Jump to content

Ford to Launch More Sub-Brands?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, akirby said:


 

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.

 

Not any more odd than having 4 different unibody CUVs all of them independent model and not under the same sub-brand. Not every Ford SUV have to be under the Bronco or Explorer sub-brand. And not every pickup has to be a F-series. I think we both agree there is no reason to abandon the Ranger name... the case is pretty clear Ranger is working just fine.

 

And Super Duty was a legacy of when F350 was literally a fortified F-150 before the F-150 and the rest of the F-series diverged on different platforms.

 

And this is admittedly off topic tangent... but I've always thought that GM is wasting an incredible asset by not launching Escalade as a sub-brand for Cadillac. Instead of XT#, the Cadillac SUVs should have all been branded as Cadillac Escalade XXX like Range Rover, or how Ford brands its vans under Transit sub-brand. 

Edited by bzcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

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!

IVE HEARD BUELL IS MAKING A COMEBACK....woooohoooo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I just don't see it as necessary.

I think it would have been a good idea to call it 'F-100 Ranger' in 2019 because of two reasons. First, the F-100 back in the 70s had the 'Ranger' and 'Explorer' trim lines so that name would be familiar for those old enough to remember those trucks or simply those who are aware of this. And secondly, more importantly, this would allow Ford to add this to the total F-Series sales numbers making it higher than it already is. It's too late now to do this now that the Ranger has been back in US for a few years and changing it to 'F-100 Ranger' for the next generation coming soon may be confusing. Unless they do some good marketing for it. So the 'Ranger' name is best left alone now.

 

On 4/13/2021 at 1:57 PM, falconlover 1 said:

Thunderbird is a perfect name for a new electric luxury coupe crossover to replace the Edge. Some styling cues from the iconic car and you have a winner 

I agree with this. I do wonder if Thunderbird could be the next sub-branding, that is if the name won't cause issues like Cherokee has with the Native Americans. The Edge replacement as an electric 4-door crossover would be an obvious main model with styling cues of the old Fordor version of Thunderbird with suicide doors. It could be called Thunderbird Fordor or some kind of second name that would be familiar. Lincoln could have a version of this for next generation of Continental with styling of various older generations of Continental. Then an electric 2-door sporty coupe or even a 4-door sporty coupe-ish sedan-ish vehicle that resembles the styling of 80s/90s super coupe in low volume. Thunderbird Sports Coupe could be name of it. This could provide as basis for later on Mustang as well (S750??), but with Mustang's styling cues and logos, to further amortize development and production costs of these electric platforms.

Edited by pffan1990
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pffan1990 said:

I do wonder if Thunderbird could be the next sub-branding, that is if the name won't cause issues like Cherokee has with the Native Americans. 

Doubt it's an issue. At least the name has not yet been a problem with other "Thunderbird" brands, like the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Arizona.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pffan1990 said:

I think it would have been a good idea to call it 'F-100 Ranger' in 2019 because of two reasons. First, the F-100 back in the 70s had the 'Ranger' and 'Explorer' trim lines so that name would be familiar for those old enough to remember those trucks or simply those who are aware of this. And secondly, more importantly, this would allow Ford to add this to the total F-Series sales numbers making it higher than it already is. It's too late now to do this now that the Ranger has been back in US for a few years and changing it to 'F-100 Ranger' for the next generation coming soon may be confusing. Unless they do some good marketing for it. So the 'Ranger' name is best left alone now.

 

I agree with this. I do wonder if Thunderbird could be the next sub-branding, that is if the name won't cause issues like Cherokee has with the Native Americans. The Edge replacement as an electric 4-door crossover would be an obvious main model with styling cues of the old Fordor version of Thunderbird with suicide doors. It could be called Thunderbird Fordor or some kind of second name that would be familiar. Lincoln could have a version of this for next generation of Continental with styling of various older generations of Continental. Then an electric 2-door sporty coupe or even a 4-door sporty coupe-ish sedan-ish vehicle that resembles the styling of 80s/90s super coupe in low volume. Thunderbird Sports Coupe could be name of it. This could provide as basis for later on Mustang as well (S750??), but with Mustang's styling cues and logos, to further amortize development and production costs of these electric platforms.

 

If they wanted to do that, it would've been the time to do it when they brought it back for 2019.  Not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours 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. 

Don’t mess with the Ranger branding. Ranger is a far better nameplate then F-100 and has been Ford’s smaller truck since 1983. The only reason you change the name of a vehicle is if you are trying to make people forget about a model that had poor reputation before it was redesigned. Lincoln already went down that path and is back to model names. Besides if the Ranger is the F-100 then shouldn’t the Maverick be the F-50? F-Series is full sized trucks and means nothing in the smaller classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 10:55 AM, 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.

Mazda 6 was making 220hp with the 3.0l duratec.  Jaguar s-type was 240.  Contour SVT was 200hp out of 2.5l version.  Yes, Ford had many versions of the duratec making much better power than what was phoned in for the 500.  He may not have had anything to do with it, but I blame Fields...might as well include Bill too. WTF pretty much sums up the 203hp duratec choice as the only available engine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2021 at 11:18 AM, ice-capades said:

I came across this photo yesterday in one of the articles in the automotive press. Ironically, this Mustang "Family" photo isn't available at Ford's Toolbox advertising site. 

2021-Ford-Mustang-Mach-E-and-Mustang-family.jpg

That GT500 looks good.  Mach 1 isn’t bad either...but needs a shaker hood scoop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

If they wanted to do that, it would've been the time to do it when they brought it back for 2019.  Not now.

Agreed however keep in mind that work on the 2019 USA Ranger was already locked in few years prior which was a completely different time then. Different CEO and there were no plans of sub-branding of Mustang and Bronco at the time too, at least not known publically. The Ranger name in itself is good but if Ford wanted to add more sub-branding, as Farley says, and thinking about doing that with Ranger, then re-naming it the F-100 Ranger would have made sense. However, it's too late due to success of 2019-2021 USA Ranger re-introduction as well as the next generation quickly coming. So the Ranger name stays that.

 

47 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said:

Don’t mess with the Ranger branding. Ranger is a far better nameplate then F-100 and has been Ford’s smaller truck since 1983. The only reason you change the name of a vehicle is if you are trying to make people forget about a model that had poor reputation before it was redesigned. Lincoln already went down that path and is back to model names. Besides if the Ranger is the F-100 then shouldn’t the Maverick be the F-50? F-Series is full sized trucks and means nothing in the smaller classes.

Maverick wouldn't need to be F-50 because it's small. Ranger as it is now is quite large and almost the same size as F-150 in 1996 (note I said 'almost', NOT 'same size'). Yes, the F-Series is full-sized but with mid-sized Ranger quite large, it would have made sense for them to call it 'F-100 Ranger' to add it to F-Series umbrella... only if they had plans for sub-branding at the time. But with Ranger having done so well here with a new one coming soon, the name should just stay the same. I agree with you.

We're just talking about what could be added as more sub-branding since Farley clearly has a plan of sorts to do so. Ford did recently file a trademark for Thunderbird but that could be just to preserve the name and logo. That's why I made a post about that name. Could be Falcon or Fairlane. Who knows but clearly Farley has a plan which may either be announced soon or later on when those particular vehicles get close to production... as Maverick pickup is getting close to production without even an announcement/reveal yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

It is? I can't recall the last time I've seen a new one on the road. They don't sell that many of them.

Last I checked it wasn’t available with a 392 or hellcat.  I still see a few around, but it is mostly Chargers with a 392 or hellcat that I see and hear.  Even Durango gets a hellcat now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Don’t mess with the Ranger branding. Ranger is a far better nameplate then F-100 and has been Ford’s smaller truck since 1983. The only reason you change the name of a vehicle is if you are trying to make people forget about a model that had poor reputation before it was redesigned. Lincoln already went down that path and is back to model names. Besides if the Ranger is the F-100 then shouldn’t the Maverick be the F-50? F-Series is full sized trucks and means nothing in the smaller classes.


I never suggested getting rid of the Ranger name.  Just adding F-100.  The tailgate and order guides would still say Ranger just like Superduty.

I also don’t think it’s needed to boost sales or pump up F series numbers.  And I don’t  think it works with the current or previous Gen rangers because of the styling and/or size differences.

 

I just think it would look good to have all 3 BOF trucks with similar styling (assuming new Ranger takes on the F series styling) being advertised together with the same models and trim packages.

 

It’s also perfectly fine to leave it as is.  Not a big deal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:


I never suggested getting rid of the Ranger name.  Just adding F-100.  The tailgate and order guides would still say Ranger just like Superduty.

I also don’t think it’s needed to boost sales or pump up F series numbers.  And I don’t  think it works with the current or previous Gen rangers because of the styling and/or size differences.

 

I just think it would look good to have all 3 BOF trucks with similar styling (assuming new Ranger takes on the F series styling) being advertised together with the same models and trim packages.

 

It’s also perfectly fine to leave it as is.  Not a big deal.

I hear what you're saying, but adding extra branding to an already known vehicle line usually just adds more badging for badging sake and like you said everyone would still just call it a Ranger and not an F-100. Super Duty was introduced on F-250 and above because they are heavy duty trucks and since there is a whole range of models from F-250 to F-550 and above it makes sense to have the F-Series Super Duty badged with both. There is one Ranger. Even when the restyled one comes it'll still have it's own cab and interior. It won't be an F-Series even if it has similar Ford Truck styling cues. 

 

If you have a vehicle that everyone is going to call a Ranger anyhow just leave it a Ranger. Number nomenclatures only matter if they were to build different GVWR Rangers like the F-Series. Rangers have been advertised as a Ford Truck along with the F-Series as long as I can remember. I just saw a Ford truck TV ad a little while back advertising Ranger and F-Series. Besides all of the other mid-sized trucks go by model names so it fits in nicely with the class.

Edited by 2005Explorer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pffan1990 said:

Ranger as it is now is quite large and almost the same size as F-150 in 1996 (note I said 'almost', NOT 'same size'). 

I wish the whole "The new Ranger is about the same size as a 1996 F-150" BS would just stop. Since Ranger is only offered in a SuperCab or Super Crew configuration the best 1996 F-150 to compare it with from that era is the SuperCab 6.5' bed model. The new Ranger has a 126.8" wheelbase, is 210.8" in length and 73" wide. A 1996 F-150 in a similar configuration had a 138.8" wheelbase, 219.1" length and 79" wide. That is a pretty significant difference. You might remember those F-Series as small, but they really weren't small and not "almost" the same size as the new Ranger.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2021 at 5:55 PM, pffan1990 said:

I agree with this. I do wonder if Thunderbird could be the next sub-branding, that is if the name won't cause issues like Cherokee has with the Native Americans. 

Those two terms aren't at all similar; there's no Thunderbird Nation to pursue any course of action around the name, and it's not peculiar to any particular tribe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

Those two terms aren't at all similar; there's no Thunderbird Nation to pursue any course of action around the name, and it's not peculiar to any particular tribe. 

In this day of wokeness and all the complaining Karen's, they'll find a way to make Thunderbird offensive and demand Ford not use it if they plan on resurrecting it. I guarantee it. But we'll see what Farley has planned for though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2021 at 1:49 PM, slemke said:

Mazda 6 was making 220hp with the 3.0l duratec.  Jaguar s-type was 240.  Contour SVT was 200hp out of 2.5l version.  Yes, Ford had many versions of the duratec making much better power than what was phoned in for the 500.  He may not have had anything to do with it, but I blame Fields...might as well include Bill too. WTF pretty much sums up the 203hp duratec choice as the only available engine.

Context, the D3s (Fivehundred) were not developed under the auspices of the Large car division,

it was developed under the truck division with express orders that it not compete directly with 

panther based cars, so it was given an engine and gearbox aimed more at fuel economy even

though  the reality didn’t quite match the vision.....

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, pffan1990 said:

In this day of wokeness and all the complaining Karen's, they'll find a way to make Thunderbird offensive and demand Ford not use it if they plan on resurrecting it. I guarantee it. But we'll see what Farley has planned for though.

I don't know who put the burr under Principal Chief Hoskin's saddle on that, but there's a big difference between a tribe asking Jeep to stop using their name and a bunch of spoiled college brats whining about cultural appropriation. Of course, most of the Indians I know think taking that position against Jeep is weaksauce, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Context, the D3s (Fivehundred) were not developed under the auspices of the Large car division,

it was developed under the truck division with express orders that it not compete directly with 

panther based cars, so it was given an engine and gearbox aimed more at fuel economy even

though  the reality didn’t quite match the vision.....

Thanks.  I was not aware of that.  It only reinforces my opinion of how messed up Ford was at the time.  The panthers weren’t setting the world on fire with their great powertrains either.  I recall the Lincoln’s were also the low man on the totem pole and couldn’t compete directly with the other PAG brands.

 

Which brings us back to the discussion of additional sub brands.  It may work, or we will end up with progressively worse products as management instructs the teams not to compete with each other.

 

 

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...