Ford undecided on Ranger replacement?
#76
01-19-2010
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What i think is funny is that ford has a habit of canceling best selling vehicles take the Taurus for example they canceled it replaces it with the for 500 and it does horrible so what do they do rename the 500 the Taurus and then that doesnt work so they redesign.. what they need to do is listen to what the people who drive the trucks everyday and see what they would change
#77
01-20-2010
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knightmare is annoying.
ford axed taurus and introduced the 500, the taurus replacement. it wasn't selling, so they rebadged it as a taurus and put a new grille on it. that still didn't sell much, so hello 2010 taurus. If anything, the fusion is a big sis to the focus(escort replacement) and a little sis to the taurus....aka.....call the fusion a new contour. Ford supposedly is working on an all-new crown vic replacement for fleet sales(aka cops) because Dodge and the new Chevy from the Aussie's are both killing/will kill the Vic in performance and economy.
ford axed taurus and introduced the 500, the taurus replacement. it wasn't selling, so they rebadged it as a taurus and put a new grille on it. that still didn't sell much, so hello 2010 taurus. If anything, the fusion is a big sis to the focus(escort replacement) and a little sis to the taurus....aka.....call the fusion a new contour. Ford supposedly is working on an all-new crown vic replacement for fleet sales(aka cops) because Dodge and the new Chevy from the Aussie's are both killing/will kill the Vic in performance and economy.
#79
01-20-2010
[QUOTE=karbass4life
As for engines and transmissions the new engines from Mazda look promising in the Inline-4 class. They just to be tuned for down low torque. In the V6 class the 3.7L that will be in the 2011 Mustang should find it's way into the Ranger. Once again it will need to be tuned for the torque. As for gearboxes. 6-speed. 5 gears are a thing of the past. Ford wants fuel efficiency heres how: 6-speed stick and auto.
[/QUOTE]
It seems the trend now is high horsepower fuel efficient motors that really do not produce much torque. I think what is needed is an engine designed from the ground up that will produce alot of low end torque. The transmission would have to take advantage of this to get good mpg. I would love to see a six speed DCT in a ranger because it could be automatic or manual utilizing the same transmission design. Of course a tow mode would be needed. Ford should also make the Ranger into a unibody design like the honda ridgeline, I know a lot of you would hate that but it is the only way I see the Ranger getting good enough mpg to be a big seller in the market.
As for engines and transmissions the new engines from Mazda look promising in the Inline-4 class. They just to be tuned for down low torque. In the V6 class the 3.7L that will be in the 2011 Mustang should find it's way into the Ranger. Once again it will need to be tuned for the torque. As for gearboxes. 6-speed. 5 gears are a thing of the past. Ford wants fuel efficiency heres how: 6-speed stick and auto.
[/QUOTE]
It seems the trend now is high horsepower fuel efficient motors that really do not produce much torque. I think what is needed is an engine designed from the ground up that will produce alot of low end torque. The transmission would have to take advantage of this to get good mpg. I would love to see a six speed DCT in a ranger because it could be automatic or manual utilizing the same transmission design. Of course a tow mode would be needed. Ford should also make the Ranger into a unibody design like the honda ridgeline, I know a lot of you would hate that but it is the only way I see the Ranger getting good enough mpg to be a big seller in the market.
#80
01-20-2010
#81
01-20-2010
I was on CarDomain, on their blog page, they had an interview with J Mays who is Global Executive Vice President for Design at Ford. He had this to say about the Ranger at the NAIAS:
Link: http://blog.cardomain.com/2010/01/19...uff-is-coming/
Last year on January 15, 2009 he had this to say at the same place interviewed by the same guys:
Link: http://blog.cardomain.com/2009/01/12...n-with-j-mays/
A TOTAL backtrack! This is bull****! I've seen articles everywhere like the one on pickuptrucks.com or whereever and such, but this is coming right out of the horse's mouth!
Originally Posted by J Mays
Once again, any hope of a new Ranger was dashed: “the market isn’t here for it. Even the smallest trucks, like Tacoma, are getting close to full-size. And smaller SUVs and CUVs are nearly as big as a Ranger. Small trucks have basically been squeezed out of the market.” Mays seemed to chide us for our mini-truck love. “It won’t work. No matter how you slice it.” Can’t blame us for trying!
Last year on January 15, 2009 he had this to say at the same place interviewed by the same guys:
Originally Posted by J Mays
So then to follow up on some of your feedback, I asked him about the Ranger. Mays said that Ford has not abandoned the Ranger, that they are in fact working on a new one, and that Ranger fans “will not be disappointed.” Bronco fans will be disappointed, though, cause according to Mays the Bronco isn’t gonna happen any time soon. Sorry guys
A TOTAL backtrack! This is bull****! I've seen articles everywhere like the one on pickuptrucks.com or whereever and such, but this is coming right out of the horse's mouth!
Last edited by dixie_boysles; 01-20-2010 at 11:17 AM.
#82
01-20-2010
#83
01-20-2010
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Norton, MA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#84
01-20-2010
#85
01-20-2010
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i see a sport trac I think about Vomiting! Sorry, I equate them with pontiac Aztek's. I have no Idea why they are still around. Its always been fords justification for not having the Crew cab ranger hear when Chevy and Dodge did it (Not that I want one with the tiny bed that the mexican ranger has), But I think they would sell more if they looked less gawky and like a normal pickup.
~HJ
~HJ
Technically the Sport Trac is based off of the Explorer hence the name Explorer Sport Trac. But if you read my whole post you would understand why I said what I said.
#87
01-20-2010
#88
01-20-2010
Way overpriced. I can live with a bit of a price increase on a new Ranger, but it's gotta stay reasonable.
From just my own anicdotal evidence, the people that seem to buy Rangers NEW are -
- men in their 50/60s looking for a small truck to get around in. Typically as a 2nd vehicle.
- Young men in their early/mid 20s looking for a small truck for light utility use. Typically its the only vehicle.
- Fleet sales and life as a delivery vehicle.
That is a small market to be chasing. I'd bet the demographics for the Taco aren't too different. Once again, it is a very small segment, but the Ranger and the Taco are really the only two players selling any real numbers anymore. Dakota? Frontier? Colorado? None of them move units worth a damn anymore.
#89
01-22-2010
Yep. Ford has been known to change their minds quite frenquently in fact.
Yes it would be sad to see the old ranger go because they are really good trucks. But financially speaking about your comment "bread &butter" models that's also why all of the big 3 are in financial trouble too. At one point Detroit was thinking of nothing but SUV's that guzzel gasoline like a drunk that guzzels beer. That changed when gasoline was pushing $6.00+ a gallon and the big 3 didn't have a decent fuel economy model from where they were pumping out SUV's like crazy. Then the Hybrid craze which is still going on now as we speak and sport compact models that get excellent fuel economy and are very cheap compared to the full and midsized models. I bet if chrysler kept the neon and GM brought the old Geo metros back they'd probably run right over toyota easily. The Ford aspire would be good on the market too. I think they need to rethink their direction and come out with a model truck that has something similar to those models in terms of fuel economy and yet still have the use of a truck and are affordable. But the people who live beyond their needs and do nothing but waste money are about the only ones that do buy a new vehicle rather than look as the used car/truck market is the ones that requires a "reality check". Basicly what I'm saying is that the big 3 really need to take a long hard closer look at the midsize and sport compact world and go from there IMO.
Exactly on both counts. F150 as a higher profit margin on it. They make more of them. Costs are amortized over a larger amount of units as well. Once again, look at the sales figures. 55K Rangers sold in 2009 versus over 400K F Series trucks! Yes, F Series encompasses the F250, 350 and others but the 150 is by far the largest volume model. So why rebate the hell out of a Ranger to sell it at $16K when you can get 25K out of an F150 even with rebates? Yes it will cost more, but lets say Ford pulls in a 20% profit per unit on average (hypothetical... they sure as hell don't release what they make per unit). Why would they push a Ranger for a $3200 profit when they can get $5000 out of an F150 and most likely, a happier customer.
With the Ecoboost F150 already on the horizon and rumors flying that it might tickly 25mpg... wheres the case for a 4.0L Ranger that can't get that? Or even the 4 banger that really is doing marginally better with half the capability and room? Add higher profits on the full size and it drives home the point for Ford supporting it's bread and butter models.
Your second point about not finding Rangers used very easily supports the first point. I would be willing to be that 75% of the members on this site bought their Rangers used. If people aren't buying the vehicles new. (unless its heavily incentive laden like how i got mine) then why should Ford support it?
I would be sad to see it go, but it doesn't make financial sense to keep it around.
With the Ecoboost F150 already on the horizon and rumors flying that it might tickly 25mpg... wheres the case for a 4.0L Ranger that can't get that? Or even the 4 banger that really is doing marginally better with half the capability and room? Add higher profits on the full size and it drives home the point for Ford supporting it's bread and butter models.
Your second point about not finding Rangers used very easily supports the first point. I would be willing to be that 75% of the members on this site bought their Rangers used. If people aren't buying the vehicles new. (unless its heavily incentive laden like how i got mine) then why should Ford support it?
I would be sad to see it go, but it doesn't make financial sense to keep it around.
#90
01-22-2010
so i did the good ol' 5 page skip...
my honest opinion on the rangers, the biggest flaws i see with my truck are, in order of severity, 1) do not come in a 4 door, my truck is a supercab, but the backseat is pointless... i use it for hauling garbage around, recepits, bags, because no one is ever going to sit back there... 2) no v8 option... dodge has sold their dakotas since the early 90's and probably earlier, with v8's in them... 318 was the common one, now they have the 4.7L v8 in the base model 4x4's... 3) fuel mileage, i think a lot of this is merely ford not trying... if the f-150 can get better mileage than the ranger, out of a v8, they screwed up... see the talk about the dakota's 4.7 earlier in this post... i am up to 450km to this tank on my sxt 4x4 dakota, with 4.7: v8 rental... my 4L ranger gets 475 MAX... the dakota still has 1/8th tank... granted the dakota has a slightly larger tank, the mileage is still better, slightly... and rolling power, the ranger has nothing compaired to the dakota
my honest opinion on the rangers, the biggest flaws i see with my truck are, in order of severity, 1) do not come in a 4 door, my truck is a supercab, but the backseat is pointless... i use it for hauling garbage around, recepits, bags, because no one is ever going to sit back there... 2) no v8 option... dodge has sold their dakotas since the early 90's and probably earlier, with v8's in them... 318 was the common one, now they have the 4.7L v8 in the base model 4x4's... 3) fuel mileage, i think a lot of this is merely ford not trying... if the f-150 can get better mileage than the ranger, out of a v8, they screwed up... see the talk about the dakota's 4.7 earlier in this post... i am up to 450km to this tank on my sxt 4x4 dakota, with 4.7: v8 rental... my 4L ranger gets 475 MAX... the dakota still has 1/8th tank... granted the dakota has a slightly larger tank, the mileage is still better, slightly... and rolling power, the ranger has nothing compaired to the dakota
#91
01-22-2010
Join Date: May 2009
Location: newark,de
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#92
01-22-2010
The Fusion was and the Focus had rather good years in 2009. The Fiesta is coming out this year and the new (incredibly better looking) Focus is coming out at the start of 2011 as well.
The Fiesta is a major success in Europe and it should do well here. It wont be selling 300K units or anything, but no B class car in the States does.
The Focus IMO looks fantastic. It should do better than the current one, which really isn't doing that bad at all despite people on the internet thinking it looks like poo I don't mind it, but it certainly is on an ancient platform.
The Fusion was just refreshed. It has been doing well, even out here in SoCal.
Chrysler should have never given up the compact CAR market. The Caliber is terrible and never should have tried to take over that spot. The Neon sucked too but they could have done something with it seeing as it is an established name that still sold in decent enough numbers to warrant another try.
GM has the Cruze coming out which despite the stupid name looks like a good small car. The new Aveo looks MUCH better than the current turd on the market.
#93
01-22-2010
I still think that a V8 is an compact from the factory is a mistake. You think the Ranger sells bad? Check sales figures for V8 Dakotas and Colorados.
#94
01-22-2010
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Louisa, KY
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully they wont get rid of the Ranger but just amp it up. Inside and out. It seems like the big manufactures keep getting rid of their best selling vehicles. Chevy got rid of cavaliers and s-10s and those things were EVERYWHERE. That would be just about as dumb as Ford doing away with the F-150 or Chevy doing away with the silverado.
I would like the see a retro style F100 though, something like the did with the mustang where its new meets old.
I would like the see a retro style F100 though, something like the did with the mustang where its new meets old.
#95
01-22-2010
#96
01-22-2010
If they aren't bringing in a small (updated) truck, they're losing - Toyota had enough brains to make the Tacoma work very well. I wonder what the Tacoma VS Tundra sales figures are? Have a feeling they're not nearly as lopsided as the Domestic compact VS full size truck market.
Last edited by BlutoBodine; 01-22-2010 at 10:05 AM.
#97
01-22-2010
If they aren't bringing in a small (updated) truck, they're losing - Toyota had enough brains to make the Tacoma work very well. I wonder what the Tacoma VS Tundra sales figures are? Have a feeling they're not nearly as lopsided as the Domestic compact VS full size truck market.
I think the Taco outsells the Tundra.
#98
01-22-2010
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#99
01-23-2010
#100
01-23-2010
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Rocky Mount, NC
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
