blksn8k2 Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I don't really care what you call it, F-100, Ranger, whatever. Just give personal use customers something smaller and more practical than the current F-150. If you are afraid of losing the F-series sales crown then go ahead and call it an F-100. Depriving your customers of a product like this will ultimately lead to loyal customers defecting to other brands that do sell what they want and need. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past when you ignored the small car market for years and allowed your competition to lure away entry level buyers who became very difficult to bring back. That's not to say that an entry level truck is the right product either. Not much profit in that approach and that is not how Ford has attempted to re-enter the small car market. Use a similar approach with a small/midsize truck. Be the class leader and profits will follow. But attempting to kill and then ignore a market segment is a dangerous tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverineone Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 I trully agree. I was looking at the small truck segment before finally opting for an Escape. Its sad that a leader in the segment let the Ranger go really stale before it went the way of the dinosaur. Gas is still really expensive and people NEED small trucks. Tacomas and Frontiers are all over the place because the Ranger went stale. I really hope Ford doesn't miss out on this segment for too long! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weriley Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I totally agree. I have a '08 Sport Trac and hate the idea of being stuck with an Escape or Edge, the F-150 isnt worth considering since it wont fit in my garage and its WHOLE lot more vehicle than I need. Why cant they put an ecoboost engine in a ST and run with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Depriving your customers of a product like this will ultimately lead to loyal customers defecting to other brands that do sell what they want and need. Based on the miniscule size of the compact truck market these days, that just doesn't seem to be happening. Ford has undoubtedly crunched the numbers on it repeatedly and they just don't see the need for it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Based on the miniscule size of the compact truck market these days, that just doesn't seem to be happening. Ford has undoubtedly crunched the numbers on it repeatedly and they just don't see the need for it right now. What people fail to realize or understand is that keeping a platform/vehicle around like the Ranger is not only a cost issue but a resource issue. So let's say that killing Ranger costs Ford 20K customers. If Ford can take the resources (people, capital, factory) saved by killing the Ranger and use it to launch a new vehicle like C-Max that will not only recover the 20K lost customers but add another 20K customers including a lot of conquests from other brands, then that is a huge net win for Ford. And yes - keeping Ranger in production would have killed some other projects - new vehicles, new features, new models, etc. TANSTAAFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomO Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Regardless of marketability and profit, my wife would like a small truck than the F-150. She is petite and finds it a little intimidating to drive the F-150. We had a 1996 Ranger and she loved than vehicle until we traded it in for a 2010 Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1FordFan Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) 6 months ago My father had 230K on his 2000 Ford ranger. He went to the ford dealer and (since he didn't see any rangers) asked if they had any std Cab F150 pickups. Sales man told him they didn't last long as they never got very many on the lot. Of course salesman tried to get him to loot and the trucks in stock. So he ended up buying a low mileage used 2008 Ranger. Ford You are missing out on Sales buy ignoring many of your customers. Edited January 3, 2014 by #1FordFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Ford You are missing out on Sales buy ignoring many of your customers. In 2006 Ford sold 3 million vehicles - and lost $12 billion. It doesn't matter how many you sell if you can't make a profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1FordFan Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) In 2006 Ford sold 3 million vehicles - and lost $12 billion. It doesn't matter how many you sell if you can't make a profit. I believe Ford has fixed the profit per vehicle past problem. I believe in them so much I bought some Ford Stock last year @ $13.08 Edited January 3, 2014 by #1FordFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I believe Ford has fixed the profit per vehicle past problem. And they no longer sell the Ranger either. Coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 And they no longer sell the Ranger either. Coincidence? Exactly. They fixed the problem by not selling vehicles they can't make a decent profit on. Giving up sales that are not profitable is actually a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) I have said for years that Ford CAN make a truck that has smaller visual cues that F-150 AND use F150 components to keep the cost in line....or, they can just make a Sport Trac version of Expedition. Remove the roof aft of the rear seats and viola' ....a truck that has a smaller visual presence than F-150 with all of the profit generating creature comforts of Expedition....call it Sport Trac...or better yet, call it F-100 and since it is derived from the F-Series...include it in F-Series sales totals... Edited January 3, 2014 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I have said for years that Ford CAN make a truck that has smaller visual cues that F-150 AND use F150 components to keep the cost in line....or, they can just make a Sport Trac version of Expedition. Remove the roof aft of the rear seats and viola' ....a truck that has a smaller visual presence than F-150 with all of the profit generating creature comforts of Expedition....call it Sport Trac...or better yet, call it F-100 and since it is derived from the F-Series...include it in F-Series sales totals... Remove the roof behind the rear seats of an Expedition and you have an F150 SuperCrew, not a smaller truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Remove the roof behind the rear seats of an Expedition and you have an F150 SuperCrew, not a smaller truck. Use the doors, front clip and a composite bed and the truck will have a visual appearance of being smaller due to the window glass not being hunched up ala Superduty and with the lower window line, the box can be lower and also give visual cues to a smaller truck...Expedition front end is slanted back also lending to a smaller visual presence than the upright grille on F-150....remember when Ford restyled Mustang and did some styling tweaks to make the car "look" smaller?? Thats what I am talking about.....along with a radical weight reduction program...I believe they could realistically drop 500 lbs off the vehicle without too much trouble with no compromises to its performance and no cannibalization of coveted F-150 sales... Edited January 3, 2014 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) Use the doors, front clip and a composite bed and the truck will have a visual appearance of being smaller due to the window glass not being hunched up ala Superduty and with the lower window line, the box can be lower and also give visual cues to a smaller truck...Expedition front end is slanted back also lending to a smaller visual presence than the upright grille on F-150....remember when Ford restyled Mustang and did some styling tweaks to make the car "look" smaller?? Thats what I am talking about.....along with a radical weight reduction program...I believe they could realistically drop 500 lbs off the vehicle without too much trouble with no compromises to its performance and no cannibalization of coveted F-150 sales... The next F150 is already going to drop 500-750 (reported) pounds by the use of aluminum. Basically, you are just asking for two different top hats on the next gen F150. You know, like GM does with Chevy/GMC versions of their truck, only you're just asking them to make the two difference in visual "size". Edited January 3, 2014 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 The next F150 is already going to drop 500-750 (reported) pounds by the use of aluminum. Basically, you are just asking for two different top hats on the next gen F150. You know, like GM does with Chevy/GMC versions of their truck, only you're just asking them to make the two difference in visual "size". ...and with my idea for a sub F-150 model as previously described, another 200-300 lbs savings (composite box, hood, roof panel) could be realized by the use of lighter duty components and pegging the max tow at 5K lbs and even putting the 2.3L Ecoboost motor in for MPG gains without encroaching on F-150 sales.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 ...and with my idea for a sub F-150 model as previously described, another 200-300 lbs savings (composite box, hood, roof panel) could be realized by the use of lighter duty components and pegging the max tow at 5K lbs and even putting the 2.3L Ecoboost motor in for MPG gains without encroaching on F-150 sales.... There is talk of different frames for non-tow and tow-package F150's. Also, remember the spy shots of the 5-lug-wheeled F150's and the talk of it being the F100? Maybe Ford is doing exactly this. A smaller F150 (F100) for non-towing needs and a "real" F150 for towing/hauling? Eliminates the need to build two different trucks, but can server the same purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 There is talk of different frames for non-tow and tow-package F150's. Also, remember the spy shots of the 5-lug-wheeled F150's and the talk of it being the F100? Maybe Ford is doing exactly this. A smaller F150 (F100) for non-towing needs and a "real" F150 for towing/hauling? Eliminates the need to build two different trucks, but can server the same purpose. Lets hope so.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjinstvital Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The Ford Ranger is alive and selling well in the rest of the world but Ford refuses to sell it in Canada and the USA saying it will cut into F150 sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 That's not it exactly. The market for smallish trucks is pretty small now. Just replacing f150 sales with cheaper ranger sales has no benefit to ford, not to mention the added expense of opening a new factory in NA or doing expensive imports. There just isn't much if any net profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT90SC Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Short box standard cab F-150 has the same wheelbase as an extended cab Ranger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 I am not buying a F150 or any full size. When my 96 Sonoma finally kills over I am just going to get an econobox of some sort to replace it. When I need a truck I guess I will just rent one or something. I wish I could have gotten one of the last 4 cylinder Rangers but the timing was bad for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 There are thousands of 4 cylinder rangers for sale if you want one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 What people fail to realize or understand is that keeping a platform/vehicle around like the Ranger is not only a cost issue but a resource issue. So let's say that killing Ranger costs Ford 20K customers. If Ford can take the resources (people, capital, factory) saved by killing the Ranger and use it to launch a new vehicle like C-Max that will not only recover the 20K lost customers but add another 20K customers including a lot of conquests from other brands, then that is a huge net win for Ford. Half of your statement is inaccurate. The "global Ranger" already had a team in place to design the vehicle. Very little additional effort would be require to make it a IS model (look at the current full size Transit.) Re-tooling the Twin Cities factory, or any other US factory, would have been expensive (as opposed to slipping the C-Max right into the existing tooling at WAP). The current "chicken tax" is preventing the global Ranger from being imported (and getting Ford in hot water with the Federal Government for importing Transit Connect station wagons and then converting them to delivery trucks). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Exactly. They fixed the problem by not selling vehicles they can't make a decent profit on. Giving up sales that are not profitable is actually a good thing. Thank God they have (or will soon) kill the FLEX/MkT ! Monthly sales for MkT have been averaging LESS THAN 500 PER MONTH !! I question whether there will be enough demand for the new Edge, even with EU sales, to keep the Oakville Assembly Plant busy/profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.