Jump to content

Ford to Launch More Sub-Brands?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, sullynd said:

 

I love the Thunderbird name, but it’s roots are Native American. I wonder if it would give Ford pause in resurrecting it (see Cherokee). 
 

There’s also Falcon and Galaxie. 
 

Mustang

Mustang - Mach-E

Mustang - Falcon 

 

Would be a cool sub brand

 

Raptor

Ranger Raptor

Bronco Raptor 

 

Is a missed opportunity for one IMHO. 

 

Oh no... please leave Falcon and Galaxie out of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andrew L said:

 

I will NEVER understand that move by Ford at the time.  I remember I used to get MotorTrend all the time and they had an article comparing large sedans and they said the FiveHundred would have won if it wasn't for the anemic engine.  I know the 3.5 wasn't ready but come on they were able to get more power out of the 3.0 with the LS at 232.  Granted it was RWD but still.  A couple years later the Fusion debuted with 221.  Anything would have been better than 200.  I think the most they ever got out of the 3.0 was 240.

Heard the 3.5 was nixed due to torque handling limitations of the CVT. A mystery as to how management thought the Five Hundred powertrain was competitive. Notice how that  CVT was confined to the dustbin of Ford history. (CVT for hybrid is completely different)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ice-capades said:

Maybe it's just me but this thread is getting old real fast now. Let's just take all the remaining, current models... add new versions and create all-new sub-Brands, require separate showrooms and rewrite the franchise agreements!

Go down that primrose path and we end up with a "Lincoln - Mercury" situation. And then starve the dealers of product..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, paintguy said:

Much of the trouble with Freestyle was due to the mediocre engine (200hp Duratec) and transmission (CVT). Both of these were changed in Taurus X, but you are correct, as the damage to the reputation was done. Visually not much differentiation. I recall also the 2008 Taurus auto show car, could see the buffer marks where they removed the "Five Hundred" badging.

 

21 hours ago, Andrew L said:

 

I will NEVER understand that move by Ford at the time.  I remember I used to get MotorTrend all the time and they had an article comparing large sedans and they said the FiveHundred would have won if it wasn't for the anemic engine.  I know the 3.5 wasn't ready but come on they were able to get more power out of the 3.0 with the LS at 232.  Granted it was RWD but still.  A couple years later the Fusion debuted with 221.  Anything would have been better than 200.  I think the most they ever got out of the 3.0 was 240.

 

it was also the era when gas went from under $2 gallon then to $4 gallon+ in a short period of time. Gas prices didn't drop til after 2014 or so (I remember paying over $4+ gallon for super at one point)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

it was also the era when gas went from under $2 gallon then to $4 gallon+ in a short period of time. Gas prices didn't drop til after 2014 or so (I remember paying over $4+ gallon for super at one point)

The other story is the same year Ford made the "Five Hundred", Chrysler introduced the "300". Comparisons in buyers mind were inevitable. Practicality and Fuel Economy, the Five Hundred had the advantage. Excitement belonged to the 300. 300 still on sale, Five Hundred barely a memory on Blue Oval News. Price of gas, same for both. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about Ranger the more sense it makes for it to be a F-100 Ranger and be part of the F series sub brand.  It can still be called Ranger everywhere else.   The precedent for this is F-250 and F-350 Super Duty.  I suppose you could throw Maverick in there too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

The more I think about Ranger the more sense it makes for it to be a F-100 Ranger and be part of the F series sub brand.  It can still be called Ranger everywhere else.   The precedent for this is F-250 and F-350 Super Duty.  I suppose you could throw Maverick in there too.

 

I think that the Ranger is too established on it's own over so many years to now try to include it under the F-Series banner. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

Your probably right, but Ranger was a F-150 model back in the 70's.

 

Yes, but that was over 40 years ago and the Ranger has its own customer demographic that is totally different from today's F-150 buyer. Just because the Ranger was an F-150 trim so many years ago doesn't mean that Ranger should be included as a sub-brand of the F-Series today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

I think that the Ranger is too established on it's own over so many years to now try to include it under the F-Series banner. 

 

I agree. Ranger doesn't need the F-series name to generate buyer interest or market penetration. Remember, the point of sub-brand is to leverage a stronger name to sell a new product.

 

Ranger is a known commodity and is the #2 seller in its segment. It doesn't need help like say... Escape which is treading water against RAV4, CR-V, and other much stronger competitor. Replacing Escape with Explorer Scout (I just made that up) makes more sense than replacing Ranger with F-100. But neither is a good use of the sub-brand strategy.

 

The proper way to launch a new F-series or Explorer sub-brand model is with a new segment entry. F-100 may make sense as a new lower range and lower GVWR version of F-150 EV. And if Ford wants to hedge its bet by keeping ICE Escape in production after the next gen EV one debuts, maybe they should launch the EV one as Explorer Scout and keep the Escape going separately.

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

38 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

Yes, but that was over 40 years ago and the Ranger has its own customer demographic that is totally different from today's F-150 buyer. Just because the Ranger was an F-150 trim so many years ago doesn't mean that Ranger should be included as a sub-brand of the F-Series today.  

 

I'm not saying they should.  I'm just pointing out a bit of history many folks don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bzcat said:

 

I agree. Ranger doesn't need the F-series name to generate buyer interest or market penetration. Remember, the point of sub-brand is to leverage a stronger name to sell a new product.

 

Ranger is a known commodity and is the #2 seller in its segment. It doesn't need help like say... Escape which is treading water against RAV4, CR-V, and other much stronger competitor. Replacing Escape with Explorer Scout (I just made that up) makes more sense than replacing Ranger with F-100. But neither is a good use of the sub-brand strategy.

 

The proper way to launch a new F-series or Explorer sub-brand model is with a new segment entry. F-100 may make sense as a new lower range and lower GVWR version of F-150 EV. And if Ford wants to hedge its bet by keeping ICE Escape in production after the next gen EV one debuts, maybe they should launch the EV one as Explorer Scout and keep the Escape going separately.


 

It’s definitely not necessary - Ranger can stand on its own.  But consider the following from an overall product portfolio view:

 

I expect the new Ranger to have F series styling, features and performance as well as models like tremor and raptor.  That was not the case with the original or current Ranger.

 

It seems odd to have 2 BOF pickups under the F series sub brand but not the other one especially if it has F series styling.

 

The precedent was already set with Super Duty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Ranger and Buell owner, both products suffered from being sold by dealers more interested in pushing bloated full size pickups and cruisers instead of the world's best medium sized pickup and a great sport bike. Ranger buyers are not downmarket F150 buyers and Buell riders will not "grow up" and buy a Road Pig... Killing off Buell hasn't helped HOG(NYSE) sales any, and killing off the Ranger will not sell me an F150!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Ranger buyers are not downmarket F150 buyers and Buell riders will not "grow up" and buy a Road Pig... Killing off Buell hasn't helped HOG(NYSE) sales any, and killing off the Ranger will not sell me an F150!

 

Thank you GearheadGrrrl ma'am. Hopefully, the executives at Harley-Davidson that killed Buell, and the executives at Ford who failed to bring the T6 Ranger to the U.S. market immediately after end of production for 3rd gen Ranger, are long gone.

 

Good news is that both Buell and U.S. market Ford Ranger are back, though the new Buell Motorcycles U.S.A. company is not affiliated with Harley-Davidson.

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...