Ford Ranger Might Return to U.S.

Ranger front II

A lot has changed in the last 12 months. Not only have the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon been well received — winning several prestigious awards (namely the PickupTrucks.com Best Pickup of 2014 and Motor Trend's Truck of the Year) — but combined sales of the new midsize pickup trucks are on target to break the 100,000 unit mark by the end of the year, beating just about all the industry predictions. Add to that the fact that the perennial favorite in the segment, the 2016 Toyota Tacoma, has just come to market as an all-new, significantly advanced pickup, and it's no wonder this segment is attracting more interest.

For those reasons alone it should come as no surprise that The Detroit News is reporting that Ford is likely to bring the Ranger midsize pickup back to the U.S. by 2018, and it most likely will be produced in Wayne, Mich., just north of the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport.

The Ford Ranger was last sold in the states in 2012; it suffered from poor performance and construction. With the exception of a few styling and interior upgrades, the Ranger that abandoned the U.S. compact/midsize pickup segment hadn't really been improved since it came to market in 1993. Since then the segment and industry have gone through several significant changes, not the least of which was four-door models becoming the norm and half-ton pricing dropping significantly. As to the global Ranger — which enjoys considerable popularity in other parts of the world like Australia, South America and Africa — it's not clear what changes might be made to make it a more competitive player in the U.S., especially given the fact that the four-door model is not much smaller than some F-150 models.

Other automakers seem to be eyeing the midsize segment, suggesting that the small truck market could grow, making more options available to buyers. Hyundai has been playing with the Santa Cruz concept; many reports state it will be available in just a few years. Likewise, speculation about Jeep shopping a new pickup truck concept to its dealership network has some predicting another new midsize pickup (and we're guessing a very off-road capable one) is on the way; that assumes parent company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles can figure out where to make it.

Whether this speculation is real or imagined, it could mean entry-level pickup truck buyers will be the ones who benefit the most as more truckmakers get competitive with existing pickup pricing. From where we sit, having a "Jeep capable" midsize pickup could work for buyers looking for a work-duty family addition. For those who don't need all the "truckiness" of a traditional pickup, something like a sport-utility truck, lifestyle player could be appealing. And we absolutely think there's still plenty of room for a capability-first, downsized F-150 if Ford wants to re-enter the midsize market.

Given how conservative this segment has been during the last 10 years (the Honda Ridgeline excluded), getting a few more options will be a good thing for a truck sector that desperately needs to be shaken up.

Manufacturer images

 

Ranger front 2 II

 

Ranger size Ram II

 

Ranger size Ram rear II

Comments

Some of you guys need to do your homework. I seriously doubt Ford will pull the trigger on the global Ranger. That horse has been beaten to death and is totally opposite of what the Ford media guy just stated.....

Quote
Doug Scott, Ford truck group marketing manager, told USA Today last year that the company was considering a smaller pickup.

“We think we could sell a compact truck that’s more like the size of the old Ranger that gets six or eight more miles per gallon (than a full-size truck), is $5,000 or $6,000 less and that we could build in the U.S. to avoid the tariff on imported trucks.”
End Quote

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/ford-ranger-pickup-might-be-returning.html/

Also, if it is unibody there is nothing to worry about but worry itself. The Transit is unibody and you can put a separate box on it. And you you can order it in a number of wheelbases. So it's not as though unibody = 'no cab/box/wheelbase flexibility'.

As long as it has four doors, and a manual transmission mated to a V-6 engine, I'm in!

=====================

•A Jeep Wrangler Pickup was mentioned, but wasn't shown. Autoblog's FCA sources claim it is coming, but we don't know when. We know at least one exec supports the idea.

•A source at Opposite Lock claimed images of the new Ram 1500 were shown and that it looked "neat."
•Both Oppo and Allpar claim a new Power Wagon is on the way, and that it was shown on stage with 37-inch rubber. 35s will be standard when it hits dealers. Sources said the next off-road truck looks "more focused" than today's Power Wagon.


http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/26/barracuda-grand-cherokee-trackhawk-promised/

Hear me out: THE FUTURE IS GOLDEN FOR DIESEL MID SIZE TRUCKS!!! you'll see that when the Colorado and Frontier diesels will roll out with stickers showing better than 30mpg and towing close to 8,000lb. All this talk about 2.7 Eco-boost jokes and alike are pure nonsense. MPG is real bad especially when towing anything. This trucks are the jack of all trades including daily commuter and family vehicle - there is a reason behind the elevated recent appeal.

We will see if Ford brings out a smaller truck. The global Ranger would be a fine truck and it has had several years of proven reliability. The Transit Connect would be a good platform for a small Ford truck as well. Ford has no shortage of existing trucks or platforms they could use for a smaller truck. The question is will Ford do a smaller pickup in the US? Continued growth in the sales of midsize trucks would give Ford an incentive to do it. I am hoping that Hyundai decides to bring the Santa Cruz to the US--if the Santa Cruz was successful then you might see other manufacturers provide compact pickups. We will see what happens.

Lou,
It isn't when someone disagrees with me. It's when I ask how and why they reach a certain decision.

When a person can't produce any logical reasoning on their decisions I do question them or produce evidence.

Extreme examples of this are DiM, HemiV8, etc. Their views are extremely subjective with little research or bias will not allow them to alter their thought processes.

When I do submit a view I do run through all the processes of defining what I'm after. To do this you must find what the criteria that is needed to be studied.

I then consider my findings and evaluate if I'm most likely correct or incorrect.

Most people who discuss/debate/argue on these site are much more subjective than myself, hence the inability in many instances to produce a tangible counter argument.

Even my views on the aluminium F-150 I had made prior to the release of the pickup. My views are deemed anti Ford by the for clan. When in fact my views on the pickup itself are quite good. But my views on the issues confronting Ford in the marketing, manufacturing, etc of the vehicle is confusing these Ford clansmen.

Even the introduction of the Ranger I'm predicting and have done so for some time. I also gave the reasons behind my view or opinions.

All my views I do expand and provide as complete a analysis of how I have reached and made the conclusion I have.

Supporting people like All'one and his other pseudonyms, responding to the likes of HemiV8 etc as you have done had harmed the site. If you read my comments I only attack those who warrant it, again the names above plus a few others, even on TTAC. They deserve no less.

I also do believe that the owners of PUTC should really remove those comments. But they don't give a $hit, which I do find very sad.

I have also noted the writing style, tone and technique of some of the commenters on PUTC and they do have multiple names. I will not treat them as individuals.

Maybe Cars.com should introduce a better format or more secure format.

TTAC does monitor the site quite well. Even the commenters and who they think are using multiple names or are 'marketing'.

This site offers none of that.

I agree with Big Al from Oz.

He is a great debater. I like his style.

Nobody else on this site offers anything like Big Al from Oz.

Lube BC,
I suppose we can debate the Chicken Tax, your favourite subject as we found out on another site!

The Ranger that Ford has in current production in Europe and other countries around the world is a good looking, well built vehicle that includes an extremely efficient diesel engine option which is actually the standard in most of those countries.

If Ford is actually planning on bringing this truck back to the U.S. market that would be a terrific idea!

Lastly, I disagree with this articles statement that the Rangers suffered from poor performance and construction. They were very well built and each of the ones I owned including my 2011 model performed exactly in the manner that I needed it to. Its a truck not a sports car...

I agree Lou. I am a a big fan of this segment and look forward to what Ford has to offer. The Bronco sounds cool, too. But not a fan of some people's debate style. And no, it's not because of cars.com or the UAW or whatever excuse that you can come up with that some of you act out and debate this way. It is you. smh.

Let me be another voice calling for truly small trucks. I drive a compact Toyota pickup because it is the right size. It handles like a sports car, gets 25-30 mpg, and hauls as much as the current short bed full-size tanks (as much as I need.) I wish for a truck with those attributes plus all of the modern refinement.

The current "mid-size" trucks are 95% the size as full-size trucks were just a couple of generations back, so not at all small. GM says that small trucks won't sell, you have to go mid-size, but how would they know?

The last Ranger and the previous Colorado (and the S10 it replaced) were poorly designed imitations of the original Japanese small truck concept and it's no wonder they didn't sell enough with their half-hearted designs later in the model years.

Even Toyota and Nissan abandoned the market more than a decade ago with weak and ugly designs that got bigger with each redesign. If they would put a real effort into designing a good SMALL truck, we would buy them!

If you are going to go small, go small. Don't go 90% the size of full-sizers. 90% full-sizers are not good for the full-size crowd because like Lou said they are cramped inside and just little bit smaller on the outside and the small truck buyers won't buy them because they are too expensive and too big and don't really improve on anything.

Good day!

Ford working on a F-100 teaser project. This will debut in 2016, before the new F-100 in 2017/2018.

https://twitter.com/mrlevine/status/629272926433452032

@Big Al from Oz

I really appreciate you stopped calling me names long time ago. Some people know to adjust and some people are full of it and will never learn.I never call someone by different name first, but I have to treat them equally, when they do. I agree, that many people in here doesn't like arguments, they present mostly just their own propaganda, because they feel unsecured with their truck decision they made . Some people even switch the brand , because their original one doesn't offer what they want and they still call new decision truck piece of $hit to keep their continuity.


Bring the Ranger back, but as an updated compact body on frame.
I agree with the article commentary about poor performance, but not on construction. I have had 2 of them and they were and are tough, tough trucks! Combined miles over 500K and running/ functioning very, very well.
The Global Ranger really does not have a place in our market. Ford would do well in having its own segment -compact.

Disagree with Al and he will typical start throwing out insults at poster more often then not. He lumps various posters as 1 poster and establishes those people in his mind 1 person. In fact he would throw on insults frequently and in the past when this site had some moderation he would have a lot of post removed from topics that are just filled with typical insults.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2015/08/spied-2017-ford-super-duty-texas-debut.html#comments
I really like the comment he performed about what grade and what does daddy drive.

Scottie, or DiM or Awlone or one of those phord phans,
Read and weep.

Why do you insist to make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

Here is link that you didn't know (?) or are to embarrassed to admit your façade. Why do you speak as a 'whip' on pickup when you don't have a clue.

What grade are you in and does daddy own a Phord?

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11031.pdf
Posted by: Big Al from Oz | Aug 25, 2015 3:32:30 AM

I seem to remember this "discussion." smh.

I wouldn't want to be in Fords shoes , when they bring smaller truck and small diesel in here in 2017. I can't wait fow their PR department to communicate this decision with their customers, which got Ecoboost propaganda to their head. Ram was clear first and GM too, but ford is going to cannibalize F150 numbers.
On the other hand, customers are sheep and ford counts on it, like they said about aluminium body.

No argument the T-6 is too close to 150 and would cannibalize F150 sales. But this is not the T-6, it will likely be a much small truck. It may take a few of the stripper F-150 sales, but that's OK. Like you always mentioned, Ford doesn't make much on them, and if they can reduce sales of the low- or no- profit vehicles in the lineup, then all the better. I don't see the downside you are talking about. If it is called a F-100 it could increase F-series sales.

I see the new Ranger or F-100 or whatever this small pickup is called being more focused on MPG and lifestyle than on payload and towing.

The TC has a payload rating of 1100 to 1600 lbs. The old Ranger was rated at 1400-1500 lbs dependent on model, so a C based pickup truck isn't that far off from the old Ranger. I'm thinking it as an open bed TC for Orkin and the likes, which Ford excels at...work trucks like the F-series and Vans.

The Bronco would be the profit machine for the consumer market.

The reality is that people are buying way more truck then they need. If you are towing a pop-up trailer or a small fishing boat you don't need a an F150. The midsized truck market is needed and people will pay to have the right sized truck with the options they want. The old Ranger was doomed because it never kept up to the times. Old platform, old engines, old styling and undersized. With the new engines, a ground up redesign and a shared platform I think the Ranger will fit nicely into Fords Truck line up.

Wow, seen this coming from a mile away when the mid size GM twins started selling well. Put that 3.2L in-line 5 diesel in it and I'm a buyer. Put a 8-speed auto in it while there at it.
Gosh, the truck could push 35-38 mpg.
Diesel fuel has been cheaper since March here in the Midwest and may continue or at least be priced the same as gas.

Not sure I would call the gm midsize twin sales a success just yet. There sales month over month sales aren't really increasing and if anything dropping month over there highest month sales. Gm is walking a fine line on there production as not to get a lot full of these to where incentives are needEd to move inventory. Here the gm midsize sales numbers per month combined.
2015 monthly sales combined for the gmmidsize twins
January=8147
February=9076
March=9055
April=9442
May=11782
June=9090
July=9863

There is starting to be a sinwave if plotting this data on a graph.... And it's appearing to be a downward trend. August sales will be telling on gm's midsize. It's happening quicker then I initially expected as pent up demand for a gm midsize truck do to the perceived demand from the posters on this sight stating the demand is there. Of course they will sell well for what they are initially due to pent up demand.... I believe demand for gm mid size trucks will settle down to a 5000 or less unit sale numbers by end of model year 2016 which will make for long time between major updates that are needed to keep elevated sales numbers.

Gm is doing great with this model of matching production to output as not to have to offer incentives and get the most profit out of this unit.

If ford bought another midsize such as the global ranger into the mix it would bring the gm's midsize as well as fords own midsize to a quick death. The new gm twins are proof you aren't going to bust into the Tacoma loyalty.

I agree with Dovi2. The old Ranger was too small. The f-150 way to large for most applications unless your hauling a large camper, horses or a tradesman. Trucks that are the size of Colorado Canyon ARE needed because they can haul a pop up camper and satisfy 90 % Of the daily needs of the average homeowner. I don't see a truck of this nature cannibalizing full size sales at all because the F-150 will always be needed for larger applications and in fact, I see money to be made because many average joes would opt for a mid size truck. We can't do without our mid size around here. Whether its hauling mulch or the camper. Its comes in handy.

For all of you BOF people out there, there is zero demand in the Mid to large CUV market for a BOF truck...the Xterra dies off next year and nearly everyone else is Unibody

Therefore what I see happening is we are going to get a smaller truck then the Global Ranger (itself 7/8 size of a F-150) with a Bronco built on the same platform. That would be enough to keep the plant busy and bring in a nice profit for Ford.

The Colorado and Canyon are huge trucks...they are bigger then a old Ranger Super Cab, which is a decent size itself. Lou said himself that he could make a Colorado fit but it would make more sense to get the right fit in a full-size. This why there isn't enough separation between them and the Silverado in price or size.

Southern IL man,
The 3.2 diesel is a great engine.

A fantastic engine for a larger vehicle.

The mpg's you are chasing is quite optimistic, though.

When touring I did once approach those figures, but not quite.

I was driving in the Outback on a "tourist" highway over several days at around 50-55mph and only stopping or slowing at places of interest.

In all honesty I'm returning around 26-27mpg average.

My best hope for a compact pickup is still from honda atvs, kawasaki, or suzuki to basically build a slightly bigger side by side that is street legal. The big side by sides are closer to a compact pickup now than the tacoma or colorado. Honda is on the right track with the pioneer 1000-5. Polaris is most likely to offer what I'm talking about first, but judging by their previous side by sides it won't be reliable and too overly sporty for my tastes. They still have a ways to go, but sooner or later the side by sides are going to fill the gap left by the missing ford ranger/s10.

Somar,
This site is unfortunately not managed correctly.

I have noticed people such a Lou BC do generate issues with some of the inflammatory comments or inferences to create dissention unnecessarily.

Lou does have his fellow Ford Clansmen which I have notice do use multiple names, as seen above the several submissions by the same person using the same name. As the person who put forward the complaints regarding myself has never interacted with me on this site.

If Lou did have the gumption or fortitude he would pull them up, but alas these are his fellow Ford Clansmen. Lou does like to project the "mature" image, but I can't help but view this as a façade at times.

He claims to be non partisan to any manufacturer but yet subtly pushes Ford and provide lots of support for the Ford Clansmen.

I don't care if he supports Ford or HemiV8 supports Ram. But Lou can also provide some insightful and almost non bias opinion.

But, the only people I do question are those that just input dribble. If you look at my comments I don't "attack" on the first several questions, but ask them to provide some form of credible proof supporting their views. This generally "upsets" them and they attack.

If a person has a view I do like to hear them, but if it is subjective and baseless I do tell them so. This is not belittling, as they have put up an argument. If a person puts an argument/claim out there, then support it to give some credence to your belief.

You will see most attacks on my person are not credible.

I'm probably the least biased commenter on this site.

I have to say it's nice to see some people actually opening themselves up to fresh, reasoned, discussion. Somar touched on a point above that would in some ways represent a view of my own recent choices--or lack of, depending on the viewpoint.

I have said all along on PUTC that I am not a fan of full sized pickup trucks. I have also said that I'm not a fan of Fords, nor am I a fan of used. Yet, in the last several years I have bought and driven a USED Ford F-150 and now own a USED Ford Ranger. Remember, I don't LIKE Fords.

I purchased that F-150 for $2500 and ended up plugging another $3000 into it to make it roadworthy. The body was great and the interior was good for its age but I would also note that for being nearly 22 years old at purchase, it only had something just over 100,000 miles on it. The repairs? The brake lines were rotted out and the right-side exhaust manifold was cracked right in two between the second and third cylinders. Other than that, it was even remarkably rust-free. It was purchased for a specific need and it served that need for three years--only garnering about 4,000 miles total in the process.

The Ranger is a totally different argument. At now 18 years old, it only has 20,000 miles on it, soon to turn 21,000. It, too, required almost $3,000 in repairs however; the entire clutch assembly pretty much needed replacing due to more than 10 years of dis-use... it barely drove 2,000 miles per year even when it was driven regularly and was probably lucky to drive 100 miles per year over the last 10 years. The body and interior are pristine and even the engine is remarkably clean. A basic tune-up to replace the old spark plugs, oil change and a few other touches and the truck gives nearly 20mpg city and over 24mpg highway even before I put a high-flow air filter into it. And those people who say those high-flow filters don't work don't know what they're talking about. The engine has more bottom end torque than it did before replacing the filter which means quicker acceleration and smoother cruising.

The old Ranger is the perfect size for me, with the only caveat being that it's a standard cab and not extended. But then, other than the repairs I didn't pay a penny for it, either. I have argued for five years and more that full-sized trucks are too big and the "surprising" success of the Canyon/Colorado with now this report of Ford planning to re-introduce the Ranger pretty much proves my point. If Hyundai's threat of the Santa Cruz comes to fruition, I think many here will again be surprised. Ford never really built a true compact truck (the '97 Ranger very nearly the size of the '85 model), leaving it to Mazda to build the Ford-branded Courier. But GM and FCA already have a true compact truck in the wings where if the Santa Cruz succeeds, FCA and GM can quickly bring in American-branded competition without needing to badge-engineer some other brand's product.

@Scott: "Not sure I would call the gm midsize twin sales a success just yet. There sales month over month sales aren't really increasing and if anything dropping month over there highest month sales."

Month over month sales are not what you need to look at, though admittedly they're all you really have to compare at the moment. You look at any vehicle on the market and you'll see that they have periods of high sales and periods of lower sales throughout the year and it becomes a very regular pattern. The measure of whether or not it is a success is when you compare current month sales to the same month of the previous year. Right now, the GM twins are only just making their marks.

That said, the GM twins do appear to be a reasonable success. Nearly any brand you talk to predicate their decision for a new model based on whether or not they believe they can achieve 100,000 units sold in a year, and for now the GM twins look like they'll do better than that. So as far as GM is concerned, the Colorado/Canyon as a set are a success.

Road whale. Time will tell. I see the Colorado/canyon settle in at annual sales of 50-60k units after 2 full years. Will be less then that if ford introduces a midsize.

@Dan
Can easily tow those mall loads
http://images.tapatalk.com/20140215/temy4yta.jpg

OMG if this is true--it is going to totally disrupt the industry!!

I mean, these things are gonna totally replace all of the F350 pickups currently sold--haven't you guys heard? Things things are super mega hardcore HD pickups overseas that leap buildings and pull freight trains!

Oh wait, I forgot, the manufacturer totally redesigns, retools, and reengineers these things for the US market because only the global versions get all the upgraded "special" parts coated in fairy dust... lol.

@ Robert Ryan
A good stiff breeze and you would have the tail waggin the dog there Robert!

Looks like GM's success with their new mid size pickups has grabbed Ford's attention. You lose again Ford but your mid size sissy pickup may be a great choice for women which could also include any of the Ford boys.

@Dan,
No, quite common here. Mazda BT50 towing a similar sized boat , YouTube video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t53sijeItAA

You have really got to hand it to Big Al. He never self-promotes and is always objective in his comments.

G'day papa jum,
Thanks for the kind words.

The problem I do find is people such as yourself base and perceive the world around you via touch and smell.

You are what we call in the industry "monkey see, monkey do" types. Abstract ideas are just that to you. Abstract and overly complex. If you can't generalise an opinion or outlook you will become frustrated.

Remember this, any complex problem can be solved by the use of a series of simple solutions, performed in a certain sequence.

Yourself and the other old men who comment on this site generally do have some insightful views and wisdom I do support.

My job and life has been based on hard data and facts to make assessments. When I do interpret this information I will generally stick with my opinion. To sway me another's opinion must be as feasible or more feasible than my own.

We have seen the likes of DiM and his style of debating. He is what is called a troule a true troule. Then you go into the subjective troule, ie, Awlone/Scott and the other names he goes under. He is very similar to HemiV8 in the way they attempt to sway judgment. Subjective and generally overall inaccurate. They use just enough accuracy to appear credible, except HemiV8 who just cut and pastes FCA comments.

I don't troule, I just present as objective an argument I can to support my views. I will admit I've been relatively accurate so far with many of my predictions, as they are logical and/or the most feasible outcomes are likely. This is the way I manage, I have little room for error in my job.

Also, this isn't Facebook. I you have noticed I have learnt not to react to the troules on the site.

I would of thought Lou would of been happy by this outcome. But, I did find Lou in his own way encourages people like HemiV8 to react to his input, thus introducing more dissention than is necessary into the threads.

If you don't like or agree with my comments, then produce and present credible arguments with supporting evidence to validate your position.

I would be very proud of you if you could achieve my above request.

@Big Al, you didn't notice that my previous comment was dripping with sarcasm, evidently. Your constant self promotion and hokey posturing has long made you the target of potshots here at PUTC's comments section.

Regarding the Ford. Their compact and half ton pickups seem much less identifiable than in recent years--the other producers have stepped up their game at a time when Ford's truck team seems distracted by gimmicks (tailgate ladders, aluminum panels, and calling their gas-hog turbo engines "Eco boost" The 2014 V8 six speed F150 may be the best a truck buyer can do these days, at least from Ford.

The Ranger discussed in this piece is very late to the dance. With gas prices finding new lows every day, the whole emphasis at Ford on CAFE has missed their base consumer by a country mile. RAM and GM have refined their half ton trucks considerably during the last five years and Ford product development seems lost.

Nissan is very soon to release its new truck and it will probably cause some heartburn in Dearborn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6byJaTbF5g&feature=share

More Efficient Than Ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6byJaTbF5g&feature=share

papa jim,
Wow..........

You ain't that good, why do you think my response was as it was?????

I actually don't self promote. But when you guys dish out subjective and anecdotal comments you really do leave me in a awkward position.

So, papa jim, since you are so clever.

Why do you think Ford has released this teaser? Will the Ranger come to the US.

1. Whether your response is yes or no, please provide an in depth analysis of why you chose to respond as you had. Not some subjective generalised opinion piece.

2. Where is Ford at with the aluminium F-150? To help you, what issues are or are not confronting Ford with the new aluminium F-150?

Also, provide a comprehensive comment to support your opinions.

@Big Al

Seriously, you should get a hobby or something.

With regard to my comments about Ford and the Ranger, they stand on their own.

A few years ago Ford had a long list of exclusive features that made GM and Ram look lame by comparison. Not today.

They were believing their own press releases I suppose.

"Time will tell. I see the Colorado/canyon settle in at annual sales of 50-60k units after 2 full years. Will be less then that if ford introduces a midsize."
-- Posted by: Scott | Aug 27, 2015 3:43:27 PM

Personally, I think it's too soon to make that projection. It appears there's going to be a big shake-up in the pickup truck market over the next five years and if there is, we might just be surprised at who comes out on top.

"@ Robert Ryan
A good stiff breeze and you would have the tail waggin the dog there Robert!"
-- Posted by: Dan | Aug 27, 2015 7:02:12 PM

Wide-angle lens is definitely distorting the image there, Dan. That rig may be well within the truck's towing capacity. I'd guess at about 28' boat myself running about 4500-5000#.

"@Big Al, you didn't notice that my previous comment was dripping with sarcasm, evidently. Your constant self promotion and hokey posturing has long made you the target of potshots here at PUTC's comments section."

I'm wondering who really missed the sarcasm. Papa, he not only 'saw' your sarcasm, he 'raised' it with a perfect poker face. He was giving you a chance to save face but you had to double-down and blow it.

Al is right; too many commenters here rely more on emotion and opinion and not nearly enough on raw data. Worse, in some cases the data they try to present in support of their arguments very clearly refute those arguments. Now, to get back to the subject at hand...

You argue about Ford's gimmicks and I will agree that to some extent you are right. However, their intent in abandoning the mid-sized market was that they hoped to drive their buyers into the much larger, more profitable product. It didn't really work as their increases in F-series sales and compact car sales by no means balanced the loss in Ranger sales by abandoning the product. Granted, the increase in Tacoma sales didn't fully balance it either but there WAS an increase, showing a clear demand despite Ford's arguments to the contrary. Now that GM has come out with another, albeit larger mid-sized truck and is on track to achieve 100,000 sales in its first year, Ford is realizing they may have made a real mistake.

On the other hand, the question arises as to which way Ford will go. Most certainly if they build a mid-sized truck the same size as the GM twins, they might as well call it an F-100 and introduce it as an entry-level F-series. Or they could look at what Hyundai is doing, along with the new threat of the Fiat Strada/Ram 700 suggested by the Alpar report on the FCA dealer's convention and realize there may be a larger, compact market than the general consensus believes. It seems, for the moment, that Toyota and Nissan both are somewhat waiting to see which way the market will really go, as supposedly the Toyota hasn't grown significantly (using the same frame mounting points as their predecessors is the hint) and Nissan isn't changing anything other than their appearance, apparently. They may choose to go up or down based on how well the Santa Cruz does compared to the GM twins.

Is bigger better? For those who really need it, definitely; but for at least 50% of current full-sized truck owners, that's not so certain. Bigger certainly means a bigger engine, more comfort and, as you say, more gimmicks. But at the same time, almost half the full sized Fords now carry the EcoBoost V6, not the big V8 and some of them are now carrying an EcoBoost I4 which would serve much better in a model a full ton lighter and physically smaller than even the global Ranger. I'm almost tempted to see if someone can stick that 2.7 EcoBoost under the hood of my '97 just for kicks. I'm almost certain that even without changing the gearing, I could achieve nearly 30mpg on the flat. Swap in a six-speed and I think it would exceed that figure.

We'll just have to wait and see. Too many here and elsewhere think they know what all pickup truck owners want and need. They're being proven wrong time and again.

@Roadwhale, PapaJim, Big Al - to say that our decision making processes are completely emotional or our debating is emotional actually is backed by Physiology, Sociology, and Psychology. Even the self titled "hard data""logical" types filter everything through the emotive centres of the brain.
I made a similar comment a day ago and the site administrator deleted it. We are emotional beings.
Some are just better at concealing it behind a façade of intellectualism.

Big Al - in your own way you rile up the crowd just as much if not more than the brand fans or my comments aimed at some of those.

This site is half azzed in its policing. I suspect that they've gone from caring about the quality of the posts to worrying about "hits". A tr00ll battle generates more hits than a civil discussion.

Here is my take on this announcement by Ford, Ford is not committing to a Ranger or any smaller truck just yet but they are putting out this message to gauge interest in a smaller Ford pickup. If there is enough interest the next step for Ford would be to make a prototype and display it at the Detroit, New York, or Los Angles car shows. Ford has already been testing the global Ranger in the US and as for the Transit Connect platform that is already in the US market and it would not be that hard for Ford to make a pickup version of it and test it. As for the global Ranger it is already and existing platform so not that much more testing needs to be done. First thing that all of you need to remember is that press releases are more of a marketing tool and this is an easy marketing tool for Ford to use to measure interest. Ram and Jeep have done this in the past and Chevrolet as well. I am not going to count of Ford doing a smaller truck until there is a prototype and Ford announces that they will produce a specific model.

Lou,
Did I say you???

Again read.

Lou,
I don't really think the tR011 hits would generate as much traffic on PUTC as it would of it was the premiere pickup site.

PUTC has the name Pickup Trucks. They are blowing a great opportunity here.

If the site was civil, as opposed to politically correct the site would boom.

Also, don't read as if every comment you make is subjective and anecdotal.

I have adjusted my behaviour significantly on this site over the past couple of years. It was gradual.

The problem with you support the likes of Awlone and his other names, knowing very well who and what he is, just because he slams the Mopar clan.

Yet you are critical of the Mopar clan. Try and be balanced as you do has significant influence on how this site flows in the threads.

Remember you try and project the mature approach, well walk the talk.

@Lou_BC--Agree most of our decisions are emotional. Humans for the most part are less rational and can be swayed to make a certain decision by appealing to emotions. That is why marketing a product is so important and why so many dollars go to marketing. I am not saying that Ford will not produce a smaller truck but I believe this is more of Ford testing the waters before they commit to a smaller truck. I have made many decisions on emotion which I thought at the time were rational. It is amazing how we can convince ourselves that we are rational when much of the time we are not. We are a peculiar species.



The comments to this entry are closed.