probowler Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 But why have 2 different nameplates? That's just silliness. Fans of the traditional 2 door Bronco will balk at the possibility of a 4 door Bronco, but if Jeep proved anything with the Wrangler Unlimited it's that there's a demand there for it. People balked at a 4 door Wrangler and look how well that ultimately worked out for them. I'm not so sure about that.... for true Bronco fans 4-doors is quite the rare beauty, though we all come home to our 2-doors... The real hang up will be the removable top: I suspect most Bronco fans would welcome a 4-door version for the "Family Guys" if it supported our 2-doors.... but you gotta be able to go topless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I think the plan is to build evolutions of T6 Ranger, Bronco 2-Door Ute and Everest 4-door SUV Done properly, the combined output should be around 20,000/mth with much higher ATPs than possible with B class Utilities and pick ups.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I think the plan is to build evolutions of T6 Ranger, Bronco 2-Door Ute and Everest 4-door SUV Done properly, the combined output should be around 20,000/mth with much higher ATPs than possible with B class Utilities and pick ups.. In all seriousness, the 2 door SUV market is dead and the Everest steps on the toes of the Edge, Explorer and lesser extent Expedition. Also figure in that that gas mileage won't be that much better then the F-150 2.7L V6 The new pickup needs to get significantly better MPGs then the F-150, like 30MPG Highway and low to mid 20s around town. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 In all seriousness, the 2 door SUV market is dead and the Everest steps on the toes of the Edge, Explorer and lesser extent Expedition. Also figure in that that gas mileage won't be that much better then the F-150 2.7L V6 The new pickup needs to get significantly better MPGs then the F-150, like 30MPG Highway and low to mid 20s around town. I don't think 30 MPG is going to cut it. Heck, a 4x2 2.7L F150 does 26. I think we are looking at 32-33 minimum. That's why I think it's going to have to be a smaller truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) In all seriousness, the 2 door SUV market is dead and the Everest steps on the toes of the Edge, Explorer and lesser extent Expedition. Also figure in that that gas mileage won't be that much better then the F-150 2.7L V6 The new pickup needs to get significantly better MPGs then the F-150, like 30MPG Highway and low to mid 20s around town. 1. Two door SUV as in Bronco, something a lot of people are anticipating (Sorry using SUV in slightly wrong context) Where the BOFs gap the soft roaders is of course in off road capability, towing (7,000 lbs) and cosy yet "rugged" feel. Australia will be selling Edge (as Territory) along side the Everest precisely because of the reasons I've stated above there are buyers that want soft road as well as those wanting a more rugged yet still comfortable off road capable vehicle. and prepared to pay for it too.. The key is getting ROW markets to pay most of the development costs. 2. A 2.3 Ecoboost in Ranger & Everest should give around 28 mpg on the highway (judging by Explorer) 3. with 3.2 I-5 diesel available, the fuel economy should be above and beyond what Ram 1500 gets with 3.0 Ecodiesel. Whatever products Ford chooses, you can be sure that they will have good ATPs and should result in a range that has more differentiation, a couple of well designed off-road capable BOF SUVs may be enough to win back past buyers.. Edited August 29, 2015 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Don't forget with the potential diesel, it would seriously outperform the gutless wonder that is the 3.0 Ecodiesel. Or it could be a brand new diesel sourced from the new(ish) plant they are building/upgrading in Mexico. Either way it's still a win in my book, and I'm not even a fan of diesels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Seems that CAFE is soft on larger vehicle but over the top with smaller footprint Trucks and cars. I'm betting there's going to be adjustment to those required CAFE window numbers, in the smaller trucks, in 2020 they're like 31 mpg for small trucks and still 19 mpg for F150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Seems that CAFE is soft on larger vehicle but over the top with smaller footprint Trucks and cars. I'm betting there's going to be adjustment to those required CAFE window numbers, in the smaller trucks, in 2020 they're like 31 mpg for small trucks and still 19 mpg for F150. But also keep in mind that CAFE is based off unadjusted numbers from when the program first started...the window sticker part of it is ALOT different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 But why have 2 different nameplates? That's just silliness. Fans of the traditional 2 door Bronco will balk at the possibility of a 4 door Bronco, but if Jeep proved anything with the Wrangler Unlimited it's that there's a demand there for it. People balked at a 4 door Wrangler and look how well that ultimately worked out for them. I always thought that 4 door Wrangler should have been there 20 years sooner. As soon as the Explorer and Cherokee lit up the sales charts, I would have started a four door Wrangler! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Australia will be selling Edge (as Territory) along side the Everest precisely because of the reasons I've stated above there are buyers that want soft road as well as those wanting a more rugged yet still comfortable off road capable vehicle. and prepared to pay for it too.. The key is getting ROW markets to pay most of the development costs. Why would they not just call it Edge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Why would they not just call it Edge? Why does Ford not call the Escape Kuga? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Why does Ford not call the Escape Kuga? Because Escape and Kuga were both established names for the same product (compact FWD crossover) on either side of the Atlantic. Edge and Territory, while serving similar market segments, are different - most notable difference being FWD/RWD, respectively. So while the Edge might very well be the replacement for Territory, why not just go with the Edge name to keep things consistent globally. That way, there's also no RWD expectation with the Territory name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Because Escape and Kuga were both established names for the same product (compact FWD crossover) on either side of the Atlantic. Edge and Territory, while serving similar market segments, are different - most notable difference being FWD/RWD, respectively. So while the Edge might very well be the replacement for Territory, why not just go with the Edge name to keep things consistent globally. That way, there's also no RWD expectation with the Territory name. Territory name will live on in rebadged Edge, Toyota Australia has used "Edge" name in the past as a Corolla package. Ford Australia is expected to confirm this by November, about nine months before local Territory ends production. Edited August 29, 2015 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Ford Nth America pulled out of T6 Ranger project at the start in 2006, while the reasons given were that the truck was too big for its needs, I think that needs to be seen in the context of the time where Ford had huge debts and its bread winners F150 and Explorer were struggling in a then shifting market, the GFC was further proof that Ford needed to control its cash burn as much as possible by consolidating product and ending those not considered core to it survival. Today, we're in a different situation, Ford production is much more efficient and excess production capacity has been significantly reduced. T6 Ranger has proved itself as a valuable rest of world product, something Ford Nth America ha no doubt watched with interest. Unlike Colorado which needed a huge revamp for North America, the only changes really needed for Ranger is the addition of a suitable gasoline engine - either Ecoboost 2.0 or the 2.3 would suffice. and judgung by Explorer, give around 28-30 mpg EPA. While some raise concerns about rising CAFE limits with mid sized trucks , I have a hunch that two things may be possible: 1. That future mid sized truck and small car CAFE targets are reviewed and relaxed slightly to better align with achievable goals. 2. If next gen Ranger was to adopt aluminum bodies, that would reduce weight and increase fuel economy, a benefit to all markets. Derrick Kuzak's said that Ranger is 90 percent of the size of F150 but that was merely self serving dismissal. The Ranger at 72.6" is around seven inches narrower, so that 90% claim loses all credibility...... The real question is how actual buyers view mid sized trucks and is there enough volume to justify a return. Judging by Colorado's return, a healthy Crew Cab market exists in the price range just below half tons and that is a completely different situation to when Ford was selling low cost SC Rangers below $20K. Edited August 29, 2015 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 Another interesting article in today's Automotive News. They seem to think that any new product will be BOF: "As part of its contract talks with the UAW, Ford has discussed building a midsize pickup and SUV at its Michigan Assembly Plant in suburban Detroit as soon as 2018, a person with knowledge of the talks said. In doing so, Ford would reverse one of the signature moves of its transformation during the recession by shifting Michigan Assembly back to body-on-frame trucks. The plant used to churn out big Ford Expeditions and F-150s, Lincoln Navigators and, yes, Broncos before being retooled for the small cars and hybrids the company saw as the key to its future success." http://www.autonews.com/article/20150829/RETAIL/150829883/ford-feels-push-to-return-to-midsize-trucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Another interesting article in today's Automotive News. They seem to think that any new product will be BOF: "As part of its contract talks with the UAW, Ford has discussed building a midsize pickup and SUV at its Michigan Assembly Plant in suburban Detroit as soon as 2018, a person with knowledge of the talks said. In doing so, Ford would reverse one of the signature moves of its transformation during the recession by shifting Michigan Assembly back to body-on-frame trucks. The plant used to churn out big Ford Expeditions and F-150s, Lincoln Navigators and, yes, Broncos before being retooled for the small cars and hybrids the company saw as the key to its future success." http://www.autonews.com/article/20150829/RETAIL/150829883/ford-feels-push-to-return-to-midsize-trucks Crown Vic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Derrick Kuzak's said that Ranger is 90 percent of the size of F150 but that was merely self serving dismissal. The Ranger at 72.6" is around seven inches narrower, so that 90% claim loses all credibility...... Ummmmm......... 72.6/79.6 = 0.91 About 90% is EXACTLY right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 So BOF for the Ranger in 2018? Late to the party? I just can't see this ending well. I like the idea and for the first couple of years a BOF Ranger and/or Bronco would be a hot seller, just not certain on the sustainability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Ummmmm......... 72.6/79.6 = 0.91 About 90% is EXACTLY right. Right and the inference by Ford was that 90% dimension makes the Ranger too close to F150 in size. I defy anyone to sit in vehicles with that much difference in width and mistake one for the other... We can say the same silly stuff about Explorer Vs Edge Vs Escape, there's less difference between those yet no one would really entertain the 90% or 95% rule as grounds for exclusion from sale.... I see the new Ranger as more like an Explorer Sport Trac in size with mostly Crew Cab market, something I think Colorado is currently demonstrating (GM's first choice in body styles anyway...) That is far and away different to the last of 2011 Ranger SC which were mostly sub $2k sales. With regards weight and fuel economy for CAFE, imagine narrowed F150 alloy cabs fitted to next gen Ranger such a move could drop Ranger's weight by 400-500 lbs and make the use of an EB 2.0 even more viable and the highway fuel economy up to 30 to 32 mpg without a diesel... Edited August 30, 2015 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Does Ford even have it in them to still make competitive SUVs? The Expedition is looking like another Ranger.... nice, well-made, but old and getting stale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 The Expedition is looking like another Ranger.... nice, well-made, but old and getting stale. Wait 18 months. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Will this be another case of Ford being late to the party and then playing catch-up one again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Will this be another case of Ford being late to the party and then playing catch-up one again? I dunno this tactic seems to be working well for them for the most part over the past 20-30 years. Its not so much as being the first, its about having the right execution of the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Territory name will live on in rebadged Edge, Toyota Australia has used "Edge" name in the past as a Corolla package. Ford Australia is expected to confirm this by November, about nine months before local Territory ends production. I wonder if you'll get the 3 row version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I wonder if you'll get the 3 row version. Our Edges will be coming from Canada and if indeed we get a 3-row version, then maybe that option becomes available in Nth America....or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts