Ford Inside News banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
When Ford released an update on the 2015 F-150 earlier this week, the dramatic difference in weight between the 2014 steel-body and 2015 aluminum-body F-150 Lariat SuperCrew caught our attention. According to Ford, the 2015 F-150 Lariat’s aluminum-alloy body helps cut weight by as much as 700 pounds compared to the 2014 model. Impressed, we asked Ford PR rep Mike Levine for the curb weight of a less-optioned truck, the base model 2015 F-150 SuperCrew. He came back with 4475 pounds -- the preliminary curb weight from Ford of a 2015 F-150 4x2 SuperCrew equipped with the 3.5-liter V-6 engine. If you just exhaled a low whistle, that is the appropriate response; for a full-size pickup truck with the shortest bed and the largest cab configuration available to weigh in under 4500 pounds is a startling feat of engineering. Consider that a steel-bodied 2014 F-150 4x2 SuperCrew with the same powertrain weighs in at 5128 pounds (per Ford Motor Company), a number in line with the F-150’s current competition:

Read more: http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_10..._2015_ford_f_150_supercrew.html#ixzz38aIwiv00
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Lighter, yet stronger.
More capable, yet more efficient.


Maybe this is why they are not bothering with a Ranger. Imagine a regular cab weighing close to 4K lbs. They could offer a stripped model for max fuel economy and thrifty savings, yet work capable.....or amp it up with a performance model that rivals the previous Lightening in power to weight.

I think that makes a heck of a lot of sense. Sure, some would prefer the smaller size, but if it carries a price that is close to a stripped F series and gets fuel economy that is no better, maybe worse.....then much of that smaller-is-better luster is gone.

I can't wait to hear final numbers in performance and efficiency. I bet everyone's jaw drops. This really is a game changer. And I have to simply laugh at the competitive crowd that tries to discount the progress here, by saying they were so heavy in the first place. Yeah, no duh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Those are some impressive numbers! Nice to see some core innovation in a market that hasn't changed it's bones in a while. As for size, some people just don't want to drive a vehicle as large as a full-size truck. They just don't need something that large, nor want to pilot a land-barge around on a daily basis while preserving the truck utility in a smaller factor. Toyota proves there is a market for smaller, yet capable, trucks (which is more impressive considering how awful the Tacoma is!). Take that small truck and make it even more fuel efficient and more modern, so much the better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,893 Posts
Those are some impressive numbers! Nice to see some core innovation in a market that hasn't changed it's bones in a while. As for size, some people just don't want to drive a vehicle as large as a full-size truck. They just don't need something that large, nor want to pilot a land-barge around on a daily basis while preserving the truck utility in a smaller factor. Toyota proves there is a market for smaller, yet capable, trucks (which is more impressive considering how awful the Tacoma is!). Take that small truck and make it even more fuel efficient and more modern, so much the better.
Agreed.

For the US go EcoBoost + Auto Stop-Start with the smaller/lighter/easier to park Ranger and grab a market that would not consider the even bigger 2015 F-150. Ford had the idea that most of the Ranger consumers would switch to a Transit Connect van. But that didn't happen as Transit Connect sales are down -3.2% YTD at 19,799 even with the new model. Compare that with the Tacoma at 75,149 YTD. Which clearly points to the fact that Ford left a big market gap with no Ranger sales in the US. But that's expected to change for MY2016.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,401 Posts
It is impressive to be sure, but the reasons for a Ranger sized vehicle don't end with fuel economy. For many people the F-150 size is overkill and a Ranger would more than meet their needs while being easier to maneuver. Besides, and aluminum Ranger would weight even less and get even better milage!!!!!

Do it Ford!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Ford does offer sizes smaller than SuperCrew that are maneuverable.


Offering a Ranger would be swell, but again, once viewed comprehensively in the context of all the benefits of next gen truck, it begins to make less sense. A small box F-150 regular cab makes good sense to those who seek small, and is barely larger than the world Ranger. Same length I believe, just not as narrow.

And once next gen is here, I believe it would be a similar scenario where everyone cries for Diesel, but ignores it in the showroom.

That aside, I can't wait to experience the many untold benefits of such a significant change in weight and materials. Lower CG and other driving dynamics are only some of the game changers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,401 Posts
Ford does offer sizes smaller than SuperCrew that are maneuverable.


Offering a Ranger would be swell, but again, once viewed comprehensively in the context of all the benefits of next gen truck, it begins to make less sense. A small box F-150 regular cab makes good sense to those who seek small, and is barely larger than the world Ranger. Same length I believe, just not as narrow.

And once next gen is here, I believe it would be a similar scenario where everyone cries for Diesel, but ignores it in the showroom.

That aside, I can't wait to experience the many untold benefits of such a significant change in weight and materials. Lower CG and other driving dynamics are only some of the game changers.
Even with small trucks it appears based upon what I see on the road people prefer the four door trucks. The F-150 simply is not, and can not be an answer to every need and preference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
That width can be a big factor, especially if you don't have a nice wide garage and would still like to be able to get into your vehicle(s) from both sides (I speak from experience here as our Explorer is just too wide for our garage). Also, climbing into a smaller truck could be easier for a lot of folk. My dad has driven compact and full size trucks for the last 35 years and preferred the compacts for a number of reasons. A lighter, shorter full-size truck is nice, but it is still not a compact. Different ride, climb-in, and loading heights make a short full-size and a compact truck two very different animals. Having said all of that, if Ford can't make a business case for it, then the discussion ends there. Nevertheless, Toyota has been doing pretty well with a product that is generally considered mediocre (except for maybe reliability), and I would think that Ford could muscle in on that market with a competitive offering... Then again, with GM getting back into the fray with new smaller trucks, Ram possibly having an offering, maybe Ford doesn't think it can/should bother with trying to compete in the segment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Ford's M.O. with a lack of a small truck, seems to prioritize shareholder value at the moment. They obviously believe that a large investment in a segment they can't dominate, might not be the best ROI. Hard to argue that point. Sure, 2 or even 3 sizes of truck is best, from a customer's viewpoint. More selection is always better. But it also has to fit into their global One Ford plan too, that has served them quite well. Or maybe they want to see how well GM's twins do, as they can always come late to a party like that, even with a quick import of global Ranger. Personally, I just don't see a lot of success around a 7/8 scale F series, so i don't see it happening. I would rather see a slightly smaller SUV based unibody pickup. Think modern Sport Trac, but with a more useful bed option or at least length options. Previous bed was too small.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,401 Posts
Ford's M.O. with a lack of a small truck, seems to prioritize shareholder value at the moment. They obviously believe that a large investment in a segment they can't dominate, might not be the best ROI. Hard to argue that point. Sure, 2 or even 3 sizes of truck is best, from a customer's viewpoint. More selection is always better. But it also has to fit into their global One Ford plan too, that has served them quite well. Or maybe they want to see how well GM's twins do, as they can always come late to a party like that, even with a quick import of global Ranger. Personally, I just don't see a lot of success around a 7/8 scale F series, so i don't see it happening. I would rather see a slightly smaller SUV based unibody pickup. Think modern Sport Trac, but with a more useful bed option or at least length options. Previous bed was too small.
I don't disagree on the business case not being there, I'm just pointing out what I would prefer and believe many would, though not in the numbers the F-150 sells.
 

·
FIN Moderator
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
All men in my family bought nothing but Rangers for daily drivers and yard trucks. They were cheap and had great fuel economy, and you could get a nice appearance package for under $25k. Ford just neglected it by not updated its engines and not doing anything with its styling. Thus, there was no reason to buy another one. Ford's PR reason for killing the Ranger was because the F-150 was better at the time (which it was), but Ford ignored the fact that they neglected it.

BTW, that Tremor has a $40k base price.

A compact truck that gets 35+ mpg with a $16k base price and cool trim levels would be very popular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
All men in my family bought nothing but Rangers for daily drivers and yard trucks. They were cheap and had great fuel economy, and you could get a nice appearance package for under $25k. Ford just neglected it by not updated its engines and not doing anything with its styling. Thus, there was no reason to buy another one. Ford's PR reason for killing the Ranger was because the F-150 was better at the time (which it was), but Ford ignored the fact that they neglected it.

BTW, that Tremor has a $40k base price.

A compact truck that gets 35+ mpg with a $16k base price and cool trim levels would be very popular.
The reason it was so cheap, was because Ford neglected it.
Would you still drive one if it was transformed into a very competitive product that cost only slightly less than F-150?
 

·
FIN Moderator
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
The reason it was so cheap, was because Ford neglected it.
Would you still drive one if it was transformed into a very competitive product that cost only slightly less than F-150?
No, the first and second generation models were still cheap, and they weren't neglected. The Poling, Trotman, and Nasser eras made sure every FLM model was neglected, so they could focus on Jaguar/PAG and their agendas. It's not like it was just the Ranger that suffered.

A $40k F-150 Tremor vs a $25k Ranger Sport? **** yes, I'd take a Ranger over an F-150! I don't need the F-150's capabilities, so why do I need to waste $15k and have a needlessly larger gas bill?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
No, the first and second generation models were still cheap, and they weren't neglected. The Poling, Trotman, and Nasser eras made sure every FLM model was neglected, so they could focus on Jaguar/PAG and their agendas. It's not like it was just the Ranger that suffered.

A $40k F-150 Tremor vs a $25k Ranger Sport? **** yes, I'd take a Ranger over an F-150! I don't need the F-150's capabilities, so why do I need to waste $15k and have a needlessly larger gas bill?
I showed the Tremor for size. I mentioned a short box standard cab would weigh about $4K, and with a base 3.5L would be quite impressive in terms of power and efficiency, and cost, what.....about $25K. So if you started with a $19-20K base Ranger in today's dollars, complete with an I4 and manual transmission, you would close the gap quickly with a V6 and automatic transmission. No need to go to extremes with a loaded Tremor to make your point.

Anyway, a long-in-the-tooth, discounted and stripped down ranger is not going to happen any time soon. Will Ford lose customers because of it? Sure. Do they care? Not as long as they are cashing in selling far more loaded up, mega-profit F series. If you can convince them to change their ways and spend more to make less, then God speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Agreed.

For the US go EcoBoost + Auto Stop-Start with the smaller/lighter/easier to park Ranger and grab a market that would not consider the even bigger 2015 F-150. Ford had the idea that most of the Ranger consumers would switch to a Transit Connect van. But that didn't happen as Transit Connect sales are down -3.2% YTD at 19,799 even with the new model. Compare that with the Tacoma at 75,149 YTD. Which clearly points to the fact that Ford left a big market gap with no Ranger sales in the US. But that's expected to change for MY2016.
Those are some big conclusions you are drawing.
I submit to you that Transit sales are solid, and have leveled off more than anything. And Taco sells mostly because Tundra is such a turd.

So after hearing of only a tiny price increase for F-150 XL, I am now convinced they have no plans for an immediate Ranger. F-150 is one heck of a compelling package for the $25.4K base price, and Transit will take care of the $22K and up crowd. And it is a solid plan, as I bet far more people are happy about a closed work truck that is compact, than there are upset potential Ranger owners who take their business elsewhere.

Personally, I would grab the awesome new F-150 crew cab. It offers real space for people, not midgets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Wings, I bought a Nissan Frontier because of it's size, not price. I preferred a Ranger but refused to purchase it knowing that is was discontinued and people was asking $8000+ for used ones. Not everyone needs a full size pickup, I wanted a truck that could fit in my garage without scraping the side view mirrors or garage opening. If Ford did a compact not mid-size truck the size of the old Ranger, with an eco-boost engine, it would sell extremely well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Yeah, I get that some want small. But Ford is not giving up their cash cow F series. Not without a fight. Or so it seems.
I was waiting to see where new F series is priced, as a clue to if they were secretly planning on a ranger allowing the F to move upscale, but they did not do that. They kept it basically same price on the lower model. Again, that could all change, but I doubt it. Ford would rather purchase a bigger rake to collect all the monies from F series, then spend millions on Ranger and take away F series sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts
Ford would lose some F150 sales to a smaller Ranger but it could be made up with Ranger sales taking away from the competitors pickups also like the Tacoma, Frontier, and GM twins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Ford would lose some F150 sales to a smaller Ranger but it could be made up with Ranger sales taking away from the competitors pickups also like the Tacoma, Frontier, and GM twins.
I doubt Ford cares as much about putting a dent in their small class truck sales, as they do max profit.
Sure, Ford could go bonkers and make the Ranger a class leading product, at great cost, but it would still be in a small segment all while taking away their cash cow sales.

Would you do all that, if you were Ford?
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top