Ford to replace Ranger with F-100

[Atomic]

Actually Atomic was speaking about the Ranger because it was in response to me saying that small trucks like the Ranger will be all the rage with high fuel prices.

dude, i hope you don't think i said what i did in response to you. if so, do not flatter yourself   .

[Atomic]

Most large pickup owners don't haul anything...ever.  Small pickups will once again become all the rage because trends are set by people with no priorities.
I never stated people who use their trucks as the manufacturer intended would buy them, because those guys will always need them.  I'm talking about those who don't have any payload requirements but still want a pickup.
There you go.  You have no taste.

coming from you 666 (a.k.a.  ), i have great taste, man!

[Byteme]

Okay, first of all, fuel mileage ratings back them were supposedly inflated compared to even pre 2008 estimates. If I use the mathmatical conversion to 2008 standards it's 23/34.  Which is still better. Picture the 2.0 engine from a Mazda 2 in a Courier size pickup. 

Secondly, that truck would be a real bummer on the freeway. It would be noisy and vibrate, if it could even maintain those speeds. My '86 Ranger felt like it was going to shake apart at 73 mph.  A lot of progress has been made in design and materials in the pase 22 years.  If a company can make a subcompact that is suitable for highway use there is no reason to assume they couldn't make a small pickup that would be suitable as well.

Thirdly, a Courier is horribly unsafe by todays standards and emits quite a bit more NOx/CO/etc. Neither are insurmountable problems.

Also, the 2008 Ranger CAN be ordered with a 7' box.  I know, so could the COurier I mentioned.

Just get a first gen Ranger if you want a lightweight truck. The '86 longbox 2WD was just over 2600 lbs according to Ford's factory literature.   As you pointed out we have a lot better engine and safety technology today.

Actually, now that I think about the number of times a year I actually would need to haul pickup truck type loads I would probably be better off with a small car with a 1000# towing capacity and an open U-Haul rental 4-5 times a year.

[FoMoJo]

From...http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/AUTO01/805200362/1148

Some more information on the F-100 and, possibly, a new Ranger.

While Ford had planned to sell only one of the new trucks in the United States, the automaker is now considering selling both models here. That would give consumers a full range of pickup options, from an economical four-cylinder Ranger to the 6.4-liter V-8 diesel-powered Super Duty.

[SVT666]

From...http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/AUTO01/805200362/1148

Some more information on the F-100 and, possibly, a new Ranger.

While Ford had planned to sell only one of the new trucks in the United States, the automaker is now considering selling both models here. That would give consumers a full range of pickup options, from an economical four-cylinder Ranger to the 6.4-liter V-8 diesel-powered Super Duty.

I hope that's true.

[Atomic]

I hope that's true.

we agree, hemi  !!!

[CALL_911]

we agree, hemi  !!!

so do most people , ATOMIC.

[nickdrinkwater]

Hardly see any Rangers on the road here, so I guess it doesn't matter to us Brits.

[ifcar]

Hardly see any Rangers on the road here, so I guess it doesn't matter to us Brits.

You also have a different Ranger than we do.

[akuma_supreme]

Hardly see any Rangers on the road here, so I guess it doesn't matter to us Brits.

Relative to the average Yank, the British are paragons of good taste.

[280Z Turbo]

Relative to the average Yank, the British are paragons of good taste.

Don't talk shit about the Ranger.

[nickdrinkwater]

Don't talk shit about the Ranger.

Our Ranger is better than yours

[280Z Turbo]

Our Ranger is better than yours

I'm pretty sure your Ranger is quite a bit bigger and heavier than ours too.

As pissed as I get about Ford letting the Ranger rot, it's almost a good thing as it prevents the vehicle from porking up.

[akuma_supreme]

I'm pretty sure your Ranger is quite a bit bigger and heavier than ours too.

As pissed as I get about Ford letting the Ranger rot, it's almost a good thing as it prevents the vehicle from porking up.

I dunno.  I for one would much rather have a longer, bigger, and heavier Ranger than some puny, wimpy, "rotted" Ranger.

Are we still talking about trucks?

[280Z Turbo]

I dunno.  I for one would much rather have a longer, bigger, and heavier Ranger than some puny, wimpy, "rotted" Ranger.

Are we still talking about trucks?

The problem is not that the Ranger is "wimpy", it simply lacks the refinement of newer trucks.

[SVT666]

I dunno.  I for one would much rather have a longer, bigger, and heavier Ranger...

Then you don't want a Ranger do you?  You want a Tacoma.

...than some puny, wimpy, "rotted" Ranger.

The Ranger is small, but it's far from wimpy and rotted.

[akuma_supreme]

Then you don't want a Ranger do you?  You want a Tacoma.
The Ranger is small, but it's far from wimpy and rotted.

I was being sarcastic.  For awhile there, it appeared to me that they had stopped discussing trucks.

[GoCougs]

The Ranger is Ford's worst product management disaster in recent memory - even out-doing the disaster of the decade-long rundown of the Taurus.

The entire class has left it far behind, relegating it to low-profit cheapskates and fleet buyers.

The F-100 will be just about a decade too late, but I guess better late than never.

[SVT666]

The Ranger is Ford's worst product management disaster in recent memory - even out-doing the disaster of the decade-long rundown of the Taurus.

The entire class has left it far behind, relegating it to low-profit cheapskates and fleet buyers.

Actually there is no class anymore since the Ranger is the only one left in it.  However with it outselling most of the pickups on the market and the R&D long being paid for, I believe it's one of their most profitable vehicles.

[ifcar]

I can't imagine it's particularly profitable at those prices. V6 versions sell to fleets at under $10,000. The covered R&D seems to have been shoveled into price cuts rather than profits.

[SVT666]

I can't imagine it's particularly profitable at those prices. V6 versions sell to fleets at under $10,000. The covered R&D seems to have been shoveled into price cuts rather than profits.

Where do you get that number from?  Now I just went on to Ford.ca and built a 2WD 3.0L V6 basic truck for $16K CDN.  That truck has more options then the basic bare bones V6 Ranger I built on Ford.com for $14K.  With discounts the Ford.com truck is $12K.  A fully loaded FX4 on Ford.ca can get as high as $30K or more.  On Ford.com the same truck was a little over as $28K and after discounts it dropped to just under $25K. 

[ifcar]

Where do you get that number from?  Now I just went on to Ford.ca and built a 2WD 3.0L V6 basic truck for $16K CDN.  That truck has more options then the basic bare bones V6 Ranger I built on Ford.com for $14K.  With discounts the Ford.com truck is $12K.  A fully loaded FX4 on Ford.ca can get as high as $30K or more.  On Ford.com the same truck was a little over as $28K and after discounts it dropped to just under $25K. 

Automatic regular cabs with the 3.0-liter V6 and a/c sell to the state of Maryland for $9,900 each, under that fleet contract.

[SVT666]

Automatic regular cabs with the 3.0-liter V6 and a/c sell to the state of Maryland for $9,900 each, under that fleet contract.

If the truck has vinyl seats, vinyl floors, radio, a/c, and absolutely nothing else, I can see that price being realistis and Ford still making a profit.

[GoCougs]

Actually there is no class anymore since the Ranger is the only one left in it.  However with it outselling most of the pickups on the market and the R&D long being paid for, I believe it's one of their most profitable vehicles.

When you're the only vehicle left in its class, you know there are problems. Either way, the auto industry puts it in the same class as the others.

As to costs to produce, there's little economies of scale relative to raw materials (as when the Explorer was based upon the same chassis), the manufacturing equipment and methods are antiquated, and it sells for dirt cheap.

If it were such a profitable vehicle, Ford neither would've let it languish nor kill the brand name.

[SVT666]

When you're the only vehicle left in its class, you know there are problems. Either way, the auto industry puts it in the same class as the others.

I fail to see the problem when you still outsell most other pickups.  Sales are actually increasing.

If it were such a profitable vehicle, Ford neither would've let it languish nor kill the brand name.

Why fix what ain't broke?  The truck makes a profit and people still buy them in droves and sales are increasing. 

[ifcar]

If the truck has vinyl seats, vinyl floors, radio, a/c, and absolutely nothing else, I can see that price being realistis and Ford still making a profit.

Some, probably. But it's hardly going to be one of their most profitable vehicles. And it doesn't cost nearly as much to add features than they charge; the most profit comes from loaded models.

And sales are only increasing from the much lower levels they'd fallen to in recent years, not overall.

[SVT666]

Some, probably. But it's hardly going to be one of their most profitable vehicles. And it doesn't cost nearly as much to add features than they charge; the most profit comes from loaded models.

And sales are only increasing from the much lower levels they'd fallen to in recent years, not overall.

Much lower levels that are still much better then most other pickups could only dream of.

[ifcar]

I'm sure Nissan could sell just as many Frontiers if well-equipped ones were south of $10,000.

But your argument that sales are increasing is flat-out ridiculous, because they're only going a bit uphill from virtual collapse.

[SVT666]

I'm sure Nissan could sell just as many Frontiers if well-equipped ones were south of $10,000.

A well equipped Ranger is not under $10K and you know that.  A basic truck with no options but A/C and a V6 go for under $10K to fleet sales.

But your argument that sales are increasing is flat-out ridiculous, because they're only going a bit uphill from virtual collapse.

Virtual collapse?  The sales aren't what they used to be, but virtual collapse is such a gross overstatement it's not even funny.

[SVT666]

I guarantee that within 10 years all the pickup manufacturers will have Ranger size trucks running around because of fuel costs.