Ranger, and Bronco, going to MAP?

[mackinaw]

Hot off the press:

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2015/08/25/ford-ranger/32373741/

Edited August 26, 2015 by mackinaw

[Harley Lover]

Same news from different sources:

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2015/08/25/ford-ranger/32373741/

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150826/OEM04/150829926/ford-uaw-in-talks-to-revive-ranger-sales-output-in-u-s

 

What else would they put into MAP, since the Ranger can't be expected to sell enough to fill the plant?

[J-150]

Same news from different sources:

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2015/08/25/ford-ranger/32373741/

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150826/OEM04/150829926/ford-uaw-in-talks-to-revive-ranger-sales-output-in-u-s

 

What else would they put into MAP, since the Ranger can't be expected to sell enough to fill the plant?

C-CUV and/or C-SUV and/or Ranger based SUV (4 dr Everest and 2 dr Bronco) Edited August 26, 2015 by J-150

[J-150]

But this begs the question, why is Ford revealing the potential re-introduction of the Ranger via production plans as opposed to launching it via marketing first?

 

Given how quiet Ford has been with new vehicle launches I'm a little surprised.

[jasonj80]

UAW talks, it got "leaked" to show the membership the UAW is working to save their jobs. We got new product, etc.

[Pioneer]

UAW talks, it got "leaked" to show the membership the UAW is working to save their jobs. We got new product, etc.

How did the UAW leak it when Automotive News have quotes from people in Ford marketing?

[Harley Lover]

How did the UAW leak it when Automotive News have quotes from people in Ford marketing?

 

The quote from Ford marketing is from last year, and has nothing to do with the current UAW negotiations. I would guess this is a UAW leak, it would be out of character for Ford in recent times.

[Biker16]

It may not be the Ranger, It could be a Unibody pickup either Transit connect based or Replacement for the Ford courier.

 

Same news from different sources:

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2015/08/25/ford-ranger/32373741/

 

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150826/OEM04/150829926/ford-uaw-in-talks-to-revive-ranger-sales-output-in-u-s

 

What else would they put into MAP, since the Ranger can't be expected to sell enough to fill the plant?

 

If the focus can't fill that plant on three shifts with 280,000 units per year how can the ranger do the same.

 

Ford cannot go down that one way street again, where they don't have a fall back position when the truck bubble explodes again.

 

let me be more clear, i think it would be foolish to retool MAP for only BOF production, maybe if they are ble to mix in uni-body production too, but how likely is that with the existing plant configuration.

[bdegrand]

It may not be the Ranger, It could be a Unibody pickup either Transit connect based or Replacement for the Ford courier.

 

 

 

If the focus can't fill that plant on three shifts with 280,000 units per year how can the ranger do the same.

 

Ford cannot go down that one way street again, where they don't have a fall back position when the truck bubble explodes again.

 

let me be more clear, i think it would be foolish to retool MAP for only BOF production, maybe if they are ble to mix in uni-body production too, but how likely is that with the existing plant configuration.

Maybe go aluminum, if they build the Ranger , to compete against the steel body Colorado?

[akirby]

I seriously doubt it will be the current Ranger. Biker16 is right:

 

 

Ford’s truck group marketing manager, Doug Scott, told USA Today last year that Ford was considering bringing a smaller pickup back to the U.S. but that its price and size would need to be different enough from the F-150 to make it worthwhile.

 

"We're looking at it,” Scott told the paper. “We think we could sell a compact truck that's more like the size of the old Ranger, that gets six or eight more miles per gallon [than a full-size truck], is $5,000 or $6,000 less, and that we could build in the U.S. to avoid the tariff on imported trucks.”

[Bob Rosadini]

Scott the marketing guy was pretty clear-no way are they going to trade 150 sales for T-6 Ranger sales IMO. I love the T-6 and all its options but again 150 is a sacred cow. Unless of course the GM twins really do take off and THEY (GM) end up with 150 converts. That for sure would get Ford to thinking.

 

Now if the T-6 AND the Everest could be built in the same plant-different story. When the wife's 2010 Explorer gets long in the tooth, the Everest would be the vehicle of choice if available. Everest? a beautiful vehicle-build it here and offer the American consumer a real choice instead of the same unibody offshoots!

 

At this point, sounds to me like "negotiations 101"- both the UAW and Ford are trolling...."play nice boys and we might get this" -another 650/750 deal. Makes sense for both sides IMO to be doing this. Donald Trump can make all the noise he wants about Mexican plants but until both sides work together to address the huge cost disparities, the hand writing is o the wall.

 

In any case, can't wait to see that first 750 with the "built in USA" tag on it.

[PRM]

Not the way Ford would have planned to announce their re-entry into a market.

However, I will be following this closely and look forward to seeing what they have to offer. Not overly thrilled with the look of the world Ranger, I think they can do better for the US.

[silvrsvt]

Now if the T-6 AND the Everest could be built in the same plant-different story. When the wife's 2010 Explorer gets long in the tooth, the Everest would be the vehicle of choice if available. Everest? a beautiful vehicle-build it here and offer the American consumer a real choice instead of the same unibody offshoots!

 

There is zero demand in the Mid to large CUV market for a BOF truck...the Xterra dies off next year and nearly everyone else is Unibody

 

What I see happening is we are going to get a smaller truck then the ROW Ranger (itself 7/8 size of a F-150) with a Bronco built on the same platform. That would be enough to keep the plant busy and bring in a nice profit for Ford.

 

The Colorado and Cayon are huge trucks...they are bigger then a old Ranger Super Cab, which is a decent size itself. There isn't enough separation between them and the Silvarado in price or size. I see the new US Ranger being I4 exclusively and maybe a 2.7L V6 in a performance/topline model.

[rmc523]

 

There is zero demand in the Mid to large CUV market for a BOF truck...the Xterra dies off next year and nearly everyone else is Unibody

 

What I see happening is we are going to get a smaller truck then the ROW Ranger (itself 7/8 size of a F-150) with a Bronco built on the same platform. That would be enough to keep the plant busy and bring in a nice profit for Ford.

 

The Colorado and Cayon are huge trucks...they are bigger then a old Ranger Super Cab, which is a decent size itself. There isn't enough separation between them and the Silvarado in price or size. I see the new US Ranger being I4 exclusively and maybe a 2.7L V6 in a performance/topline model.

 

Yeah, that approach would make more sense to me as well. The question is what platform will it be based on? Will it be a Transit Connect-based model like we've discussed, and therefore a variation of the current C2 platform....I mean in theory wouldn't that eliminate the need for a complete plant changeover too, given the plant already makes C2 vehicles? Also, they'll be able to charge more for a "Ranger" and Bronco than the current array of vehicles being made there (going with the promise of higher profit vehicle going there).

 

If it is indeed something other than the ROW Ranger, I do not see them using the Ranger designation here. They don't need to go back to same-names-different-vehicles around the world again.

---

 

I've posted it before, but here's the size comparison in real life of the Ranger (well, it's the Mazda B-whatever numbers they used) and Colorado.

 

EDIT: guess it'd help if I posted the picture haha:

 

Edited August 26, 2015 by rmc523

[theoldwizard]

There is a down side to this.

 

Ford has always said that the Ranger (F100 ?) would be too closely priced to the F150. (At the moment I'll bet that Ford is losing money on "stripped" F150s.) With the Ranger taking on the bottom end, Ford can raise the base price of the F150. Got to pay for that aluminum !! (And you can bet the Ranger will NOT get an all aluminum body.)

[fordmantpw]

There is a down side to this.

 

Ford has always said that the Ranger (F100 ?) would be too closely priced to the F150. (At the moment I'll bet that Ford is losing money on "stripped" F150s.) With the Ranger taking on the bottom end, Ford can raise the base price of the F150. Got to pay for that aluminum !!

 

I don't think this is going to be the ROW Ranger. I think this will be Transit Connect based and much smaller. That said, it may take a few of the stripper F150 sales, but that's OK. Like you mentioned, Ford doesn't make much on them, and if they can reduce sales of the low- or no- profit vehicles in the lineup, then all the better. I don't see the downside you are talking about

 

 

Got to pay for that aluminum !! (And you can bet the Ranger will NOT get an all aluminum body.)

 

Curious as to why you feel that way. The next Focus is reportedly getting Al, so why not the Ranger?

[wildosvt]

If it were labeled the F-100 would it not line up with the F-Series sales numbers?

[mackinaw]

Automotive News just update their original article to include this on the Bronco:

 

"Ford also is considering production of the Bronco SUV at the plant, Bloomberg reported. Ford filed a trademark application for the Bronco name in February, according to a government filing.

 

Ford showed a Bronco concept at the 2004 Detroit auto show, which has fueled rumors since then that the vehicle would eventually return to the U.S. It was discontinued in 1996, two years after O.J. Simpson famously led police on a low-speed chase through Los Angeles in a white Bronco.

The Bronco likely would be a version of the Ford Everest, an Australian-designed, body-on-frame SUV that’s made in Thailand. The Everest, which is built on the same platform as the Ranger, was redesigned this year.

Car and Driver called it “the perfect vehicle for folks who value rough country prowess over cute-ute deception,” complaining that North American buyers can’t get it.

A rugged midsize SUV would allow Ford to more directly challenge Jeep, whose sales have been soaring. Ford converted the Explorer to a unibody architecture in 2010, a move that has quadrupled sales of that vehicle since, but hindered its ability to attract buyers who actually want to drive off-road."

[Kev-Mo]

 

There is zero demand in the Mid to large CUV market for a BOF truck...the Xterra dies off next year and nearly everyone else is Unibody

 

What I see happening is we are going to get a smaller truck then the ROW Ranger (itself 7/8 size of a F-150) with a Bronco built on the same platform. That would be enough to keep the plant busy and bring in a nice profit for Ford.

 

The Colorado and Cayon are huge trucks...they are bigger then a old Ranger Super Cab, which is a decent size itself. There isn't enough separation between them and the Silvarado in price or size. I see the new US Ranger being I4 exclusively and maybe a 2.7L V6 in a performance/topline model.

 

Toyota continues to grow sales with the 4Runner - and it is expensive! Not arguing, but there is still a market for the old school rugged 4x4 as demonstrated with Toyota and Jeep Wrangler. If Ford chooses not to play - then so be it, but customers are out there. We have already debated that Toyota and Jeep customers will not shop other brands. I respectfully dis-agree, make it cool enough and the potential customers will take a look. Nothing is immune from competition.

 

US Bronco (Everest) will play nicely as the Toyota is very polarizing in it's styling. Jeep of course is a Jeep, but If the Bronco can do what Jeep does from a utilitarian perspective, and offer a bit more creature comfort, I can see a lot of compromise from 30-something hipster couples shopping for that type of vehicle.

 

 

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/toyota-4runner-sales-figures.html

Edited August 26, 2015 by Kev-Mo

[Trailhiker]

So, this will be on the new RWD platform we've been hearing about! Ranger, Everest (long wheelbase) Bronco(short wheelbase).

[akirby]

Troller platform fits earlier Bronco rumors and if smaller than T6 would be a more logical choice. TC makes sense for a small pickup but probably not Bronco.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

 

If the focus can't fill that plant on three shifts with 280,000 units per year how can the ranger do the same

 

It can't. GM can't even do it with the Colorado twins.

let me be more clear, i think it would be foolish to retool MAP for only BOF production, maybe if they are ble to mix in uni-body production too, but how likely is that with the existing plant configuration.

It's not.

[RichardJensen]

Is this a hint of a sort of 'commercial grade' C2 sub-family or architecture or platform or whatever you want to call it, with the T/C, Ranger and Bronco sharing a great deal with each other?

[bzcat]

Let see...

 

1. It won't be T6 Ranger or Everest - that boat has sailed

 

2. Seems unlikely that Ford will rip out C-car production line in MAP to build BOF trucks... unless there is room to add another final assembly line

 

3. One would assume that Ford has bigger plans for Troller... it's a candidate for joining the T7 Ranger program. But not sure how relevant that is to Bronco rumors.

 

4. T7 Ranger still won't address Ford's previous concern that the truck be CAFE positive - how do you make it get 30 MPG and cheaper (but still profitable) vs. F-150.

[rmc523]

Is this a hint of a sort of 'commercial grade' C2 sub-family or architecture or platform or whatever you want to call it, with the T/C, Ranger and Bronco sharing a great deal with each other?

 

Richard, I think it's pretty clear that they all will be on RWD CD6. Duh. You should've known that....

 

 

---

 

But yes, as I suggested earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if all of this were closely related to C2 considering the plant already is C2.

Edited August 26, 2015 by rmc523