Bring up the topic again. New Ranger any news?

[stmitch]

What options are there any more for buying a new truck.
Mazda B is not around - just checked there website and I didn't know they were not made any more.
Buy a f150 for a $31,000 price tag or a Toyota Tacoma for around the same both with no real added extras.

The day of the compact truck is over. sad so sad.

The smallest you'll find right now is a "Mid Size" like the refreshed Tacoma, new GM twins, and the dated but sturdy Frontier. The new GMs seem pretty nice, and they get great reviews. They start around 25k and go up to 40k though.

IF the Ranger ever makes a return, I'm guessing it would be based on the Transit Connect FWD platform. Nothing else really makes sense.

 

[Shoddy Cologne]

The frustrating part is they CAN bring the ranger back to the US. The problem is they wont.


Sent from my LGL16C using Tapatalk

 

[CajunPwnStar]

I see at least 2-3 new Chevy Colorado trucks every day in my city, so I know there's still an interest in a mid-sized option for most people. I'm afraid we'll never see the Ranger return, but one can hope.

 

[MastuhWaffles]

The frustrating part is they CAN bring the ranger back to the US. The problem is they wont.


Sent from my LGL16C using Tapatalk

I think the big issue is that if sales cut into the F-150 and took away its best selling title they would be a bit salty.

 

[stmitch]

I think the big issue is that if sales cut into the F-150 and took away its best selling title they would be a bit salty.

I don't think the title is all that critical to them, even though they love to use it in advertising. The primary reason they let the Ranger wither on the vine and die was that Ford makes tons of profit on F-series trucks, and the Ranger didn't come close to the same margins. They want to sell you the vehicle that makes them the most profit, and the F-series is Ford's cash cow: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/30/ford-f-150-profit-per-vehicle/

 

[Shoddy Cologne]

They could make profit from the ranger if they reintroduced it as a no frills basic vehicle like trucks are supposed to be. Not this huge elaborate vehicle so full of acoutrements it takes months to fully grasp how to actually use all of it if you eveer do or if it actually works. Not that ive ever owned a 50k brand new F150. A tampon of a truck if you ask me. How many people buy one and dont put it to work like it was designed for? They take them to the mall to buy a pair of work boots that wont ever get dirty.

Sent from my LGL16C using Tapatalk

 

[Shoddy Cologne]

To be honest i dont want them to make a new ranger because they won't do it right. Theyll load it up with gps, auto trans, the crappy Sync and probably wont offer 2wd, 5 or 6 spd or just a basic trim package thats actually affordable as an entry level vehicle. It would be great if they just brought over the world Ranger. Not as an import but built here just like the good trucks from louisville.

Sent from my LGL16C using Tapatalk

 

[97RangerXLT]

So what happened to the deal with the UAW to start building them in Michigan for 2018? There is a link to that article somewhere on here.

I agree with Shoddy on all the extra bull crap. The only extras that I would want is cruise, a/c, and a decent stereo with USB input. I do prefer an automatic transmission to the manual for every day driving (I live in the Indianapolis metro area and commute downtown daily)and a stick shift is really a pain in city traffic.

Plus automatics are getting better made to the point of lasting 200k +, and even the gas mileage is only 1 or 2 mpg difference.

AJ

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 while sitting in my underwear

 

[RonD]

Article from October 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/street-smarts/trucks-trans-pacific-partnership-article-1.2385565

IMO a bare bones small truck wouldn't sell enough in North America, as poor as I feel, lol, we are to affluent to buy many of them.
When people want less expensive they buy used vehicles, with as many options as possible .

Here is a list of the least expensive pickups from 2014 model year: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/top-10-least-expensive-trucks-for-2014.html

In 2011 the Ranger regular cab, 4cylinder, 2WD, basic package, was $18,160, last year of North American Ranger
International Ranger(larger), T6/BT50, 2014 extended cab, 2.5l gas engine, basic package, was north of $30,000

Even if Ford decided to bring back the North American size Ranger they couldn't get price down low enough to compete with the Nissan/Toyota trucks of the same model/options.
And when talking "bare bones" we are talking people buying solely on price, if you can't get price down enough, which Ford couldn't, then you are talking "loaded" vehicles, and then it's buyers choice, and those numbers couldn't support Ranger production so Ford ended it in 2011

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Article from October 2015: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/street-smarts/trucks-trans-pacific-partnership-article-1.2385565

IMO a bare bones small truck wouldn't sell enough in North America, as poor as I feel, lol, we are to affluent to buy many of them.
When people want less expensive they buy used vehicles, with as many options as possible .

Here is a list of the least expensive pickups from 2014 model year: http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/top-10-least-expensive-trucks-for-2014.html

In 2011 the Ranger regular cab, 4cylinder, 2WD, basic package, was $18,160, last year of North American Ranger
International Ranger(larger), T6/BT50, 2014 extended cab, 2.5l gas engine, basic package, was north of $30,000

Even if Ford decided to bring back the North American size Ranger they couldn't get price down low enough to compete with the Nissan/Toyota trucks of the same model/options.
And when talking "bare bones" we are talking people buying solely on price, if you can't get price down enough, which Ford couldn't, then you are talking "loaded" vehicles, and then it's buyers choice, and those numbers couldn't support Ranger production so Ford ended it in 2011

There is no reason Ford couldn't make money doing it if they can.

Toyota just released a brand new 2016 Taco awhile ago... with a brand new 6 speed manual.

And Ford thinks that the reason people wasn't buying a 13yo design for $18k was because they couldn't make them cheap enough? IMO like they are doing with their half tons (within a few grand of a comparable gas F-350) they are getting greedy on their pricing.

The tooling and design work should have been well taken care of. Just materials and labor, should have been as cheap as they ever had been.

And buying late model used is a joke anymore, when they don't depreciate why bother?

 

[stmitch]

Hate to break it to you guys, but the days of 15-20k trucks are long gone. Look at the other smallish trucks for sale now. They all start in the mid 20s, and can approach 40k
Base model vehicles don't sell. The manufacturers make the smallest profit on the base model stuff. The more they dress it up, the more they charge, and the more profit they make. Ford wouldn't make any profit if they made the truck that most current Ranger owners want.

They can't just reuse the old tooling either, because the Ranger's body and most of the frame were designed in the mid 90s. There's no way it would pass today's crash standards. It's pretty unlikely that the old power plants would meet current emissions/fuel economy standards either.

The only way that I see a Ranger rebirth making sense, is if they keep costs as low as possible by sharing a platform with existing cheap, utility vehicles. That means Transit Connect with a bed. Most likely FWD, maybe with an AWD option. It would be small enough to make it different from the cash cow F-150. And it would probably start in the 20-25k range. Even at that price though, their profit margin would be pretty slim compared to the F-series, so I'm not sure what their motivation would be.

I'd love to see a modern truck with minimal bells and whistles, improved aerodynamics, modern power trains and crash safety too. I just don't see it happening, and certainly not at prices that most of us would want to pay.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I was squawking about how pricey they were when they quit making the Ranger, not suggesting they bring it back as a dressed up third gen with a different powertrain.

I am voting with my duckets. I am not going to pay what they think they are worth.

 

[don4331]

Some SWAG numbers:

It takes roughly $1 billion to develop a new vehicle including development, tooling, etc- doesn't matter F-150, Fiesta or Mustang.

Ford plans on selling roughly 500k F-150s/year*, 5 years until next major redesign. Equals $400 in development cost per truck

Base F-150 sells for $25,299 Cdn; about 5% profit; so truck cost $24,000; subtract $400 in development = $23,600 in materials.

World Ranger is ~90% of size of F-150. Materials are $21,250. Ford might expect to sell 50k Rangers, so their development cost is 10X F-150 per vehicle = $4k**; therefore, Ranger costs $25,250 + 5% profit = $26,500.

With Ranger costing $1,200 more than F-150, Ford's accountants throw the business case out.

If Ford was selling 350k Rangers like when I bought my '98, we would have a new one but forecast numbers just don't justify it. For Chevrolet with the Colorado, it is as much about PR as it is about profit...

I've seen the suggestions for C1 platform (Transit Connect) or B platform (think EcoSport not Fiesta). Either way, you reduce only development by ~50%. A $19,999 B platform base model might just be possible, going up to $35kish for the loaded AWD model.

Would we want it to be called a Ranger?

Can Ford sell more than 25k units for a unibody mini truck, ala Dodge Ramage, in the current economy ($0.669 Cdn/litre gas)? When gas was $1.409, there was much more of a business case.

*Ford lumps all F-series together and SuperDuty is completely different truck from F150; split in numbers is a pure guess. One also needs to account for a major redesign, facelifts, etc and maybe a little extra profit for some other line which loses money.

**One could argue that it would only cost $500k to do the North American development of the World Ranger (Emission, plant setup, etc) so development cost per Ranger is only $2k, which puts Ranger at $900 less than F-150 but that is still too close for bean counter not to get nervous about sales predictions.

 

[Shoddy Cologne]

You know that could bring up another topic.. I dont understand the push for further safety standards on every vehicle. Vehicles will always be inheretantly dangerous. I think its the people operating them that are the real danger. Its not uncommon to notice someone reading a book while driving at 80mph. Make the car terrible again and frighten people. Theres so little driver involvement anymore. If you put a manual transmission in every vehicle i guarantee no one will be texting and driving. This is meant to be taken loosely. Yes there are people who are physically incapable of driving stick but dont think they are the problem. Nor is commuting in a city fun when you have a manual transmission but its a good work out. I also understand the era of the car is over. People want easy and automated lives and thats the direction we're headed. Maybe I was born in the wrong era but i dont like that idea.

Sent from my LGL16C using Tapatalk

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

You know that could bring up another topic.. I dont understand the push for further safety standards on every vehicle. Vehicles will always be inheretantly dangerous. I think its the people operating them that are the real danger. Its not uncommon to notice someone reading a book while driving at 80mph. Make the car terrible again and frighten people. Theres so little driver involvement anymore. If you put a manual transmission in every vehicle i guarantee no one will be texting and driving. This is meant to be taken loosely. Yes there are people who are physically incapable of driving stick but dont think they are the problem. Nor is commuting in a city fun when you have a manual transmission but its a good work out. I also understand the era of the car is over. People want easy and automated lives and thats the direction we're headed. Maybe I was born in the wrong era but i dont like that idea.

I don't have a problem with most safety stuff, like vehicles not imploding on impact. Traction control sucks though.

It is safer to drive now than it EVER has been. Cars are much safer and better designed.

And yes, I think people would still text and drive with a manual.