Jump to content

24' August Sales


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

While that sounds like a great idea, there’s a big problem with what you’re suggesting.

By turning Ranger into a Bronco pickup, Ford would severely undercut Bronco SUV, killing sales.

 

The whole reason that Ranger is different to Bronco is because Ford watched Jeep and learned

from the Gladiator fiasco. Trust me, I would love nothing better than Everest to get a bit more of

the Bronco’s squarer styling but I doubt that would work as well in rest of the world markets either.

 

So that's why the bronco pickup was cancelled? I always assumed it was because Ford was trying to make the ranger, so another midsized truck using the same platform would have lead to a lot of cross model cannibalization. If Ford tried to sell a bronco pickup and ranger raptor at the same time, it would have been redundant, so they killed the idea. But if it was to protect the SUV itself, that's interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not that Ford doesn’t care about the Ranger, it’s just that the Bronco and it’s production takes priority.

 

Little by little each month they are building more Rangers and selling more. The Ranger literally flat lined last year before the switchover to the 2024 redesign. Then the UAW shutdown hurt. It’s taking longer than it should but Ford has a target goal of selling about 85,000 Rangers a year moving forward. With the Maverick selling 125,000-150,000 a year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:

It’s not that Ford doesn’t care about the Ranger, it’s just that the Bronco and it’s production takes priority.

 

Little by little each month they are building more Rangers and selling more. The Ranger literally flat lined last year before the switchover to the 2024 redesign. Then the UAW shutdown hurt. It’s taking longer than it should but Ford has a target goal of selling about 85,000 Rangers a year moving forward. With the Maverick selling 125,000-150,000 a year.

Ranger is higher priority in Rest Of World markets, it an companion Everest are well matched.

 

From what I gather, Bronco pickup was never a thing as there were only three main T6 projects,

Bronco SUV, Ranger and Everest.

 

It looks like the bigger issue was supply of some critical parts that dogged production for

a couple of years but now that supply has improved and the economy getting tougher,

that early eagerness for Bronco is waning, Ranger sales mix has been deliberately 

skewed to higher trims in the first twelve months but again,  probably worst time

to do that. Also, buyer expectations with those higher prices probably exceed what

is being delivered in Ranger, making Colorado and Tacoma look more inviting.

 

Hopefully, Ford can do some healthy upgrades at first refresh to realign the value perception 

the US has been requesting more sumptuous interiors for higher trims and that’s the only way

it can justify those prices.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:

It’s not that Ford doesn’t care about the Ranger, it’s just that the Bronco and it’s production takes priority.

 

Little by little each month they are building more Rangers and selling more. The Ranger literally flat lined last year before the switchover to the 2024 redesign. Then the UAW shutdown hurt. It’s taking longer than it should but Ford has a target goal of selling about 85,000 Rangers a year moving forward. With the Maverick selling 125,000-150,000 a year.

I'm curious, how much higher is the profit margin on the bronco compared to the ranger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Flying68 said:

What are you like 5' tall?  Rear set leg room on a supercab is 33.5, about the same as a Ranger, on a supercrew it is 43.6.  The Explorer is 39.  The rear leg room in a supercab is way to tight for adults, whereas a supercrew gives plenty of leg room for people that use trucks.  If you have 4 people that are 6' tall in the truck you want that space.  37" of rear seat leg room would be a killer on sales.

 

6'/290#  Agree on the SuperCab.

Edited by HotRunrGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:

It’s not that Ford doesn’t care about the Ranger, it’s just that the Bronco and it’s production takes priority.

 

Little by little each month they are building more Rangers and selling more. The Ranger literally flat lined last year before the switchover to the 2024 redesign. Then the UAW shutdown hurt. It’s taking longer than it should but Ford has a target goal of selling about 85,000 Rangers a year moving forward. With the Maverick selling 125,000-150,000 a year.

So that puts MAP at around 200k vehicles a year. Is that low for a factory? Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your head around these numbers when you are used to seeing some of ford’s more popular vehicles selling 250k+ a year in the past. Now 150k seems to be the near the top end of production for anything not named f150. I get that profits are up per vehicle so ford is fine with the lower quantity, just takes some getting used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:

It’s not that Ford doesn’t care about the Ranger, it’s just that the Bronco and it’s production takes priority.

 

Little by little each month they are building more Rangers and selling more. The Ranger literally flat lined last year before the switchover to the 2024 redesign. Then the UAW shutdown hurt. It’s taking longer than it should but Ford has a target goal of selling about 85,000 Rangers a year moving forward. With the Maverick selling 125,000-150,000 a year.

They need to find a better balance of production between the two. I was at the dealer tonight, there was one new ranger and eight new Broncos. It’s kinda hard to buy something that’s not available. Interestingly most, if not all of those broncos were well north of $60,000. I just can’t pay that for what you’re getting. The Ranger, on the other hand, was an XL model with the STX appearance package, and was $39,000. i’m guessing they could sell a few more Rangers if they had some higher trim models, since the Lariats seem to come in around $50,000. The Ranger is definitely in the more affordable category compared to the bronco or the F150 for that matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T-dubz said:

So that puts MAP at around 200k vehicles a year. Is that low for a factory? Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your head around these numbers when you are used to seeing some of ford’s more popular vehicles selling 250k+ a year in the past. Now 150k seems to be the near the top end of production for anything not named f150. I get that profits are up per vehicle so ford is fine with the lower quantity, just takes some getting used to.

Remember that MAP supplies Ranger and Bronco to more markets than just the US market. So that may be 200,000 for the US market, but Canada and US Territories for both, and Europe, Middle East, and some select others for the Bronco. Those sales can add up quickly. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, T-dubz said:

So that puts MAP at around 200k vehicles a year. Is that low for a factory? Sometimes it’s hard to wrap your head around these numbers when you are used to seeing some of ford’s more popular vehicles selling 250k+ a year in the past. Now 150k seems to be the near the top end of production for anything not named f150. I get that profits are up per vehicle so ford is fine with the lower quantity, just takes some getting used to.

 

But also those numbers where artificially inflated by fleet sales at the time, taking a hit in the resale value of the vehicle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, rmc523 said:


I doubt that Ford is thrilled with their current levels but it is what it is 


They’re satisfied with regards to the mix of rangers and broncos being built right now given current pricing and production levels and parts availability.   Point is it’s not a problem with the product.  I’m sure they’re working to ramp up production but they also don’t want to overproduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

 

You basically will not see a traditional SuperCab configuration again for smaller trucks due to new US crash test standards.

 

Even Toyota did not do it for the Tacoma. Their 'Super Cab' is essentially a longer regular cab. 


Can you explain the problem with crash tests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, T-dubz said:

The one thing that sucks about midsize or compact trucks is the rear legroom. What if ford decided to give the ranger a bigger cab and a shorter bed? The bigger cab would set it apart from both the maverick and other midsizers. Four adults could sit comfortably with an extra 6 inches or a foot in the cab. I know a lot of you guys here like long beds, but beds have been getting shorter and shorter for years. The maverick shows us that customers are ok with a 4 ft bed. And they could always offer a 5-5.5ft bed as the longbed option if they wanted.
 

The first thing I always notice when getting into an f150 is all the space it has inside. What if people thought the same way about the ranger?

I'm guessing the engineers had a pretty tight budget on the Ranger refresh and that's why the cab was carried over, however if you start stretching the cab way out without widening it it'll look goofy. If you also widen it a few inches while stretching it what's the point? You basically have built a 98% F-150. The Maverick actually has a little more cab room than the Ranger if you want a bit more.

 

The new Ranger is likely not doing that well because of a few reasons. Supply is probably the biggest one, but when lots are full of F150s discounts are available on them. Throw a more affordable Maverick under it and discounted F150 STXs above it and it has a very narrow market lane. I have a Ranger because it's what I consider to be the perfect size and capability for me, but I'm not your average customer. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said:

I'm guessing the engineers had a pretty tight budget on the Ranger refresh and that's why the cab was carried over,


This isn’t entirely accurate. They basically modified the Ranger cab to fit on the Bronco underbody, which resulted in better legroom for rear seat passengers. 
 

also, not a refresh. Completely different program number. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


This isn’t entirely accurate. They basically modified the Ranger cab to fit on the Bronco underbody, which resulted in better legroom for rear seat passengers. 
 

also, not a refresh. Completely different program number. 

That all might be true, but spec wise it's virtually identical in rear legroom to the last gen. To be fair I haven't sat in one to see for my own eyes, but interior specs are all within an inch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

The new Ranger is likely not doing that well because of a few reasons. Supply is probably the biggest one, but when lots are full of F150s discounts are available on them. Throw a more affordable Maverick under it and discounted F150 STXs above it and it has a very narrow market lane. I have a Ranger because it's what I consider to be the perfect size and capability for me, but I'm not your average customer. 


I think many buyers shop for value, and what you describe above suggests Ranger has limited value to too many buyers which limits market; though not necessarily profitability.  Agree those on tight budgets or just like smaller vehicles could easily find Maverick a better deal, and those looking for truck capability could  easily talk themselves into spending a bit more for a base F-150.  People like you in the middle probably do represent a small percentage of buyers.  I owned an older Ranger and can’t relate to new one at all.  And to be clear, I’m not suggesting there are a lot of buyers like me either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

That all might be true, but spec wise it's virtually identical in rear legroom to the last gen. To be fair I haven't sat in one to see for my own eyes, but interior specs are all within an inch.

 

I dunno people bitch about the bronco sport having less leg room in the back seat vs an Escape, but I'm 6'2 and haven't noticed a difference with my wife's BS

The back seat on the BS sits up a bit higher then the Escape too, so I'm thinking that helps too. 

Easiest way is just to sit in it-the post 2013 Escapes had less room in front passenger area then the pre 2013, though that was addressed with the 2020 update and on the BS by making the dash less massive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

That all might be true, but spec wise it's virtually identical in rear legroom to the last gen. To be fair I haven't sat in one to see for my own eyes, but interior specs are all within an inch.


Yeah I’m aware of what the specs are, but seeing is believing. I’ve sat in both and there is a difference even though the physical dimensions say otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

I'm guessing the engineers had a pretty tight budget on the Ranger refresh and that's why the cab was carried over, however if you start stretching the cab way out without widening it it'll look goofy. If you also widen it a few inches while stretching it what's the point? You basically have built a 98% F-150. The Maverick actually has a little more cab room than the Ranger if you want a bit more.

 

The new Ranger is likely not doing that well because of a few reasons. Supply is probably the biggest one, but when lots are full of F150s discounts are available on them. Throw a more affordable Maverick under it and discounted F150 STXs above it and it has a very narrow market lane. I have a Ranger because it's what I consider to be the perfect size and capability for me, but I'm not your average customer. 

 

 

Ranger cab is not a carryover, the front windshield is wider at the top to give

more shoulder room and canopy effect. It seems minimal changes but they’re 

more under the skin.

 

And you’re correct, let’s say that Ford. Followed Tacoma and made Ranger 76” wide,

would that start to become big enough to start attracting some of the F150 super cab 

buyers? I don’t know but suspect that T6 was given a brief by Ford North America to

develop more room without making it too wide.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2024 at 10:22 PM, jpd80 said:

Ranger cab is not a carryover, the front windshield is wider at the top to give

more shoulder room and canopy effect. It seems minimal changes but they’re 

more under the skin.

 

And you’re correct, let’s say that Ford. Followed Tacoma and made Ranger 76” wide,

would that start to become big enough to start attracting some of the F150 super cab 

buyers? I don’t know but suspect that T6 was given a brief by Ford North America to

develop more room without making it too wide.


I think f150 and ranger customers are completely different. IMO, it would take a whole lot more than a couple of inches here and there to get someone to drop down from a f150 to a ranger. I remember when the ranger came out that there were fears it would take away sales from the f150 too, but that never really happened either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, T-dubz said:


I think f150 and ranger customers are completely different. IMO, it would take a whole lot more than a couple of inches here and there to get someone to drop down from a f150 to a ranger. I remember when the ranger came out that there were fears it would take away sales from the f150 too, but that never really happened either.

 

Agreed. The Ranger and F-150 customers are two different customer bases and appeal to different needs whether it be size, needs, budgets, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ice-capades said:

budgets


If you’re shopping purely on budget, when you can get a lease on a Ranger for the same monthly payment as a better equipped F-150, why would you choose a Ranger? I’m willing to bet most people would choose the F-150. 

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...