Presenting The New 2015 Ford Ranger

[kscarbel2]

.

[kscarbel2]

Ford 's truck marketing manager Dave Scott said last month that the company is considering a return to the U.S. small pickup truck market (which it abandoned in 2011).

However, he oddly stated the U.S. market Ranger would NOT be the (superb) global market Ranger (i.e. the logical candidate). Instead, Scott said Ford was reviewing its international models for something it could make work.

Scott ridiculously claims the global market Ranger is "Too big, it's 90% of the F-150 size."

Ford is unwilling to admit (at this juncture) that mid-size and full-size pickup truck consumers are two entirely different groups of people.

And with the higher cost of the new aluminum bodied F-150, the global market Ranger would be meaningfully cheaper in price.

Scott says Ford is aiming for a “true small pickup”, not a mid-size like GM’s new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon, or Toyota’s Tacoma.

In its day, the Mazda-sourced Ford Courier (a true small pickup) fulfilled a small but legitimate market demand. But it was never a big sales success either. Fast forwarding to the present, having learned from past experience, consumers now see the advantages of the slightly larger mid-sized pickup. (If Ford wants to sell a true small pickup, they can go to battle with Mahindra in India)

"We're looking at it. We think we could sell a compact truck that's more like the size of the old Ranger, that gets 6 to 8 more miles per gallon than our full-size F-150, is $5,000 or $6,000 less, and that we could build in the U.S. to avoid the 25% tariff (chicken tax) on imported trucks," he said.

(The truck should/would be made in the U.S., so the 25% chicken tax (import tariff) isn’t a factor)

Scott said there are models in Ford's global array of trucks that could work - but he wouldn't name them. Nor would he say how fast Ford could get such a vehicle into showrooms.

He said it's likely such a model would have unibody construction – not the traditional body-on-frame configuration that all U.S. market pickups use aside from the Honda Ridgeline (which is barely on anyone’s radar).

(Imagine a Ford Escape/Kuga-based pickup similar to the Dacia Logan pickup...... http://www.daciagroup.com/en/gallery/products/dacia-logan-pick-up)

Scott, unwilling to admit Ford’s mistaken strategy in ignoring the mid-sized pickup segment, embarrassed himself by claiming that GM’s new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon are too big.

As an excuse for not having a mid-sized pickup to offer, Scott said a Ford F-150 XL Sport would give a buyer more room, more power, similar mileage and higher towing and hauling ratings, for payments about $20 a month more than the GM mid-size models that are expected to be the best sellers. Scott in unwilling to admit that most consumers wanting a mid-sized pickup truck are NOT in the market for a full-sized pickup.

Anyone that sees the global Ford Ranger will judge it to be a mid-sized pickup. It is incomparable to an F-150. American mid-size pickup customers want body-on-frame construction. Few if any would buy a mid-size pickup based on a unibody-construction passenger car platform (e.g. Honda Ridgeline).

[Dirtymilkman]

Well said. When the diesel comes out in a canyon I will own one.

[1958 F.W.D.]

If any of the pickup truck manufacturer's want my attention they need to come out with a Ranger size or 1500 size diesel that is AFFORDABLE and fuel efficient. Not the ones that now cost $40,000+ and only get 20mpg..........

[1957B61Vt]

I wondered how long it would be before

They realized they screwed up but I agree

They need a true small pickup.

And I wouldn't buy one if unibody construction

I never buy new because of price. Can't afford it

And up here in the rust belt they wouldn't last long enough.

Body on frame,

patch rusty body up or frame keep them going

Everyone up here very fond of jeep Cherokees

But

They are gone rocker rust over into floor into unibody supports for springs ready for the crusher.

I work on vehicles and equipment for neighborhood people.

most people I help can't afford anything else

To drive .

so we do what we can .

And it sucks when I say sorry it's to far gone

And they are like what am I going to do now?

They just don't have the money .

I'm not much better off.

I got a 05 Jeep Wrangler that gets oil under coated every fall

And my 97 f-350 also gets oiled but that is it .

They need to get there head out of there ass make them same size as 1984 up to 90s

And need to be affordable for McDonald's ,Burger King and people on social security to be able to buy

Because no jobs here To support that 25-30000 for vehicle. If they could do 14,000-20,000

It would sell but but the guys in factory got to get 30.00 per hr and benefits retirement so I don't see it changing

Steve

[kscarbel2]

I wondered how long it would be before

They realized they screwed up but I agree

They need a true small pickup.

And I wouldn't buy one if unibody construction

I never buy new because of price. Can't afford it

And up here in the rust belt they wouldn't last long enough.

Body on frame,

patch rusty body up or frame keep them going

Everyone up here very fond of jeep Cherokees

Steve

When I think of Jeep and small pickup trucks, the Jeep Comanche immediately comes to mind. Make no mistake about it, American Motors had some of the US auto industry's finest engineers (delivering impressive designs despite a tight budget), and they were critical to Chrysler's later success (the whole "platform" design theme was invented by AMC engineers).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Jeep_Comanche_Pioneer_white_MD_l.jpg

Then I leap ahead to 2005 and wonder why the Jeep Gladiator concept didn't enter production.

http://blog.jeep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Jeep-Gladiator-Concept-003.jpg

Of course one can have a Wrangler pickup, an impressive unit built by Jeep OEM supplier AEV that retains the factory warranty.

http://www.aev-conversions.com/vehicles/brute-double-cab

If one were to imagine a modern day Jeep Comanche, it might look something like this.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jucMyOusy3U/maxresdefault.jpg

[Red Horse]

Agree with KSC's editorial comments on Ford's dumb ass position on this issue.-as well as all the other posters. No unibody "car/truck"for me. And B61VT brings up good points on the economics that certainly apply to a lot of people.

biut I'm afraid the Ford boys are driven totally by the manufacturing economics- and I guess from a stockholder's perspective tough to argue. Bottom line, do they have ANY option that would let them build off a current US built BOF vehicle? I don't think so. Then again, I look at the engineering/development costs that are done with respect to the Ranger/Everest platform. Assuming these two are not that far off from meeting US crash standards, what would it take to tweak them to comply?

But back to the US manufacturing issue, I think with 150 now based on aluminum and its unique manufacturing process, they don't have a plant that does conventional BOF construction with "old fashioned" steel/welded construction. Transit is unibody. The Super duty line, built at the huge Kentucky Truck Plant (originally built as the largest HD truck plant in the world in'69 when thje Louisville came out) is BOF but if you listen/read all the buzz on those, they will soon be aluminum.

Maybe the Ohio plant that still builds the last of the E series Cut aways and will soon be building the 2016 F650/750 could be the plant that builds this BOF small truck? A complicated problem for Ford.

We shall see just how successful the new GM's are. In the meantime, I'm taking good care of my '04 Ranger FX-4 that has been in the family since new. And as I've posted many times on the BON website, I can't see throwing a couple of calcium loaded "44s" in the back of a unibody tin can built on a Transit Connect platform

[Timmyb]

The top two pics look like the ranger we have in Australia. It's a ford design, Mazda build so I'm lead to believe. And from the local sales, people love it.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Sadly, the marketing mentality at Ford and in Detroit is that we all really want the biggest most expensive vehicle possible, and that Ranger buyers really want an F150... Thus Ford marketers think that the Ranger canabalizes sales from the more profitable F150.

[41chevy]

Looks like the Volkswagen Amarok midsize pickup.

How about a manufacturer making a plain basic pick up. I personally don't need carpets, leather a holder for my I pad and 60 cup holders to carry parts and equipment around. Simpler to refurbish my 88 Dodge and have a truck that's a truck. Paul

[kscarbel2]

Looks like the Volkswagen Amarok midsize pickup.

How about a manufacturer making a plain basic pick up. I personally don't need carpets, leather a holder for my I pad and 60 cup holders to carry parts and equipment around. Simpler to refurbish my 88 Dodge and have a truck that's a truck. Paul

The global Ford Ranger is a direct competitor to Volkswagen's superb mid-sized Amarok pickup in the global market. The new 2015 Ranger appears slightly larger than the Amarok with a more rugged American-style appearance (ironic given that Ford ridiculously doesn't sell it here).

Both are available with great diesel powertrains (which attracts me), and in a variety of trim levels from bare bones work truck to high-end personal use. Two or four doors, 2wd or 4wd. You could buy the Ranger or the Amarok and be equally happy. Ford's 3.2-liter diesel (over the more frugal 2.2L engine) at 201hp has a bit more power than the Amarok's 180hp 2.0-liter engine, but the VW is a bi-turbo design and thus quite responsive at both low and high RPMs plus its paired with the superb ZF 8-speed transmission.

[kscarbel2]

The top two pics look like the ranger we have in Australia. It's a ford design, Mazda build so I'm lead to believe. And from the local sales, people love it.

The Ford Australia-designed global Ford Ranger is produced by Ford in Argentina, South Africa and Thailand, and sold in 180 countries (excluding the U.S. - the world's largest pickup truck market).

Ford does sell the Ranger to Mazda, rebadged as the BT-50. The exterior (and interior) is quite different, as it should be, but I don't care for the styling theme.

There is a vast swath of consumers who specifically want a mid-sized pickup for all its advantaged. They would never buy a full-size trucks with all its bulk due to personal preference, planned usage and fuel economy. You buy the shoe that fits your foot, and full-size trucks are too large for these customers. For as long as Ford wants to be hard-headed (in the US market), Toyota and GM are glad to have a monopoly on the mid-sized pickup market segment.

Ford dare never say they won't sell the Ranger in the US market because as an import, the chicken tax (Lyndon Johnson's Proclaimation 3564) would make it too expensive. Given the US market is the world's largest pickup truck market, of course they would build it in the United States.

And that then brings the impressive new body-on-frame Everest SUV into the conversation as it shares the same platform as the new 2015 Ranger. The unibody-construction Explorer is an evolved minivan-turned-SUV for soccer moms, and dad's driving the family around on the weekend, that don't want to be seen in a mini-van. Whereas the body-on-frame Everest is an actual truck that a man would buy for himself.

Given the night-and-day difference between the design direction of the Explorer and Everest, and the current gap in Ford's U.S, market portfolio of SUVs - a mid-sized SUV that appeals to men (a modern day Bronco....and they could name it just that) - it makes a perfect sense for Ford to produce the Ranger and Everest (Bronco) in the United States (unless, Ford feels like they have all the business they need).

[Red Horse]

The Ford Australia-designed global Ford Ranger is produced by Ford in Argentina, South Africa and Thailand, and sold in 180 countries (excluding the U.S. - the world's largest pickup truck market).

Ford does sell the Ranger to Mazda, rebadged as the BT-50. The exterior (and interior) is quite different, as it should be, but I don't care for the styling theme.

There is a vast swath of consumers who specifically want a mid-sized pickup for all its advantaged. They would never buy a full-size trucks with all its bulk due to personal preference, planned usage and fuel economy. You buy the shoe that fits your foot, and full-size trucks are too large for these customers. For as long as Ford wants to be hard-headed (in the US market), Toyota and GM are glad to have a monopoly on the mid-sized pickup market segment.

Ford dare never say they won't sell the Ranger in the US market because as an import, the chicken tax (Lyndon Johnson's Proclaimation 3564) would make it too expensive. Given the US market is the world's largest pickup truck market, of course they would build it in the United States.

And that then brings the impressive new body-on-frame Everest SUV into the conversation as it shares the same platform as the new 2015 Ranger. The unibody-construction Explorer is an evolved minivan-turned-SUV for soccer moms, and dad's driving the family around on the weekend, that don't want to be seen in a mini-van. Whereas the body-on-frame Everest is an actual truck that a man would buy for himself.

Given the night-and-day difference between the design direction of the Explorer and Everest, and the current gap in Ford's U.S, market portfolio of SUVs - a mid-sized SUV that appeals to men (a modern day Bronco....and they could name it just that) - it makes a perfect sense for Ford to produce the Ranger and Everest (Bronco) in the United States (unless, Ford feels like they have all the business they need).

I'm sure they always want more business-but at what price? Two big issues to be addressed: 1. As Teamster Grrl mentions-we are told the big issue is T-6 would only erode sales of 150-so if you buy that, what is the point.

2. The other issue as I have mentioned, is the plant economics question. As T-6/Everest are BOF vehicles, what plant would be a good fit considering existing vehicles produced at that location. As I've said, Avon Lake looks like it is the only plant left that will be building BOF other than KC and Dearborn which are cranking out aluminum 150's- and KTP which supposedly will also be producing aluminum BOF Super Duties when the next generation comes out.

[Red Horse]

I'm sure they always want more business-but at what price? Two big issues to be addressed: 1. As Teamster Grrl mentions-we are told the big issue is T-6 would only erode sales of 150-so if you buy that, what is the point.

2. The other issue as I have mentioned, is the plant economics question. As T-6/Everest are BOF vehicles, what plant would be a good fit considering existing vehicles produced at that location. As I've said, Avon Lake looks like it is the only plant left that will be building BOF other than KC and Dearborn which are cranking out aluminum 150's- and KTP which supposedly will also be producing aluminum BOF Super Duties when the next generation comes out.

Any thoughts on this??

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Although the Ranger's last American home, Twin Cities Assembly, is gone, the Ranger was built at Louisville along with the bigger pickups and heavy trucks. Most plants today can build multiple platforms, even on the same line.

[Red Horse]

Although the Ranger's last American home, Twin Cities Assembly, is gone, the Ranger was built at Louisville along with the bigger pickups and heavy trucks. Most plants today can build multiple platforms, even on the same line.

I don't think so. There are two Louisville plants Louisville Assembly Plant (LAP) and Kentucky Truck Plant (KTP). KTP was the heavy truck plant and now builds 250-550. LAP was building Explorers but they are all now built in Chicago along with Taurus. I think LAP builds Escapes now. I don't think Rangers were ever built at LAP and for sure they were never built at KTP. Back when Rangers were selling in big numbers I think the two plants building them were Twin cities and Edison NJ-both now history.

I say this with 99% certainty-but as my wife will tell you-been wrong before

[kscarbel2]

For the record, Ford produced Rangers at Louisville (LAP) from 1983 to April 1, 1999.

The absurd statements from Ford that offering the mid-sized Ford Ranger in the US market would erode full-size F-150 sales is pure propaganda. They made a bad call that now leaves them empty-handed in a generously-sized market segment, and don't want to admit it.

[Red Horse]

For the record, Ford produced Rangers at Louisville (LAP) from 1983 to April 1, 1999.

The absurd statements from Ford that offering the mid-sized Ford Ranger in the US market would erode full-size F-150 sales is pure propaganda. They made a bad call that now leaves them empty-handed in a generously-sized market segment, and don't want to admit it.

Thx for the clarification- so at one time there were three plants cranking out Rangers. Which I think was one of the top 10 selling vehicles on an annual basis in US. I think Ford's position that the market has been taken up by small inexpensive vehicles is a self fulfilling prophecy on Ford's part. I say "what do you expect when you let the product die on the vine?" Had they continued to upgrade, offer new power trains like the Ecoboost engines it would have continued to have decent numbers-IMO

[kscarbel2]

Thx for the clarification- so at one time there were three plants cranking out Rangers. Which I think was one of the top 10 selling vehicles on an annual basis in US. I think Ford's position that the market has been taken up by small inexpensive vehicles is a self fulfilling prophecy on Ford's part. I say "what do you expect when you let the product die on the vine?" Had they continued to upgrade, offer new power trains like the Ecoboost engines it would have continued to have decent numbers-IMO

If I remember correctly, production shifted from Louisville to Twin Cities (St. Paul, MN) and Edison (NJ) in 1999.

Launched in 1993, the second generation Ford Ranger was forced to carry on until its 2011 US market demise with nothing more than trim changes. For the overall US market pickup truck leader to have done what they did to the Ranger marque, intentionally run this product into the ground, is totally unacceptable.

I can't believe that Bill Ford* is onboard with Ford corporate's strategy to continue ignoring the mid-sized pickup truck segment (there is no more small pickup segment, we've all seen the light and graduated to mid-sized). He's too realistic a person not to recognize the size and profitability of the segment, and the need for Ford to participate in it.

* Bill Ford is arguably one of the finest human beings in America's auto industry.