Where Have Ford Ranger Buyers Gone?

2010 Ford Ranger 1 II

By Aaron Bragman, PickupTrucks.com

Ford's long-lived compact pickup, the Ranger, is no more - at least in the U.S. What has been a longtime favorite of many ended U.S. production in December 2011 after more than two decades of appealing to both fleet and individual buyers with its tight dimensions, relative frugality and appealing sticker price. Sales in its last year were for fleets only, to companies like Orkin's pest-removal service. In fact, the very last Ranger built in Minnesota was an Orkin-white regular cab model, destined for termite eradication duty somewhere in North America.

Which led us to wonder: Now that the Ranger, once the best-selling compact pickup, is truly dead, who is getting its sales? Have buyers moved on to the few remaining competitors in this rapidly shrinking segment (including Toyota and Nissan), or have they stayed Ford fans and moved up to other products such as the Ford Transit Connect or the F-150? How will Chrysler's departure and GM's new offerings affect buyers? Talking to some industry representatives, we've started to develop a picture of what the compact pickup segment looks like today versus its high point in the 1990s, and what the future may hold.

Can We Interest You in a Bigger Pickup?

As recently as 1999, Ford sold almost 350,000 Rangers in the U.S., a number that dwindled to just more than 55,000 in 2010. The segment has shrunk from 8 percent of the overall U.S. automotive market to just less than 2 percent, and Ford insists that the reasons for that are clear. "Buyers of compact pickups basically could be divided into two groups," said Mike Levine, Ford Truck communications manager, "those who bought them for their relatively good fuel economy and cheap price, and those who needed fuel economy plus utility."

Ford's position is that the proliferation of inexpensive, fuel-efficient small cars caused frugal buyers to leave the compact pickup behind and move into compact cars like the Fiesta and Focus. Utility-minded customers migrated up into the bigger F-150, which as Levine points out, now actually gets better fuel economy in V-6 form than some competitors do, including the smaller V-6-powered Toyota Tacoma.

And small trucks are not the bargain they used to be. Today's compact pickups from Toyota and Nissan can easily be optioned out to reach the mid-$30,000 range, which puts them squarely in competition with the lower end of the full-size pickup market. Worried less about fuel economy and more about purchase price? Ram will happily sell you a 1500 Tradesman with a standard Magnum V-8 for just $22,640 plus destination or a Hemi V-8 Express model for just a few grand more. If you can spend about the same, get decent fuel economy, and reap the size and capacity benefits that come with a full-size truck, why wouldn't you step up?

Thanks, but No Thanks

Well, because not all buyers want a big pickup, says Toyota. "There are many buyers who believe small trucks better serve their needs," said Mark Oldenburg, Toyota National Fleet marketing mobility and strategic planning manager. "They do not need a larger truck and they like the fuel economy provided by small trucks. As the pricing narrows, consumers are making the choice to buy larger trucks for roughly the same amount of money as a small truck. Therefore, it is important to offer a small truck at lower price points to maintain sustainability of the small truck segment."

While the V-6 fuel economy comparisons may have equalized between compact and large trucks, some smaller ones still offer inexpensive four-cylinder regular-cab models. One can get a base Toyota Tacoma regular cab four-cylinder for $18,470 (including destination); it offers 21 mpg city/25 mpg highway for nearly $6,200 less than the cheapest F-150. Toyota says that it has seen sales increases for the Tacoma each time one of its competitors has left the market - not only the Ranger, but also when the Ram Dakota was discontinued, and when sales ended for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon as well.

Ranger Chart II(To download a pdf of this chart, click here.)

Nissan's story is slightly different. Where the Tacoma is aimed at consumers, Nissan pushes the Frontier for commercial uses too. Nissan says that it also has seen an increase in sales since the Ranger's demise, but interestingly, it has noticed commercial customers also choosing to go with the subcompact Versa hatchbacks, giving credence to Ford's claim that some compact pickup intenders are happy going into fuel-efficient small cars. "Many businesses have realized that a small hatch is a great alternative [to a pickup], providing improved fuel economy, much lower total costs and ease of driving for their employees," said Nissan's Mike Hanley, director of marketing, Nissan Commercial Vehicles & Fleet.

From the data supplied by IHS Automotive, we can see that Tacoma has experienced increasing sales over the last two years, spiking when Ranger and Colorado/Canyon inventories dwindled. The Frontier has not enjoyed such a climb, with sales on average only flat since Ranger ended production. On average, since the announcement of their demise, the American-brand trucks have sold roughly 8,000 units a month. It would seem that much of that lost volume has indeed been picked up by the Japanese brands, with Tacoma alone demonstrating a nearly 7,000-unit monthly gain from the same point two years ago, selling largely the same truck.

Most automakers are tight-lipped about their conquests, making it difficult to know for sure from where these customers are coming, but it would seem safe to say that many are merely switching over to competitor trucks. What is harder to judge is how many are abandoning the segment entirely and switching to compact cars or larger pickups. But consider that just in 2011, the last year of sales for all of these trucks, total volume came to just less than 300,000 units - a volume the Ranger alone used to sell as recently as 1999, meaning buyers have most certainly left this segment behind.

The Rebirth of the Compact Pickup?

With only two automakers really playing in the small pickup segment (and we consider the Honda Ridgeline more of a midsize pickup) in the U.S., and every domestic player currently sitting it out, the future seems rather bleak for compact truck fans. But not so: In just a few years' time, we should see an expansion of players, if not quite a segment rebirth. Most significant will be the return of GM to the segment with the new Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. As for Chrysler, all we have is rumor that Ram is planning to bring something new to the lineup to slot below the 1500 pickup, but those rumors suggest a unibody, car-based platform.

This is not going to be the same segment that GM and Chrysler left. These new GM trucks will not be like the ones that we last saw in 2011; the new ones are based on international designs and are also being sold overseas. They are likely to feature diesel engines, more interior room and higher prices than the trucks they replace. As such, these are no longer compact pickups - they are midsize pickups, more similar in size to the Ram Dakota that Chrysler yanked from the lineup last year and nearly as big as their full-size counterparts. Ford's new Ranger, sold in many overseas markets, has taken the same approach.

Ford's Levine describes the new global Ranger as "nine-tenths of an F-150," in size, function and content. The problem with this, and the reason Ford will not be bringing the Ranger back to the U.S. anytime in the foreseeable future, is that it would likely be priced similarly to the F-150 - meaning that any new midsize Ranger in the U.S. could cannibalize sales of the F-150's lower-spec V-6 models. And since those trucks work best for Ford's bottom line, especially when the company makes as many as it can, any plan that might jeopardize F-150 sales is dead before it can begin.

How GM will deal with the problem of cannibalizing Silverado and Sierra sales as it introduces a new diesel-powered midsize truck remains to be seen.

Stay tuned Ranger fans, as the segment for smaller (but not small) trucks is about to get some attention. But unless fuel prices skyrocket into the stratosphere, truly small, truly efficient compact pickups (which roam many roads overseas) are not likely to return to U.S. highways.

Ranger Chart 2 II

(To download a pdf of this chart, click here.)


Well written article. Thanks

As the Ranger is no more, I considered a Nissan Frontier -- familiar with them as several friends owned them -- but instead ended up migrating to an Escape for better mileage, and that it will still suit most of my small truck needs even if it isn't as enjoyable or useful as a Ranger was.

I still miss my Rangers!

Mark put some hard work in on a holiday weekend! Thanks Mark.

"Sales in its last year were for fleets only ......"

Wrong- fleets might have been the main purchasers but in its last year there were plenty of non- stripper optioned out trucks for individual buyers. Fleet orders did last longer iirc, they ended in Sept.

I own a Dakota, but drive full size half and one ton GMC trucks at work.

For real commercial work, the big trucks are great, but for my personal stuff the dakotas right size for me.

I don't think I need the space and capabilities of a full size all the time and prefer the slightly smaller size for maneuvering in the city.

Sorry, Aaron Bragman get the credit for this one. Thanks,Aaron

The manufacturers are missing out on the true COMPACT pickups. Many people today don't need a full- or mid-size pickup, and would greatly appreciate a compact pickup being offered. The Datsun, Mazda, and Toyota pickups of the '70s (that were also rebadged for American manufacturers as the Chevy LUV and Ford Courier) and American '80s compacts (Chevy S-10/GMC S-15, Ford Ranger) are what some consumers are asking for to return size-wise. Dodge teased the market over 10 years ago with the great M80 concept truck, and many consumers are asking for a factory-produced pickup based off the Jeep Wrangler. The first manufacturer to re-tap this market will see sales skyrocket. I'm not saying not to offer mid-size pickups, as there are buyers waiting for them. But don't forget that a small-medium-large approach to a pickup lineup would also work wonders.

The 2007 Dakota I had was a quad cab, 4x4. It was only available with a 5 foot bed. Maybe had it been made the longer bed on it from the club cab, it would have been alot better.

Ram could have kept it around and stuck the hemi in it, and also the new 3.6 Pentastar. That would have made a huge differance, but they just didn't want it taking full size sales. Of course, it didn't cost much more to get a full sizer.

A common problem was the shocks, the front ones were cruddy. If they would have had better, they would have sold more, or people would have kept them longer.

I'd say the real problem is that the market is not offering consumers what they want. None of the vender's are getting it right. Toyota is the closest to getting the midsize market right, but this isn't horseshoes folks. Hopefully the market wakes back up and someone produces something interesting soon.

build a light weight full size f-150 and call it the f-100 you could even make it front wheel drive and awd. base engine 2.0l and optional 2.3l over 300hp and 370lbs.
a base model f-150 is over 200lbs light then a explorer. and the use a 2.0l in explorer. make the f100 ride height lower for fuel economy and give it better aerodynamics.

you could see almost 21-30mpg
how much would all this cost about the same as the base f-150 current price.
if you add diesel like dodge bang out a 5-8,000 dollars and dont forget about the 8-speed so bang out 1200 also. i don't like dodge's idea is cost to much time you start to pay it back you bang out for new turbos and direct injectors because the price is to high.
fords ecoboost about 1,000 add 8,9, or even 10-speed for $1-1,500
dodge i mean RAM sorry RAM boys total cost 6-9,000 estimated based on current pricing.
ford 2.0l or 2.3l and new 8,9, or even 10 speeds or even a CVT ford is working on. 1,000-3,000 (depending on just engine or engine transmission option)

I’ve always owned mid-size trucks. My current being a last gen Dakota-Ram (quad cab, 4.7L), which I have truly enjoyed. It’s the perfect size truck for me. Living in the city of Charlotte, NC, there are areas uptown that make it difficult for full size trucks to get around. I think most cities are this way... narrow streets, tight parking, sharp curves, and pedestrians everywhere. Plus we are close enough to the mountains that I need a vehicle that can handle some terrain and still tow, and the Dakota has given me the best of both world’s. I think that was one of the strengths of a mid-size. They were meant to handle like a car and still agressive enough to do some of the work of a full size. Sadly, like the Ranger it has come and gone. I wonder how much of the sales curve was also influenced by the economy and cost of gas? I’ll be replacing hopefully in 3 yrs and have been eyeing the Frontier.

What the market really needs is a cheap, unibody pickup based on a popular small SUV. It won't tow or haul much, but it will be $25k or less and get very good gas mileage for a truck. Something like a RAV4-based Scion pickup truck...

I think a small front wheel drive pickup inexpensively priced with good mpgs would do reasonably well. Just the right size for light loads for the suburbanite to be able to go to Home Depot or the garden store. I do see the Chinese manufacturers setting up assembly plants to produce affordable efficienct small trucks to fill the void left by the domestic manufacturers. These trucks would not compete directly against the full size trucks but would find a market for those wanting a smaller truck or those who would never even think of owning a truck. These trucks would not sell in the millions but possibly at about 100k, but this would give the Chinese manufacturers an in to the US and NA market similiar to what Toyota and Datsun had in the 60s and early 70s. This would have little effect on the domestic trucks but would create an unfullfilled need for small trucks.

Ford Motor Co.

I have approved a lot of what you guys are doing nowadays but when it comes to the Ranger you dropped the ball the worst i have seen in a long time. If you really care about the compact truck truck segment and want to know how to catch the taco in sales and not cut into the F150 sales then call me cause i am not about to give you all that here. Its really easy too.....

Small trucks were not very economical,they suck as much fuel as a full size and the cost to purchase a smaller truck was pretty much the same and in some cases more than a full size.

Furthermore,Small trucks like small mid size cars are too small as they are designed for smaller people of 5'8 ! Every make/model small truck is or when they made them were too small and uncomfortable for myself being over 6 feet tall,and no I am not overweight ..

Its funny,my wife who is 5'7 and thin,looks tiny in our mid size car,her head is just above the steering wheel,while I have to almost duck or sit with the seat so reclined the back seat behind me is almost useless unless you are a child,and while my seat is reclined I still sit perfectly straight and higher up then my wife.I sit beside her and dwarf her..as my buddy who owns a small/mid size truck he even has to raise the seat up and pull it forward,as I laugh while the lowest/furthest back posistion is too high/cramped for myself.In my full size the seat is on its lowest setting to the floor and furthest back..So small trucks are a no go for many people,and if you have a family,forget about using a small truck for a family vehicle,you gotta think down the road if your child grows tall fast as I did ,you will have a 6 ft tall 13 year old and you cant fit them in a tiny small truck ! So I guess if you are a small person you like small overpriced trucks,but why pay the price of a full size ,for a small truck ? Doesnt add up in my book..Unless you are scared to drive and a bad driver as many vehicled are riddled with dents/scrapes..Thats it,bad drivers and scared to drive ! Yes,answered my own question..genius !

Yes,some tall people contort themselves into a small truck but they are not comfortable,and in a crash they are goners....

If you are a small person and offended,too bad !! Political correctness must end and reality must come back !

We went to Dodge ,I bought a Hemi RAM single cab sport/hemi/auto/3.92 gears and it gets better mpg then my Ranger did ! And the performance is mind blowing I went from a 18 second 1/4 mile 16 mpg truck to a high 13 second 1/4 mile 19.8 mpg truck why suffer in a small truck,buy a big V8 fuel efficient RAM !

Tired of the discussion frankly. Ford you lost me as a customer to Nissan. You dropped the ball on the whole Ranger issue. Most folks did not flock to f-150. If you want a mid size truck ( or smaller) you buy one, not a full size. You build product to please the customer and do not tell the customer what they need. I think Chevy is going to clean up when the new Colorado hits the market. So it may cannabalize a few sales from Silverado...big deal. a sale is a sale. Still making money. Good luck on your unibody Transit connect pickup. Just don't pile too much cordwood into the back of that thing...

Here is a Jumbuck ute review, not much information in the review. But they would achieve the same fuel economy of a Corolla, or better. I think we don't get them anymore.


I would like to see the size of trucks of the 70s mini trucks. I had a couple of 520s and 620s Datsun utes. With engine technology now a small 1.6 litre diesel in them would be great. Full chassis so you can put a tray on the back as well.

I would think you could get well over 40 mpg on the highway.

Here's my view on this subject.Ford,you dropped the ball bigtime.Do not blame us,the buying public,for buying buying a vehicle that by all standards was antiquated.But hey,it ain't just Ford,look at Nissan and Toyota.They are doing the same damn thing,then blame us for not buying?? What used to be fuel efficient compact pickups grew into mid-size not-so-fuel efficient pickups,that are lapsing into mediocrity,and again,they blame us.Not to mention their over-bloated not fuel-efficient mid-size dinosaurs are just as much as a full size.FORD/TOYOTA/NISSAN,stop your damn whining and get off the pot,or pull your antiquated junk out of here.

@Rockford, I feel for you man. Maybe a truck isn't what you need. Have you ever looked into a Landrover? Or perhaps a late model Hummer? Interiors are a lot wider than full size trucks and I'm sure you won't have to duck while getting in. Honestly, comfort isn't usually my main criteria when purchasing a truck. I know a lot of people buy them and then get upset about bounce or feeling the road, or not being able to comfortably carry 6 people... I sort of like those qualities, as I've had a truck since I was 18. There are a lot of vehicles out there that are fun to drive and don't have the best room either... My other car is a 4 speed 1970 Nova (I use mostly on weekends.) It's not the roomiest or the most fuel-efficient vehicle, but man I love driving it.

I still miss the Dakota, full size like capability in a smaller easier to park package.

Ford is a stupid company. The Ranger was almost unchanged from 1993-2011 as far as the body goes.. so Ford had very little R&D money to invest in it and the Ranger was still selling very well. It was a manufacturer's dream, right? So what does Ford do? They kill it.

The Econoline vans were the same way. They were THE staple of the American working man. Almost no changes to the van since the 1990s if not before. Ford was selling them like hotcakes and raking in profits. So what do they do? Kill it.

The old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" means nothing to Ford. If they go under, they deserve to.

Fuel economy & price on compact pick-up's need to be alot futher apart from a 1/2 ton pick-up's.
The FWD platform may be a good place for this.

They only reason you buy a ford ranger because it was cheap...not because it was a good pickup..

The cab interior of the current small trucks is smaller than the ones they replaced, and the mileage has gone down, Cut the bigger bolder styling %^&# and bring back a 30mpg small truck with head room!

Fact: You get more for your $$$ with a full-size pickup over a mid-sizer. Mileage differences are negligible when you factor in hauling ability. The whole idea behind the very existence of a truck is to perform work, not save the world's fossil fuel reserves.

I believe that a small crossover-based truck will better compliment the F-150 as opposed to one half way in between.

The Ford Ranger was no better,or no worse then the other offerings in the same class.It looks like Ford did this as 'planned obsolescence',and to get people to buy the higher profit F150's.Most I know elected to buy cheap 4x8 foot utility trailers to take the place of a 'part-time' full size.hey...it works.

I garentee if these companies would have put more R and D into thier small trucks they would have been doing great but when you don't change them for twenty years people go off and buy other things.

"any new midsize Ranger in the U.S. could cannibalize sales of the F-150's lower-spec V-6 models. And since those trucks work best for Ford's bottom line, especially when the company makes as many as it can, any plan that might jeopardize F-150 sales is dead before it can begin"

I believe the above statement is very flawed logic from Ford! It's better to cannibalize your own product then let the competition cannibalize your product!

The auto industry already knows that the truck market is comprised of very brand loyal customers. If Ford doesn't offer a more entry level pickup (i.e. new Ranger with I4) for younger people to start off with, and they chose to go with the Tacoma or Frontier for example. I think there is a better chance that said younger buyer would step up to a Tundra or Titan as opposed to a F150.

The SUV killed the compact truck market as much as any other vehicle segment. I suspect the vast majority of those who previously owned a compact truck found themselves driving with an empty bed 98% of the time and tired of strollers, and groceries being exposed when they did carry things. The SUV solved that issue quite well.

I've watched a few neighbors migrate to either an SUV or minivan and would either purchase or rent a utility trailer to haul items a truck would be useful for. Having owned both a Dakota and Durago I am quite sure I carried more items in the back of my Durango than I ever did in my Dakota.

I was stripped of an open bed the day a wife and kids showed up.

All full-size trucks have had dramatically increased sales in the last year, so there's your first clue.

Tacoma sale increased dramatically also, but they're the last real choice (for now), especially since the Frontier (Nissan) dropped their regular cabs. Btw, the Frontier was the only truck to not increase sales last year.

Then there's those that left the segment entirely for everything else under the sun.

Aside from fleet buyers that love stripper base mid-size pickups, commuters also seek these regular cab strippers even though they don't need a truck necessarily.
With rebates, these mid-size trucks are cheaper than Corollas, Sentras and such. For them, it's the Tacoma or nothing (for now).

Between these cheapskates and fleet buyers, it's no wonder global and domestics OEMs show little to zero interest in the NA mid-size truck market. There's not much there to keep retail buyers interested either, except maybe, base regular cabs with steel wheels and vinyl everywhere.

So what's in it for OEMs? Mostly loss-leader sales for the sake of who?

The first OEM to come out with either a compact diesel pickup,or a mid size diesel pickup,will own a BIG slice of the pickup truck buying market.Power and fuel economy,it's a no-brainer.

Can we intertest you in in a bigger pick-up, you ask??? No thanks!!! I'll wait until some serious R&D goes into the mid-size truck market, when weight drops and MPG's soar to 30 or more. Until then, I'll drive my eleven year old '02 F-150 SuperCrew, which is closer to a midsize truck by today's standards anyhow. Oh, how the last few generations have gotten bloated over the last 10 years. Only 63K on my odometer, so I'll wait four more years or more if that's what it takes to get what I want. By then, the 2017 CAFE standards should force the mid-size market back into the limelight.

Ford, That "global" Ranger that everyone else gets (but the North American market), is one heck of a good start. I'll change my mind and order the 5 cylinder 3.2 diesel in a skinny minute, if you give it to us next year. Ranger or F-100, who cares what you call it! Just bring it to NA!!!

This article is a bit misleading.

There are places where you say the Honda Ridgeline is a mid size like a Dodge Dakota and don't really count it as a compact pickup, but other times when you include the Dodge Dakota in the numbers.

The Ford Ranger was really the last compact pickup. The Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma had already migrated to mid size years before. Once the Chevy Colorado/ GMC Canyon were discontinued, only Ford was marketing and selling a compact pickup.

At Ford, Marketing is Job1.

I have a 2005 Ranger FX4 LII, which replaced my 93 XLT. If I wanted a F150, I would have one already. The reality is that the f/s pickups are too big to fit in the garage, in suburban combat driving, and exploring Jeep trails.

If I had to replace mine today, I'd buy the Nismo Frontier.

As my company is retiring it's Rangers they have gone to Tacoma Pre runners. My 2011 Ranger is, at just over 200,000 miles coming up for replacement, and they asked if I wanted a Taco. I politely declined, asking them to give someone with another Ranger the Taco, and put me in their Ranger.

The Ranger will run circles around the sluggish taco, get better mileage, and is actually easier for me (6' 1", 275 lbs) to get in and out of. I hate the light in the display (that can't be dimmed) at the top center of the Taco dash and I can't believe a truck that stickers for over $25,000 doesn't have a delay feature on the windshield wipers.

@dsklfjja: you are comparing a diesel engine that in a full size Ram should be able to pull upwards of 10,000 pounds, to a little 4 cylinder turbo. One that might be able to pull 4,500 pounds. I don't get your comparison really. You put a load on the diesel engine, the mileage will come down very little compared to the Ecoboost. For a lightweight midsizer you sure don't need 420 foot pounds torque. But the Ram diesel will be able to pull everything the F-150 Ecoboost does, and better.

You are in some dream world if you think a 2.3 liter ecoboost can run of regular gas (87 octane in most non high altitude areas) and to get 370 foot pounds of torque. That would be a heck of a tune to do that on 91 octane. If it made about the same power level as the 3.5 Ecoboost, 270 or so foot pounds. (wow, all that turbo and direct injection to make what a Ram V-6 makes for torque already.) Plus you get to put in premium gas. Keep dreaming.

Sorry to break it to you, but the base F-150 is over 200 pounds heavier then a Exploder. Not 200 lighter.

The 2 wheel drive 2.0L Ecoboost Exploder is only good for 28 highway. So wow, you could have a 2.3 four cylinder that would really be closer to 340 ft pounds torque, and get MAYBE 26 or 27 MPG HIGHWAY, and run on high octane (just a bit less cost then diesel) and get less mileage and capability then a Ram 3.0 V-6 8 speed. LOL

"dodge's idea is cost to much time you start to pay it back you bang out for new turbos and direct injectors because the price is to high. "

I don't get this either??? The Fords do run direct injection and turbo, so that cost as there as well. I don't know how you come up with 5,000-8,000$ either, but it's your dream.

You can also continue to dream, as Ram HAS a 8 speed, it will make a good deal of differance in the mileage, because you can choose a lower axle ratio, and tow better then the current 6 speeds, and still get great mileage when not towing, as tow haul on Ram ussually puts it in 7th gear.

The 10 speeds Ford and GM are doing will not make a huge differance.

Also, Ram has 9 speeds already about to come out in cars. Ford???

The problem the US market has, is the CAFE/EPA regulations. Some don't realise the significance these regs will have on your market. It killed small pickups, but it will also bring them back.

As Lou pointed out CAFE will force 1/2 ton pickups to become the size of HDs. These will be the trucks with most of the weight saving technology, and gasoline V8s and big turbo 6s.

But when they increase in size they will take sales away from HDs. But these aren't the only vehicles that will take HD sales. The new Transits and Fiat Vans will come as a cab chassis and will also reduce HD sales.

LDTs and MDTs will also take HD sales. So what you end up with is a smaller 1/2 ton market which will essentially be a "SUV" market.

1/2 ton pickups will all have 3 litre class diesel options within a couple of years. But there will be a transition over to mid size pickup, probably mostly diesel powered within a decade.

A small FWD/AWD platform will provide a "ute" style vehicle for the averge person also.

You will end up with a small FWD/AWD (probably diesel) ute/pickup, diesel mid sizers, HD sized 1/2 ton pickup, some HDs for 5th wheel work, LDTs/MDTs, Transit and Ducato style flat beds.

This is my current guesstimate and could be changed:)

WOW this chart just above shows some interesting points since it stops at 2010. What a shot UP for the Tacoma as in 2010 it shows it barely clipped above 100,000 units yet finished 2012 at 142,000!! thats nearly a 40%gain since 2010!

I can tell you why I don't own a full-size truck anymore. Because I don't want to! I've owned 3, they ALL got 16-17mog despite what the sticker said. my Tacoma gets 20 CONSISTENTLY. not sometimes, ALL the time. in the summer it will get as much as 22. lowest it's got was 19 in winter. towing is 16 and that's a 5x10 with 3,5000 lb axle trailer with a 1,2000lb zero turn on it. taxes and insurance are also MUCH cheaper on a mid-size truck. this is an area the car makers tend to overlook. my insurance on my Tacoma was $120 cheaper then my Silverado's. the property taxes were $400 cheaper! that's $520 a year I'm saving PLUS what I'm saving in fuel. the math doesn't lie.

Some new info to share relevant to this story:

In Jan. 2013, 23% of people who left a Ranger for a new vehicle bought an F-150. Only 13% bought another new compact truck.

- Mike

Where did the other 64% of the Ranger people go?

That's not a good figure. Ford loses.

Those 13% either bought a taco or a frontier.Ford stepped on it's meat for not staying current on the Ranger.As the figures show,not everyone bought a f150.

@ Big Al from OZ:they probably went to suv/cuv's or minivans would be my guess.

Wow Robert, $400 dollars cheaper? I have 2010 4x4 truck that MSRP'd for 37,500 and I have several other vehicles on my personal property tax, like a car trailer, another 4x4 truck, a 96 Camry, a 24 foot pontoon boat. I don't even pay $400 a year in personal property tax. Sounds like you live in a a rip-off state!

My dual 3500 pound axle trailer with 16 feet of load area by 76" wide plus 3.5 feet for tongue with the winch on it weighs about 1600, spare tire and all. So I am guessing yours weighs closer to 500, max 600. Got brakes? Subtract more if not. If it weighed 600 that would put it at 1,800. Wow! My fullsize Ram 4x4 got 16 per a gallon at 65 mph, with my 1600 pound trailer! Sounds like you are saving alot! But when you put something on a trailer behind that little truck that sits up high, or a wider or taller trailer, your mileage will drop further. It won't drop as much in a full size.

Oh, I did get in the high 18s MPG @ 75 with a bed full of car parts from Larmie Wyoming to north of Denver. Two of us in the cab, a big speaker/amp in the back, a cooler, and our stuff. I can get 18 mpg going 65 even in the hills, and I have A/T tires, they are heavier then the little street friendly gas mileage tires my Silverado had. If I only got 16 I would be PO'd. But then I am guessing you also had a 5.3 engine with much less torque? In a much lighter truck??

Unless a person wants a little 4x2 single cab Taco or Frontier 4 cylinder, they might as well get a modern V-6 from Ford or Ram. Once you get those v-6s you can do alot more for less gas.

A lot of car buyers here are getting into SUV/CUV's in a big way and to a lesser extent Pickups. Minivans are a niche item . I can see how a lot of people who bought the Ranger in the US are going for an equally small vehicle, the full size Pickup being the last option they would choose.

The balance purchased another type of vehicle, other than a compact pickup or F-150.

@hemi lol: yeah, you the Toyota salesman benifit from Dodge, GM and Ford not making a midsizer anymore. The downside for you is with these gas prices skyrocketing in the last 2 months, up atleast 65 cents higher, less Tundras will sell.

Just so funny that a Ram v-6 and a Ford v-6 can get better, or atleast same mileage, as a Tacoma with a bigger v-6 that makes less power. Sounds like Toyota got so busy on that new Avalon and the Camry and Prius V that bombed the new IIHS partial frontal impact test, they chose not to update their aging trucks.

70,832 Ford Ranger sales for 2011. Last year of retail sales for Ford Ranger. Ford is not selling Transit Connect at this level and yet Ford expends resources and capital to import Transit Connect from Turkey.
Prefer made in U.S.A. Ford Ranger.

The TC doesn't have any other Ford competitors so every sale is incremental.

@ TRX4tom

Its FUNNY you should mention fuel economy when REAL world economy the Tundra gets the SAME as the 3.5 ecoboost. if more people took the time to study up they would buy more Tundras...................... that is if Toyota would build more, which they dont want to right now for some reason. I cant get enough trucks at my store as we cant keep them!! Toyota is holding out for some reason.

ALSO, important to note that you bark about fuel economy all the TIME BUT all you do is spout out EPA ratings that the MANUFACTURERS POST THEMSELVES! I cant help the fact that Toyota keeps their customers HAPPY by posting figures that are modest instead of FAR FETCHED like Ram, GM, and Ford.

The comments to this entry are closed.