Is there a market for a compact pickup?

[T-dubz]

With auto companies cutting back on cars and increasing SUVs and trucks, could we see the compact truck market make a comeback? Automakers have always had models of cars in all sizes, and now that is taking place in SUVs as well. To a lesser extent, its happening in the truck market. A few years ago, there were really only 3 models, Tacoma, frontier, and ridgeline. Now theres those plus the Colorado twins, and in the next few years there will be the ranger, updated frontier, Hyundai Santa Cruz, jeep truck, and vw showed the tanoak concept which I thought looked pretty good.

 

If trucks follow the same trend as SUVs, it seems like compact trucks will be where we are headed next. Previous arguments against a compact truck were they werent profitable. I dont think thats the case anymore, everyone wants supercrews now. An F150 xl supercrew starts with an msrp of around 34k. A crewcab Colorado starts at $27k and can get into the high 40s. Id imagine the ranger will be similar in price. I think a supercrew compact truck that started around 20k for the xl model could still be profitable. Titanium or platinum models could top out around 35k. A compact truck makes more sense then say the eco sport in my opinion. It can hold the same amount of people, but would have a lot more storage room with the truck bed and they could make more money off it.

[MKX1960]

When reading the comments on articles for Ranger, Colorado etc, I see a lot of complaints that these are nearly as big as full size. They say build a small truck like they used to and people will buy them. I see similar arguments for regular cab and manual transmission and we know how well those sell.

[jasonj80]

With auto companies cutting back on cars and increasing SUVs and trucks, could we see the compact truck market make a comeback? Automakers have always had models of cars in all sizes, and now that is taking place in SUVs as well. To a lesser extent, its happening in the truck market. A few years ago, there were really only 3 models, Tacoma, frontier, and ridgeline. Now theres those plus the Colorado twins, and in the next few years there will be the ranger, updated frontier, Hyundai Santa Cruz, jeep truck, and vw showed the tanoak concept which I thought looked pretty good.

 

If trucks follow the same trend as SUVs, it seems like compact trucks will be where we are headed next. Previous arguments against a compact truck were they werent profitable. I dont think thats the case anymore, everyone wants supercrews now. An F150 xl supercrew starts with an msrp of around 34k. A crewcab Colorado starts at $27k and can get into the high 40s. Id imagine the ranger will be similar in price. I think a supercrew compact truck that started around 20k for the xl model could still be profitable. Titanium or platinum models could top out around 35k. A compact truck makes more sense then say the eco sport in my opinion. It can hold the same amount of people, but would have a lot more storage room with the truck bed and they could make more money off it.

Todays compact truck is the size of the mid-90's full size tucks and rival their capability. So there is probably a decent market for them. A 2017 Honda Ridgeline can out tow most mid 90's non HD trucks.

[Assimilator]

Anybody who thinks a "midsize" truck is even remotely close to a full-size truck is just flat-out mistaken. We're talking about differences so big they are measured by the foot instead of inches.

 

The new Ranger is actually much closer to the size of the original than I think people realize (within inches). Really, the only thing that has changed is the longer quad cab option.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Assimilator

[jpd80]

Correct, Ranger and Colorado haven't been compact trucks in nearly two decades,

the closest Ford had to a compact pick up was the defunct Fiesta based Courier

 

[J-150]

Correct, Ranger and Colorado haven't been compact trucks in nearly two decades,

the closest Ford had to a compact pick up was the defunct Fiesta based Courier

 

In North America, our Courier (pre-Ranger) was a rebadged Mazda pickup.

[silvrsvt]

The other issue I can see with a compact pickup is it "footprint" when it comes to CAFE-it might fall into the category that killed off the light duty vans like the E-150 and Savanna vans that replaced by the Transit connect and the like.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Todays compact truck is the size of the mid-90's full size tucks and rival their capability. So there is probably a decent market for them. A 2017 Honda Ridgeline can out tow most mid 90's non HD trucks.

Maybe on paper. But put 7000 lbs behind a 93 F150 on a regular basis and all that's going to happen is it's going to be slow. Put that same load behind a Ridgeline more than once or twice and the suspension and drivetrain will grenade in short order along with wrinkling the "structural" body panels.

 

Actually, I'd put 7000# behind an old Ranger long before I'd try it behind a Ridgeline.

 

My point is there's a big difference between a truck with a big stout steel frame, matching suspension, but makes due with a 145 hp cast iron inline six vs a lightweight fwd unibody minivan chassis with the rear cabin chopped to make a bed even if it has a modern 300 hp aluminum V6.

 

Also, the 90s full size trucks were every bit as physically large as the current trucks. I was actually just measuring this the other day. A '95 F150 is 2" wider than a '17 F150 and exactly the same width as a '16 F250 superduty. So if anything, they narrowed F150 a wee bit when they separated F150 and F250/350 chassis in 1998.

 

As for the powertrains, all '85ish through current F150s use the 31 spline 8.8 rear end (the 9.75 rear end is optional on high gvwr F150s and expeditions for several years now). The current trannies are 6R80 and 10R80, good for 800 ft-lbs. The 90s trucks used the E4OD which was renamed 4R100 in 1999, which is obviously good for 1000 ft-lbs according to Ford. So I'd argue that the only thing the current half tons have over the 90s half tons is a heck of a lot more hp. Even torque isn't that much different between a 5.0 coyote and. 5.8 Windsor. That and the 17"+ wheels on the modern half tons allow for bigger brakes. That just means the 90s trucks needed trailer brakes sooner.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[theoldwizard]

The OLD standard 2 door Ranger was a squeeze on any one over about 6'2".

[akirby]

The OLD standard 2 door Ranger was a squeeze on any one over about 6'2".

And forget about adults using the jump seats on the supercab.

[fuzzymoomoo]

And forget about adults using the jump seats on the supercab.

My sister and I had to ride in those as kids. Looking back, I cant believe my parents ever did that. Death traps those things are.

[silvrsvt]

And forget about adults using the jump seats on the supercab.

 

I do it all the time in my Dad's Ranger-though not for a long drive! :p

[LSchicago]

Correct, Ranger and Colorado haven't been compact trucks in nearly two decades,

the closest Ford had to a compact pick up was the defunct Fiesta based Courier

 

Ranger was a compact truck when it left in 2011, not decades ago.

[bzcat]

If trucks follow the same trend as SUVs, it seems like compact trucks will be where we are headed next. Previous arguments against a compact truck were they werent profitable. I dont think thats the case anymore, everyone wants supercrews now. An F150 xl supercrew starts with an msrp of around 34k. A crewcab Colorado starts at $27k and can get into the high 40s. Id imagine the ranger will be similar in price. I think a supercrew compact truck that started around 20k for the xl model could still be profitable. Titanium or platinum models could top out around 35k. A compact truck makes more sense then say the eco sport in my opinion. It can hold the same amount of people, but would have a lot more storage room with the truck bed and they could make more money off it.

 

So basically, you are asking for a truck the size of Transit Connect or Escape. That's entirely possible to execute but you have to ask why people would buy such a truck... it is for the open cargo area? The problem is you want a "supercrew" 4 doors, which means it will have a tiny bed for cargo. So it is definitely a trade off.

 

And once you start weighting trade offs, most people on the retail buying side will come to the conclusion a small CUV is far more compelling choice than a small truck with tiny bed. You can still carry 4 people and CUV will have more load space due to the enclosed cargo area.

 

If you want functional open bed for carrying dirty stuff, then it's likely you have to give up "supercrew" and backseat. But something like has very limited appeal. You are looking at primarily a fleet vehicle. And fleets have already voted with their wallet for small vans instead of small trucks.

Edited March 29, 2018 by bzcat

[ZanatWork]

My concerns would be centered around platforms, as there would need to be a new one. As mentioned earlier, previous Rangers were pretty tight for taller people (I'm one, and I don't miss old Rangers as a result). Modern packaging and safety requirements would make the existence of any true compact pickup difficult, unless it involved "Ranchero-ing" a Focus or another similar approach. That doesn't bode well for towing/hauling.

I am a huge fan of rwd-based vehicles and I do think there might be enough market to support a true compact truck or two. However, I don't see that Ford could legitimately make a business case for a new Courier or the like.

[T-dubz]

A bed the size of the sport trac would be perfect for me. Im not trying to carry 8ft pieces of plywood around, I just need something to throw the lawnmower in, or some mulch, or anything that I really wouldnt want to put inside a vehicle.

Edited March 29, 2018 by T-dubz

[SoonerLS]

Ranger was a compact truck when it left in 2011, not decades ago.

The last iteration of the (NA) Ranger was more of a mid-sized truck. I read more than one article that commented on how big "compact" trucks like the Ranger had gotten when it was released.

[jpd80]

Correct that third generation US Ranger had grown significantly over the second and was closer to a mid sized truck,

Ford kept the US Ranger that smaller size only because it had a Sport track above it. I get why Ford NA would want

that distinction as it was a major reason why Ford did not go with a new T6 Ranger in 2011.

 

In ROW markets, the Ranger and Courier before it was a share with Mazda BT and BT50, the later versions from the mid 1990s

were much bigger/ wider by about 3" over the US Ranger of the time and went to 72" wide when Ford Asia Pacific developed the T6.

 

Perhaps we're too focused on the gap just below F150 / 1500 trucks to see a place for a Transit Connect based pick up...

there might be an opportunity to add a vehicle like that once all the Utilities are in place, it might make a nice incremental

increase in TC sales.

Edited March 29, 2018 by jpd80

[ice-capades]

A bed the size of the sport trac would be perfect for me. Im not trying to carry 8ft pieces of plywood around, I just need something to throw the lawnmower in, or some mulch, or anything that I really wouldnt want to put inside a vehicle.

 

I think that the new Ranger SuperCrew will appeal to a lot of the Sport Trac enthusiasts.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

I think that the new Ranger SuperCrew will appeal to a lot of the Sport Trac enthusiasts.

I think you are right. A friend of mine used to own a Sport Trac and loved it and was about to buy a new Jeep Wrangler this summer but decided to wait for the Ranger once he saw it because its similar in size to his old Sport Trac.

[J-150]

 

I think that the new Ranger SuperCrew will appeal to a lot of the Sport Trac enthusiasts.

Which I find hilarious. The first gen Sport Trac was, for all intents, a crew can Ranger. Sold as an Explorer so they could tack $5000 more on the MSRP and keep the sales crown at that time.

[jpd80]

Which I find hilarious. The first gen Sport Trac was, for all intents, a crew can Ranger. Sold as an Explorer so they could tack $5000 more on the MSRP and keep the sales crown at that time.

That sounds like Ford..

Interesting that Gen II Sport Track was made significantly bigger - wider and longer with more hip and shoulder room as well as longer wheelbase. Even though Ford called Ranger a compact Pick up, I suspect that by the 2000s, that was a thin attempt to separate

the single cab Ranger from the GEN 1 Sport Trac, the GEN 2 Sport Trac then grows in line with customer expectation of that price.

Edited March 30, 2018 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

US ranger never grew significantly over its 28 year span. From 83-97 the chassis didn't change at all. In 98 they switched the front suspension to IFS from TTB and stretched the reg cab by 2" in length. From the cab back the frame/chassis of a 1983 is pretty much interchangeable with a 2011.

 

They did "fill out" the body panels in 93 and a little more in 98 but the chassis and interior dimensions didn't change other than the 2" stretch on the reg cab mentioned above. For proof, consider that the 93-94 trucks with the then-new "wider" body have the exact same interior as the 89-92 trucks. All they did was make the doors thicker.

 

1st gen explorer (91-94) was 100% ranger parts for chassis and dash forward (although the front fenders had bigger wheel openings). 2nd gen explorer (95-01) were an update on the 1st gen chassis and introduced the IFS that would eventually make it's way into Ranger in 98. When 3rd gen explorer came out in 2002 with a completely different, unrelated chassis designed to accommodate the 4.6L and IRS, Ford continued to build the 2 door Explorer Sport and Sport Trac on the previous 2nd gen platform which still shared a lot of parts and dimensions with the Ranger.

 

It was the platform divorce in 2002 that sealed the fate of both Explorer and Ranger as by 2010 neither was selling enough to justify it's own platform. If they had still shared a common platform and assembly line, things might have been different. Problem was the ranger platform just wasn't big enough to swallow the mod motor which was the only available V8 at that time and Explorer needed a V8. At the same time the IRS explorer platform was too expensive for Ranger.

 

Just another example of Ford catching wild success, getting to the edge of market domination, and then making a series of bad decisions that blows the whole thing up. At least they always bounce back and the next success is never far away.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[MKX1960]

Ranger was a compact truck when it left in 2011, not decades ago.

They also had small trucks like Dodge D50, Mazda B210, Subaru Brat, Datsun 620. Those seem to be what people think we need.

[MKX1960]

I think you are right. A friend of mine used to own a Sport Trac and loved it and was about to buy a new Jeep Wrangler this summer but decided to wait for the Ranger once he saw it because its similar in size to his old Sport Trac.

I was totally set to buy a Sport Trac in 03, but as soon as I shut the door and realized how narrow it felt, I changed my mind and bought an F-150 XLT Supercrew.