By on March 25, 2014

Ford-Ranger-Sport-09-560x373

Serendipity is what I believe it’s called. On the day TTAC was aflutter with news and comments on the new Chevy Colorado and an out-of-the-box thinking proposal to get the Chevy Montana into the North American market, I got some news in my e-mail inbox. The new Ford Ranger has arrived in Brazil – but in regular cab form.

At about US$29,500, it is about 500 dollars more expensive than the priciest Fiat Strada. In Brazil, cars pay much higher taxes than in the US, but those prices mean very healthy margins. For that kind of dough, equipment on the Ranger is quite nice, but the ambience is the same in cars almost 10,000 dollars less. In other words, plastics, hard plastics and more plastics is what you find inside.

Besides plastic, the new truck offers power everything, a roll bar, graphics package, leather-wrapped steering wheel and a plethora of other niceties (or worthless add-ons depending on your perspective). Mechanically speaking, there’s an auto locking differential, ABS, EBD and the engine is an all-aluminum 2.5L I4 that has 168 or 173 hp if running on Brazilian gasoline (E+/-22) or pure Brazilian ethanol. Though that sounds relatively good, Brazilian enthusiast site bestcars.com.br says that at just 120km/h the engine is revving hard at 3,200 rpm.

Always an important thing in pickups, the bed is 7.5 feet long and has 1.800 L of volume up to the edges of said bed. This would be enough to carry two motorcycles in the bed without breaking too much of a sweat. It carries loads of up to 1400 kg, roughly double of the mini car-based trucklets and a far cry over the 900 kilos or so the Rangers that made it here in the mid 90s were good for.

The new single cab Ford Ranger takes indirect aim at the smaller Fiat Strada and Volkswagen Saveiro in Brazil, but it really competes against the Chevy S10 (known as Colorado in the US) and Toyota Hilux, both of which look rather unfortunate in the single cab configuration. The last single cab Ranger managed to sell about 10,000 units from 2007 until 2012, which compared to the roughly 10,000 sales a month the Fiat Strada manages is but a drop in the ocean. Would it suffer the same fate in North America or does the new single cab, long bed, global Ford Ranger have what it takes to become a player in America?

Note: All figures in this article taken from this article on bestcars.com.br.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

64 Comments on “Dispatches do Brasil: Global Ranger Arrives In Brazil...”


  • avatar
    joeveto3

    I have a hard time believing a business case can’t be made for this Ranger in the US. My wife and I saw the Colorado in person and she immediately said “too big.” She would love to buy a smaller pick-up. A 9/10ths Silverado doesn’t cut it. I think this Ranger would. Especially in yellow.

    • 0 avatar
      N8iveVA

      I was under the impression that the new Ranger suffers from the same 9/10ths of an F150. Am i wrong?

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      One need only look at the old Ranger for why.

    • 0 avatar
      OldandSlow

      I happen to know a couple of single cab Ranger owners – both empty nesters and who bought new – would definitely love to see this version available in the US as a replacement.

      Non empty nesters more often buy Tacoma and Frontier four door quad cabs. Since they are in a majority, I do not know what the business case would be for a single cab variant of the new Ranger.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        There would be a tremendous market for regular cabs, and it would be the only regular cab, small truck on the market, after ’14. This is that last year for the reg cab Taco.

        100,000 sales easy. Orkin alone buys 2,000 small pickups a year. The smaller, the better. They don’t want the forced extended cabs.

        That’s if Ford could keep the price around $18,000. It’s the price of multi cab, small trucks that are tough to handle. At that point, consumers step off.

        But it’s doubtful Ford wants another go around with the bottom of the truck market cheapskates. Been there, done that…

        • 0 avatar

          The only way to get close to $18 would be to utilize the C1 platform (focus/escape), and I don’t know if the US market would show interest in a Ute. We have always sorta shunned these (coolest vehicles ever) stepchildren.

          • 0 avatar
            jhefner

            Most such businesses are going with Transit Connects nowdays

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            What’s wrong with selling them at a loss? You make it up with something else profitable. The point is you sell lots of them…

            That’s the way it used to work anyways. Still works for GM!

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            LOL, yeah. GM will “make it up on volume”

          • 0 avatar
            jhefner

            And I forgot to mention…the Transit Connect IS based on the Focus. It just has a van body instead of a ute body.

        • 0 avatar

          The entire market in 2012 was about 275K so there is NO WAY 1/3 could be standard cab fleet versions.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Fleets aren’t the only ones seeking reg cabs. It’s the bottom of the truck market and cheapskates are par for the course. Toyota may be pushing multi-cabs and Nissan forces a King Cab base truck. A Ranger, regular cab only, would be a hit. Especially since it’d be the only reg cab on the market.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      I’m a current Ranger owner that would love to see this one come into the country. As long as a bed is big enough to carry a good sized motorcycles (750cc or *much* larger), and its no bigger than 4/5th the size of a current F-150, I’d be interested.

      I have absolutely no interest in driving a current full sized pickup. Too bloody big.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Straight from Jim Farley, it was explained to me that a business case for the global Ranger didn’t makes sense because it would overlap too much with lower end F-150s. They can capture buyers who want a cheap pickup at the low end of the F-150 spectrum. For those looking for a cheap delivery vehicle, they have the Transit Connect, so they’re capturing 90% potential Ranger customers with existing vehicles without having to certify and import another, or add a local production line. CAFE and emissions rules also play a role in that the fuel economy of the global Ranger isn’t significantly better than the F-150, so it didn’t make sense from a regulatory standpoint either, once low potential sales volumes are considered.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @danio3834 – agree. Too much overlap.

        The only way around it would be to replace all low end F150 pickups with the Ranger. Any short box F150 could be deleted and replaced by the Ranger. Ford could call the Ranger the F100 so it could continue to claim annual F-series domination.

        If the USA gets an FTA with the EU or an FTA with a country that makes the Ranger especially if there is emissions and safety reciprocity, we most likely would see the importation of the Ranger to fill niche markets.

        DenverMike does have a valid point, Ford does not want to play the “low/no profit” fleet cheapskate end of the market. They could do it with the old Ranger because it had been paid off and had decades of amortization.

        Ford had said that they will focus on the 20% that makes 80% of the profits. Base market products don’t fit that plan.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Lou_BC
          I think the fact that the larger manufacturers are moving away from the cheaper entry level models will give another manufacturer room to enter the US market (if it was allowed, remember the poulet impot).

          How many aluminium entry model F-150s and Silverado’s will sell and at what price. CAFE/EPA, you gotta love it!

          I can see primarily the Big 2, plus Fiat in the US having unwanted competition in several years when FTA’s are made with countries/regions that manufacture cheaper, smaller pickups.

          This Brazilian Ranger reminds me of how the Japanese started to move their pickups up market in the 70s in Australia. A base model, single cab truck, with nice upholstery, radio/cassette, etc.

          But the Brazilian price is horrendous for a country like Brazil, extremely expensive.

          The Brazilian truck isn’t targeting business either with this truck. Judging by the photo it’s a high rider, with plenty of bling and a small engine.

          Even our base model Ranger has steel rims, low ride, without the chrome bits.

          @Marcelo,
          What factory are the Brazilian Rangers from? You mention all of the hard plastics.

      • 0 avatar

        > CAFE and emissions rules also play a role in that the fuel economy of the global Ranger isn’t significantly better than the F-150,

        If ford’s too incompetent to get a 3500lb vehicle over 20mpg they have bigger problems than marketing.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @u mad scientist – companies like people tend to take the easy way out.
          -They’d rather support tariffs and barriers than compete i.e. Japan but will push for FTA’s i.e. EU if it benefits them.
          -It is easier and cheaper to make a larger F150 emissions and mpg compliant because of the larger “footprint”.
          -It makes more sense for Ford to stay away from a small truck due to higher profits with the F150.

          It has nothing to do with “incompetence” and everything to do with the most expedient way to make money.

          • 0 avatar

            > It is easier and cheaper to make a larger F150 emissions and mpg compliant because of the larger “footprint”.

            This makes zero sense as a matter of physics. Energy/fuel use is proportionate to weight.

            > It makes more sense for Ford to stay away from a small truck due to higher profits with the F150.

            If there were buyers for a profitable small truck, someone else would make/bring one here.

          • 0 avatar
            tankinbeans

            If I’m understanding correctly larger trucks agent required to be tested by EPA and have a bit exemption owned right on the label. If the measurements are outside those dimensions, the truck didn’t have to meet the CAFE requirements. This Ranger wouldn’t qualify for the exemption.

            If I’m wrong, please inform me otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @u mad scientist
            The reason the US doesn’t have a decent selection of pickups like we have in Australia is due to the ‘closed’ and protected pickup market.

            VW and Ford even stated that the Chicken Tax and other barriers make it hard to import a midsizer to develop a market.

            VW stated that if the market isn’t at least 100 000 units per year it isn’t worth their while to set up a factory as the Chicken Tax makes it prohibitive to import pickups into the US to develop a market.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “If I’m wrong, please inform me otherwise”

            Light-duty trucks (as defined by the EPA) are subject to CAFE. This would include the F-150, Ram 1500 and Silverado 1500.

            The other trucks above that (the HD pickups) don’t fall under CAFE, but they are subject to different rules that are imposed on larger trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Umadscientist – “It is easier and cheaper to make a larger F150 emissions and mpg compliant because of the larger “footprint”.”

            That is the case because the emissions/mpg rules are not as strict with a large pickup.

            A story on Pickuptrucks.com stated that full sized pickups may die because their smaller “footprint” means they fall into the same class as small pickups. That means tighter emissions and mpg standards. The way around it is to make the reg cab available only in an 8 foot box to comply with more strict rules or kill it all together.
            Toyota is killing the reg cab Tacoma and the new Tacoma will not come in reg cab. I’m sure that the footprint of those vehicles fall into that of a 1/2 ton extended cab.

            Car companies are not trying to cheat Physics with larger vehicles but exploit loopholes in the rules.

            It makes 100% sense if you understand CAFE footprint rules.

          • 0 avatar

            > That is the case because the emissions/mpg rules are not as strict with a large pickup.

            Again, a larger pickup weighs more. Weight increases as cube (ie x^3) of lineal measures (x*y*z). The CAFE footprint is a square (ie x^2, x*y) of lineal measure. Fuel economy is directly proportionate to weight at the <60mph cycles run by the EPA.

            No points for guessing which one increases faster.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @u mad scientist
          Before you open ‘your mouth’ you should at least understand what the f#ck you are stating. You seem to pluck bull$it out of your rectum. Do a little research and get an education.

          The 2wd global Ranger has a diesel that’s getting about 34mpg on the highway. This is from a vehicle that can tow 7 800lbs and carry the 1 400kg payload like this Brazilian Ranger, HD territory payload.

          Even my 3.2 diesel BT50 which is a Ranger sibling is achieving 32mpg on the highway. This is a 4×4 dual cab.

          So, you’d better do a little simple research, it isn’t hard. Maybe it is for you.

          • 0 avatar

            > @u mad scientist. Before you open ‘your mouth’ you should at least understand what the f#ck you are stating. You seem to pluck bull$it out of your rectum. Do a little research and get an education.

            Just wondering, is this what educated people who do research sound like in your head? Serious question.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @u mad scientist
            So, all people who have an education act a certain way?

            So, show me a F-150 that’s is returning 35mpg.

          • 0 avatar

            > So, all people who have an education act a certain way?

            People who have an education act educated. They would for example understand the difference between diesels/gas and differing ways of measuring mileage, or at least why the chicken tax doesn’t apply after being spoon-fed the explanation a few times.

            Contrast this to whatever it is you do.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @agenthex
            Where is your 35mpg F Series?

            Don’t go on with some bull$hit.

          • 0 avatar

            > Where is your 35mpg F Series?

            Do you just randomly pick people out to argue with whatever or is there some kind of reasoning process behind this statement?

          • 0 avatar

            Big Al, you’re shooting your own argument in the foot with your stupidity.

            It doesn’t matter how well the Ranger does in regards to size, fuel economy or any other aspect – it’s not coming to the U.S. Ford is not about to eat the expense of federalizing, crash testing and adding another production line for a vehicle that would do nothing but cannibalize sales of the more profitable and less expensive to manufacture and market lower-trim F-150. That ain’t happenin, cap’n.

            As far as the Big 2 and Some Change and the general public’s concerned, there’s already a decent selection of pickups in the U.S. Anyone who wants smaller will have to scrounge around for the old Rangers, S-10s and the dwindling supply of Nissan Hardbodies and Frontiers that haven’t disintegrated into rust flakes yet.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Ford is not about to eat the expense of federalizing, crash testing and adding another production line for a vehicle that would do nothing but cannibalize sales of the more profitable and less expensive to manufacture and market lower-trim F-150.”

            Large truck buyers are largely not interested in downsizing (although the reverse isn’t quite true — the small truck buyers are somewhat more likely to upsize.)

            I would expect the cannibalization issue to largely impact other smaller vehicles such as the Escape and the Focus. In some respects, that would be even worse, as those vehicles are less profitable than the F-series, and it wouldn’t help to make their margins any thinner than they already are.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Dang BAF0, can’t take you anywhere without you crapping the rug…

            Bet you were the kid parents couldn’t take out in public without you throwing a fit, breaking something and generally needing to be caged.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @John Williams
            What stupidity? It appears your level of comprehension is equivalent to DiM’s and Ph101′s.

            I have never stated the Ranger will come to the US, as in right now. That is the basis of my argument.

            But I will bet the Ranger is in the US within several years.

            The aluminium F-150 will be to expensive for the average person. They will sell F-150s but you will see how well CAFE has done for you guys.

            The new Navara/Frontier, Hilux/Taco and GM smaller pickups will do okay.

            As for CAFE, well full size trucks are getting screwed by it, hence waste of time and expensive aluminium pickups.

            You will see the chicken tax gradually die in the ass over the next 10 years and the Big 2 and Fiat will have to compete. That is to compete with others.

            I’ve had this discussion and have researched this to levels beyond what you can apparently comprehend.

            If you have any questions don’t hesitate to ask me as I WILL give you an answer.

            But, if you make any statement, you’d better back it up with some credible evidence, not your subjective opinion, ie, DiM and Pch101.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – Yes F-150s and Bugatti Veyrons. Too expensive for the common man… Rap stars will be driving F-150s to their Lear Jets…

            Won’t you be surprised when the aluminum F-150 doesn’t cost several thousands more?

            Yeah, I’d agree you’re stupid. “Rocket Scientist” my A$$!!!

            Mop Squeezer maybe…

            By the time the Ranger get here, if at all, it’ll likely be all aluminum too.

            But riddle me this: What exactly are US 1/2 tons, like the Titan and Tundra, so “protected” from? 1/2 ton Buggatii? 1/2 ton Audis? 1/2 ton Minis? 1/2 ton BMWs? 1/2 ton Renaults? 1/2 ton Peugeots? 1/2 ton Fiats?

            OK, scratch that last one, but you’ve proven to be habitually stupid once again.

            You said so yourself, the Colorado will mostly cannibalize mid-size SUVs/CUVs. Silverados, not so much. There’s no real indication smaller trucks are cross shopped with full-size trucks in any kind of meaningful way.

            Even at the height of the mini-truck craze/fad/invasion, full-size truck sales didn’t even see a dip. The Chicken tax didn’t slow down the mini-truck craze because they were in high demand. Like it wasn’t even there. That Hot trend went away so the trucks mostly went away. No conspiracy. The Chicken tax obviously has zero affect on what’s for sale here.

            And you’ve never answered what’s VW’s chicken excuse for denying us the Scirocco and Polo?

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Al, I’ll clarify again after what I posted above. The T6 Ranger is not coming to the US in the immediate future. There are no plans for such a change. I know this for certain.

            They’ve made their bet on the aluminum F-150 as it’s fuel economy will be close enough to that of the T6 Ranger that the majority of customers won’t want to step down. It’s also a wise bet because the majority of potential small/mid size pickup customers will step into an F-150 when there’s little penalty other than a larger size, which matters to few pickup buyers, especially fleet customers. They can build one model to capture they customers they want.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Perhaps a narrowed F-150 model or F-100 ‘Slim’. Small-truck people seem to be obsessed with truck width more than anything anyways.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Width, height AND length.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Height wouldn’t be a problem. Lowered suspension and raised chin. Bed sides lowered for those complainers and those that complain about length, 4′ bed on crew cabs. But no one would force a crew cab, complainers buy those on their own.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @danio3834 You are right too much overlap. They are 3/4′s of a 1/2 ton with a with a slightly more than 3000lb payload.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    we have that here as well for about usd $20k which includes an alloy tray

    i think the problem you see there is that its a low tech low power 4 cyl petrol with a 5 spd box and a high diff ratio so as to improve low end torque for loads and towing

    of course this will mean poor hwy revs and econ

    next round they put in a 6 spd man. but really, no one buys them unless you need it for work OR you buy the $40k 4 door diesel 4wd with the tacky GFX and leather interior (ie. urban cowboys)

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    If I needed a truck this would likely be what I’d look for. I wouldn’t need anything huge as most of what I would use it for would likely just be bulky, but not overly heavy. It has to be better than my Blazer, which is decent in its own right, but it’s old (I have taken care of most of the neglected maintenance from 16 years of previous owners not caring).

    My friend has a 97 USDM Ranger that’s had 230k miles of hard use and it’s gutless. Then again it has the aged 2.3 good for about 105hp, if memory serves from peaking around online. My heavy 4.3 gets better mileage than his light 2.3

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    It’s remarkable how this new generation of “small” trucks manages to look so top-heavy.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      Exactly! The problem isn’t so much that full-size pickup trucks are too wide. What’s missing is a less tall pickup truck with proper proportions for the regular cab short bed configuration.

      Example 1968 Chevrolet C-10: http://www.oldtownautomobile.com/files/Chevy%20C10%201968.333.2.jpg

      Imagine a Ford F-100 based on the F-150 short bed regular cab with a proper 48 inches between the wheel wells, but with the suspension lowered a few inches and with a much, much less bulky body.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      That’s partially because, even as a 4×2 model, they still often have the height and oversized tires of a 4×4 model, as well as making the bedsides taller.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Hey, Marcelo! – Wondering if that’s the Lima 2.5 or related, like the old US Ranger had. Basically a Pinto 2.3 stroker.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    One thing I’ll say is that I like the looks. It’s sleek, not pretentious and graceful. Can’t say I’m a fan of the price, though and the load capacity is far beyond what is needed for a half-ton truck. At 1420Kg, you’re talking a load capacity of 3150 pounds or over 1.5 Imperial (US) tons.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Don’t worry, if it ever comes to the US, several platoons of lawyers (along with, possibly, Ford’s own marketing department) will cut down its capacities to sub-F-150 levels. The marketers will also be sure to give it a big, macho squared-off front end.

      In other news, my late grandfather’s 1997 “jellybean” F-150, regular cab 4×2, is starting to look really *nice*. Definitely not macho, but not “girly” either. Just really *nice*. Except for the dust–but that’s what you get when you put barely 1,000 miles on it a year.

  • avatar
    seabrjim

    “Only a regular cab?”Remember what got us here in the first place? 4 doors, bigger this, bigger that, heavier everything! Now we come full circle and want a small, regular cab, 4 banger stick shift. Nuff said. Some of us dont need a compact that is a 7/8 F150.

  • avatar
    jim brewer

    Seems to me you ought to be able to sell cheapest small pickup truck for about the same price as cheapest sedan, but evidently not, or someone without a full-size truck to cannibalize would do it.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Last time someone tried, they gave up on the effort because the dealership network was trying to screw them.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      There’s not much margin in small sedan. But they make it up in volume and platform sharing. With small BOF trucks, there’s neither volume or platform sharing. Nor drivetrain sharing. Then factor it likely costs 2X as much to build a small truck. Too many variations, options, packages and each model take a different frame. Manuals take a different frame than autos. 4X4s take a different frame than RWD. Each engine takes…. ect, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Why? A good engineer should be able to take almost any SUV platform and turn it into a compact pickup truck with very little “frame” modification outside of the fore-aft arch. Even that can be handled by creating a ‘roll bar’ for strength and rigidity and make it a ‘feature’. It wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done it.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The market is moving toward car-based crossovers. That makes the costs of your beloved small trucks that much more prohibitive, and their production that much less appealing.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @jim brewer
      The comment you are making regarding the costs of pickups is when pickups ran the old larger car drivetrains, engines, brakes and even suspension components.

      Nowadays all pickups have to be designed without the parts bins as much.

      Also, up until when the chicken tax changed it’s rules governing what constituted a pickup that attracted the chicken tax changed, cheap imports of mini trucks were allowed to enter into the US market.

      Also, with the advent of pickups now becoming SUVs the idea of using very outdated chassis and suspensions, etc will make a pickup uncompetitive. A classic example is the now defunct and antique US Ranger. I think the days of obtaining 20 years out of a basic platform is uncompetitive.

      Pickups are moving up market, globally and will continue to become more expensive and out of reach of the people who could of afforded one 25-40 years ago.

      Full size pickups have become too large for many, but there still is a very large market for them, even the future expensive, twin turbo V6′s that are around the corner.

      Pickups are now a carlike replacement, if they weren’t would they come with all t he bells and whistles and low load capacities they do?

      Fullsize and midsize pickups are SUV/CUV alternatives.

      Just look at this Brazilian Ranger. It’s not geared up for the average Brazilian carpenter. Brazil has cheaper and better alternatives for their market for industry.

      This is the Brazilian version of one of our mid to high end pickups.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAF0 – Full-size trucks are still a tremendous value. You get a decent amount of truck for the price of a Camry. No one forces a King Ranch. Load capacity suffers with multi cabs, 4wd, etc, but tell me how that’s not true for midsizers.

        But what were you babbling about what changed about the chicken tax and when?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DiM
          You seem to be on a different wavelength here. This is what I’ve come to expect from you. I’m not discussing what YOU think is value.

          Use google and you’ll find the answer to your question regarding when the chicken tax killed the mini truck imports.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – See that’s what I mean. What killed mini-trucks is what ever killed all trends from the ’80s. But absolutely nothing changed regarding the chicken tax during and after the ’80s. Except for the BRAT loophole. It’s you that needs to do some Googling. Search Rubik’s Cube and parachute Pantz while you’re at it!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            And as far as “value” goes, if you can’t afford a full-size truck, or mid-size for that matter, you can’t afford a Camry.

        • 0 avatar

          > But what were you babbling about what changed about the chicken tax and when?

          I think the answer’s pretty obvious given the chicken tax must’ve been explained on this site in however small words about a million times.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I know the answer to the riddle. So does BAF0. He won’t answer because trolls just scamper off when cornered.

          • 0 avatar

            > He won’t answer because trolls just scamper off when cornered.

            Hanlon’s razor would tend to reject that explanation because it implies knowing better.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India