranger died was that Ford NA optedout of T6 back in 2006 and by 2011, they were over selling Sub $20K pick ups. In all of this we have to remember the real savings for Ford was cancelling whole platforms and replacing them with existing continuing products. The recurring savings for that outweighed a lot of arguments to do more. Edited October 1, 2017 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Panther never had any trouble with safety regs. It wouldn't have taken significantly more effort than D4 did. You're ignoring something D4 has that the Panthers didn't have--the volume of Explorer to justify those costs. Also, from what I was told at the time, it was the cost of updating Panther for the then-impending safety reg changes (I want to say that it was specifically the side-impact changes, but that was too long ago) that doomed it. It probably didn't help that Ford had just literally mortgaged the Blue Oval itself when the decision was made. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 The answer is probably all of the above, Ford clearly was not prepared to leak too many F150 sales to Sport Trac but I wonder how much that cost Ford, the two vehicles were different enough to attract buyers for different reasons. IMO, it was the opposite. What should have been the 4 door Ranger was packaged as an Explorer to keep the SUV sales crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Fleet buyers loved them for the same reason people bought them used - they were cheap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 It was more than that they were cheap. They had a cult like following in fleets because of their legendary durability and reliability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 The problem was that Ford had ranger, explorer, and panther spread across three independent platforms and made at three separate plants. And none of them sold in enough volume to support their platform or plant. The first big mistake was moving the explorer off the ranger platform in 2002. That was a seriously flawed move. The two vehicles were so similar there's no reason they couldn't have stayed on the same frame and suspension. I've always thought it wouldn't have been too difficult to put together a bof panther replacement on the ranger/explorer platform. The three lines together would have supported 2 plants and continued investment in the platform. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 The problem was that Ford had ranger, explorer, and panther spread across three independent platforms and made at three separate plants. And none of them sold in enough volume to support their platform or plant. The first big mistake was moving the explorer off the ranger platform in 2002. That was a seriously flawed move. The two vehicles were so similar there's no reason they couldn't have stayed on the same frame and suspension. I've always thought it wouldn't have been too difficult to put together a bof panther replacement on the ranger/explorer platform. The three lines together would have supported 2 plants and continued investment in the platform. I agree except for the panther replacement. The market had already moved on from BOF cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 I'm saying the market doesn't particularly care of there's a frame underneath it or not. Do a good job on the finished product and it would sell either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 I agree except for the panther replacement. The market had already moved on from BOF cars. But couldn't the PI market have been enough to keep a BOF car around with that kind of shared investment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 Panther never had any trouble with safety regs. It wouldn't have taken significantly more effort than D4 did. I wasn't referring to the then-existing regs, I was referring to the new ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 "Can't meet safety regs" is the sort of tripe corporations offer when trying to defend an unpopular business decision. Getting the panther, D4, or any other model to meet safety regs from one year to the next is just an engineering problem that can be easily solved with a little time and material. I get it that Ford was mortgaged to the hilt, had too many factories, and had to be very selective about which product lines they were going to continue to invest in. But I doubt safely regs were more than a minute factor in the decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 We just sold our last fleet panther..800bux...new owner was happy to get it...our explores have been ok..they do not get quite as stuck in the snow..maintenace is about the same as with the panthers...door skins peeled, awd clutch pack blew out on our 16....water pump failure hits about 50k miles.....compared to our charges the explorers are far less likely to be pulled....the charges are a very comfy ride but they seem to have a much higher failure rate.....best fleet we ever had was the lt1 caprices...i cried the day we had to turn those in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 I'm saying the market doesn't particularly care of there's a frame underneath it or not. Do a good job on the finished product and it would sell either way. Why do you think all mfrs went to unibody cars? Weight, stiffness, handling, nvh - no comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 1, 2017 Share Posted October 1, 2017 But couldn't the PI market have been enough to keep a BOF car around with that kind of shared investment? Maybe, but why take that chance when unibody is so much better for 99.99% of potential buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.