Offical 2019 Ranger thread

[akirby]

Akirby....Ive been contacted by several clients ( basically commercial ) asking about the Ranger work trucks...the Toyotas, Nissans etc were too light duty...sag central. The market is empty right now...but its till there IMO IF its done right....1 wheelbase, two cab configurations or chassis only, one engine ( 2.5 or small 6 )...and NO options...build it one way and one way only and one color. Want a different color...wrap it. The TC works , to an extent, but cant really tow, payloads "ok" and if anything needs to be carried that's tall youre dead in the water...and some just outright prefer trucks to vans.

You probably have a few clients wanting trucks with manuals but that doesn’t mean there are enough to sustain production at a profit.

 

And I bet most would be happy to take a Ranger XL Supercab.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

And a new chassis because of the different wheelbase. Or a longer bad to keep the same wheelbase.

Longer bed would be the cheaper investment.

[T-dubz]

Wonder why they went with a parking brake in the center console instead of a pedal or better yet, an electric brake? Putting it there causes the whole center console to have a strange design.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Wonder why they went with a parking brake in the center console instead of a pedal or better yet, an electric brake? Putting it there causes the whole center console to have a strange design.

$$$

 

Why reengineer it if they dont have to? Its the same reason why the handle for the parking brake is on the left side of the console for the RHD Mustang.

[T-dubz]

Its been probably 15 years since Ive owned a vehicle with a hand brake, and even then it was only on manuals. I didnt even know ford made vehicles with it anymore besides the mustang.

[tbone]

 

 

No one knows what the next Gen Ranger is going to be...because it won't be out for another 3 years.

 

Why all the disappointment? We are basically getting the refreshed truck with modifications made for the US. I'm sure that ROW and US Ranger in three years will be alot closer to one another then they are now.

Yeah, I dont get all the disappointment either. My only disappointment is the length of time it is taking to get to market considering its an evolution of an existing product.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Im not going to speak for everyone else, my disappointment is relatively minor, and its mostly trivial stuff that will probably be alleviated when the order guide comes out in a few months.

[tbone]

 

It can, but I'd assume that the 2.5L I4 would be more then up to the task as a parts or pesticide truck.

 

The Ecoboost engine (I'm assuming) costs more maintenance wise for fleet use.

Why should it cost more? The only increased cost would be if the turbos fail, And I would like to think they would last for more than 100,000 miles.

[tbone]

This will be my next truck when I retire my '04 Ranger in a couple years. Thank you Ford for not dumbing the Ranger down for Americans and for using a steel bed.

Care to elaborate on the issue of using a steel bed verses an aluminum bed?

[tbone]

Met the lovely Linda for lunch today, she works for phone company....these are all over the place in my area...so, yeah, single cab, long bed fleet sales are still alive and well...and, yes...it is 4X2...

 

Ram must sell these pretty cheap. I see a lot of them used for parts delivery.

[Stray Kat]

My '04 Ranger is very similar to your '90. I got a long bed (118" WB) XL, 2.3L Mazda engine, manual transmission.

 

Ranger XL Supercab with the turbo 2.3L automatic is what I have in mind for my next truck. Hopefully the sticker price will be less than $25k.

Are all these engines (2.5 NA, 2.0EB and 2.3EB) derivatives of the Mazda MZR engines?

[silvrsvt]

Why should it cost more? The only increased cost would be if the turbos fail, And I would like to think they would last for more than 100,000 miles.

 

Generally more complex engines cost more to fix then something more basic. I'd assume that oil changes and that type of thing are similar.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Care to elaborate on the issue of using a steel bed verses an aluminum bed?

he bought the Chevy commercials hook line and sinker?

[Bob Rosadini]

But that’s a full sized truck, not a mid sized truck.

UHH-probably because no one builds one in mid size?? Again-go where the other guy isn't!

[akirby]

UHH-probably because no one builds one in mid size?? Again-go where the other guy isn't!

But that’s the point - if there was a market then why isn’t SOMEBODY filling it?

[MKX1960]

 

To quote a poster on another forum: "As a Ford guy, this looks to me like Ford is trying to enter a segment as cheaply and minimally as possible."

They probably still fear if they make it too nice, it will steal too many sales from the F-150.

[Sevensecondsuv]

 

Some people just don't understand that selling a vehicle doesn't always equal profit and wasting resources on things that don't generate profit is bad business without some other tangible benefit.

 

Don't forget GM was #1 in sales when they went bankrupt.

That argument only works if you can run the plant 24/7 building more profitable models/trims.

 

Nobody said a stripped Ranger was going to be a major profit model. It just needs to break even plus a little extra. Let profits be made on the 4x4 crews and then add the cheap trucks to fill in volume at the plant. I mean they're only working one shift to start. Do you really think it's profitable to run a plant at one third capacity? So long as they're making $1000/truck or so, why not add another shift to build the cheap ones? $1000/truck profit may pale to what they're getting on the high end trims but it beats the heck outta letting the plant sit idle overnight.

 

Again, there's also the benefit of getting new/young buyers started on the Ford Truck brand. Yeah, Ford won't make a killing on that first sale, but chances are he'll be back to buy a gussied up F-150 in a few years. Plus it's a boon for the dealers. $20k pickups are easy to move.

 

You guys act like Ford lost money selling stripped rangers for 27 years. It just wasn't so.

[Pioneer]

I don't know if this CNN Money article has been posted, but I found the video interview with Joe Hinrichs interesting.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/14/autos/ford-ranger-reveal/index.html

[fuzzymoomoo]

The shift to Ranger and Bronco production will keep jobs at the plant, he [Joe] said, and even increase employment there.

Boy thats a gigantic load of shit right there

 

Man, they been full of them lately

Edited January 16, 2018 by fuzzymoomoo

[rperez817]

Care to elaborate on the issue of using a steel bed verses an aluminum bed?

 

Yes sir. Main advantage of aluminum over steel is lower density. That means reduced mass for the same volume of material used. Advantages of steel are strength for given thickness, stiffness, form-ability, and cost. In a pickup truck, that makes aluminum best suited to movable parts like doors and hood. Aluminum is good for engine block and head, fenders, and wheels too. Steel is better for components subjected to repeated loads like the bed and parts of the body structure.

[rperez817]

Are all these engines (2.5 NA, 2.0EB and 2.3EB) derivatives of the Mazda MZR engines?

 

Yes sir. Ford is the only company now using the Mazda L engine design from the MZR family. Mazda itself uses the newer Skyactiv engine family in its cars and crossovers.

 

The 2.3L in akirby's '90 Ranger is based on the Ford Pinto engine. It is completely different from the 2.3L Mazda L engine first introduced in '01 Ranger.

[jpd80]

 

Yes sir. Ford is the only company now using the Mazda L engine design from the MZR family. Mazda itself uses the newer Skyactiv engine family in its cars and crossovers.

 

The 2.3L in akirby's '90 Ranger is based on the Ford Pinto engine. It is completely different from the 2.3L Mazda L engine first introduced in '01 Ranger.

Speaking with somebody at Ford on the original program, the Mazda and Ford engines were

co-developed together with Ford investment money, it is therefore not a mazda engine used by Ford.

 

The Latest 2.3 EB takes Ford further away from the original co-designed engine foundation.

Edited January 16, 2018 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

That argument only works if you can run the plant 24/7 building more profitable models/trims.

 

Nobody said a stripped Ranger was going to be a major profit model. It just needs to break even plus a little extra. Let profits be made on the 4x4 crews and then add the cheap trucks to fill in volume at the plant. I mean they're only working one shift to start. Do you really think it's profitable to run a plant at one third capacity? So long as they're making $1000/truck or so, why not add another shift to build the cheap ones? $1000/truck profit may pale to what they're getting on the high end trims but it beats the heck outta letting the plant sit idle overnight.

 

Again, there's also the benefit of getting new/young buyers started on the Ford Truck brand. Yeah, Ford won't make a killing on that first sale, but chances are he'll be back to buy a gussied up F-150 in a few years. Plus it's a boon for the dealers. $20k pickups are easy to move.

 

You guys act like Ford lost money selling stripped rangers for 27 years. It just wasn't so.

AMEN! POINT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE.

 

Regardless if it's building Rangers or medium duties at OAP. We all know how Ford makes a bundle on loaded 150's. And no argument that a 650 or 750 with internally sourced engines and transmissions is a home run. But when the investment in that plant sits idle for x hours per year, what does that cost? The tax bill is constant, much of the maintenance expense is fixed-you need a new roof regardless of how many hours the place runs, a lot of your admin overhead is fixed. etc etc.

 

And in the case of the Ranger, what is Ford doing by NOT offering a conventional cab? Competing for the same customers as GM, Toyota, Nissan etc. Everyone reads the same book-monkey see-monkey do-.

 

A basic pick up would stand out very quickly as the only game in town IMO.

[silvrsvt]

A basic pick up would stand out very quickly as the only game in town IMO.

 

Why aren't other makers pursing this market then? There has to be a reason they they aren't.

[akirby]

There are fixed costs in a plant and obviously the more you can build the cheaper the fixed cost per unit.

 

However - there are considerable variable costs. Adding a shift of workers. Additional parts, build complexity.

 

Now you’re talking about a cheap truck that would compete solely on price. If you can’t make a decent profit then you’re simply wasting resources. If you overbuild to keep the plant full then you have to throw cash on the hood and there goes your profit.

 

Sometimes it is literally cheaper to not build something. Don’t forget we’ll have Bronco and possibly another vehicle sharing the plant so it’s not going to be just Ranger.

 

I still think we’ll see some fleet options next year including all the job productivity features from F series but that doesn’t mean they’ll do a cheap stripped down Ranger like my 1990.