Global Ranger Could Be Right Size for U.S.

2 Global Ranger front

Is it just our imagination or is there more buzz about the small-truck segment? Sure, companies like Ford (with the Ranger) and Ram (with the Dakota) have walked away from the marketplace in the last 18 months, but with fuel prices fluctuating and average fuel economy becoming more important, we can't help but think there's a big opportunity here for some company.

At the recent Chicago Auto Show we talked to Ford executives about the possibility of a smaller, entry-level pickup truck making sense in a changing U.S. market. Of course, that got us speculating about the use of the new unibody platform used in the Transit Connect and Transit, both of which are already slated for U.S. consumption. Ford's position always has been clear though: With the strong and efficient F-150 V-6 - in many cases outperforming midsize truck capability and fuel economy - there is no real demand for another midsize pickup. But what if that demand was hidden, and what if there was a way to price a new, smaller truck competitively?

Of course, Ford already has a popular global platform in the Ranger, which can be outfitted as a solid, bare-bones midsize pickup truck. As noted, Ford has been consistent about why bringing the global Ranger to the U.S. doesn't make sense. Simply put, the Ranger is too big and too strong, which is fine for markets that don't offer the F-150 but not so good for the U.S.

Recently we heard about a global Ranger sitting at the offices of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a trade association made up of companies that make or sell aftermarket automotive parts (these are the people who put on the SEMA Show). SEMA bought the Ranger so it would be available for members who might want to make parts for it and sell them overseas. We paid SEMA a visit to see what all the fuss is about since we haven't seen a new Ranger since the redesign in 2011.

During the visit we took quite a few photos and had a chance to place it next to a 2013 Ram 1500 Crew Cab 4x2 shortbed. The Ranger is definitely smaller, but not by much, and it gave us a good idea about its size. As with many other midsize pickups in the U.S., it looks like the size inflation that took compact pickups into the midsize category could eventually take them from midsize to full size if manufacturers are not careful.

Still, by stripping a little content and repackaging a few existing powertrain options, it's difficult to believe this platform couldn't once again be a solid player in the segment. Whether Ford decides to push for something new on a unibody platform — possibly redefining what a small pickup truck can be — or whether it adapts the global Ranger into an F-100, for example, we assume it will largely depend on how the bean counters make the business case. Either way, it could be good for those of us looking for a strong, economical and fuel-efficient way to carry and haul a decently sized load.

For more photos of the Global Ranger, go to our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/pickuptrucksdotcom.

1 Global Ranger shop

3 Global Ranger rear

4 Global Ranger side rear

5 Global Ranger front side

6 Global Ranger action

Comments

The last North American built Ranger rolled off the St. Paul, MN assembly line on December 16, 2011. Demolition on the 122 acre site is scheduled to start in May and is expected to take six years, longer if "major pollution" is discovered.

The St. Paul plant ranked highly in both quality and productivity, but no amount of pleading by the state of Minnesota could convince Ford to keep it open. So my question is, if the new global platform Ranger makes a return to the North American market, where will it be manufactured?

A cynic could jump to the conclusion that this whole charade was partly aimed at moving manufacturing out of the US.

Well the Global Ranger is deffinatly a lot smaller then an F-150 seeing it next to the Ram and the Ram is a tad smaller then an F-150 at least in Length and Height. No reason that it is not to sell it over here.

We seen a VW truck at Jamaica airport and wife wanted one bad. "Why doesn't Ford have a truck like this?" I suspect if Ford made it it would be our 2nd vehicle in addition to our F150.

It would be built in either S.America,or Mexico.That would be my guess,but I think ford really screwed the pooch on dropping the Ranger in the first place and will not regain those sales even if they bring in the bloated F100 (Ranger-whatever).

Let me see here. I can get a Ram with a v6 that gets equal M.P.G to a Toyota 4 banger and have more room for about the same money as one of these 1/2 size trucks. Let me do the math...................Why do I need less truck for probably the same money? Could this be why the big 3 stopped selling this type of truck? Maybe? Not enough truck here for my money$.

I know this may get me shot in some circles but USE UNIBODY! For a small truck that isnt made/meant for serious hauling a unibody is fine. Before I lifted and started modifiying my cherokee I got 18-22 MPGs and thats w/ a 94 imagine w/ todays modern drivetrains what they could do. I dont need to haul thousands of pounds but I do need a bed. I dont use my truck as a work truck I would of been perfectly happy w/ a unibody small truck like a commanche but why would I purchase todays mid-sizes when my 400hp Ram gets the same if not better MPGs if they used the technology of the big trucks in a unibody about the size of the Ranger maybe a hair bigger they could easily hit 25mpgs in a capable 4x4 little truck. I think a transit connect based pickup w/ a little more ground clearance than the transit connect would the tickets. Or a Dakota based off the journey or soon to be new liberty/cherokee w/ again a little more ground clearance would be epic.

The small trucks are meant for hualing overseas, many have higher payloads then American 1/2 tons. I do think they should go to an independant rear suspension on these trucks. The Ford Expedition has independant rear suspension and its still has a large payload capacity.

I don't get all this vitriol toward midsize trucks. No one is suggesting the T6 Ranger should replace the F-150, it would just be another option in the marketplace. What's wrong with that? If it doesn't suit your needs and you still want a fullsize, the existing 1/2 tons aren't going anywhere.

Regarding the current crop of midsizers available, I agree they leave something to be desired on the fuel efficiency front when compared to the most efficient Rams or F-150s. But keep in mind the US midsize trucks have basically been left to wither on the vine for the past decade. If they had enjoyed a similar level of investment as the fullsize trucks, I think you'd see a much more efficient fleet of midsize trucks.

Still to big for me, I do not NEED a mid-size truck, give me the old Tacoma, Canyon, Ranger. Also Mark, why do you say "intry-level pickup" how many years do you have to drive before it is not a "entry-level pickup"? Been driving trucks for over 45 years, last full size was a 1994 PowerWagon with 440 4-speed...
I want/need a small 4x4 to carry all my huntin-n-fishin stuff, fully loaded of course

The car ute that's not available in the US is the El Camino / Ranchero. Heck, I'd settle for an Impala wagon with vinyl wood.

@dafish, I found the perfect vehicle for you. lol

http://michtrucks.com/

@Luke in CO... I couldn't agree with you more. I can't understand the hate toward those of us who want a smaller and more fuel efficient option. And this is coming from a guy currently driving a 2002 F-150 SuperCrew. I want a SMALLER option for my next purchase, not a bigger one. Heck even this award winning truck is still quite capable with regards to payload and towing. For me it's the smaller physical size and the savings at the pump that makes this truck appealing

I also agree that the mid-size segment numbers would come back if some attention was paid in the form of weight saving technologies, new efficient engines and transmissions, and last but not least, modern tech and creature comforts like Ford has done with the compact segment. The entire segment including the current mid-size leaders (Toyota & Nissan) need some serious R&D thrown at them. Yes, like all of the major players in the full-size segment have done for years.

Those of you who compare this crewcab with a 61" bed to a Sport Trac's 50"? There is a fair amount of volume variation between the two and it's not a fair comparison. I'll be the first to admit though... My perfect truck would be this crewcab Ranger with a 6 foot bed. I often haul mulch and compost and would love to see the same bed that's on the extended cab version on the crew cab Ranger. Give it to me in the Limited trim too.... We're not cheapskate's like a few of you have convinced yourselves into believing. Fleet sales might skew the average price (towards a lower average), but there are plenty of us who would gladly buy this truck loaded.

I think the next F-150 will be based off this. I could be wrong. We'll probably see an F-100 model and then a 150 model with slightly higher capacity. Fuel economy standards will be tough going forward so this makes sense. I think that new Atlas concept was more Super Duty oriented.

@Big Al: Once again, you are steering around my point that the truck will have more tendacy to roll. That is why they have ratings here in the states of how easy or hard it is to roll.

I did say that this isn't something people should buy for the sake of autocrossing, and people must use their heads when driving. But there is such things as evasive manuevers to avoid something. And in general, how a vehicle corners all needs to be considered. (Atleast I consider it, I live in a very hilly/curvey area.) So we should see how it compares with the other trucks on the autocross.

Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world? The question is Al, do they even test trucks made in the states? I thought they were just in Europe and your neck of the wooods. But they aren't here.

I don't believe ANCAP even test ROOF STRENGTH, do they???? Sure my Ram did poor there, I aint covering nothing up. However my Ram is best in class in head on, probably knock the crap out of this little truck.

So that article says Safest Truck in The World, or atleast where ANCAP does their limited testing, that is not the same as the NHTSA/IIHS, which do far more testing. If I was in a head on in my truck, pretty confident it would do as well as this truck. If I was nailed from the side, it is hard to beat an F-150.

Point is Al, whether you accept it or not, ANCAP doesn't test near as much as the other two I just named, and it's an apples to bananas (something not even round) comparison.

Terrific Tom??? Where do you get that from?Is that just you accusing me of using some other name?

There was one thing I added I did add to my name on here because somebody suggested it, and I did it just to piss them off. If you find whatever quote you thing I did under that name, go ahead and copy and paste it, I wiould liketo know. I will tell you if that was me.

So in laymens terms, it is also about avoided the accident. So like I said, lets get this thing to GVWR and see how well she stops, turns, accelerates. If somebody isn't too afraid to test it like that anyway.

@moparman: some folks don't get that there are two typys of unibody. Some have the floorboards and rockers and roof as the frame, while the Jeep Commanche/Liberty had a frame on it, but it wasn't a frame off, so it is called unibody.

My 1972 Dodge B300 van based RV is actually unibody, meaning it has frame but isn't frame off. It's still going.

Alot of folks on this site don't get under vehicles much.

@Montesa_VR: where I was going with the Toyota builds plenty in Mexico and Thailand was not saying that Tundras are built there.

Just saying, that they do their share of building where it's cheaper, unlike some Toyota folks would have us believe.

Toyota has Mazda building in Mexico, I guess they didn't their name directly on it.

Just gotta laugh at the Toyota folks saying Toyota doesn't take their work to places where labor is cheaper. They do.

Of course Ford, trying to look so American with their trucks, builds alot of cars in Mexico. They have built on the other side of the pond for quite awhile.

@Big Al: theres got to be a reason why our trucks in the states use a much longer wheelbase: Can you figure it out, Mr Engineer?

What are you people smoking.

The T6 Ranger can tow 7000lb in a single axle configuration and the chassis cab duel wheel configuration can go as high as 9,900lbs. The T6 ranger also can net more than 10MPG more than an F150 and can be configured with a 3000lb bed payload option....which is higher than an US F150.
It also costs as much if not more than an F150 to produce.

The T6 Ranger is way overbuilt for the US market. The shrunken F150 ....aka F100 has a stronger possibility of becoming a reality than Ford bringing the T6 to the US.

@TRX4 Tom... I understand you're not a fan of this new Ranger, that's fine. Something for you to ponder...

Safety: No, not the NHTSA, but a good start considering how many players there are in this global segment>>> http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/26/new-ford-ranger-becomes-first-pickup-to-earn-five-star-euro-ncap/

Stability: Modern electronics keep this new truck planted with Dynamic Stability Program (DSC)>>> http://www.ford.com.au/commercial/ranger/experience/load-control?site=FOA&sitetype=web&WT.ac=CTA_PC_Safety+Ability_Top#f=1

International Award: While it might not be the truck for everyone, you can't fault Ford for the effort and end result>>> http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/11/ford-ranger-unanimous-pick-for-international-pick-up-2013-award/

Good enough for me... I'd gladly order one if they were sold in North America.

I do not NEED a mid-size truck, I NEED a small truck, like the Old Ranger, Old Tacoma, Old Canyon or Old Comamnchee....I just need a truck with a 6foot bed to carry my huntin-n-fishin stuff, Elk antlers will fit in a small truck bed....

Mike I am not sure what you mean by "Entry-level truck"? I have been driving trucks for over 40 years, not sure why I would need an entry level truck. My first truck was an entry level truck, No A/C, AM radio, no carpet, roll up windows, it was a 1974 Dodge PowerWagon with 440cuin 4sp...

@TRX4 Tom: Not to insult you, but you tend to make all the wrong connections with your statements.

Rollover: How and when a truck will roll over is based on its center of gravity. Naturally a vehicle with a narrow wheelbase will roll more easily than a wider truck--if all other specifications are equal--meaning ride height and overall weight. On the other hand, if that same truck were also lowered 3" it would be less likely to roll even than the full-sized truck you're promoting.

Engineering: Why are modern trucks longer? It's not--I repeat NOT--to improve load capacity/durability; it's to make the truck less affected by CAFE fuel economy rules where the larger 'shadow' allows lower MPG. Even at 22mpg for a 6-cyl version full-sized truck, that's only about 3-4 mpg better than a V-8 1990 F-150 or about 15% better while the average car now offers about 30-40% better MPG over that same 23-year period.

@TRX4 Tom: By the way, Mazda is NOT Toyota and Toyota is NOT Mazda. As far as I know, the two have never collaborated on any models--truck or car.

It doesn't help that the Ranger shown in this article is a "Plain Jane". Have any of you seen one of these dressed up? If not, here are a two.. one that is accessorized and another that was accessorized with some modifications (lift and custom exhaust). After all, the whole point SEMA has this plain jane is to make it available to aftermarket companies (for measurements).

Accessorized>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=U9lHeUERfU4
Accessorized with mods>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iih1OthDrfI

I am sure that with the globalization efforts goign on at every automaker we will eventually get the T6 and other "mid-size" trucks that everyone else gets. So long as there is reasonable room for 4-5 adults and a bed big enough to haul at least a cubic yard or cubic meter of "stuff" with a payload running around the magical 1 ton mark, towing at least 5000 lbs and being able to get upper 20's highway and at least crack 20's in the city there would be a big market for he vehicles.

Will they be as cheap as a 1999 S-10 of Ranger, no, but given the capabilities they really wouldn't have to be dirt cheap. This would satisfy a lot of buyers like myself who don't need to tow for a living but do the "weekend warrior" thing and have a property or other hobby that requires some decent payload ratings. Unlike most full-size trucks one of the size I mentioned should fit into my garage. No reason there can't be a truck around 4000 lbs and no longer overall than 17 feet that has all of those general capabilities. A modest V-6 or smaller diesel would be ample power and could help keep the costs down since it wouldn't need an overly fancy transmission or exhaust treatments.

Maybe Ford should do a reversal and work with Mazda (which they sold a couple of years ago) on the powertrains and overall engineering and brand the truck as a Ford since that has the truck name attached.

It's good to see the global Ranger sitting alongside a full-size truck for size comparison purposes. The global Ranger is simply too big to be sold here as a compact truck(as some of us have been repeatedly saying). And unless there is a substantial price difference between a new Ranger and the F-150(i.e. thousands of dollars), most buyers will opt for the F-150.

A truck version of the Transit Connect might be a good idea IF it was built here. If such a truck was built in Turkey alongside the Transit Connect, it would be subject to the chicken tax - unless Ford went the Subaru BRAT route and put seats in the bed, which would earn a chicken tax exemption. Otherwise, such a truck is a no-go because there wouldn't be enough volume to justify production in North America.

test

@Rick,
That is with the Ultra Short bed, roughly the same size as the 97 F150. You can get Utility beds that are much longer.

@Brian in NC
Basically the "Accessorized" versions are much more prevalent in Australia.

@Glenn,
It is too big to be a compact Pickup. You need something off a car base to achieve that.

@ToxicSludge
Why would the built in Sth America or Mexico? The US already has FTAs with Thailand and Sth Africa. There are two factories already making them.

You Transit 3.2 diesel will be coming from Sth Africa as well.

Here in Ireland (so same as the UK / AUS market) the ford ranger, toyota hilux, VW amarok, Nissan navara (frontier in US) and isuzu d-max (a facelifted chevy colorado) are all thats available.

Pickup trucks are immensly popular here and in the UK , but all of the trucks here are the same size, I know from myself and any other pickup owners ive talked to , If ford were to bring the F150 (or a truck of the same size) to market with a V6 Diesel youd have a line out the door waiting to buy them.

I drive a 3.0 4 cylinder Isuzu D-Max at the moment and I would love a bigger truck, the argument of small european roads is out the door now , especially in the right hand drive market, you could easily navigate an F150 around, but with no RHD and diesel options, they're not a runner for europe.

"@Glenn,
It is too big to be a compact Pickup. You need something off a car base to achieve that."

Actually, the Transit Connect is car-based. It uses Ford's C170 platform, which is the first-generation Ford Focus platform.

The redesigned 2014 Transit Connect is also car-based; it uses Ford's newest global small-car platform.

I just made a post and it is no longer on the site.

@ BigAl....: I didn't know about the FTA's.I said mexico because they are already there,as well as S.America where I think they have a factory so shipping would be cheaper and maybe labor.Like I said,it was just a guess..

@TRX4 Tom, Luentenslager (including Tom Lemon)
"Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world?"

Reading most of your posts I can see why you make so many errors.

You really are a fool. I would have thought people choosen for marketing would be smarter.

TRX4 Tom and your other aliases, you are dumber than dog s.................wow, try and add quality and truth in your statements. But from what I've read truth and guerilla marketing have nothing to do with each other.

@ToxicSludge
But the best place for an American pickup to made would be the US.

@mackintire ,
Looking at the Ram and the Ranger in that side by side comparison, they have the same length mini bed.
You can get the single cab Ranger with a 3000lb payload and a 7 ft bed. Utility beds can go to 8ft.
http://rangeford.com.au/new-vehicles/commercial-vehicles/ranger/images/4x2_singlePickUp.jpg

You won't see any small pickups smaller then a Tacoma over here, main reason is they are unsafe. Mini trucks are narrow and tipsy and terrible in an accident. In reality the Tacoma hasn't grown all that much. If you compare a current regular cab 4x2 Tacoma to one from the 1980's its only a few inches bigger. you just see a lot of Crew Cabs and higher riding pre runner models that appear to be big, but the interior of the Tacoma is probably a bit smaller then a Corolla and I don't think anybody would want to get any smaller.

@Stephen,
I have driven around Wales(tiny roads) in a hire Pug 308 and it was not a pleasant experience. In a F150 a nightmare.

@DWFields: Well, you learn something everyday, considering you were suggesting the Dodge 2.2 was built by Mitsubishi.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/11/09/toyota-mazda/1693933/

Another thing you thought you knew but you obviously don't know about.

Yeah, the wheelbase of the heavy duty trucks such as Ram 2500/F-250/Chevy 2500 was made longer for the EPA rules they don't have (or haven't had in the past when they came up with their wheelbase sizes, which wasn't just recently.) Lol.

You're killing me Smalls!

Lol, these little trucks have the rear axles so for forward, but some real weight in the bed, or what they call a bed, and put the same weight in the trucks I listed above, where you can actually put more weight INFRONT of the rear axle.

Some people on here obviously have little time towing, and don't get that a longer wheelbase will tow alot better. A longer wheelbase will handle the load alot better, even if our so called "expert" or "engineer" Al won't admitt it, cause he doesn't want to be a ballbuster for his fellow so called engineers that dreamed up the numbers.

Like I keep saying, compare these trucks. Lets see how they really do. The reviews we get from them are rather vague.

When you make dumb comments like that,(about the cafe) it's hard not to insult you. The wheelbase on that current Ram pictured goes back to about 2002, before that it it was 138.70 for many years, atleast for a quadcab short wheelbase. They actually shortened them since they don't make 8 foot bed quad cabs.

Is it any wonder F-150s and Tundras have longer wheelbases yet? Yeah, all for Cafe numbers, LOL!

It's mighty wrong of you to compare your 1990 gas mileage to current ones. The method for the EPA numbers changed in 2008, (they made them harder) and also, did your lightweight 1990 even have one airbag? Let alone the extra weight of 6 or 8 depending on configuration in the newer ones. Did your 1990 have very good brakes, and could it stop with a modern truck? Can it even take a head on wreck? Apples to oranges, dude.

@TRX4 Tom
So Toyota is now assembling Mazda's in their Factory. They previously had no tie up whatsoever. Mitsubishi NOT Mazda made the small Dodges. Toyota has/had a tie up with GM producing cars for them.

@Big Al: did you get tired of debating and talking about specifics, and just decide to resort to childish acting, name calling? And the usual accusations of me using other aliases, because maybe you find it hard to believe anybody would have the same opinion as me? So, anybody that thinks like me, "oh, that must me TRX4 Tom there!" "Making up another name!"

Dude, you are full of more hot air then a sack of farts!

Mark Williams, if he is so inclined, can actually check my IP address and see I only go by one name, like I have told you many times, it was "Tom" in 2010 sometime in that timeframe there was another Tom, so I changed it by adding the TRX4. And like I just said, for a while I added something to my name, as somebody joked, so I did it to piss them off. That might have been 5-6 monthes ago. I guess I pissed you off?

NOW, the SUBJECT: The ANCAP testing: Do they do roof strength testing? Do they test them (all crash tests) in the same manner as we do here in the states? Do they test trucks made in the states?

IF, they do not test ALL THE TRUCKS in the WORLD, then how can they come up with that claim? It won't hold a candle to an F-150!

What is it Al? Do you work for Ford? (Since you acused me of working for Fiat) I won't drop to your level of saying that you have other aliases. Even though people share your opinion. That happens. Last I checks this is WWW, and alot people can read it, and have lots of opinions, eventually they will have the same. What, you have stock in these over rated trucks?

Still waiting for interior specs, the more I look I see people dont look at that stuff much to buy these (they don't post as much info to compare) I guess in Aussie they just say"well, it's the 5 passenger model" and don't compare anymore???

Every time I come up with solid stuff Al, your result to accusations and name calling, and you never seem to be debate things. You just spin it.

Who's the fool? It's you, mr thinks he knows all. Why don't YOU LISTEN FOR A CHANGE??? Instead of preaching about what you read? Oh, big deal, I can read what is predicted for trucks as well.

Look, the bed is not wide nore long. Like I have said of my mid size truck experience, if they made the bed longer and allowed me to have the quad cab with the Dakota, that might have helped, as they had a 6'5 bed on club cabs.

But I said THIS TRUCK AINT FOR ME, and YOU CAN"T FORCE IT ON US, and there is a markit for it, although I don't know who wants the little bed...maybe if they extended the bed a foot. That would be a start....

@TRX4 Tom
"But I said THIS TRUCK AINT FOR ME, and YOU CAN"T FORCE IT ON US"

Noone is forcing it onto you. OK it is not for you, it does not mean it is not for anyone else.

@Robert Ryan: nowhere did I suggest that Mazda made ANTHING for Chrysler!

I don't know how you got that. I was referring to the way DWFields got confused on one of these threads and was so convinced that Dodge needed Mitsubishi to build their 2.2 four cylinders, which came out late 70s, early 80s.

He was confusing that with Mitsu building the D-50 mighty max trucks, that were 100% Mitsu, and had NOTHING IN THE WORLD to do with the 2.2/2.5 Dodge 4 cylinder. The D-50 had Mitsu built 4 cylinders, and some were diesel as well.

Oxi is another one that gets confused on this subject, and is so insistent that the Dakota was Mitsu built.

GM and Toyota did build the Pontiac Vibe. My X and I shopped it, but it just wasn't that good of a car, so we quickly crossed that off our list. More people then just me thought so as well, as it didn't last.

@TRX4 Tom
How can a vehicle be "shoved down your throat".

It's like me saying that you are shoving Fiats down my throat. But I don't.

The reason why is I still think the US has enough freedoms to go out and buy a Tundra instead.

I think you would have the same opportunity if mid sizers were available.

Oh, you do have mid sizers, but not the best ones.

What my argument has been is a level playing field for these style of vehicles is needed.

That is what you ae scared off. You, not me fears that they will displace full size trucks.

So they must be pretty good if you are that scared.

If this is not the case, what is your argument?

@TRX4 Tom
How can a vehicle be "shoved down your throat".

It's like me saying that you are shoving Fiats down my throat. But I don't.

The reason why is I still think the US has enough freedoms to go out and buy a Tundra instead.

I think you would have the same opportunity if mid sizers were available.

Oh, you do have mid sizers, but not the best ones.

What my argument has been is a level playing field for these style of vehicles is needed.

That is what you ae scared off. You, not me fears that they will displace full size trucks.

So they must be pretty good if you are that scared.

If this is not the case, what is your argument?

@TRX4 Tom, Luentenslager (including Tom Lemon)
"Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world?"

Reading most of your posts I can see why you make so many errors.

You really are a fool. I would have thought people choosen for marketing would be smarter.

TRX4 Tom and your other aliases, you are dumber than dog s.................wow, try and add quality and truth in your statements. But from what I've read truth and guerilla marketing have nothing to do with each other.

@TRX4 Tom, Luentenslager (including Tom Lemon)
"Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world?"

Reading most of your posts I can see why you make so many errors.

You really are a fool. I would have thought people choosen for marketing would be smarter.

TRX4 Tom and your other aliases, you are dumber than dog s.................wow, try and add quality and truth in your statements. But from what I've read truth and guerilla marketing have nothing to do with each other.

@TRX4 Tom, Luentenslager (including Tom Lemon)
"Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world?"

Reading most of your posts I can see why you make so many errors.

You really are a fool. I would have thought people choosen for marketing would be smarter.

TRX4 Tom and your other aliases, you are dumber than dog s.................wow, try and add quality and truth in your statements. But from what I've read truth and guerilla marketing have nothing to do with each other.

@TRX4 Tom, Luentenslager (including Tom Lemon)
"Did I just read ANCAP said safest truck in the world?"

Reading most of your posts I can see why you make so many errors.

You really are a fool. I would have thought people choosen for marketing would be smarter.

TRX4 Tom and your other aliases, you are dumber than dog s.................wow, try and add quality and truth in your statements. But from what I've read truth and guerilla marketing have nothing to do with each other.



The comments to this entry are closed.