Did Ford quit making the Ranger ?

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

Lots of vehicles sell far less than 55K units a year and still get regular updates. That's actually fairly strong sales, especially for a largely "paid for" design.

I do agree it needed significant updates, but it seems to be worthwhile for other manufacturers.

With updated engines, I think a truck as small and light as the Ranger could have gotten phenomenal fuel economy for what it was. Even the Duratec 2.3 could easily get 30 MPG on the highway. There is no F-150 that can do that.

I think the small truck market is really in decline because they got so big, thirsty, and expensive. Many of them are pushing full size, both in dimensions and fuel economy. Small cars have started to make a comeback, so I hope the same thing will happen for pickups.


Other vehicles also have higher profit margins to justify their lower numbers and value to continue production.

Ford Ranger did not sell enough numbers to continue being a sustainable platform. Take away fleet sales were margins are super thin, it does not leave much meat on the bone. If Ford was still able to make money off it, they would still be making them.

I have owned two Rangers myself over the years and when I found myself shopping again for a truck and looked at what the ranger was the last few years, you either got the stripped down 5spd 2wd regular cab or you were forced into a overloaded SuperCab model that then priced you within spitting distance of a full size or many times over the price of a full size. Not much value when you are getting a small truck but paying a full size truck payment. Ford priced themselves out of the market.

FWIW, Toyota is doing the same with their Tacoma. Decently priced if you stay with a stripped down regular cab but start getting into the double cab and you are in the lower price range where full size starts.

The math is undeniable, not enough people wanted the Ford Ranger or it would still be in production.


It's true that Ford priced themselves out of the market, and I'm not really sure what happened there. Towards the end, the MSRP of a decently equipped Ranger was absurd. By comparison, my well equipped (minus power package) 2002 Super Cab XLT V6 stickered for just under $20K and was sold brand new for about $15K. At the time it was a lot of vehicle for $15K, and the only F-150 at that price was a bare bones regular cab XL. After about 2006 though it wasn't uncommon to see Rangers pushing $30K MSRP, and there was little middle ground between a bare bones I4 XL and a loaded 4X4 V6. I think this was mostly poor positioning rather than a poor concept for a vehicle.

And it's also true the Tacoma has not escaped small truck bloat. I remember when the long bed crew cab Tacos were about the size of the previous gen Tundra and getting close in price, so then they turned around and made the Tundra huge.

The thing is, I think the market is still there IF small trucks are sized, priced, and marketed properly. The Ranger had nearly 20 year old sheetmetal, no crew cab, and aging engines at the end of production. No wonder it wasn't as popular as before...you could buy a 5 or 10 year old version of essentially the same truck for a lot less than a new one. It wasn't that long ago when the Ranger outsold the Camry at around 350K units a year...that was 1998 or 1999. I don't think all those people just up and lost interest in a small truck, but maybe they just didn't see the point in paying much more for the exact same truck they bought 10 years ago.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl


The thing is, I think the market is still there IF small trucks are sized, priced, and marketed properly.


I totally agree but I think those days are behind us.

I agree with your observation that about 2005-2006 the market for small trucks jumped the shark and stop being a value that they use to be.

I bought a second year Dodge Dakota in 1988 and back then, small, mid and large size trucks were distinctive in their class in terms of price, sizing and features. By mid 2000's as your previously surmised, that was all lost.

If they could just bring a basic small truck back to market in the sub $13K range, I would think it would bring back many who have moved on from the small/mid class truck due to pricing pressures.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Agreed on both points!

A lot of people say "just bring the Thai Ranger to the US." The Thai Ranger actually isn't a very refined truck, probably wouldn't pass our safety standards, and I highly doubt it is significantly more up to date mechanically than the US Ranger. It just looks newer, which isn't surprising because the small pickup market in SE Asia is very competitive.

Ford is still kind of fumbling around with some of their vehicles though. They no longer have a RWD four door sedan. Why not? It has worked wonders for Chrysler. And the small pickup market sure doesn't seem to be dead for Toyota...they still sell plenty of Tacomas, probably because they update the styling and powertrains more than once every 20 years. Who cares though, just crank out another odd looking FWD crossover blob, give it some ambiguous name that doesn't indicate anything about the vehicle, and say you are turning the company around. I will give them credit for developing some great new engines and improving some platforms that needed it, it's just too bad that so much development is going into boring cookie cutter crossover junk.


Couldn't agree more!

The Thai version doesn't remotely resemble the US Ranger. I don't know much about the US model, but I reckon the Thai model is also based off Mazda's BT pickup.

 

[bretfraz]

The demand for smaller trucks is not what it was in the late 90's. I don't get a lot of people asking me for a small truck. The market has changed/matured. 15 years ago the truck market was a lot different that it was today.

In the 80's and 90's, trucks were just starting to be used a personal transportation. Trucks like the Ranger and S10 were the entry level vehicles for people moving away from cars to trucks and SUV's. The Ranger was never going to be a permanent choice for many truck owners, especially when they could get an F150 or a Silverado in a million different combos.

The number of people who want a small truck as a daily driver is small and not getting larger. Why would Ford commit millions of dollars to a stagnant market with low profit margins? Today's personal truck buyer is well aware of Rangers, Tacomas, Frontiers, and Colorados. If they wanted them, they would buy them. The market has grown up and into a larger truck. What is left for the small truck market is fleet buyers (very low profit margin) and hard core loyalists (a small market that is very price sensitive). It's not worth the investment.

Bottom line is small trucks are a dying segment. Sales are small, profits are small, development costs are high (enough), and consumers are looking at larger trucks. There isn't much of a business case here. Time to move on.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: bretfraz
The demand for smaller trucks is not what it was in the late 90's. I don't get a lot of people asking me for a small truck. The market has changed/matured. 15 years ago the truck market was a lot different that it was today.

In the 80's and 90's, trucks were just starting to be used a personal transportation. Trucks like the Ranger and S10 were the entry level vehicles for people moving away from cars to trucks and SUV's. The Ranger was never going to be a permanent choice for many truck owners, especially when they could get an F150 or a Silverado in a million different combos.

The number of people who want a small truck as a daily driver is small and not getting larger. Why would Ford commit millions of dollars to a stagnant market with low profit margins? Today's personal truck buyer is well aware of Rangers, Tacomas, Frontiers, and Colorados. If they wanted them, they would buy them. The market has grown up and into a larger truck. What is left for the small truck market is fleet buyers (very low profit margin) and hard core loyalists (a small market that is very price sensitive). It's not worth the investment.

Bottom line is small trucks are a dying segment. Sales are small, profits are small, development costs are high (enough), and consumers are looking at larger trucks. There isn't much of a business case here. Time to move on.


By this logic we should all be driving full size cars and SUVs, but in those markets the trend is the opposite.

I don't think markets just "grow up" and move on to larger vehicles. For a certain age or income group that might be the case, but there are always entry level and price sensitive buyers. It's just that now those entry level buyers only have stripped down full sizes to choose from for the most part. For these buyers there aren't a lot of choices because many of the million different combos of full size trucks can get very expensive.

And I think the Ranger was definitely a permanent choice for a lot of people. My parents bought their first in 1986 and haven't had any desire to "grow up" to a larger truck. My dad was actually really disappointed when the Ranger was dropped. One older retired guy I know actually recently traded his '06 F-150 in on a new '11 Ranger because he likes the size more and knew the Ranger was going away. Personally I have owned multiple Rangers, have considered full sizes, but came back to what worked best for me (and my truck works a lot harder than many full size grocery getters).

It's a smaller market for sure, but I don't think it's a dead one IF done properly. Small cars aren't high margin vehicles either, but they seem to be pretty important to most manufacturers.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl


By this logic we should all be driving full size cars and SUVs, but in those markets the trend is the opposite.

I don't think markets just "grow up" and move on to larger vehicles. For a certain age or income group that might be the case, but there are always entry level and price sensitive buyers. It's just that now those entry level buyers only have stripped down full sizes to choose from for the most part. For these buyers there aren't a lot of choices because many of the million different combos of full size trucks can get very expensive.

And I think the Ranger was definitely a permanent choice for a lot of people. My parents bought their first in 1986 and haven't had any desire to "grow up" to a larger truck. My dad was actually really disappointed when the Ranger was dropped. One older retired guy I know actually recently traded his '06 F-150 in on a new '11 Ranger because he likes the size more and knew the Ranger was going away. Personally I have owned multiple Rangers, have considered full sizes, but came back to what worked best for me (and my truck works a lot harder than many full size grocery getters).

It's a smaller market for sure, but I don't think it's a dead one IF done properly. Small cars aren't high margin vehicles either, but they seem to be pretty important to most manufacturers.


If there was money to be made making them, they would be still making them. The only savings in smaller products is the material cost but the labor and development costs are the same whether it is a full size truck or a small size truck.

"Loss leader" vehicles only take a manufacturer so far if it does not equate into future larger vehicle and larger profit margin sales. Building domestic small trucks only for a market that never upgrades to larger vehicles does not make much business sense in the long run.

Unless Congress lifts the 25% tariff for import small trucks and allows imports in, then we will never see those days again of true small class trucks again.

We tend to insulate ourselves and think the micro economics around us is the larger macro picture when it is not.

 

[01rangerxl]

Well I can see why they are having trouble making money on small trucks that have a lot of the disadvantages of large trucks, such as poor fuel economy and high price tags. By building small trucks with discernible advantages in fuel economy and price, they might sell enough to make up for small margins which are a factor with any lower priced truck. I also get that just because people I know want Rangers doesn't mean a lot of people want them, but my point is there is still interest in small trucks and for some a full size truck isn't what they are looking for.

There are ways to reduce development costs. The original domestic Ranger had somewhat high development costs being a completely new platform, but IIRC it was less than what they spent on the F-Series redesign for 1980. Some parts were simply resized versions of components already developed for the F-Series, such as the Twin I Beam suspensions. The engines, auto trans, and rear axle were already used in small Ford cars, and the transmissions sourced from Japanese companies. The body and frame were the biggest development expenses and Ford didn't do much to change those over the next 28 years. Even with the major 1993 sheetmetal refresh, under the skin a lot of things never changed. My truck still has a stamping in the bed for a second fuel filler neck, an option that went away in 1987 or 1988. I think considering lifetime sales and lifetime investment in the platform, Ford got very good ROI. If it wasn't for the truck's inability to pass the new roof crush standards, I bet they would still be making it, at least for fleet use.

I think the Ranger was really doomed when the Explorer was put on its own frame and took a separate development path. From 1991-2001, what was good for the Explorer was good for the Ranger. After the Ranger no longer had a high profit vehicle attached to it, Ford just stopped updating it and let their market share slip away, all the while raising the price and just retrofitting new things as needed to pass new standards. Small trucks almost always have another high profit vehicle attached to them or a foreign produced counterpart that shares development costs. The Tacoma benefits from the 4Runner and Hilux. The Frontier is built on Nissan's widely used F-Alpha platform. The GM twins were initially developed with Isuzu for the SE Asian market and introduced there before being introduced and built here. The S-Series was quickly dropped as soon as GM decided to go with a separate SUV platform, and when the Durango became drastically different the Dakota was no more.

I'd really like to see the chicken tax done away with because I think it would lead to much more competition in the small truck market in the US. We might get to see things like this 2.0 turbo VW Amarok...another cool truck from Argentina.

 

[bretfraz]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
The demand for smaller trucks is not what it was in the late 90's. I don't get a lot of people asking me for a small truck. The market has changed/matured. 15 years ago the truck market was a lot different that it was today.

In the 80's and 90's, trucks were just starting to be used a personal transportation. Trucks like the Ranger and S10 were the entry level vehicles for people moving away from cars to trucks and SUV's. The Ranger was never going to be a permanent choice for many truck owners, especially when they could get an F150 or a Silverado in a million different combos.

The number of people who want a small truck as a daily driver is small and not getting larger. Why would Ford commit millions of dollars to a stagnant market with low profit margins? Today's personal truck buyer is well aware of Rangers, Tacomas, Frontiers, and Colorados. If they wanted them, they would buy them. The market has grown up and into a larger truck. What is left for the small truck market is fleet buyers (very low profit margin) and hard core loyalists (a small market that is very price sensitive). It's not worth the investment.

Bottom line is small trucks are a dying segment. Sales are small, profits are small, development costs are high (enough), and consumers are looking at larger trucks. There isn't much of a business case here. Time to move on.


By this logic we should all be driving full size cars and SUVs, but in those markets the trend is the opposite.

I don't think markets just "grow up" and move on to larger vehicles. For a certain age or income group that might be the case, but there are always entry level and price sensitive buyers. It's just that now those entry level buyers only have stripped down full sizes to choose from for the most part. For these buyers there aren't a lot of choices because many of the million different combos of full size trucks can get very expensive.

And I think the Ranger was definitely a permanent choice for a lot of people. My parents bought their first in 1986 and haven't had any desire to "grow up" to a larger truck. My dad was actually really disappointed when the Ranger was dropped. One older retired guy I know actually recently traded his '06 F-150 in on a new '11 Ranger because he likes the size more and knew the Ranger was going away. Personally I have owned multiple Rangers, have considered full sizes, but came back to what worked best for me (and my truck works a lot harder than many full size grocery getters).

It's a smaller market for sure, but I don't think it's a dead one IF done properly. Small cars aren't high margin vehicles either, but they seem to be pretty important to most manufacturers.


We ARE driving full size cars and SUV's. Look around you. Accord and Camry are two of the best selling cars and are almost full sized per the EPA. They are much larger than the models from 15 years ago. Almost any model you can think of has grown significantly since the 90's.

Every market either grows of shrinks. Nothing stays the same. The Ranger existed partially to induce entry-level truck buyers to buy a Ford. A primary goal of offering an entry-level model is to keep that customer in the brand family. Honda, VW, and Toyota have done this brilliantly since the 1970's.

As the old saying goes, there is a butt for every seat. Even if the car is awful, people will buy it. I sell all kinds of cars, some I revile, but I'm amazed people buy what they buy. I'm sure there are plenty of butts for a Ranger, but the number is shrinking. Someone wrote above that in the 80's Ford sold 350,000 Rangers. If that number is true, then the 55,000 Rangers Ford sold in recent years is solid proof the market has moved on to something else. No amount of Ranger diesels or Ranger Limiteds or Ranger Eddie Bauers or Ranger Super Crews will save it. I think it's safe to assume Ford did extensive market research trying to understand why Ranger customers were dropping the model in droves, and how to stop the bleeding.

Finally, your point about small cars is incomplete. Compact cars are important for automakers for a lot of reasons; improving corporate fuel economy numbers, offering entry-level buyers something affordable, obtaining market share in a very competitive global markets, offset development costs of a global platform, etc. The small car market is not just like the small truck market and should not be compared. The compact car buyer is not a small truck buyer, and vice versa.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Well I can see why they are having trouble making money on small trucks that have a lot of the disadvantages of large trucks, such as poor fuel economy and high price tags. By building small trucks with discernible advantages in fuel economy and price, they might sell enough to make up for small margins which are a factor with any lower priced truck. I also get that just because people I know want Rangers doesn't mean a lot of people want them, but my point is there is still interest in small trucks and for some a full size truck isn't what they are looking for.


That's what strikes me as strange.

Mine is the family car, and there are many many Aussies who are paying $50-60k for their family utes...or $25 for a great wall.

The Mazda version of the new Ranger won a car of the year award.

 

[Falcon_LS]

I think it's a sad day when the likes of a Camry and Accord are considered full-size, when they were once referred to as mid-size. Then again Ford killed the Crown Vic, a true full-size, and replaced it with the Taurus, which it calls "full-size".

In this part of the world, Class 2 American trucks are used as personal transportation. The Class 1 market is extremely competitive:

- Toyota Hilux
- Mitsubishi L200
- Isuzu D-Max
- Nissan Pickup
- Nissan Navara
- Ford Ranger
- Mazda BT-50

To name a few. The Chinese have even made an entry with brands like Great Wall, Geely and FAW Hongta Yunnan. Save for the Bedouins and their love affair with the Toyota Hilux and the Nissan Pickup, these are fleet vehicles bought by the boat load. The only American trucks used by commercial fleets here are Class 3 and above.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: bretfraz

We ARE driving full size cars and SUV's. Look around you. Accord and Camry are two of the best selling cars and are almost full sized per the EPA. They are much larger than the models from 15 years ago. Almost any model you can think of has grown significantly since the 90's.


The Camry and Accord may be fatter than they were, and rental car companies might call them "full size," but they are still positioned as midsize. You can still get an I4 in them, and there are plenty of cars that are larger.

And there are plenty of smaller offerings. You can get a Fit, Civic, Yaris, Corolla, etc. All of which are popular cars. The need for entry level offerings has always been a smaller part of the market, but it has always been an important one too. There aren't too many companies that can survive making just large cars unless they appeal to a very wealthy target market. A LACK of small offerings has hurt domestics in the past when people went to Japanese brands instead!

Quote:

Every market either grows of shrinks. Nothing stays the same. The Ranger existed partially to induce entry-level truck buyers to buy a Ford. A primary goal of offering an entry-level model is to keep that customer in the brand family. Honda, VW, and Toyota have done this brilliantly since the 1970's.


As the old saying goes, there is a butt for every seat. Even if the car is awful, people will buy it. I sell all kinds of cars, some I revile, but I'm amazed people buy what they buy. I'm sure there are plenty of butts for a Ranger, but the number is shrinking. Someone wrote above that in the 80's Ford sold 350,000 Rangers. If that number is true, then the 55,000 Rangers Ford sold in recent years is solid proof the market has moved on to something else. No amount of Ranger diesels or Ranger Limiteds or Ranger Eddie Bauers or Ranger Super Crews will save it. I think it's safe to assume Ford did extensive market research trying to understand why Ranger customers were dropping the model in droves, and how to stop the bleeding.

Finally, your point about small cars is incomplete. Compact cars are important for automakers for a lot of reasons; improving corporate fuel economy numbers, offering entry-level buyers something affordable, obtaining market share in a very competitive global markets, offset development costs of a global platform, etc. The small car market is not just like the small truck market and should not be compared. The compact car buyer is not a small truck buyer, and vice versa.

[/quote]

 

[01rangerxl]

Not sure what happened with that post, here is the complete version...
Originally Posted By: bretfraz

We ARE driving full size cars and SUV's. Look around you. Accord and Camry are two of the best selling cars and are almost full sized per the EPA. They are much larger than the models from 15 years ago. Almost any model you can think of has grown significantly since the 90's.


The Camry and Accord may be fatter than they were, and rental car companies might call them "full size," but they are still positioned as midsize. You can still get an I4 in them, and there are plenty of cars that are larger.

And there are plenty of smaller offerings. You can get a Fit, Civic, Yaris, Corolla, etc. All of which are popular cars. The need for entry level offerings has always been a smaller part of the market, but it has always been an important one too. There aren't too many companies that can survive making just large cars unless they appeal to a very wealthy target market. A LACK of small offerings has hurt domestics in the past when people went to Japanese brands instead!

Quote:

Every market either grows of shrinks. Nothing stays the same. The Ranger existed partially to induce entry-level truck buyers to buy a Ford. A primary goal of offering an entry-level model is to keep that customer in the brand family. Honda, VW, and Toyota have done this brilliantly since the 1970's.

And Ford has not done it so brilliantly with their trucks. There will always be entry level buyers...people do continue getting driver's licenses, there are people who have not yet bought a new vehicle but might in the future. The entry level market never just dries up and goes away. Honda, VW, and Toyota still have small entry level offerings to attract new buyers to them. What vehicle serves this purpose for Ford trucks now?

Quote:

Someone wrote above that in the 80's Ford sold 350,000 Rangers. If that number is true, then the 55,000 Rangers Ford sold in recent years is solid proof the market has moved on to something else.

I wrote above that in 1998 or 1999 the Ranger sold around 350,000 units a year outselling the Camry. 1998 and 1999 did not happen in the 80s. In fact, the biggest difference between then and now is that in the late 90s the demand/supply was for even LARGER vehicles because of the high margins on full size SUVs (and by that I don't mean a Honda Pilot or Toyota Highlander). Small car development stagnated, and when the high margin large SUV market collapsed, what happened? The mid 2000s wasn't a good time for the domestics.
Quote:

I think it's safe to assume Ford did extensive market research trying to understand why Ranger customers were dropping the model in droves, and how to stop the bleeding.

Hint: if a vehicle is not significantly updated for almost two decades, people will buy fewer of it.


Quote:

Finally, your point about small cars is incomplete. Compact cars are important for automakers for a lot of reasons; improving corporate fuel economy numbers, offering entry-level buyers something affordable, obtaining market share in a very competitive global markets, offset development costs of a global platform, etc. The small car market is not just like the small truck market and should not be compared. The compact car buyer is not a small truck buyer, and vice versa.

Why exactly can't they be compared? The purpose of having small trucks in the first place was all of the things you mentioned.

A lot of time compact car buyers ARE also small truck buyers. The same considerations apply (fuel economy, price, etc).

 

[rationull]

I think this is a shame. A fair amount of the time I spent learning to drive was in a compact pickup, and I have many fond memories of compact pickups from my childhood in general. It's too bad many of them have gotten bigger over the years, and I also think it's a poor strategy to assume that people would/should just move up to a half-ton full size. Even if it works out financially (because enough people would grudgingly move up in size, or can be convinced to) it's still leaving a hole in the market.

At least there are still a few around. A friend visited in his new Tacoma a few weeks ago and I was impressed with how nice a vehicle it seemed to be -- relatively simple and sturdy, actually smaller than I thought the new ones were. I'm all for utilitarian vehicles and if I didn't want to drive a sporty car I could totally see myself with a compact pickup with a stick shift (and probably a V6).

Admittedly I'm not actually in that market though. I like sporty hatchbacks better and while we have a truck, it's a full size used for towing a horse trailer. Maybe that makes me part of the problem

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
I think it's a sad day when the likes of a Camry and Accord are considered full-size, when they were once referred to as mid-size. Then again Ford killed the Crown Vic, a true full-size, and replaced it with the Taurus, which it calls "full-size".

In this part of the world, Class 2 American trucks are used as personal transportation. The Class 1 market is extremely competitive:

- Toyota Hilux
- Mitsubishi L200
- Isuzu D-Max
- Nissan Pickup
- Nissan Navara
- Ford Ranger
- Mazda BT-50

To name a few. The Chinese have even made an entry with brands like Great Wall, Geely and FAW Hongta Yunnan. Save for the Bedouins and their love affair with the Toyota Hilux and the Nissan Pickup, these are fleet vehicles bought by the boat load. The only American trucks used by commercial fleets here are Class 3 and above.


From the context of American markets in relation to small truck sales, comparing what the rest of the world is doing is not a apples to apples comparison.

Unlike many other countries where small trucks are actually needed due to either space constraints of the infrastructure and/or where taxation and registration of of vehicles in these foreign countries is based on engine displacement/vehicle weight, then a natural viable market is there for these vehicle.

Also, these foreign countries many times do not have the added cost of safety features that is rolled into the price like it would be with a domestic small truck here in the USA.

On the same note of safety features, many people may have forgotten that trucks to also include the small trucks did not have to implement safety features like side impact protection, air bags and even some emissions items until way later after passenger vehicles had them standard. By the 2000's, this was no longer the case and I would speculate this was why the costs have priced the smaller segment out of it's intended market.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: rationull

Admittedly I'm not actually in that market though. I like sporty hatchbacks better and while we have a truck, it's a full size used for towing a horse trailer. Maybe that makes me part of the problem

Not at all! Towing a horse trailer is something I would leave to a larger truck.

I have actually been kicking around the idea of getting an older (1990s) F-250, E-250, or maybe 3/4 ton Suburban as a second vehicle because I have been doing a lot of towing lately, but the Ranger has been handling it like a champ. I would like an older full size beater, but for day to day non-towing use, I'd rather drive the Ranger.

One of the guys I work with has a Suburban and an R3500 dually for towing and heavy loads, but his favorite daily driver is a 22R powered Toyota pickup.

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

Not at all! Towing a horse trailer is something I would leave to a larger truck.

I have actually been kicking around the idea of getting an older (1990s) F-250, E-250, or maybe 3/4 ton Suburban as a second vehicle because I have been doing a lot of towing lately, but the Ranger has been handling it like a champ. I would like an older full size beater, but for day to day non-towing use, I'd rather drive the Ranger.

One of the guys I work with has a Suburban and an R3500 dually for towing and heavy loads, but his favorite daily driver is a 22R powered Toyota pickup.


Of course, a horse trailer (except maybe for a small fiberglass one) is totally out of the league of a compact pickup, but if we didn't have to tow a trailer and wanted the capability of a pickup, I'd got for a compact any day. The wife and I both like our 3/4 ton Suburban and it's fun to drive in its own way, but it's definitely more of a boat than a smaller truck.

 

[Shannow]

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/car-of-th...1122-1ns6z.html

 

[fordman65]

Ford is making a Ranger, just not for the US market.
Check out this article in Truck Trend magazine.

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2010/163_news101014_new_global_ford_ranger/index.html

 

[jeepman3071]

The idea of everyone buying a full size truck is a dumb one. Not everyone NEEDS or wants a full size truck. The Ranger did have a market, and it actually still does. Try finding one for a decent price, they hold their value very well.

The problem is the "macho" attitude. One of my buddies drives a full size Chevy just because he wants a truck with a V8. He doesn't tow, and he never puts anything in the bed besides beer cans. He has a crew cab, and rarely has anyone in it besides him.

My other friend has a Ranger, and he tows, hauls stuff, etc. I don't think this is so much a question about if there is a market for small pickups as it is what does the company want people to buy. Its much more profitable for Ford to make more F150s than to produce the Ranger.

If I needed a truck I know I'd buy a Ranger or Tacoma over an F150 or Chevy 1500. I don't tow more than 3500 lbs, and I don't need a V8 or larger than 6ft bed. I wouldn't want to drive around in something that is too big for my needs.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Why *would* ford keep the ranger?

It's just like the crown victoria; a STRONG selling, RELIABLE vehicle but it isn't hip.

I like to rag on Chrysler, but Ford has done as many equally dumb things.

It wasn't young and hip, based on the taurus platform (which Ford vehicle isn't based on the taurus), doesn't have the 3.5l duratec engine ...