Ranger Conspiracy

[BORG]

Is it possible that Ford has purposefully held back the Ranger to prevent it from eating away at F-Series sales? If that's the case, with the truck race getting even tighter and Ford fearful of losing its sales leadership, is there any hope for the Ranger?

 

It occurs to me that the Sport_Trac is sufficiently dissimilar to the F-series that it could never cannibalize its sales, but the Ranger, if it were modernized and upgraded in size and power, would certainly encroach on F-Series territory. So while the compact truck market may be shrinking, the Ranger had been abandoned years before the compact truck segment was plateauing. To me it's inexplicable why Ford, so committed to its truck heritage, would so completely abandon an important truck segment. We are talking about a vehicle with an interior that is 12 years old! If that doesn't scream neglect, I don't know what does!

Edited November 18, 2006 by BORG

[Watchdevil]

Is it possible that Ford has purposefully held back the Ranger to prevent it from eating away at F-Series sales? If that's the case, with the truck race getting even tighter and Ford fearful of losing its sales leadership, is there any hope for the Ranger?

 

It occurs to me that the Sport_Trac is sufficiently dissimilar to the F-series that it could never cannibalize its sales, but the Ranger, if it were modernized and upgraded in size and power, would certainly encroach on F-Series territory. So while the compact truck market may be shrinking, the Ranger had been abandoned years before the compact truck segment was plateauing. To me it's inexplicable why Ford, so committed to its truck heritage, would so completely abandon an important truck segment.

 

Guess we are lucky the Ranger got a new steering wheel so it wouldn't keep using the Mustang's old one... But the dash still screams the design era the old Mustang and the outgoing Taurus had.

 

Ford really thought they could get away with putting a Super Duty grille and hood on it while making the headlamps round in design like the F-150's. It doesn't address the shortcomings or outdated design in other important areas.

 

Well the F-150 is Ford's do no wrong #1 claim to fame and sales. It's the only single model left that sells as well as Thunderbirds did back in the late 70's. So yeah I can belive that Ford would neglect the Ranger for such protectionism. Historically trucks were never big sellers nor did many people really aspire to own them. They were for work and they were not considered expressions of personal self. It's only until the past two decades that trucks have taken over in sales away from passenger cars. One reason why... Everything was downsized into weaker and smaller FWD vehicles and all large RWD cars were axed. Then came the do-it-yourself home improvement movement when stores like Home Depot and Lowes sprouted up. Suddenly people needed vehicles to haul their home imporvement projects in. Sedans and coupes just wont do it. Then there is the macho cowboy image that came along with the rise in poularity of country music which affected pop culture. Just as hip-hop sold Navigator bling, country sold King Ranch twang... In the past glamour was characterized by Farrah Fawcett selling Cougars, Burt Reynolds selling Trans Ams... Going back further Stevie McQueen helped sell the image of newer Mustang Bullitts. Celine Dion tried to sell Chryslers but that didn't work...

 

Anyway I am way off the point now... Toyota and Nissan has never neglected the importance of small trucks whether they are popularor not. I still think the Ranger is important for young people, financially challenged people and generally someone who does not want a gas guzzler to haul something around if they need to. If Ford wanted to they could redesign the Ranger, content it and design a campaign to appeal to youth who would buy it. By Ford's neglect I think the youth market has almost abandoned it as something cool to customize as opposed to a small Civic or other used import.

 

Every vehicle Ford offers deserves individual attention and marketing to find a group of buyers. I don't even remember the last time I saw an ad for a Ford Ranger unless the subject rebates was quickly added to it while featuring other vehicles.

 

A truck used to be one of the least expensive vehicles a person could buy. You look at a Ford F-150 and it is too expensive decently equipped and on the bottom end you would get a plain model with vinyl interior, rubber floor mats, skinny tires with ugly argent steel wheels and no chrome in sight. You look at the sticker and you could have bought a nicely equipped Ranger or perhaps even a Mustang.

 

With a truck that has a price in the sub $20,000 range, it would do wonders to the Ranger if they updated the sheetmetal and styling to look genuinely like a modern Ford truck, put some refinements in the old chassis, restyled the interior and dash to the modern Ford truck style and quality standards, offer a four door without paying so much of a premium. Oh yeah and add a V8 option. We know it will fit because it used to fit in the Explorer with the same chassis. Oh wait that will cannibalize the precious and protected F-150 sales.

 

Oh yeah, and I am unimpressed with GM's competitive offerings. They look and feel like junk to me. I never got that feeling with a Ford Ranger. My step-dad has one (purple of all colors) from the early 90's and it is holding up great.

 

Well, it's amazing that Lincoln didn't grasp the opportunity to bling out a version of the Ranger too... Not that I think thats a good thing...

Edited November 18, 2006 by Watchdevil

[RichardJensen]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

[BORG]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

 

I realize the need for Ford to prioritize its investments and vacate weaker segments in order to control cost, however the extent of the neglect doesn't make sense. I don't understand why Ford is so broke that it's willing to virtually guarantee the collapse of their venerable products. Not even a new dashboard?

Edited November 18, 2006 by BORG

[Blue II]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

 

I think they should have taken the money spent on Excursion and Freestar and spent it on a Ranger update.

I know hind sight is 20/20, but both of those vehicles are gone, and we still have the Ranger. There is also the world market Ranger that still survives. We now have "Bold Moves", but "Bone Headed" moves would be more a fitting slogan for the Ranger debacle. For all it's neglect, it's still a nice little truck that fills a lot of needs. I think if it's price were lowered sales would gain, and it just might go back to the sales leader in compact trucks. Surely the tooling is amortized out by now. Just my rant. I hate what they have done to it.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Blue II

[RichardJensen]

I realize the need for Ford to prioritize its investments and vacate weaker segments in order to control cost, however the extent of the neglect doesn't make sense. I don't understand why Ford is so broke that it's willing to virtually guarantee the collapse of their venerable products. Not even a new dashboard?

Okay. I don't understand what you don't understand.

 

Like, for instance, a new dashboard? Why throw good money after bad? How many new sales are you going to get with a new dashboard.

 

It's like this. You've got this rusty old beater of a car, or a run down house that you want to sell.

 

You could spend like $400 on new tires for the old beater, but how much of that $400 would you get back? All of it? Not hardly. Or your run down house. You could put in all new granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances (BTW why are people going with procelain sinks in kitchens, these days, it's the only thing in the kitchen that is usually stainless steel?), but are you going to get all of that money back? No.

 

So, in response to the why no new dashboard? Because if there's not enough in the budget to do the whole dang thing right, then why bother doing just a few bits here and there.

 

And before you mention the Freestar or the Focus, I'll forestall you by saying that the decision was sound but the execution was terrible.

Edited November 18, 2006 by RichardJensen

[BORG]

Okay. I don't understand what you don't understand.

 

Like, for instance, a new dashboard? Why throw good money after bad? How many new sales are you going to get with a new dashboard.

 

It's like this. You've got this rusty old beater of a car, or a run down house that you want to sell.

 

You could spend like $400 on new tires for the old beater, but how much of that $400 would you get back? All of it? Not hardly. Or your run down house. You could put in all new granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances (BTW why are people going with procelain sinks in kitchens, these days, it's the only thing in the kitchen that is usually stainless steel?), but are you going to get all of that money back? No.

 

So, in response to the why no new dashboard? Because if there's not enough in the budget to do the whole dang thing right, then why bother doing just a few bits here and there.

 

And before you mention the Freestar or the Focus, I'll forestall you by saying that the decision was sound but the execution was terrible.

 

I guess it's just routinely depressing/disappointing when you are constantly confronted with so many unchanged Ford products. I'm not looking for all new, I'm looking for maintained. If you can't get a new kitchen, at least it can be well maintained and painted!

[JW]

It should have been done more than a few years ago. The 2001 model was headlights, grille, and bumper, and that's it. Had a proper redesign (not freshening, as the model was already 18 at that time) been done then, when it was still #1 in compact sales, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Like Richard, I don't think it's a conspiracy, rather just a very bad business decision. Both the Ranger and F-Series were #1 in their category, so I don't see wanting to kill one (at the time) best-seller to bolster another that doesn't need the help.

 

And, stainless steel sinks scratch too easily :D

Edited November 18, 2006 by JWâ„¢

[macattak1]

I guess it's just routinely depressing/disappointing when you are constantly confronted with so many unchanged Ford products. I'm not looking for all new, I'm looking for maintained. If you can't get a new kitchen, at least it can be well maintained and painted!

 

Greetings,

 

And if the dash and radio and such is painfully alike from the mustange, to the escort, to the ranger, to the taurus who can get excited about that?

 

The new stang I really like. But before that there was no difference between and Escort or the Stang. It was rediculas. An updated grill, dash, and seats and a little change in body molding go a long way. They could have done all of that with the Ranger and it would have been very well spent money as it would not have cost that much.

 

Ignoring 1/2 or 1/3 of your models for years is not a money saver. All it does is tell the public that you have no idea and are incapable of updating the: Tarus, Cvic, Ranger, Windstar, Explorer, and Expidition. That is 1/2 thier line right there and that was before the new expy (a slight improvement if you ignore the hp/trq) and maybe even the Stang.

 

Toyota can go plane jane and boring on their camry because they have a great reputation as a solid vehicle. If you don't have that rep then you just start to look stale and no one is interested because they see so many adverts on so many dull or dud vehicles.

 

Man, that Tacoma is hideous this year.

 

Peace and Blessings

[RichardJensen]

If you can't get a new kitchen, at least it can be well maintained and painted!

Furthering the analogy, the Ranger is a pretty robust and high quality unit. Build quality and reliability haven't tanked despite the neglect. There's youre 'well maintained and painted.'

[wildosvt]

And I am sitting here thinking they are doing a good job at trying to keep it fresh with a design thats dated, But still works.

 

[bec5150]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

First, let's get back to reality here. The Ranger is NOT the same vehicle it was back in 1995. Since then..

 

-The cab has been extended (standard cab)

 

-The engine lineup has been changed (save for the 3.0 Vulcan boat anchor). The lineup now uses the 4.0L that's in the Explorer and a truck version of the Duratec 2.3L, getting 29MPG and 143HP, a class leader.

 

-5speed automatic

 

-Replaced Twin I beam with IFS in front.

 

If you look at the hard mechanical bits, there isn't much on the Ranger that has fallen behind the times. The one thing that HAS fallen behind is the look and design. Think of all of the mechanical upgrades the Fusion has over the Taurus, and yet putting them all in the Taurus body, and you get what has happened to the Ranger.

 

I suggest NOT to do a full on redesign, for the very reasons that you point out, Richard. But what I do think needs to be done is new body stampings. Perhaps a new bed design with some bins and such like the newer Toyotas, center stack out of the Explorer, and the like. This wouldn't cost much to do and it would pay dividends in sales.

 

Richard, your argument of "no investment" would make sense except that's not the case. Ford HAS chosen to keep the Ranger modern from the point of the functionality of the vehicle, they just don't wanna upgrade the visual look of the truck substantially.

 

The majority of a new vehicle's sales are people wanting the latest rendition. Unfortunately, my 2002 looks just like the 2007's on the lot. Now if I had an 2002 midsized Ford sedan, I would probably trade it in on a Fusion.

 

Does this make any sense?

Edited November 18, 2006 by bec5150

[Bluecon]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

The millions of dollars they paid Bill Ford would have been a good starting point.

 

Ford has the 500 hundred and the Panther cars. This was a very bad decision.

They do not need two full size car lineups.

What they should have done was use the money spent on the 500 to modernize the Panthers.

The Ford management has not figured out they are competing with themselves with these cars.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Bluecon

[DCK]

By the time the Ranger was due for a major overhaul the compact truck market was in freefall. Cheap gas made people that would've ordinarily bought compact trucks buy fullsize instead, and now people are leaving trucks entirely instead of trading 'down' into a compact or midsize.

 

Ford's decision to leave the Ranger as-is, is less a 'conspiracy' and more a hard-headed business decision. Ford makes more money on the F150, therefore, given the choice of overhauling the Ranger or overhauling the F150 and SuperDuty, what would you suggest?

 

I mean, what Ford project of the last four years would you have cancelled, to redo the Ranger?

 

I'm serious about that too. You tell me what Ford should've put off, to redo the Ranger.

It is funny how Ford is the only Manufacturer to have significant downfall in this market segment and other manufacturers actually gained many sales. The market shrunk but all of it in response to Ford abandoning the ranger. Ford dominated the segment pretty much then abandoned the product. That is the reason why the market shrank because the dominate player literally left.

 

Also, they didn't have to cancel another product in favor of the ranger, they were making billions and billions of dollars in profit when the ranger should have been redesigned years ago. Even then we could have gone without the freestar.

[waymondospiff]

I'm not so sure detail changes like dashboards & stereos are what the Ranger needs. The compact class of trucks has largely moved on. Most "compacts" are now midsize trucks available with four doors and seating for five. 240+hp engines. Taller & wider cabins.

 

The Ranger is still a pleasant little truck, but is there a market?

 

With Ford's strategy of F-150/Sport Trac/Ranger, I'd build the next-gen Ranger on the global Ranger chassis (AKA "Thai" Ranger), keeping it smaller (and cheaper!) than the competition and settling for sales in the 100-150K range. I wouldn't try and shoot for 300K+/year...I think that market is gone.

 

Scott

 

Editted for "What did I just write???"

Edited November 18, 2006 by waymondospiff

[ZanatWork]

I'm gonna join BEC in being a spoilsport.

 

1. Hindsight never actually counts, so any suggestions referencing the past accomplish nothing.

 

2. The Ranger has gotten evolutionary upgrades, if not enough visible ones.

 

3. With the Sport Trac now upgraded, the Ranger's spot in the lineup is essentially fixed...no room to move up or down in the market, and it remains popular with 1st vehicle buyers, people wanting a frugal 4x4, and fleets. Is it as new and fresh as the Tacoma or the Frontier? No...but it's in a different market segment anyway.

 

4. Does this help to protect the F-series? Yes. Approaching 30 years of market leadership, the F-series is worth protecting.

 

I like the Ranger, there are several in my employer's fleet. It's alone in its market, and no amount of sales comparisons to anything really make sense. I don't see the point of offering a Dakota that can cost as much as a well-appointed RAM, ditto the Tacoma/Tundra and the Frontier/Titan.

[Anthony]

Should've canned the GT in favor of a new Ranger. I can't think that it brought in many people to dealerships to "buy down". Too expensive for the average person (wheras a Vette is somewhat attainable). That money would have been invested wisely elsewhere.

[2005Explorer]

Okay. I don't understand what you don't understand.

 

Like, for instance, a new dashboard? Why throw good money after bad? How many new sales are you going to get with a new dashboard.

 

It's like this. You've got this rusty old beater of a car, or a run down house that you want to sell.

 

You could spend like $400 on new tires for the old beater, but how much of that $400 would you get back? All of it? Not hardly. Or your run down house. You could put in all new granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances (BTW why are people going with procelain sinks in kitchens, these days, it's the only thing in the kitchen that is usually stainless steel?), but are you going to get all of that money back? No.

 

So, in response to the why no new dashboard? Because if there's not enough in the budget to do the whole dang thing right, then why bother doing just a few bits here and there.

 

And before you mention the Freestar or the Focus, I'll forestall you by saying that the decision was sound but the execution was terrible.

 

Well I think the people who think the Ranger should have gotten a new dashboard do have a point. My Dad bought a 2005 Ranger SC 4x4 last summer and it is a nice little truck. Plenty of power, decent 5 speed auto tranny. He paid $18,000+ or - for a $24,000 truck thanks to the Family Plan. Sure it has a new steering wheel and more modern gauges, but I could SWEAR the dash is straight out of a late 90's Explorer! The only difference is the color of the trim around the radio and a new groove down the center of the passenger airbag cover. In 2006 when they updated the front end they could have done interior improvements for a small amount of money.

 

With that said it is pretty sad that the Ranger has a more attractive dash then the Chevy Colorado considering the Colorado has a 10 year newer interior design. Of course, I think the real reasons that the Ranger still outsells the much newer Chevy is because 1) The Ranger has a very good reputation as being a tough reliable little truck and 2) Truck customers don't like the idea of a 5 cyl. engine at all. No matter what the specs might say on paper, the 4.0L SOHC V6 feels more powerful and tows better then the 5 cyl. in the Chevy. Something about 5 cyl. just does not do it at all for the US pickup customer.

Edited November 18, 2006 by 2005Explorer

[RichardJensen]

actually gained many sales

Y'mean like GM?

 

Check out mid-late 90s sales figures for the S-10 & Sonoma.

[2005Explorer]

Y'mean like GM?

 

Check out mid-late 90s sales figures for the S-10 & Sonoma.

 

History will show the that S10 was a much more successful product then the Colorado.

 

Again, I would argue the main reasons the Ranger still outsells the GM models is because 1) Reputation and 2) the 5 cyl. engine. You have no idea how many people in the US are turned off by a 5 cyl. engine. I think it would be selling better if it still had the 4.3L V6 in it.

Edited November 18, 2006 by 2005Explorer

[silvrsvt]

I think the lack of willpower on Ford's part is what doomed the Ranger. When my old man was working at EAP, there was rumors of a new Ranger coming out in the late 1990's early 2000 era. The reason I heard it was delayed and delayed again was they where having problems stamping the new sheetmetal for it and then Ford has been more or less in a product downfall since 2001 and only corrected that just recently.

[bec5150]

History will show the that S10 was a much more successful product then the Colorado.

 

Again, I would argue the main reasons the Ranger still outsells the GM models is because 1) Reputation and 2) the 5 cyl. engine. You have no idea how many people in the US are turned off by a 5 cyl. engine. I think it would be selling better if it still had the 4.3L V6 in it.

GM stupid idea #1 was the 5 cyl engine. What I always wondered why they didn't use the six out of the TrailBlazer. Imagine offering a 275HP engine in their compact truck. That would be tops in the class. Instead, they spent additional money making a 5cyl engine. DUH!!

 

I like my Ranger. It's not mainstream stylewise, but mechanically it rocks.

[Bluecon]

History will show the that S10 was a much more successful product then the Colorado.

 

Again, I would argue the main reasons the Ranger still outsells the GM models is because 1) Reputation and 2) the 5 cyl. engine. You have no idea how many people in the US are turned off by a 5 cyl. engine. I think it would be selling better if it still had the 4.3L V6 in it.

Neither the 5 cylinder Colorado engine or the 4.0l V6 are competitive with the competition. Both have a well earned rep as being hard on gas.

[2005Explorer]

Neither the 5 cylinder Colorado engine or the 4.0l V6 are competitive with the competition. Both have a well earned rep as being hard on gas.

 

I don't know. I have a 4.0L SOHC in my Explorer and if conditions are good (meaning I am not going against a 40MPH wind, driving up-hill, or towing) I can get right around 20MPG highway. I don't think there is another midsized BOF (truck based) SUV that does much better then that.

 

I do agree with your point it could be more fuel efficient, but I don't see the 4.0L V6 being any worse then other V6's when used in "truck based" applications. A lot of the poor mileage has more to do with the fact of a heavy frame, poor aerodynamics, 4x4 driveline (if equipped), and final gear ratios, then the fact the 4.0L is a gas hog.

 

However to gain the upper hand in the marketplace you have to do better then your competition if you want to outsell them instead of just matching them, so your point is taken.

 

The only recent experience I have had with a competitors V6 is driving a friends 2006 Grand Cherokee with the 3.7L V6. There is NO WAY I would trade my 4.0L for the Chrysler one. If you thought the 4.0L was a little harsh, you haven't heard anything yet and the torque curve of the 4.0L seems a lot stronger.

 

Japan seems to do much better in V6 truck engines, however I have not spent time in one so I can't really comment. I just go on what I read.

Edited November 18, 2006 by 2005Explorer

[Joe771476]

I don't have Ranger sales handy but let's assume they currently sell 100K units. F-series is around 900K. That's a total of 1 million. Hypothetically, if Ford knew that if they redesigned the Ranger and it would achieve 500K units and only reduce F-series by 200K to 700K they wouldn't do it! Now this would mean a total of 1.2 million combined versus 1 million; that's a combined increase of 200K units! Let's even assume they made the same profit on the Rangers! They still wouldn't do it because now the F-series wouldn't be the top seller! Get it? Ford only cares about being the TOP seller, not the BOTTOM line! That's why they gave up on heavy truck and farm tractors! The Metropolitan Water District and the Conn. Natural Gas companies here in nearby Hartford use to be ALL -- I said ALL -- Ford vehicles, from cars to light trucks to heavy trucks and even some backhoes and payloaders! Now ever since they sold the heavy trucks to DCX, these companies are using Chevy and Dodge cars and light trucks and other brands as well as International, Freightliner and Sterling (formerly Ford) mediums and of course heavies. When these companies were forced to go elsewhere for heavies, they were now out of the Ford rut so to speak. Do you know how many units of sales Ford has lost because of that dumb move? Hundreds of thousands since 1996! I'm telling you, Ford execs are stupid!