Five Reasons Ford Should Bring Ranger Back to U.S.

New Ford Ranger 1_Front 3qtr II

By Tim Esterdahl

The reveal of a new 2016 Ford Ranger in Bangkok meant for only overseas markets once again raises questions about why Ford doesn't bring the Ranger to the U.S. Ford usually offers explanations that include the midsize pickup segment's decreased sales and the need to focus on more popular pickup trucks and commercial options. While this reasoning makes sense, here are five reasons why Ford should reconsider.

1. The Market Has Changed

When Ford decided to discontinue Ranger in the U.S. there was little doubt the midsize truck market was shrinking. This sales decline saw Ranger sales drop from 350,000 in 1999 to a little more than 55,000 in 2010. Overall, the segment shrunk from 8 percent of all auto sales to just less than 2 percent.

At the time, Ford executives looked at the sales data and said customers would move up to a full-size truck, a crossover or into an inexpensive car, which they say helped kill the frugal buyer's need for a compact truck. Then when the crew-cab craze hit and manufacturers offered big incentives for full-size pickups, the small-truck market had nowhere to go but away.

But now things are different; while it's still early, the popularity of the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon are raising interesting questions about the midsize truck segment. Probably the most interesting question is where are these customers coming from? Looking at the sales data from the first few months of the year, we see 26,278 of those trucks have been sold so far. This potentially puts the pair on pace to sell 100,000 vehicles by year end. Additionally, the other competitors in the segment, the Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma, are both showing strong sales growth as well. This is a different situation than the one that existed when Ford pulled the Ranger plug.

2. Vehicles Are Becoming Global

Another argument we commonly hear is that overseas customers are different from U.S. consumers — they have different needs so they need products suited for a different lifestyle. There's no arguing with the fact that the global midsize pickup needs to be a workhorse in many different countries, but engineers are getting smarter about how to create vehicles that can do both better. Let's take Ford and GM as an example.

When looking at Ford and the 2016 Ranger, the company said it wanted to improve this model in three key areas: interior, technology and fuel economy. Those areas of improvement sound like the types of changes U.S. buyers would appreciate and value. Also, Ford recently launched a new "global" Ford Mustang. The overall size, dimensions, styling and powertrains will be largely the same as the Mustang sold in the states. If the pony car can be sold around the world, why can't the Ranger?

GM's Chevy Colorado is offered throughout the world — under the same nameplate — and targets consumers with many of the same features and capabilities marketed in the U.S. Yes, we know these two vehicles are structurally different, but it wouldn't surprise us if the long-term plan is to get the two trucks on a similar platform and reduce total production costs and complexity.

Another item that is often brought up is the size difference between midsize pickups in the U.S. versus global trucks. If you use an extended-cab long-box Colorado LT as a comparison, you can see the differences are just a few inches here and there. The global truck is just slightly smaller.

Ranger_chart

It sure looks like the Ranger "fits" in the U.S. considering how close it is to the North American Colorado.

3. Sales People Are Smarter

Another argument you will hear from Ford, as well as Ram, is that dealers will push a midsize customer to buy a full-size truck. For years it was assumed dealers would steer customers into larger and more profitable pickups.

Again, after looking at the sales data and talking with new pickup buyer Tony Ricciardella, who just bought a 2015 $40,000 GMC Canyon All Terrain, this simply doesn't seem to be happening.

Ricciardella said no one pushed him to look at full-size trucks. He told the salesman he was looking for a GMC Canyon, and they only focused on that truck.

"The idea that a dealership salesperson would switch customers from one type of new car to another type of new car isn't grounded in reality," said Jason Lancaster, former Toyota dealership sales manager and editor of AccurateAutoAdvice.com. "Most dealership salespeople are paid a flat-fee commission on new vehicles as the profit margins on new vehicles are all so skinny now that dealers don't even try to pay commission as a percentage of gross profit. As a result, the typical Toyota salesperson generally has no more to gain selling you a new Tundra than they do selling you a new Yaris."

4. Buyers With New Priorities

One of the most interesting trends in the truck market is how consumers' buying criteria changes. To a certain extent, fuel economy is a good example of this. Just a few years ago, when fuel prices were higher and governmental regulation was more aggressive, fuel economy was a big selling point; however, today it's lower on the list because of lower prices at the pump.

Check out this video for a 2011 Ford F-150:

 

And now this video for a 2015 Ford F-150:

 

Notice anything? The 2011 Ford F-150 commercial starts with a focus on fuel economy, while the 2015 Ford F-150 commercial doesn't even mention it.

Why bring this up? When Ford ended the Ranger program, it said fuel economy was a big part of its decision. As these advertisements show, marketing departments have realized how little fuel economy factors into consumers' buying decisions these days.

Also, if fuel economy was such a big factor, we would see a growth in regular-cab short-bed trucks with small-displacement engines. That simply isn't happening. The larger crew-cab models have become the best-selling configuration for many manufacturers, and many of these trucks are EPA-rated for between 17 and 20 mpg highway. Customers seem OK with that kind of fuel economy, and anything better doesn't seem like a big seller. When was the last time we highlighted or you saw an advertisement for a high-fuel-efficient model?

When Ford made the decision to end the Ranger lineup, all of the market signs pointed to it being a reasonable decision. But times have changed and it's time for the Ranger to come back.

5. Price Structures Have Changed

Beyond the size issues, having a smaller and larger pickup for customers to choose from has always included the differentiating issue of price - if you can't afford something bigger, then something a little smaller is available.

There's no arguing with the fact that average transaction prices for full-size pickup have climbed significantly in the last 10 years, largely on the heels of the increase in the number and popularity of premium-level trim packages (Platinum, Laramie Limited, High Country, 1794 Edition, etc.). As a result, there is now enough room under the full-size pickup pricing structure to accommodate a smaller truck option — in some cases creating a $10,000 or more price difference. Even base-level midsize and half-ton models (like the Colorado and Silverado 1500) are separated by roughly $6,000.

This pricing separation, of course, is not sufficient enough to continue the midsize growth. But if GM's truck strategy succeeds, you can bet Ford will be looking at the option a little harder, and possibly looking for something even smaller. After all, if GM can make a three-truck strategy work, why wouldn't it make sense for Ford to raise the stakes and come out with a four-truck strategy for the U.S. pickup customer? Of course, the first step is getting Ford to bring back the Ranger.

Manufacturer images

 

New Ford Ranger 3_Rear 3qtr II

 

Comments

Obviously, "Bob Barker", you don't know me. Sure, that F-150 is now officially an antique; I bought it as a 22-year-old $2500 utility vehicle and kept it only barely three years.

And I'm certainly no Chevy fan--or rather GM fan; I just claimed that the Colorado is the best looking rig of an overall bad bunch because of their average size. I don't need or want an 18-foot-long vehicle as an extended cab model. Much less a 20-foot-long crew cab. There's a reason my username is Road Whale: It's my opinion of today's full-sized pickup trucks. Meanwhile, the last Chevy I owned was a '96 Camaro while the last GM vehicle I owned was an '02 Saturn Vue. I currently drive two quite different FCA vehicles and neither one of them is a pickup truck.

As to your last statement, "Let each manufacturer produce what they sell best and all be profitable", that would definitely make Hyundai the compact truck king if they green light the Santa Cruz.

@Jeff S - Hairdressers can make a decent wage, plus may still live at home. But "Hairdressers" is a metaphor for the *lifestyle* demo. They could be bakers, bankers, secretaries, nurses, etc.

Some business decisions are tough, no doubt. No one expected all or most ex-Ranger buyers to step up to F-150s.

If a pastry baker discontinues his apple turnover, he knows some that only came in for that will buy something else while others will just walk out and never come back. That's the way it goes.

Restaurants do benefit from simplifying their menus. Some patrons may get all upset and not understand this, if they come in every Sunday for their liver casserole plate. "Whaaaaaat? Everybody LOVES Liver Casserole!!!"

@Papa Jim: "so, why did Ford do so poorly with the old Sport Trac?"

It didn't look like a truck. Personally, I didn't like it because the bed was too short and it's a Ford.

Its proportions were all wrong as well. I will admit that I don't know if that bed could be extended into the interior the way the Avalanche did, but if not that is just another one of the things that hurt it. Sometimes you need to carry a long load (station wagons were popular for this reason) while other times you need to carry a tall load (pickup trucks were especially good for this purpose). The problem is, the average driver isn't a one-or-the-other user but needs both capabilities at different times. Personally, I would have loved to see the Avalanche come in a smaller size because it was the most adaptable version of a so-called crew cab truck.

Unfortunately, both of my neighbors who had one traded them off--one for a conventional crew cab pickup, the other for a Honda Pilot.

@DenverMike--So hairdressers do well and others not. If you are comparing hairdressers in Southern California to ones in the midwest then you are comparing apples to oranges. As for Ford I would not introduce a Global Ranger, but then you did not read my prior comments as to my reason why. I do think Ford is arrogant because they assume that anyone who owns a Ranger is going to run out a buy a more expensive aluminum F-150--some will but many won't. As a spokesperson for Ford I know this is not what you wanted to hear but for GM and Ram using factory incentives and discounts have helped grow their shares of the market. This is not so much an argument about smaller trucks versus larger trucks but corporate arrogance in assuming that whatever you make and regardless of how expensive it is that you will retain all your customers. What did the French learn when they built a stationery wall with fixed guns as a barrier to keep the Nazis out not contemplating that the Nazis would go around the wall. Also the Edsel comes to mind when you do a survey of a new product but you leave out certain questions like would you buy this product and how much would you pay for this product. It did not help that the Edsel was release in the 1958 model year during a recession. I am not saying that the F-150 is an Edsel but there is more to consider when changing an existing product than just assuming loyal customers. Do you remember the New Coke, another example.

@Jeff S - That's what you don't understand. Ford isn't trying to retain every possible customer. Just every possible dollar from a limited offering of 'light duty' pickups classes. Also Ford offers more fullsize classes than GM, in F-450 and F-550 trucks, plus F-650/750s. I'm sure plenty of consumers snivel that GM stops at 3500s. Where's their big trucks? And where did their loyal, Kodiak and TopKick customers go?

But by narrowing their light truck classes, Ford also dramatically slashes their overhead.

Everyone likes to focus on the money coming in the front door and 'neverminds' the cash river that flows out the backdoor. That's what sent GM into bankruptcy in the past. Same with Chrysler. Although Ford had some of the same bad habits too. This doesn't mean an OEM can't learn and move forward.

And what's wrong with a Global F-150? Now apply that answer to a North American Ranger pickup. BINGO!

If Ford does this, Chevrolet's Colorado is in serious trouble. It's already playing second fiddle to GMC's Canyon. And soon to be surpassed by new Toyota and Nissan designs because of it's second fiddle status. When Chevy can't compete against Toyota, Nissan, GMC and Ford too, they will have become irrelevant.

@Denver Mike--Yes Ford is not trying to retain every customer but similar to other corporations Ford suffers for hubris. We will see what will happen but as much money that was spent on this new F-150 Ford has no choice but to go with the plan. I think both GM and Ram have a great opportunity to pick off some additional sales even if they don't topple Ford off the top position. Nissan has an opportunity as well with the new Titan. I would not want to be Ford now because the competition is circling them. Ford has much more at stake than its competitors. If you recall Nissan now has Fred Diaz, former Ram CEO and it appears that Fred has brought some of his ideas to Nissan. Nissan needed someone to shake them up. Once the new F-150 is in full production and the inventories are built up will be the real test but I see Ford using some heavy promotions and discounting. Ford will need all the fleet sales they can get because the more trucks they produce and sell the better. I think you will see more aggressive marketing toward fleets.

A global F-150 will only work if it shares a global platform and loses some size. Something between the size of the current F-150 and the global Ranger would do it but at the current size its not going to happen. If you have noticed the new Mustang shrunk slightly and added smaller engines to appeal to global markets.

@Jeff S
Correct, the "Global F150" would need to have a 2,200-3000lb payload almost keep up with a Jeep Wrangler Off Road and have Fuel Economy at least 60% of the current F150 Gas engine
The other thing that someone pointed out on another forum, it would need to have a Cab Chassis derivative, that the U.S. 1/2 tons do not have

@Robert Ryan--I was watching the Amazing Race and they had a fleet of Global Ranger crew cabs with caps over the bed in Namibia (northwest of South Africa). It looked like with with the roads and terrain in Namibia that a full size F-150 would be too big. They also had some Land Rovers and the Toyota version of the Land Rover. I don't think any full size American half ton truck would work as well and as you said the payload would be too low. I think Ford is too smart to try to market a truck the size of the F-150 in a Global market. Ford will probably sell enough of the new F-150s in North America but they will not do as well as the out going model--the competition knows this as well. Again this is like the New Coke versus the Coke Classic but I doubt the F-150 will be as big of a flop as the New Coke, it just won't do as well as expected. The saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies to the F-150.

@Jeff S,
"It looked like with with the roads and terrain in Namibia that a full size F-150 would be too big"

More too wide for many tracks Off Road , combined with poor approach, departure angles, poor payloads, higher fuel consumption. The F150 is basically an urban warrior and that includes use in rural NA

@Robert Ryan-Yep, I agree. Width, approach angel, poor fuel economy, wrong suspension, and the list goes on but for cruising the streets and going to the mall not too bad. The F-150 is strictly an American vehicle which is what it is intended to be, but a very pricey one.

@Roadwhale.

The Sport Trac suffered from too high of a price point for its size.

A well equipped Sport Trac in 2007 was over $40k. You could buy an upscale RAM, GMC or F150 for the same money back then.

Actually, the Sport Trac failed for the same reason as every other American midsize in the 2000-2010 period--the market stopped buying them. In my opinion it was simply not what people were buying.

Jeff S makes the comparison of the Subaru pickup, but it was in no way comparable with the Sport Trac.

Toyota and Nissan survived through that period with their Frontier and Tacoma because they had a fresh product and they had no illusions about the size of the US midsize market.

Ford and Dodge had dealers that were yelling for a new slick CUV back when both companies were still trying to compete with the GM midsize Acadia, Enclave and Traverse with their old school Explorer and Durango. Even the Jeep Grand Cherokee's loyal fan base was getting bored with the old JGC.

r@papa jim--The bed size was about like a Subaru pickup. The Sport Trac had too small of a bed, fuel mileage was not good, and a high price. The Global Ranger is nothing like a Sport Trac nor is it like any midsize truck offered in North America--your comparison is like comparing apples and oranges My Isuzu is a much more capable truck than the Sport Trac with a larger bed, more cab room, better 4 wheel drive, towing package, better fuel economy and even the sticker price was much less. The new Colorado/Canyon is much better than the Sports Trac or even my Isuzu and the Global Ranger is better than any of them. We have a protected market in the US and we will not see anything that comes close to a Global Ranger or Toyota Hilux which are light years ahead of any midsize truck offered in North America.

I understand the US market and Ford's position on the F-150 but don't erroneously make a comparison of a Sports Trac with any of the global trucks they are miles apart in comparison. Ford and Ram should just stick with the full size trucks on the US market and let Toyota, Nissan and GM do the midsize trucks along with maybe a true compact truck from Hyundai/Kia or the Chinese.

@Jeff S - The F-150 is a poor fit for the global market, as the Ranger is a poor fit the USA/NA market. Although the F-150 would easily sell just as many trucks on the global market as the Ranger would sell in the USA/NA. But there's no real reason to have them sell side by side. But aluminum gives a fullsize the weight of a midsize, without losing payload, pwr to weight, seating, or load capacity, etc. Rust prevention is one less thing to obsess about with aluminum.

As expensive as midsize and fullsize are getting in the USA/NA, remember BAFO paid $60,000+ for his Mazda pickup.

@Robert Ryan - US pickups are rated much more conservatively than globals. Thank the lawyers. A Global F-150 would get ridiculous payload too. At least 5,000 lbs without changing a thing!

"US pickups are rated much more conservatively than globals. Thank the lawyers. A Global F-150 would get ridiculous payload too. At least 5,000 lbs without changing a thing!"

I think you meant Overated, as they have to be Downrated here and some other countries where, they are used.
A Sprinter 3500 has a 7,500lb rating in the U.S., a more realistic 4,400lb, is given here. A Silverado 2500 HD Diesel will get a 9,900lb rating. Hopefully the practice of adding "magic dust" to figures will stop being the norm in the U.S.

@Big Al

The market for products can be defined by the offerings available there.

The midsize market died in America sometime during the last 20 years and only Toyota and its Tacoma midsizer truly survived. the Frontier is a nice player in that space of products but its sales figures don't require us to take it seriously (in terms of the market). GM's new midsize trucks will show us how accurate our hunches are during the next 12 mos. or so. We will see!

I understand that you feel there's a lot at stake here because your entire message over the years has been that Americans would love midsize trucks if it weren't for the mean old Chicken Tax.

I say there's no market because the conditions that originally created the compact truck market in the US are gone. Some really decent products came and went and the conditions remain the same, if not worse.

Only #2 holds water. The rest of these "reasons" are weak or opinion. The small truck simply does NOT deliver on price or economy enough to create value in the current market place. The current offerings are too big/heavy/expensive to create any real advantage over entry level full size half tons. The "boom" the GM wonder twins are experiencing are because they are first modern offerings in this segment in nearly a decade. Their advantage will wither with the coming new Taco and Frontier. The small group of people who like these trucks and have the money to waste on them will become diluted with the number of options. The sales these tricks do chisel away from small/midsized SUVs and lightduty half tons will mostly be one time occurrences.

I want a new Ranger but I don't want a large mid-sized truck! Bring me a truck the same size as the last Ranger.

@Jeff S

Maybe some counseling is in your future too. If you think that a POS like the first gen colorado and its various siblings like the Isuzu is superior to a fully blinged Sport Trac... Good luck with that.

You could always do a Cars.com search to see the resale values of the two models. If you feel that confident about it.

@Big Al--I don't think Papa Jim knows what a CUV is, they came after his time. I agree currently the crossover is the hot must have vehicle to have and pickup truck sales have gone down though not away. I don't see crossovers diminishing in popularity anytime soon but like anything they will ride their wave of popularity and then something else will replace them as the must have vehicle.

@papa jim--I like my Isuzu and I really don't care what the resale value is since I keep my vehicles 10+ years. The V-8 you mentioned in the Sports Trac was gone for the last few years of its existence and you could have bought a 2008-2012 Colorado/Canyon with a V-8 which was more capable with a larger bed. Around the same time the last generation of Dakota was sold which was still a much more capable truck with a larger bed. If you want something to go grocery shopping or carry your golf clubs then a Sports Trac would be a good fit along with a Miata and a BMW. It is absurd to compare a Sports Trac with a Global Ranger but then you might not know any better.

If there are several sizes of Ford SUVs why it can't be a small truck in Ford's truck range?

@Jeff S sorry, Jeff, but you keep making it personal. It's about trucks. Fairly objective stuff.

You and Big Al take great personal offense over simple differences of opinion. Out come the knives. Too bad.

"I want a new Ranger but I don't want a large mid-sized truck! Bring me a truck the same size as the last Ranger."

They died Globally sometime ago

@papa jim--When you call someone's truck a POS it is personal. That is one thing you do not do is call other guy's trucks a POS or call their wives ugly. I assumed you would know better than that, but I assumed wrong. I didn't call your truck a POS. Not every Colorado/Canyon/Isuzu is a POS and that is your opinion. I am not advocating that everyone drive global trucks but then I am not forcing my opinion on others that bigger is better. You need to read my earlier comments as to why there will be no Global Ranger in the US and why maybe it is not for our market. Your comparison of a Sport Trac to a Global Ranger is about as accurate as comparing a Vega to a Cruze. Sport Trac isn't a bad truck but it is dated and has too small of a bed to haul anything other than a push lawnmower. The Global Ranger is much larger and has a bed capable of using for more. Also the Global Ranger is a very competent truck that sells well in most of the World, the Sport Trac to my knowledge never made it past North America. Isuzu and Colorado are global as well and the global versions are much more capable than the North American versions. The global Toyota Hilux is a much more capable truck than the Toyota Tacoma not that the Tacoma is bad it is not equal to a Hilux.

@papa jim--No the midsize truck market did not die 20 years ago, it was the compact truck market that died as it grew to a midsize and became more expensive. Compact and midsize trucks are not the same and the last real compact pickup was the Ranger that was no more after 2011. Again your comparisons are off and it is like comparing a Malibu or Fusion to a Cruze or Focus. Midsize>compact which means it is not equal.

Midsize trucks are still alive but not as numerous in the US as they are globally but if the current full size trucks are downsized and made lighter then yes the midsize will die and a new slightly larger global truck could take its place as the compact pickups were replaced by the current midsize pickups.

@Jeff S

have you ever visited Pike County, KY?

I bet those Isuzu/Colorado/Canyon trucks from 10 years ago are very popular there, along with corncob pipes, banjos and Minnie Pearl Fried Chicken drive-ins.

I hear they're getting a Walmart soon. See ya there!

Adios!

The Global Ranger is not a drop in for the US market. That is the issue. Even the Colorado/Canyon in the US market is not the same as the rest of the world's version. GM stated that up front when it was debuting it. IIRC they also used the plant that built the previous versions to build the new ones. Pretty sure Ford has repurposed it's old Ranger assembly lines to build higher volume sellers. It isn't as simple as putting global Rangers on dealer lots and sell them. Much like the GM midsizers, it would need to be redone for the US market by plushing up the interior, ensuing the engines are EPA compliant, safety tested, converted to left hand drive then finally reconstruct a place to build them here. Chicken tax or not, you wouldn't just be talking a global Ranger from OZ and selling it here unchanged. I wonder how many new midsize trucks GM needs to sell before they actually become profitable. Selling 7k a month doesn't seem like all that great a number for a truck that per opinions here "everyone" was clamoring for.

On the flip side, GM kills Kodiak and Topkick handing Ford the commercial market for those classes and no one says anything. Seems it would have been cheaper to build up some 3500's to 4500 and 5500s and put it into a market that is sustaining like Ram just did than to enter a dying market like midsized trucks.

The Frontier outsold the Colorado in March and sales of the Colorado and Frontier are pretty much even at this point. The Tacoma has sold double the amount of Colorados in March. Essentially, a brand new vehicle is pacing a 10 year old truck and way behind another aged truck in it's class. They better hope that there aren't more byers waiting for new Tacomas than waited for new Colorados.

@papa jim--I don't live in Pike County KY I live in Boone County KY. You are an idiot. I doubt there are too many Isuzus in Pike County, I have been there. You see more old Tauruses, Camry, and Intrepids there. Pike County also has poverty levels that reach third World levels. Pike County already has a Walmart as does where you live in Florida along with a law that allows you to shoot unarmed people like Trevon Martin. If you have to put down people who live in an improvised area to build yourself up then you are a very low down disgusting person. You have reached a new low that even a Ram fan boy would never reach. Any shred of credibility you had on this site is further diminished.

I for one would love to see this Ranger come to the North American market!!! I’ve been driving my 2002 F-150 SuperCrew (5.5’ bed) for over 13 years now and refuse to by any brand’s half-ton including Ford’s new F-150. Even if the price was close to a to a similarly equiped mid-size, I’m just not interested in the bloated full-size trucks. My current ’02 F-150 would practically be considered a mid-size by today’s standard with a 225.9 length, 138.5 wheelbase and 79.1 width.

So back to the “global Ranger” that is unavailable in the NA market… For all of those complaining about the bigger size of this new truck, it’s really not that much bigger than the last version Ranger we saw in the US!!! Look at the numbers of our last Ranger and compare. A SuperCab with a 6 foot bed was 203.6 inches long, and 69.4 inches wide. The real number to look at is the wheelbase of the two, with the new Ranger less than an inch difference to the outgoing (126.8 vs. 125.9). Yes, I’m comparing an extended cab with 6 foot bead to a crew cab with a 5 foot bed, but both are the largest dimensions that were or are available. So the difference is +7.4 inches in length, +3.4 inches width and a whopping +0.9 inches longer wheelbase. This new Ranger in my mind is really not that different in size if you take a look at how much the full-size truck have grown over the last 15 years. Even if Ford were to give NA a 6 foot bed option by stretching the wheel base 12 inches, it would give it a length of 222.7 inches and WB of 138.8 inches. Would pretty much put it the same dimensions as my ’02 F-150 and the other mid-size long beds on the market today.

I seriously hope that Ford changes their mind and bring this great truck to North America. And please offer the Hi-Rider package (4x2 with 4x4 ride height), a 2.3 liter Ecoboost and a 6’ bed. I would gladly throw money at my local Ford dealer.

The sport trac was $2k too expensive and the bed was too small.

It was heavy and the 4.0 moved it just adequately. The 4.6 was ok, but overall fuel economy was sub-par at a time when everyone cared about fuel economy.

Stuff the 3.7 liter in a 2012 Sport trac and add another 12" to the bed, throw a $2k rebate on it and it would have sold quite well. EPA of 18/22 would have been possible.

Ford could still make a smaller truck something the size of the 2010 Explorer/sport trac. Stick a 2.0 liter EB in the 2x4 and a 2.3 EB in the 4x4, price it slightly less than the Colorado in the base version and gain profit margins in the higher configurations.

The F-150 has gotten way to big and way to expensive for the average buyer.
That Ford is why folks are buying the Toyota Tacoma's and the Nissan Frontier.
I own a 1998 F-100 and that's just the right size for the consumer.
The 2017's require a ladder to get into and reaching over the bed is only for the very tall.



The comments to this entry are closed.