Jump to content

Bronco Pickup Sketch?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Broncofan7 said:

Glad to see a Bronco pickup idea make it this far in consideration.

 

 

I don't know about that honestly. I doubt a bigger Bronco could fit at the Ranger-Bronco facility. Could it potentially work at an F-150 plant? I don't know. Or, could it be that they move the Super Duty elsewhere and make solely big Broncos, Expeditions, and Navigators there? I don't know, but I think I remember seeing the basics of the last idea on here somewhere.

 

Long way of saying I do not know. Sorry!

 

 

I like that name a lot! I think it would be a good fit for a potential bigger Bronco.

 

The only counter to it is I feel that Ford would like to keep the Excursion name separate on the off chance the Excursion returns. Perhaps an Excursion would be (relatively) easy to make with many common parts for Ford.

 

That's exactly what I said lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it amazing that 10 years ago Ford saw no viable reason to continue the Ranger or anything smaller than the F150 saying that those people that desired a smaller truck would just buy a Fiesta/Focus instead (which still makes me laugh to this day).  
 

Now, not only do we have a new (well it’s not really new at all) Ranger but we also have a smaller than the Ranger truck coming (I don’t get that) and a Bronco pickup (really don’t get that one).  
 

It seems Ford went from a one size fits all approach to vehicles to making a vehicle for seemingly every niche group out there.  I guess time will tell which strategy is correct.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, FR739 said:

I find it amazing that 10 years ago Ford saw no viable reason to continue the Ranger or anything smaller than the F150 saying that those people that desired a smaller truck would just buy a Fiesta/Focus instead (which still makes me laugh to this day).  
 

Now, not only do we have a new (well it’s not really new at all) Ranger but we also have a smaller than the Ranger truck coming (I don’t get that) and a Bronco pickup (really don’t get that one).  
 

It seems Ford went from a one size fits all approach to vehicles to making a vehicle for seemingly every niche group out there.  I guess time will tell which strategy is correct.  

A lot has changed in 10 years.  10 years ago we were in/early recovery from a significant recession that devastated the auto industry.  Gas prices had been over $4 per gallon and the government issued a cash for clunkers program to put more efficient vehicles on the market.  People loved their suburbans and trucks, but traded them in for next to nothing to get a small gas sipping vehicle.  The Obama administration was entertaining ideas of drastically increasing fuel economy standards for all vehicles.  What resulted had enough compromises to allow manufacturers to still build profitable trucks and suvs.  When gas prices fell back to the $2.50/gallon range combined with the more efficient government mandated cafe, consumers renewed their love affair with trucks and suvs.  This wasn’t something generally seen as happening.  So Ford concentrated on trying to make a profitable Focus and derivative from it.  Now they are making derivatives of a few truck platforms.  Not all that much different other than which platform is used (c1/c2 vs T6/fxx).

 

I fully expect the strategy to change again as market conditions change.  If it doesn’t, any manufacturer that doesn’t change with it will be left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, FR739 said:

 

I find it amazing that 10 years ago Ford saw no viable reason to continue the Ranger or anything smaller than the F150 saying that those people that desired a smaller truck would just buy a Fiesta/Focus instead (which still makes me laugh to this day).  
 

Now, not only do we have a new (well it’s not really new at all) Ranger but we also have a smaller than the Ranger truck coming (I don’t get that) and a Bronco pickup (really don’t get that one).

 


Theres a few reasons for this: 

 

1. At the time the old Ranger was seriously overdue for a redesign, to the point where it was no longer going to meet new crash standards without a complete redesign, and a total retool of a plant. Twin Cities, the last plant to make the old Ranger, was so old and out of date it was cheaper for them to close it and tear it down rather than retool it

 

which leads into my next point

 

2. While they had T6 Ranger ready to go for the rest of the world, it was too expensive for them to federalize it for North America at a time when the company was hemorrhaging cash and on the brink of Bankruptcy. A decision needed to be made and since F-series was far more profitable it was full steam ahead on that program. Not a popular move for Ranger buyers but it needed to be made to literally help save the company. 
 

3. After Twin Cities was closed, where was it going to be built? Ford already downsized their manufacturing capacity to well below where it was in 2009 when T6 would have been up for final approval and every plant was spoken for. There was nowhere to build it at the time. Hell, one of the biggest reasons we have it now is to justify building Bronco. 

4. T6 Ranger landed at a time when fuel prices were rising rapidly and the pressure was on to deliver more fuel efficient vehicles. T6 was not that at the time, not when it was never designed for a V6 and the 4 cylinder EcoBoost engines weren't developed enough for truck duty yet. You can than Focus RS for laying the foundation for the Ranger engine. 

 

 

While it was actually true they feared T6 Ranger would cannibalize the more profitable (at the time) F-series, the reason they leaned so heavily on that corporate line is because it was the easiest reason to sell to the general public (and investors) without getting too deep into the weeds about financials and plant capacity. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


Theres a few reasons for this: 

 

1. At the time the old Ranger was seriously overdue for a redesign, to the point where it was no longer going to meet new crash standards without a complete redesign, and a total retool of a plant. Twin Cities, the last plant to make the old Ranger, was so old and out of date it was cheaper for them to close it and tear it down rather than retool it

 

which leads into my next point

 

2. While they had T6 Ranger ready to go for the rest of the world, it was too expensive for them to federalize it for North America at a time when the company was hemorrhaging cash and on the brink of Bankruptcy. A decision needed to be made and since F-series was far more profitable it was full steam ahead on that program. Not a popular move for Ranger buyers but it needed to be made to literally help save the company. 
 

3. After Twin Cities was closed, where was it going to be built? Ford already downsized their manufacturing capacity to well below where it was in 2009 when T6 would have been up for final approval and every plant was spoken for. There was nowhere to build it at the time. Hell, one of the biggest reasons we have it now is to justify building Bronco. 

4. T6 Ranger landed at a time when fuel prices were rising rapidly and the pressure was on to deliver more fuel efficient vehicles. T6 was not that at the time, not when it was never designed for a V6 and the 4 cylinder EcoBoost engines weren't developed enough for truck duty yet. You can than Focus RS for laying the foundation for the Ranger engine. 

 

 

While it was actually true they feared T6 Ranger would cannibalize the more profitable (at the time) F-series, the reason they leaned so heavily on that corporate line is because it was the easiest reason to sell to the general public (and investors) without getting too deep into the weeds about financials and plant capacity. 

Well said.

 

Another  justification used for closing the twin cities assembly plant (and Atlanta) was the supplier network and shipping parts that far from the main operations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, slemke said:

Well said.

 

Another  justification used for closing the twin cities assembly plant (and Atlanta) was the supplier network and shipping parts that far from the main operations.  


Less so for Twin Cities but yeah that definitely had to have been a factor. 
 

There's a video on YouTube of the last 2011 Ranger being built and you can see just how old and run down the equipment there was. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...