U.S.-spec Ford Ranger to officially end production in 2011, Ford explains why

[akirby]

The Ranger is not about entering every market segment, it's about not vacating a market Ford has been in for decades. It's about not letting a potentially very successful nameplate die on the vine. The Ranger needs a new drivetrain, new greenhouse, new interior, and thus could be a competitive product in a market all to itself as others are more midsized.

 

Ford doesn't (and shouldn't) care about whether a nameplate was successful in the past. What matters is whether it could be successful going forward and how much Ford can make off of the investment versus how much they could make by investing the money elsewhere. The potential demand for a vehicle if gas hits $4 again is part of the equation but it's probably not enough to justify an operating loss now.

 

You can have a competitive vehicle selling in decent volumes but still not make money.

 

I still think we will have a new Ranger. It might not debut until 2012 but I think it's coming because the T6 ranger won't work and I think there is enough profit to be made IF they can lower production costs with a lot of shared components including a shared manufacturing facility.

[FordBuyer]

Why do you think that is? Could it be there really isn't a market for one anymore?

 

Make a stand Servo. I bet that if Mulally decides to give the OK to build a new Ranger, you will say great decision and proves how masterful Mulally is. And if Mulally cans it, you will say the same. You can't have it both ways. The "Global Ranger" probably not making it here proves that global platforms don't work in all applications.

[TomServo92]

Make a stand Servo. I bet that if Mulally decides to give the OK to build a new Ranger, you will say great decision and proves how masterful Mulally is. And if Mulally cans it, you will say the same. You can't have it both ways. The "Global Ranger" probably not making it here proves that global platforms don't work in all applications.

 

You are correct. I will applaud the decision. Want to know why? Because I believe that Mulally won't make any decision about a product until there is a true business case for it. I said exactly the same thing about the Mercury. I would have supported either decison regarding the fate of Mercury because I have faith in Ford's current management team. How's that for a stand?

 

You just want him to do whatever suits you and your warped viewpoints. That's hardly a logical way to run a business. I am most thankful that Mulally doesn't think like you do. If he did, we might as well stick a fork in Ford. They'd be done for sure.

[FordBuyer]

You are correct. I will applaud the decision. Want to know why? Because I believe that Mulally won't make any decision about a product until there is a true business case for it. I said exactly the same thing about the Mercury. I would have supported either decison regarding the fate of Mercury because I have faith in Ford's current management team. How's that for a stand?

 

You just want him to do whatever suits you and your warped viewpoints. That's hardly a logical way to run a business. I am most thankful that Mulally doesn't think like you do. If he did, we might as well stick a fork in Ford. They'd be done for sure.

 

Just as I thought...a fence sitter. Mulally is the one who keeps saying SMALL, medium, and large cars and trucks. Guess he can't say that anymore when talking about trucks. And the TC doesn't count since it's such a very small niche product that could be ended here at any time. If an outdated Ranger can sell in the 75,000/year range, you have to wonder what a modern Ranger sell rate would be. And to think the pickup segment both big and small has traditionally been Ford's most important market when Ford dominated the top 10 sales charts. Ford is already in two very small niche markets with the Flex and MKT and one could argue shrinking. The small pickup market will not keep shrinking with new CAFE rules and higher fuel prices what will come in time.

[TomServo92]

Just as I thought...a fence sitter. Mulally is the one who keeps saying SMALL, medium, and large cars and trucks. Guess he can't say that anymore when talking about trucks. And the TC doesn't count since it's such a very small niche product that could be ended here at any time. If an outdated Ranger can sell in the 75,000/year range, you have to wonder what a modern Ranger sell rate would be. And to think the pickup segment both big and small has traditionally been Ford's most important market when Ford dominated the top 10 sales charts. Ford is already in two very small niche markets with the Flex and MKT and one could argue shrinking. The small pickup market will not keep shrinking with new CAFE rules and higher fuel prices what will come in time.

 

Just as I thought....you didn't comprehend a word I wrote.

 

Regarding Ranger sales: Did you read the part where their research concluded that many the majority of the sales were the result of it being the least expensive Ford vehicle? Oh who am I kidding? You don't do things like that! Reading comprehension just isn't in your bag of tricks now is it?

 

Again, I repeat:

 

I am so thankful that Mulally doesn't think like you do.

 

EDIT: Corrected per the article.

Edited September 20, 2010 by TomServo92

[FordBuyer]

Just as I thought....you didn't comprehend a word I wrote.

 

Regarding Ranger sales: Did you read the part where their research concluded that many the majority of the sales were the result of it being the least expensive Ford vehicle? Oh who am I kidding? You don't do things like that! Reading comprehension just isn't in your bag of tricks now is it?

 

Again, I repeat:

 

I am so thankful that Mulally doesn't think like you do.

 

EDIT: Corrected per the article.

 

Like I said, you don't think on your own and wait for others to lead you by the hand. The Messiah hasn't come. Mulally will make mistakes and probably already has. Time will tell what those mistakes are. A few are already appearing which you and others fail to see.

[TomServo92]

Like I said, you don't think on your own and wait for others to lead you by the hand. The Messiah hasn't come. Mulally will make mistakes and probably already has. Time will tell what those mistakes are. A few are already appearing which you and others fail to see.

 

 

I told you where I stand. You just aren't smart enough to understand it.

 

Perhaps if I use smaller words and drew stick figures for you? :shades:

Edited September 20, 2010 by TomServo92

[FordBuyer]

 

I told you where I stand. You just aren't smart enough to understand it.

 

I'm smart enough to understand that you buy what people say hook, line, and sinker. Repeat after me, "Mulally is a human and humans make mistakes." Mulally will make mistakes and probably already has. What will make him a good leader is that he will make less mistakes than average, but he will make mistakes. He doesn't walk on water. Even Henry Ford, the founder of the company, made lots of mistakes. Skepticism is healthy. Try it sometime and learn how think for yourself.

[TomServo92]

I'm smart enough to understand that you buy what people say hook, line, and sinker. Repeat after me, "Mulally is a human and humans make mistakes." Mulally will make mistakes and probably already has. What will make him a good leader is that he will make less mistakes than average, but he will make mistakes. He doesn't walk on water. Even Henry Ford, the founder of the company, made lots of mistakes. Skepticism is healthy. Try it sometime and learn how think for yourself.

 

I never said he didn't make mistakes. Darn that reading comprehension problem! You really need to have that checked out.

 

I said I have faith in the management teams decisions. Can they make mistakes? Sure. Does that mean I shouldn't support them? No.

 

I think for myself quite fine thank you. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to recognize you for idiot that you are.

Edited September 20, 2010 by TomServo92

[akirby]

Make a stand Servo. I bet that if Mulally decides to give the OK to build a new Ranger, you will say great decision and proves how masterful Mulally is. And if Mulally cans it, you will say the same. You can't have it both ways. The "Global Ranger" probably not making it here proves that global platforms don't work in all applications.

 

When you have a large localized product and market like the F150 that is different from the rest of the world then you can't do a global platform. Then again if you have enough volume then you don't need a global platform.

 

The point that we've been trying to make (which you keep ignoring) is that Ford has really smart people who have access to far more detailed market data than we could ever imagine as well as all of the internal business case data.

 

If Ford says there is no business case then we believe them. If Ford says there is a business case then we also believe them. Doesn't mean they're right but it does mean they're making business decisions based on real data.

 

OTOH you seem to think you know what's best based on what you see in Metro Detroit and your pulled-out-of-thin-air (or somewhere else not so pleasant) wild guesses as to what makes money and what doesn't and how many units need to be sold, blah blah blah.

[FordBuyer]

I never said he didn't make mistakes. Darn that reading comprehension problem! You really need to have that checked out.

 

I said I have faith in the management teams decisions. Can they make mistakes? Sure. Does that mean I shouldn't support them? No.

 

I think for myself quite fine thank you. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to recognize you for idiot that you are.

 

What is your problem Servo? Can't you discuss the possible ending of the Ranger intelligently without resorting to name calling? I don't call you names like a school kid would. I happen to think the Ranger is worth saving and improving like many others do, and you can disagree without the name calling. I know I have no support on here like you do, but a modrator stepping in and ending the name calling would be nice.

[FordBuyer]

When you have a large localized product and market like the F150 that is different from the rest of the world then you can't do a global platform. Then again if you have enough volume then you don't need a global platform.

 

The point that we've been trying to make (which you keep ignoring) is that Ford has really smart people who have access to far more detailed market data than we could ever imagine as well as all of the internal business case data.

 

If Ford says there is no business case then we believe them. If Ford says there is a business case then we also believe them. Doesn't mean they're right but it does mean they're making business decisions based on real data.

 

OTOH you seem to think you know what's best based on what you see in Metro Detroit and your pulled-out-of-thin-air (or somewhere else not so pleasant) wild guesses as to what makes money and what doesn't and how many units need to be sold, blah blah blah.

[TomServo92]

What is your problem Servo? Can't you discuss the possible ending of the Ranger intelligently without resorting to name calling? I don't call you names like a school kid would. I happen to think the Ranger is worth saving and improving like many others do, and you can disagree without the name calling. I know I have no support on here like you do, but a modrator stepping in and ending the name calling would be nice.

 

Not when you're involved. Ever notice I don't do this with anyone else? Your silly arguments and inane logic bring out the worst. Sorry, but that's the truth of it.

[akirby]

Mulally will make mistakes and probably already has. What will make him a good leader is that he will make less mistakes than average, but he will make mistakes. He doesn't walk on water. Even Henry Ford, the founder of the company, made lots of mistakes. Skepticism is healthy. Try it sometime and learn how think for yourself.

 

That's where you're wrong. Mulally - the CEO - doesn't make decisions as to whether it makes sense to build a vehicle. You've obviously never worked in a large corporation involving multi-million dollar projects that require business cases. Every major product decision that Ford makes is accompanied by a business case that looks at current and future market conditions plus costs to determine how much Ford could make. Then the TEAM makes a decision as to whether to go forward or not. Mulally is also smart enough NOT to force a stupid decision.

 

Can the business case be flawed? Sure. Can market conditions change? Of course! Does that mean the decision was wrong? NO! You make the best decision you can based on the best available information and if something changes you roll with it.

 

You don't understand business cases or corporate management or finance. Those of us that do understand how Mulally operates and that's why we will trust him one million times more than we will trust you to make the right decision.

[fordmantpw]

What is your problem Servo? Can't you discuss the possible ending of the Ranger intelligently without resorting to name calling? I don't call you names like a school kid would. I happen to think the Ranger is worth saving and improving like many others do, and you can disagree without the name calling. I know I have no support on here like you do, but a modrator stepping in and ending the name calling would be nice.

 

id·i·ot: a foolish or stupid person

 

Foolish seems to fit here. You are foolish to think you know more than the Ford folks with tons of data (as akirby suggested). Not name-calling, just stating fact. You are letting your emotions get in the way of seeing the full picture.

[TomServo92]

That's where you're wrong. Mulally - the CEO - doesn't make decisions as to whether it makes sense to build a vehicle. You've obviously never worked in a large corporation involving multi-million dollar projects that require business cases. Every major product decision that Ford makes is accompanied by a business case that looks at current and future market conditions plus costs to determine how much Ford could make. Then the TEAM makes a decision as to whether to go forward or not. Mulally is also smart enough NOT to force a stupid decision.

 

Can the business case be flawed? Sure. Can market conditions change? Of course! Does that mean the decision was wrong? NO! You make the best decision you can based on the best available information and if something changes you roll with it.

 

You don't understand business cases or corporate management or finance. Those of us that do understand how Mulally operates and that's why we will trust him one million times more than we will trust you to make the right decision.

 

Thank you! I work in a Fortune 500 company and recently had some involvement in our process for making decisions on multi-billion dollar projects. Not only is it not one person, it's not even one decision. Our project approval process involves multiple reviews by multiple people. It can be killed at any review point if the project is deemed to have fallen below the line. Management makes decision based on the recommendations that come out of those reviews. I'm sure Ford's process is similar. Nothing gets decided by one person. That's why I said "managment team".

[timmm55]

 

I think for myself quite fine thank you. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to recognize you for THE idiot that you are.

 

Be nice boys!

 

Actually I love the Little South of the Border Couriers. It's smaller than the Ranger and gets better MPGs.

But even there I'd be a little worried because it would be another outsourced vehicle.

[T'Cal]

How about an Escape-based compact pick-up? It could use the existing drivetrains - I4, hybrid, V6, FWD, AWD. It could even use the new TT2.0L I4 Ecoboost. With a bit of engineering, like what was done to turn the Taurus X crossover into the Explorer SUV, the Escape-based truck could haul/tow more than the current Ranger. It would likely cut costs since the Escape SUV and truck could be built on the same line. It could be two door, extended cab, and 4 door crew cab with a couple of bed sizes too.

Edited September 20, 2010 by T'Cal

[jpd80]

Strange how posters just assume that Ford's Mulally and Kuzak are wrong regarding

the continuing role of a Ranger vehicle in the USA. The market is clearly moving away

from this sized vehicle with most buyers now choosing other vehicle types.

 

While there probably is no business case to build the T6 Ranger in the USA, perhaps

tightening fuel economy requirements for trucks will see Ford import a few T6 Rangers

later in the product cycle, a spike in gas prices could put the global truck back on the radar.

Edited September 20, 2010 by jpd80

[akirby]

Strange how posters just assume that Ford's Mulally and Kuzak are wrong regarding

the continuing role of a Ranger vehicle in the USA. The market is clearly moving away

from this sized vehicle with most buyers now choosing other vehicle types.

 

While there probably is no business case to build the T6 Ranger in the USA, perhaps

tightening fuel economy requirements for trucks will see Ford import a few T6 Rangers

later in the product cycle, a spike in gas prices could put the global truck back on the radar.

 

If T6 is really 90% the size of a F150 then I would question whether it can achieve much higher MPG. That would be basically the F100 concept - slightly smaller and lighter F150.

 

I think Ford wants to position itself for a possible fuel price spike and that would mean redoing the current small Ranger platform with 4 cylinder engines and fuel efficient trannys. Throw in a crew cab and some purpose built off roaders and street performers and it can probably get enough volume to pay for itself - IF they can colocate manufacturing in an existing plant.

[jpd80]

If T6 is really 90% the size of a F150 then I would question whether it can achieve much higher MPG. That would be basically the F100 concept - slightly smaller and lighter F150.

T6 will be a lot lighter than F150, it is smaller in every direction and that means significantly less weight

it has to be because of the greater emphasis on fuel economy in the rest of the world markets.

Current Global Ranger starts out around 3700 lbs and goes up from there, I doubt T6 will see much increase over this.

Think of a wider version of your Ranger, heading towards Sport Trac in single and dual cab...

 

 

Kuzak is comparing fuel economy of out going US Ranger to new V6 F150 but....

Ford will be avoiding any irrelevant reference of T6 Ranger's fuel economy to F150.

 

And while there will be a gasoline version of T6 Ranger, the emphasis is clearly on efficient

four cylinder diesels, another reason why the truck didn't make it to US shores...

Edited September 20, 2010 by jpd80

[Sevensecondsuv]

If T6 is really 90% the size of a F150 then I would question whether it can achieve much higher MPG. That would be basically the F100 concept - slightly smaller and lighter F150.

 

I think Ford wants to position itself for a possible fuel price spike and that would mean redoing the current small Ranger platform with 4 cylinder engines and fuel efficient trannys. Throw in a crew cab and some purpose built off roaders and street performers and it can probably get enough volume to pay for itself - IF they can colocate manufacturing in an existing plant.

 

I agree. We don't need another dodge dakota - i.e. 90% of the size with the same fuel economy. I would rather wait a few years and have them get the size right rather than rushing the T6 here and compromising on size.

 

Also, building a 2-door SUV off the new platform could help the business case I'd think.

 

I think we can all agree that something is coming - Ford just hasn't said what yet. Mulally's been saying "new Ranger" too much lately for it to not be true. Lets just hope he isn't talking about some FWD unibodied fiesta or escape based thing. Honda already tried that and proved that unibody pickups are a bad idea. Also, with CAFE coming, Ford has to realize that they'll need a small pickup with great MPGs unless they're planning on making the F-150 a LOT smaller and lighter.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[Edstock]

Lets just hope he isn't talking about some FWD unibodied fiesta or escape based thing. Honda already tried that and proved that unibody pickups are a bad idea. Also, with CAFE coming, Ford has to realize that they'll need a small pickup with great MPGs unless they're planning on making the F-150 a LOT smaller and lighter.

Honda already tried that and proved that unibody pickups are a bad idea — for Honda and any manufacturer who builds one as big as the Ridgeline.

 

However, a smaller FWD unitized pickup might do quite well. Ford has been building small unibody pickups for almost 30 years in Brazil and South Africa. They appear to function quite well.

 

[akirby]

T6 will be a lot lighter than F150, it is smaller in every direction and that means significantly less weight

it has to be because of the greater emphasis on fuel economy in the rest of the world markets.

Current Global Ranger starts out around 3700 lbs and goes up from there, I doubt T6 will see much increase over this.

Think of a wider version of your Ranger, heading towards Sport Trac in single and dual cab...

 

Best I can tell the current regular cab Ranger is just over 3100 lbs. That's significantly lighter and that's without any new weight saving technology. I also think the current archaic 2.3L could be replaced with the Focus 2.0L engine. It already gets 22/27 mileage. If you could bump that to 25/30 and add the new interior features I think you'd have a nice commuter truck again just like it used to be when I bought mine back in 1990.

[Deanh]

Be nice boys!

 

Actually I love the Little South of the Border Couriers. It's smaller than the Ranger and gets better MPGs.

But even there I'd be a little worried because it would be another outsourced vehicle.

Funny, started watchin a show called "Terriers" ( good show by the way...and the vehicle of choice is a Ford Courier....I hace FOND memories of that vehicle...when i first came here, it was my buddies vehicle of choice...most excellent...a simple, bare bones unbreakable Thrasher....