Did Ford quit making the Ranger ?

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071

The problem is the "macho" attitude. One of my buddies drives a full size Chevy just because he wants a truck with a V8.


I was about to post that this is what the Dakota is for, but it looks like that one's been discontinued too. Too bad.

 

[dave1251]

It does not sale. Plain and simple you can not distort the fact that the Ford Edge outsold the Ranger over to 2 to 1. I am just throwing this figure out there to see how small of a market the Ranger occupied and the majority of the market was fleet sales.

Ford made the decision to jettison a costly model that was not profitable and was losing sales. So all of the posters criticizing Ford for doing so would be criticizing Ford for losing money. You can not have it both ways.

Even the best seller in the class the Tacoma sells have declined about 25-30% from its peak in the U.S. GM sold about 40K compact pickups last year. To me this is the definition of a segment that is not strong selling.

 

[SLCraig]

I can't help but think a lot of the decline of sales of these type of vehicles is just because they were bad before they stopped being made. I am a big Dakota fan. A "small" truck with a V8 option and more room than the competition, I've always wanted one, but when it became junk in 2005 I lost all interest. Before 2005 the Dakota was my favorite truck on the road. The older Tacomas are much the same, you hear of much less problems with all of the older models. Ranger was one of the only ones left mostly unchanged.

 

[Quattro Pete]

IMO, part of the problem with small trucks is that consumers expect them to cost less than big trucks, but the reality is that small trucks cost about as much to produce as the bigger ones. So, most consumers look at price stickers and figure "hey, for about the same money, I can get a bigger one. I'm going to get the bigger one just for this once in a blue moon occasion that I may need it." In order to get the Ranger sales moving, Ford probably had to significantly reduce its margins to separate it price-wise from the F150. And who wants to spend time and effort making low-margin product?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
We might get to see things like this 2.0 turbo VW Amarok...another cool truck from Argentina.

Not sure what it costs in Argentina, but in the neighboring Brazil Amarok pricing starts at the equivalent of $66K USD. In Germany, it starts at around $30K, and that's before any tax is piled on. That is why VW isn't considering bringing it to the US. Not many people would be willing to pay this much for a small truck, especially from a manufacturer that has had its fair share of reliability quibbles.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/04/volkswagen-amarok-pricing-starts-at-around-35k.html

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/06/vw-do-brasil-pricing-runs-amarok/

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/20/why-its-not-coming-here-vw-amarok-priced-at-35k-in-europe/

 

[antiqueshell]

The reason the Ranger stopped selling in large numbers was because Ford set it up this way, like others said they left the model to stagnate so that consumers would be "pushed" into buying a higher profit margin model like the F 150. If Ford would have continued to invest in modernizing the Ranger and keeping it up to date I think that Ranger sales would have continued to climb.

Ford didn't like the profit margin, it wasn't enough for the greedy shareholders. This is a huge problem today for ANY company it is ONLY about the profit margin and returns in the short term, but eventually the greed on the part of investors and shareholders will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Ford is not alone. You can see what appear to be POOR LONG TERM DECISIONS AND PLANNING in order to increase short term returns at almost every company in the USA.

 

[kkreit01]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I have driven the "global" T6 ranger 4x4 crew cab 3.0 diesel. It was capable I own a 09 F150 FX4 but that ranger felt like it had a higher center of gravity, I am 5"11 and 200 lbs it was very uncomfortable riding in the back, and IMO my 89 Ranger I had in high school felt more refined.

Your old Ranger probably was more refined. The Ranger also benefited greatly from the massive investment Ford made in the Explorer during the 1990s. At that time it was a very up to date vehicle.



Interestingly, Mexico, Central America, and South America had their own version of the US Ranger that got unique updates that US models did not get. Most notably a crew cab, available diesel, really nice interiors available in some counties (Brazil and Argentina), and other odds and ends such as outboard shocks and more modern styling. They also got Dana 44 rear axles. I'd love to have an Argentine Ranger in Limited trim.

As different as this Ranger looks from US models, it's actually closely related and built on the same platform. Notice the updated door handles, sheetmetal, lights, etc. The rear bumper is a dead giveaway that it's a close relative of the US model though...it's the exact bumper that's on my truck. I remember when one piece South American headlights were a sought after mod for US trucks (but very hard to get).

Here's the Limited interior...why couldn't we get this Ford?

I like that exterior, but the interior looks like a 2nd Gen Explorer (96-01).

 

[dave1251]

OK what is your opinion about said Ford then? Ford operated in the red for years and only until pretty recently started making a profit. The company is still in debt but at least right now the company is paying its bills and increasing sales.

So it jettisoned a unprofitable or at the very least a product that had a small return on investment that in case you have not noticed compact pick-up sales across the board have declined. I have read that for the entire year Nissan has sold around 15K Frontiers. So manufacturers run in the red to produce products a small minority is willing to buy? That will keep a company in business?

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
IMO, part of the problem with small trucks is that consumers expect them to cost less than big trucks, but the reality is that small trucks cost about as much to produce as the bigger ones. So, most consumers look at price stickers and figure "hey, for about the same money, I can get a bigger one. I'm going to get the bigger one just for this once in a blue moon occasion that I may need it." In order to get the Ranger sales moving, Ford probably had to significantly reduce its margins to separate it price-wise from the F150. And who wants to spend time and effort making low-margin product?




I did not realize the "global" small trucks had become so insanely expensive. It is true that small trucks are not significantly cheaper to make than full sizes, but there has got to be more to why the Amarok costs as much as a new crew cab dually in Brazil or as much as a crew cab full size in Germany. Sounds like somebody's margins are pretty high on these trucks elsewhere in the world.

My truck was definitely cheaper to build than a comparable F-150 XLT, but it came without a lot of things that were found on the F-150 or that became more common in small trucks later on. It has a 2-door Super Cab (no half doors), manual windows/mirrors/locks, no remote entry, no overhead console, no power seats or pedals, no full rear seat, etc. Later Rangers were typically optioned with more features, plus had additional mandatory safety equipment, so the price of a truck nearly identical to mine but with the power package went up about $5000 in 6 years. It wasn't uncommon to see 2011 2.3 XLT 2WD Super Cabs with a sticker of $26K or more.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I have driven the "global" T6 ranger 4x4 crew cab 3.0 diesel. It was capable I own a 09 F150 FX4 but that ranger felt like it had a higher center of gravity, I am 5"11 and 200 lbs it was very uncomfortable riding in the back, and IMO my 89 Ranger I had in high school felt more refined.

Your old Ranger probably was more refined. The Ranger also benefited greatly from the massive investment Ford made in the Explorer during the 1990s. At that time it was a very up to date vehicle.



Interestingly, Mexico, Central America, and South America had their own version of the US Ranger that got unique updates that US models did not get. Most notably a crew cab, available diesel, really nice interiors available in some counties (Brazil and Argentina), and other odds and ends such as outboard shocks and more modern styling. They also got Dana 44 rear axles. I'd love to have an Argentine Ranger in Limited trim.

As different as this Ranger looks from US models, it's actually closely related and built on the same platform. Notice the updated door handles, sheetmetal, lights, etc. The rear bumper is a dead giveaway that it's a close relative of the US model though...it's the exact bumper that's on my truck. I remember when one piece South American headlights were a sought after mod for US trucks (but very hard to get).

Here's the Limited interior...why couldn't we get this Ford?

I like that exterior, but the interior looks like a 2nd Gen Explorer (96-01).


So did the US model, but the South American model at least looked like a nicer 95-01 Explorer!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I did not realize the "global" small trucks had become so insanely expensive. It is true that small trucks are not significantly cheaper to make than full sizes, but there has got to be more to why the Amarok costs as much as a new crew cab dually in Brazil or as much as a crew cab full size in Germany. Sounds like somebody's margins are pretty high on these trucks elsewhere in the world.


Just an FYI...

http://www.carpoint.com.au/used-cars/FORD/F250/model-make.htm

 

[01rangerxl]

Ouch, those F-250s are listed for 3-5X their value in the US.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The reason the Ranger stopped selling in large numbers was because Ford set it up this way, like others said they left the model to stagnate so that consumers would be "pushed" into buying a higher profit margin model like the F 150. If Ford would have continued to invest in modernizing the Ranger and keeping it up to date I think that Ranger sales would have continued to climb.

Ford didn't like the profit margin, it wasn't enough for the greedy shareholders. This is a huge problem today for ANY company it is ONLY about the profit margin and returns in the short term, but eventually the greed on the part of investors and shareholders will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Ford is not alone. You can see what appear to be POOR LONG TERM DECISIONS AND PLANNING in order to increase short term returns at almost every company in the USA.


Must be a Union guy. No business is in the business of being a primary job creator, that is just the secondary benefit to being a profit maker.

I do not know why it is so hard to grasp for some people that if there was money to be made in small trucks, they would be making it.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Ouch, those F-250s are listed for 3-5X their value in the US.


Aussies also have high taxes and a minimum wage of about $16.40 in US dollars. Nothing is cheap over there.

 

[Shannow]

Doesn't explain why F250s are so expensive, or the Commodore was cheaper in the US than it's home country, when built and assembled here.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: 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.

Loved the small trucks as well.

Miss my s-10. If they can bring the price down a bit. I'll own one..

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro


I do not know why it is so hard to grasp for some people that if there was money to be made in small trucks, they would be making it.



I do not know why it is so hard to grasp for some people that not everyone wants to drive a huge truck all the time. This is the only country in the world where so many people drive a full size truck just to go to the grocery store. I think driving large trucks is fun too, until I have to park it in a tight spot, go down a really narrow road or pathway, make a sharp turn, etc. Back when my friends and I were messing around with ATVs a lot, my truck was the regular tow rig because my friend's Nissan Titan was too freaking big! It was too hard to get an ATV up in the bed and trailers sat more level behind my truck. Granted the Titan was lifted with 35" tires, but it's definitely proof that a huge truck doesn't always make for a useful truck.

And I'm not sure why everyone suddenly has so much faith in Ford's decision making and long term planning. It was only a few years ago that they botched their flagship family sedan's positioning so much that they needed someone from outside the company to come in and tell them to bring the Taurus name back and to not half [censored] it. And they have completely abandoned the RWD sedan market, which they have a solid reputation in, basically just handing it to Chrysler. Chrysler's RWD sedans seem to be selling just fine.

As for the Ranger's usefulness to Ford, when the Ranger sold well, the F-150 sold well. It never hurt F-Series sales. The F-Series did not become the best selling vehicle of all types (not just truck) until after the Ranger had been in production for a few years. Some of that was due to growth in the popularity of trucks in general, but some of it was people who moved from a Ranger to the F-Series. My cousin bought three new Rangers for his business before buying his first new F-150.

Toyota seems to have this figured out best. They get that even lower volume and lower margin vehicles can add to the brand's value, keep customers in the brand, and provide choices for a wider spectrum of customers to win them over to the brand. Even with the popularity of crossovers (which Toyota has plenty of), a 4Runner is still what a 4Runner should be. You can still get a basic regular cab I4 manual Tacoma too, and even after introducing the Sequoia they kept developing the Land Cruiser and it remains a separate vehicle. They are looking at the long term big picture and retaining customers, even if those customers are buying something that's not as profitable as another model.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
This is the only country in the world where so many people drive a full size truck just to go to the grocery store.

The same goes for other vehicle categories. Most prefer to drive a big honking SUV when a station wagon would have worked.

This "bigger is better" mentality unfortunately is so prevalent in the US, the smaller vehicles are skipped unless they can be purchased for notably less money. And here we go back to the point where producing a small truck is almost as expensive as producing a large one.

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: Hootbro


I do not know why it is so hard to grasp for some people that if there was money to be made in small trucks, they would be making it.



I do not know why it is so hard to grasp for some people that not everyone wants to drive a huge truck all the time. ..............
Toyota seems to have this figured out best. They get that even lower volume and lower margin vehicles can add to the brand's value, keep customers in the brand, and provide choices for a wider spectrum of customers to win them over to the brand. .................


The market is not there for Ford and it is for Toyota. Both have two different income and financial liability streams.

Toyota generally has little to no unionization with factories in right to work states with lower pay scales and benefit packages. So Toyota has meat on the bone to make money on smaller trucks, Ford does not.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
This is the only country in the world where so many people drive a full size truck just to go to the grocery store.

The same goes for other vehicle categories. Most prefer to drive a big honking SUV when a station wagon would have worked.

This "bigger is better" mentality unfortunately is so prevalent in the US, the smaller vehicles are skipped unless they can be purchased for notably less money. And here we go back to the point where producing a small truck is almost as expensive as producing a large one.


I guess it was 'Murica itself that killed the Ranger. It does only have three cupholders within reach of the driver and the center console lid isn't the size of a dinner table. Not as conducive to eating or using a tablet while driving. You can't store as many empty fast food bags as you can in a leather trimmed crew cab either.