blksn8k2 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 On the subject of Ranger pirating sales from F150, didn't someone at Ford (Fields maybe?) make a statement recently that they would rather lose a sale internally than to the competition? How refreshing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I don't doubt that Al is more expensive, but $500 isn't as drastic as some are making it out to be, especially on a vehicle that nets $10k per. I know when you sell 800k trucks, it's a big deal, but when you add other goodies to bring the price (and profit) up, and incentives down, I would say it's a wash. I wonder, did Forbes include the recycling in that as well? And that was before Ford had things locked in for the Super Duty (and possibly Ranger). In a business that tries to save pennies whenever it can, $500 is a big deal. I got to imagine, to the marketing guys, the bigger the price spread between the Ranger the F-150, the better. As an aside, 40+ years ago when I was a student intern working in Engine Engineering, a guy I worked with submitted a proposal that would have stopped an known oil leak in an FE engine. It would have added less than ten cents to the cost of the engine to fix the leak. It was rejected because it was too expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 In a business that tries to save pennies whenever it can, $500 is a big deal. I got to imagine, to the marketing guys, the bigger the price spread between the Ranger the F-150, the better. As an aside, 40+ years ago when I was a student intern working in Engine Engineering, a guy I worked with submitted a proposal that would have stopped an known oil leak in an FE engine. It would have added less than ten cents to the cost of the engine to fix the leak. It was rejected because it was too expensive. How many engineers would love to be able to shave weight at the rate of less than a dollar a pound. Engineers look to shave weight as well as cost, two of the biggest obstacles for most engineers. If Ford could save 700 lbs for an additional $500, I'm pretty sure that's what made it a no-brainer. Just think of the savings in all the other areas by not needing to make components as heavy duty. Maybe the Al did add $500 to the cost, but how much was saved elsewhere. I don't think Ford is worried about the Ranger being a bottom feeder. They don't just want to sell a bunch of vehicles for the lowest price, they want to sell them at a profit. You don't do that by just offering the cheapest vehicle...you do that by offering something the other guy doesn't have, or by doing something better than the others. As has been pointed out with the incentive information above, folks are willing to pay a bit more to get something they see as better. I think you will see the same thing with Ranger. It may end up not being Al, but personally, I think it will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 My bet is the Ranger will pirate sales from the f-150...and it will be based on one parameter.....price.....and its probably the major reason the ranger has made it to market.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 My bet is the Ranger will pirate sales from the f-150...and it will be based on one parameter.....price.....and its probably the major reason the ranger has made it to market.... Which means they won't have to offer stripper F150s just to meet the lower price point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 @akirby....strippers only sell to Arabian Princes and Commercial companies....IMO the f-150 is running precariously close to pricing itself out of the middle classes reach....theres a fine line between stretching to afford and HOLY CRAP Im not spending that much a month on a Truck ( And Fords lease program on the f-150s right now ISNT competitive for those attempting to have an affordable payment through that route ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Ok, so that's even better - it will add more sales to the bottom end of the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 no doubt...hopefully they DO make a std cab,and I would also suggest a Cab and Chassis...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 no doubt...hopefully they DO make a std cab,and I would also suggest a Cab and Chassis...... speaking of, did you ever get that std cab f-150 you ordered like 2 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Fuzzy....yep....why it took so long I have no idea, but kid was STOKED, his Dad works at a national parts supply company called Cal State Auto Parts, so to say its pimped is an understatement.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 How many engineers would love to be able to shave weight at the rate of less than a dollar a pound. The other thing I think some are missing is that the F150 did the heavy lifting on pop-can construction--it won't cost nearly as much to convert Ranger to 'loomnum as it would've even three years ago because the F150 underwrote not just the cost of developing the processes and tooling, but its scale also helps underwrite the cost of the metal itself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 no doubt...hopefully they DO make a std cab,and I would also suggest a Cab and Chassis...... I mentioned previously in this thread that I saw a pair of Ranger Prototypes running around in SE Utah back in May. Both were chassis cabs with a industrial work box/bed installed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 The other thing I think some are missing is that the F150 did the heavy lifting on pop-can construction--it won't cost nearly as much to convert Ranger to 'loomnum as it would've even three years ago because the F150 underwrote not just the cost of developing the processes and tooling, but its scale also helps underwrite the cost of the metal itself. Actually, I think the engineering happened before F-150. Ford developed the process when they still owned Jaguar and Land Rover. I think it is also safe to say that today most manufacturers have some aluminum body parts on their vehicles including hoods and, in some cases, doors. Those are easy because they can be bolted to the main structure whereas an entire body requires different methods to attach parts of the main structure to each other and to the steel frame in the case of BOF trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 Actually, I think the engineering happened before F-150. Ford developed the process when they still owned Jaguar and Land Rover. Ford started working on aluminum vehicles long ago (they worked with Alcoa to build a test fleet of aluminum SHOs (or maybe they were SHO-powered Sables) back in the early '90s, and my Lincoln was an aluminum-intensive vehicle for its day), but nobody had done it in the volume or at the speed required to support the F150. Back in '13 or so, Ford made a big deal about the revolutionary new processes and toolings they'd developed to meet the F150's production rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 didint they learn from the Jag days with rivets and adhesive ( bonded on a molecular level if I recall correctly ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 didint they learn from the Jag days with rivets and adhesive ( bonded on a molecular level if I recall correctly ) I'm sure they learned a lot from Jag, but it looks like Jag's peak sales in the US since '02 was less than 62,000 units in '02. Ford sold nearly 66,000 F-Series trucks in February alone. As I recall, a lot of the problem was that it is much slower to form aluminum body panels than it is to form steel body panels, and increasing the speed of productions of the panels was one of Ford's advances for the F150. It doesn't matter if you know how to tie aluminum panels to the truck if you can't do it fast enough to keep the assembly line rolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Ford started working on aluminum vehicles long ago (they worked with Alcoa to build a test fleet of aluminum SHOs (or maybe they were SHO-powered Sables) back in the early '90s, and my Lincoln was an aluminum-intensive vehicle for its day), but nobody had done it in the volume or at the speed required to support the F150. Back in '13 or so, Ford made a big deal about the revolutionary new processes and toolings they'd developed to meet the F150's production rate. The SHO-powered, aluminum Sable concept was found in a Detroit salvage yard about 7 years ago, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 The SHO-powered, aluminum Sable concept was found in a Detroit salvage yard about 7 years ago, IIRC. I think there were more than one of them. I know someone who snapped a pic of one in a fenced lot in Canada, maybe in Toronto, around that time--it wasn't long before the return of the SHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 My bet is the Ranger will pirate sales from the f-150...and it will be based on one parameter.....price.....and its probably the major reason the ranger has made it to market.... Also, if buyers can expect a four door pickup with all its utility for the same price as a mid sized sedan (which are also getting too expensive), then it will likely steal sales from that as well. Now combining Focus and Fusion in the same plant seems more logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 Just to confirm this is a Lefty (LHD) Closer Look at Front Clip Gap in Cabin and Rear Tray Looks Like 4-Wheel Disc Brakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 So we are getting an Edge-like grill on the US Ranger? I realize Ford would be most profitable to share panels with the ROW Ranger, but I think the current ROW Ranger looks awkward. This is just my opinion, styling is subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 This is obviously a different truck from all the other "mules" that we have seen. This a supercab with the longer bed and the others were crewcabs. Yet it also has the same Everest grille looking frontend styling. That is a bit concerning. However, the rear discs are encouraging. Anyone know why the tailpipes on mules always seem to have a flared tip? It almost looks like they used a piece of downpipe that would normally be connected to a manifold just so they could use the bend without actually having to make a bent pipe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) The production Ranger exhaust is tucked up underneath, you don't see it like that mule....... And I think that this mule is still ROW truck sheet metal (attribute prototype), not Nth American specific styling... and four wheel disk brakes should gladden the enthusiast's hearts, that shows Ford is adding more than just bits of plastic and the nearest gasoline engine...feeling very good about the possibility of a 2.7 EB, that sort of engine has similar power and torque as the old 5.4 3V - it should go like stink in Ranger. Edited March 5, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 If they can offer the 2.7 in vehicles like the Edge and Fusion which should be considerably lighter than a 4x4 Ranger....plus based on what the competition currently offers in their midsizers it would give them a definite performance advantage. With that engine the diesel would be a moot point except for those who absolutely want a diesel. Go bigly (as Trump would say) or go home. The only question in my mind would be Ford's capacity to supply the 2.7EB across so many platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) And I think that this mule is still ROW truck sheet metal (attribute prototype), not Nth American specific styling... That's my guess. I'm thinking those pictures were taken in Australia--if they were running in the US, I'd think they'd have Michigan M plates instead of Victoria plates and wouldn't have the "Left Hand Drive" sticker on the tailgate. Also, it looks like they were taken from a RHD vehicle (look in the mirror in the 3rd pic). Edited March 5, 2017 by SoonerLS 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.