By on August 26, 2015

xNew-Ford-Ranger-1_Front-3qtr.jpg.pagespeed.ic.jFsDbCT0gvbowdRxGcgr

Ford is reportedly discussing bringing back the mid-size Ford Ranger pickup to America and Canada in its bargaining negotiations with the United Auto Workers, the Detroit News is reporting.

Ford may be assembling the truck, which could be brought back as early as 2018, at its Wayne, Michigan plant. The truck would replace the outgoing C-Max and Focus at the plant. Ford announced production of those two products would move to Mexico in 2018.

The last U.S.-spec Ranger was most recently produced at Ford’s St. Paul, Minnesota plant, which shuttered in 2011.

According to sources, the formal decision would need to be ratified by Ford executives and the union’s board.

According to the report, Ford was enticed by the small, but growing, mid-size pickup segment. Although the segment only accounted for 227,000 sales in 2013, it is expected to grow in coming years. Toyota’s Tacoma dominates the segment, accounting for more than half of the segment’s sales, but General Motors’ Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon could slowly gain a higher market share.

Ford produces the Ranger in Thailand, South Africa and Argentina for 180 global markets including Mexico. Recently, Ford announced it would produce the Ranger in Nigeria.

It’s unlikely that Ford would would bring the global Ranger to America without significant modifications for safety and fuel economy. The Ranger’s size and classification places it firmly in the CAFE “dead zone,” which could make it difficult for Ford to find a suitable (read: efficient) powertrain.

The Ranger was last redesigned in 2011 and facelifted in 2015. A redesign for the Ranger would align with the 2018 production start date in Wayne. The C-Max and Focus are scheduled to leave that plant in 2018 as well.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

117 Comments on “Ford May Bring Ranger Back To US in 2018...”


  • avatar
    Sloomis

    My first new car was a ’93 Ranger. Great truck. Make this one available as a 2WD crew cab with a stick shift and it’ll be on my short list to replace my Odyssey in a few years.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      2WD? Certainly.

      Crew cab? Of course.

      Stick shift? Eh, some “other” car blog said it wasn’t that good on the Colorado, and I’ve yet to see one in the wild. Chances are if the Ranger makes it here, it’ll be auto only.

      But don’t be sad, ’cause two outta three ain’t bad.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    The strong demand for the Tacoma and GM twins as well as low oil prices for the foreseeable future are probably contributing to a better business case than say, a year ago.

    However, all these rumors could merely be bargaining tactics as the Big Three renew their UAW contracts.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      No.

      Ford’s newest aluminium wonder truck isn’t as popular as they had expected.

      Remember the new aluminium F-150 was supposed to replace the small US Ranger.

      That was just Ford bullshiet.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        This F150 wasn’t supposed to replace the Ranger. Ford had an F100 planned and it never happened.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          First up, as you have two different issues in your comment.

          The Ford decided there was too much overlap between the global Ranger and the F-150. Ford decided the new aluminium F-150 was the do all vehicle for light pickups. Ford also considered old and potential Ranger buyers would go out and buy Ford SUVs and CUVs.

          The above information is quite accessible on the net to find.

          http://blog.caranddriver.com/ford-considers-challenges-of-new-actually-compact-f-100ranger-pickup-truck/

          Secondly, what killed off the initial US adaptation of the Ranger platform was twofold.

          a. Ford was going to source the Ranger from Thailand. This didn’t occur because of a coupe de tat and the success of the Ranger on the global market (limited production capacity).

          b. The GFC and the breakdown of relations between the US and Thai governments. No FTA was ever reached between the two nations.

          South Africa was ruled out because of costs of production. Sth Africa is a more expensive nation to acquire vehicles from.

          Hmmmm…………

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Are there other sources for this besides Car and Driver? It’s not that I don’t trust them, but this is news to me.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The fact that the F150 went to aluminum has zero to do with the US not getting the global Ranger after the death of the last Ranger in 2011. At the time, Ford didn’t have a ton of cash, gas was high, and it had other issues to worry about.

            You are linking aluminum F150 to the Ranger even though the decisions had nothing to do with each other. Even if they brought the Ranger over in 2012, the F150 still would have gone to aluminum.

            You can’t look at decisions made in 2008 or 2009 like they were actually made in 2015.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            BBall,
            I agree with you the F150 would have gone to Aluminium,CAFE regulations were the main driver. Still Ford made the mistake that the Midsize market would keep shrinking. As I have posted earlier new entries into the midsize market have increased the niche despite fuel prices falling

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Well the midsized market did shrink. Ford has missed out on some sales, but they didn’t have a spot to build it in the NAFTA zone. All this couldn’t take place until the Fiesta moves to Thailand. That let the Focus move to Mexico and the Ranger to Wayne.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            BBall,
            It would appear Ford is doing the same as regards not getting the market right with their New Everest SUV. Like the Ranger they have made it too expensive compared to the competition.Ranger sales are the 3rd best as regarding Pickups, beaten by the ancient Hilux and a combination of old/ new Mitsubishi Triton models

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I saw how much more expensive the Everest is than the Prado. That’s crazy. The Prado has been popular for awhile. If they have the same strategy in the US, the Everest/Bronco/Whatever will fail here. They’ll have to undercut the 4Runner in price.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            bball40dtw,
            The fact that the new F-150 being aluminium has everything to do with it along with the political issues with FTAs, etc.

            Ford has invested a huge amount of money, $10 billion into the aluminium F-150.

            Ford considers the Ranger a risk to the total sales of the F-150.

            Remember the overlap of capability between the two vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          The amount of money they invested into the F150 going to aluminum also has much to do with other Ford vehicles transitioning to aluminum bodies.

          The F150 changing to aluminum has NOTHING to do with the Ranger not being offered for sale in the US. It has everything to do with the size of the Ranger, the lack of capacity to build it in the NAFTA zone, and the ROI of bringing it here. IF it shows up in the US, and there is no guarantee, it will because economics of selling it in the US have changed. This has zero to do with the F150 transitioning to an aluminum body.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @speed3
      What is surprising they are considering this when prices of fuel have hit rock bottom. So fuel is not an. Issue
      I think Ford have realised they got it wrong by sticking to just the F150 and do not have an alternative like the ” Twins”

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    If they were smart like Nissan, Ford would bring it back as a crossover. And while we’re at it, the GT40 should be turned into a crossover. Mustang too!

    EVERYBODY GETS A CROSSOVER!!
    YOU get a crossover!
    And YOU get a crossover!

    What the… sorry about that. Not sure what came over me.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I’m amazed by the number of Ford Ranger Sport (crew cabs) I still see around my area. I think they could do well in the American West with a Ranger.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Are you sure those aren’t Explorer Sport-Tracs?

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      Some of us want a regular cab.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Single cab, base model, Ranger.

        https://3d-car-shows.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ford-Ranger-09.jpg

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          That looks so… Rwanda.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Even NAPA don’t want that $hit.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Rwanda???

            Boy, Corey, that a great comment.

            It’s a base model single cab.

            In Australia at least the single cab comes with a 2.5 gas and 2.2/3.2 diesel.

            They can carry just on 3000lbs and tow 7 800lbs.

            Also the 2.2 diesel in 2WD has an average FE of 8.1 litres per hundred. Or just over 29mpg )US) average, not highway.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            It just looks like complete 3rd world crap, and Americans would -not- buy that.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Make it look less cheap and give it a real motor, it’ll sell.

          • 0 avatar
            Sloomis

            CoreyDL
            Looks like a direct descendant of my ’93 Ranger, which was also a white single cab bare-bones base model – no AC, no radio, no carpeting, no power steering…

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            The picture is a “low rider” version.

            Most are what are called high riders.

            I think the high riders are another $500-$600AUD more.

            A Malaysian High Rider Single Cab. See the difference in aesthetics?

            http://s1.paultan.org/image/2013/05/Ford_Ranger_hiRider-630×373.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @CoreyDL
            U.S. Pickups look like they were produced in South Korea with all the chintzy chrome. No way would they sell on looks alone outside NA

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Don’t listen to the h8ers. That looks cool, but here in rural areas, I don’t think it would sell. Not when a regular cab HD ’90s truck is less than $10K.

          Also, that second image (s1.paultan.org/…) doesn’t work, at least not for me.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      PrincipalDan wrote: “I’m amazed by the number of Ford Ranger Sport (crew cabs) I still see around my area. I think they could do well in the American West with a Ranger.”

      That’s what I’m in the market for, but I want one with the extra (clam shell) doors. I have no intention of using the jump seats (I’ll probably just remove them), but I do want a secured space for tools/luggage & some room to recline the seats, and the two door versions have poor access to the back of the cab.
      The four-door variants of the Ranger/Mazda B-Series aren’t easy to find.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Don’t hold your breath.

    With the F-150 MSRP starting at $26k, this mythical Ranger will start at $24k. And except for the relative ease of parking and a couple more MPGs, buyers will say “what’s the point?”

    I don’t see it happening.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      2.7TT + 4×4 would have me buying. I can comfortably get it in my garage and I don’t need the extra space.

    • 0 avatar
      Sgt Beavis

      You are correct as things currently stand. However that doesn’t mean it won’t change by 2018. Ford could decide to take the F-150 more up market with a higher entry price. It could also, potentially, take the entry Ranger further down market for better segmentation..

      That said, the Colorado doesn’t have much separation from the Silverado yet it sells better than expected.

      Also, there is the case of consumer demand. There are people that buy more on use case than price. A full sized truck may simply be too big to them or at least to their perception of what size truck they need/want.

      We could go back and forth on this for hours because it’s a good debate. We’ll just have to see how things play out..

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        I think Ford would hesitate to raise the entry price of a RCLB XL too much, because then they would lose out on all their fleet orders and maybe lose the crown of #1 to Chevy. The F-150 Platinum and Limited are both as nice as any Lincoln, so where could the F-150 go?

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Ford would probably do whatever it takes to undercut or at least match Chevy on the $21K Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      SCE to AUX,
      I don’t know where you are getting your pricing but a single cab 2WD here in Australia starts at $24 000AUD or around $17 000USD.

  • avatar
    Scott_314

    Man these new smaller trucks are absolutely enticing to me. I live in a big City and the full-size trucks are just too big, plus I drive too many miles to live with under 20mpg.

    The new Tacoma is fantastic, great off-road, great on, great size overall – it all comes together in a VERY compelling package. The Colorado looks great too.

    Ford, bring it. They will sell.

  • avatar
    LennyMauricio

    I love the old school Rangers! My brother had one from 1994 and still works with AC and all!!

  • avatar
    dwford

    Bring it. Bring the Ranger based Everest SUV over too.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I wish Chevy would bring the Colorado 7 over as the TrailBlazer, with a new GMC Envoy (and Denali for those massive profit margins), and then Ford would bring the Everest, and they’d have great competition for the 4Runner again. Dunno how up to snuff the Everest is when it comes to crash ratings, though.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        Obviously Ford would have to make sure it passed all the crash tests.

        • 0 avatar
          derekson

          At least the popular model, anyway.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Unlike GM, Ford designed the Ranger and presumably the Everest to meet US regs. It’s not expensive for them to do it. It’s also a huge carrot for the UAW.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          dwford,
          The global Ranger has been recognised as the safest pickup on the global market. It actually is safer than many luxury marques.

          As a matter of fact it was the safest vehicle for pedestrian collision.

          Not bad.

          It might be a little dumbed down if anything for your market.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It wouldn’t be dumbed down. It’s already set up to meet the US standards.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            bball,
            I do admire and respect your US biased patriotic views. But you are wrong…again.

            First up, if you knew much about Ford you would know Ford is an ardent advocate of the global harmonization of vehicle standards.

            This means Ford is wanting to match US standards to what the majority of the world is doing, not vice versa.

            Secondly, how is the global Ranger “setup” to meet US standards???

            Really, bball, what crap.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I know that the Ranger, unlike the Colorado, was built with US regs in mind. There would have to be some changes to the vehicle, but nothing very significant. The original plan, back when the global Ranger was designed, was to bring it to the US.

            Scottdude will tell you the same thing, but you won’t listen to him.

            Also, you said, “First up, if you knew much about Ford you would know Ford is an ardent advocate of the global harmonization of vehicle standards.”

            Sooooooo, if they are an advocate of harmonizing standards, wouldn’t they make sure to design vehicles that meet all current standards?

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    “….which would make it difficult for Ford to find a suitable powertrain.”

    It should simply share the F-150’s 2.7T EB and V8, along with the upcoming 10-speed. If they only build the crew cab Ranger which about shares the ‘footprint’ of the base F-150, what’s the problem? MPG would be just as good as the F-150. Actually the CC Ranger’s footprint is a little smaller with the short bed and a little bigger with the long bed vs the RCSB F-150.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      You won’t see a V8 in the Ranger. It hasn’t had one….ever.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        It hasn’t had one yet, except this is the heaviest and most capable Ranger by far. If not a V8, V8 power is a must, or it’ll have poor economy from having the thing floored all the time.

        • 0 avatar

          No V8, Ford is not much in the V8 business anymore other than SuperDuty. Even Expedition is V6 only.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Certainly one huge reason for me choosing to own a 5.7-liter Tundra and a 5.7-liter Sequoia.

            At least someone still makes a real truck and a real large SUV, with a real V8 engine.

          • 0 avatar

            Haha, F150s and Tundras aren’t real trucks, they are commuters with beds. Folks who insist on V8s rather than concern with the actual work provided by the motor and transmission don’t need real trucks anyhow.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Once it needs V8 power, why d!ck around with turbos? The war against V8s started when they got 10 mpg, and keeps pushing forward without considering how efficient they’ve become and how heavy “light vehicles” have become.

            As if V8s are just for pulling houses or setting the Burgerkingring on fire.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Because CAFE dood.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            CAFE doesn’t even consider cylinder count or displacement. The reason the full boat Colorado gets worse FE than the full boat Silverado is its overtaxed V6.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            No. The reason has more to do with gearing, aerodynamics, and dollars thrown at the program. A V8 wouldn’t give the Colorado better FE numbers on EPA tests.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Don’t forget to ask yourself ‘why the low/steep gearing?’ Hint: The V6 with equal V8 gears will not do the job.

            But “aerodynamics”? Why would a smaller pickup need to push more air out of the way??

            Given the same V8 and gearing, the Colorado has to get slightly to dramatically better FE than its Silverado counterpart. And the Colorado could then get by with lots more economical gearing and trans/engine tuning vs the Silverado with the same drivetrain.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If the V8 would have performed better on the EPAs FE tests in the Colorado, GM would have put the V8 in there.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The reason the V8 isn’t in there is political. Most folks wouldn’t understand. They just see a monster gas guzzler when they hear “It has a V8!!”

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          DiM,
          You said this would never happen……bringing the Ranger into the US market.

          A fad?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Ford even said it wouldn’t happen (again), any more than a global F-150.

            Yeah it was a fad. Fads do come back, but it’s never quite the same. They were selling by the millions, and faster than they could build them.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      The current global Ford Ranger (crew cab/5′ or SuperCab/6′ bed) has a 129″ WB, IIRC. Let’s say a crew cab/6′ bed Ranger would have a 141″ (a foot longer). The ’15 RCSB F-150 is 122″ (the regular cab got 4″ smaller, and nobody noticed, or cared).

      But you may still be right, the footprint (WB x track) might be smaller.

      I’d expect some 4-banger from somewhere, the 3.2 Duratorq to satisfy the dieselheads, and the 2.7 EB as the premium option, with a 6-speed first and the 10-speed optional.

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      The problem with only a crew-cab Ranger is that people like me want only a regular cab.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      DiM,
      You have stated a thousand times that Ford would not bring the global Ranger to the US.

      So, what is your excuse? As I’ve said you have little knowledge of your neighbouring market, the US.

      You Canadian’s from Winnepeg would like the Ranger as your fuel prices are higher.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    I loved my Ranger… a 2003 XLT with standard cab, standard bed, 2WD, 2.3-liter four banger and manual transmission. 25mpg around town, 27-28 overall and I saw 33mpg on the highway quite a number of times. A fairly basic truck but the XLT package added nicer seats, carpeting, power windows, air conditioning and a sliding rear window. Perfect. Driving in snow was no problem – even with all-season tires. No added weight was ever needed in the bed. A very well-balanced truck.

    I had it seven years and only traded it because while the basic vehicle was solid and trouble free (body, frame, engine and transmission), every component brought in from an outside supplier was trouble: Front end, shocks, power steering pump, alternator, etc. All failed – some more than once.

    This was during the Jacques Nasser days when Ford was really leaning on its suppliers and it showed. I gave up when I spent more in repairs over the course of a year than payments on a new car would have cost me. Why did I wait so long? I really liked the truck.

    I’d love a Ranger again (or even a Bronco) if Ford can show me the vehicle won’t be a bag of problems.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The majority of buyers in America decided that the Tacoma was the ideal mid-size truck, regardless of version or incarnation.

      Others found the Dakota a great compromise, except for its woeful dependability, lack of reliability and in-the-toilet retained resale value.

      It is this undisputed Tacoma superiority that drove Dodge, Ford and GM to drop their non-competitive mid-sized trucks in America. And it is also the reason both Ford and GM are crawling back into this category after seeing Tacoma gobbling up all those sales.

      The 2016 Tacoma does everything GM’s new midsizers do, and does it one better, for those who can afford to pay the premium for one. Tacoma costs substantially more than GM’s offerings, but you get what you pay for.

      Decades of precedence for that.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        I’ve got a ’02 V8 Dakota and keep waiting for someone to build a suitable replacement. The GM twins are still a bit too big for me. My Quad Cab Dak 2WD just fits in the garage. I owned a Ranger V6 before the Dakota and my main complaint about it was lack of power for towing. So I’d love a diesel or Ecoboost powered Ranger.

  • avatar

    I’d much rather see a car based truck (Fiesta Sedan cut off and called Rancharo) than the return of the Ranger after she’s been sitting on the couch for 8 years. An almost full size truck is not an interest to me. Get that girl in shape and back down to size and I’ll pay attention.

  • avatar
    stuki

    Between the new Taco and the GM twins, the extended cab niche is already well served. But not the reg cab. Just saying…

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Given the success of the GM twins (20 day inventory turn, selling everyone they build, high ATP, mostly loaded out models selling) and the tide lifting up Toyota (also largely selling every Tacoma they can make) and stupid people still buying the Frontier in volume because….well I don’t know why, it just makes sense to me for Ford to jump back in the game.

    Fullsize trucks have bloated up to be so big at this point, that “midsize” trucks are about the size of fullsize trucks 15 years ago.

    I owned a Chevy Avalanche years ago, and a month or so ago I saw a new crew cab Ram 1/2 ton next to an 05-07 Avalanche 1500 – holy crap – it dwarfed the GMT900.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      05-07 Avalanche was GMT800. And it may have looked smaler, but it was the same width. Full-size trucks have not gotten any wider (and won’t) since the late ’60s.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        Right. the current Silverado is 1.75″ wider than the first gen C/K.

        The F150 is exactly the same width as the 80s trucks, and the SuperCab with 8′ bed has only grown about a foot lengthwise. The current SuperCab is also much more useable than an 80s extended cab truck.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          The biggest size-related issue I have with modern trucks is that the beds have gotten so high as to be useless. Why should the top of the bed sides be at eye level, and the bed itself above waist level?

          In terms of width, full-sizers have always been too big for use as commuters, and that hasn’t changed.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Sounds like what you really need for reasonable bed height and sides is a Ridgeline!

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            “The biggest size-related issue I have with modern trucks is that the beds have gotten so high as to be useless”

            It’s only a few inches different than a few decades ago. The F150 used to have a 31″-33″ bed height in 2WD, now everything has a 34″-35″ bed height.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            bball40dtw,
            The Ranger isn’t that much different.

            I do know to top of my BT50 pickup bed is over four feet from the ground, but I also have a 2″ lift, but that is high.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            That is pretty high. You can get a solid 9+ inches of ground clearance on the BT50/Ranger though. That’s more than the other midsized trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Calling it “at eye level” is an exaggeration…unless you’re me and your father owns an ’08 F-350. Offroad 4×4, as opposed to standard (non-offroad) 4×4, package means a 2″ lift from the factory. 4×4 by itself is probably an inch or so of clearance over a 4×2, which is about the same size (at least) as a 4×4 half-ton. And I’m 5’9″ with my boots on.

            When it comes to looking over the bed, I’m Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy!

            On the plus side, it makes our ’06 F-150 feel downright compact…

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            bball,
            The new midsizers, are quite high. Just look at the Colorado/Canyon. Not the bed but the cab.

            The Colorado/Canyon beds actually sit lower than most other new globals.

            Just look at the bottom window line to the beds.

            The Colorado/Canyon have low beds.

            Yes I do now have fantastic clearance. Not radical. When I’m in the States I see many lifted pickups that are not functional.

            My lift is Old Man Emu (ARB). Design to improve performance, not to make my pickup look good.

            I really do hope Ford does introduce the Ranger in the US. It is a fantastic platform and dare I say the best pickup platform from Ford at the moment or possible the globe.

            I more or less have one, it is great.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            When sitting in a Corvette, I can see over a Ranger’s bed. (That’s the discontinued US Ranger, not a current international Ranger.) When walking through my work’s parking lot, I have trouble seeing over current F-150s’ beds.

            The old height worked great. Two people could pick up large pumps over the side of the bed instead of dragging it out through the tailgate like we had to with the F-150s.

            For people who don’t intend to go offroading, there’s no reason to add such large wheels & travel that push the truck up so much. I don’t mind having trucks that are lifted, but I wish there was an option for ones that aren’t.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        We are both partially correct.

        Avalanche was GMT800 02-06 and GMT900 07-13.

        Dimensionally they didn’t change much.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          The longest Ram 1500 is only 10″ longer than the Avalanche. It doesn’t dwarf it.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I laugh errytime I see an Escalade Avalanche. Now, an uplevel trim regular Avalanche all in pearl white, that looks legit.

          http://theautoexpo.com/images/photos/3312%20Photos/Gateway/11%20Avalanche%202.jpg Aww yeee.

          • 0 avatar

            I agree. The final-series Avalanche (Black Diamond, I think it was called) looked pretty swell, especially in white.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I was not aware of special Black Diamond edition!

            Hells yes in emerald metallic.

            http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zg6F9iu5J5k/maxresdefault.jpg

            Hehe it’s so brougham, I love it.
            http://zombdrive.com/images/2013-chevrolet-black-diamond-avalanche-10.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            But I’m very put off by the interior on it, though there’s the exact one I’d want for sale on Ebay.

            http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevrolet-Avalanche-Black-Diamond-LTZ-4WD-/141756118611?forcerrptr=true&hash=item210152b653&item=141756118611

            For that kind of money I’ll get a pre-predator GX and call it a day.

  • avatar

    I doubt they’ll bring it back in the same way that made the original one so popular. It’d likely just be the successor to the Explorer Sport Trac, in all reality.

    A couple of weeks ago, one of the neighbors had a visitor who parked his/her late-series Ranger in front of my house. I had two individuals ring the doorbell and ask if I was selling it, and this is not the kind of housing division wherein people typically sell used cars from their driveways. My response: “I don’t know *whose* it is, but I’d be happy to sell it to you. Just don’t tell nobody.”

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I bet Ford has had another sh!t month with the aluminium F-150 in sales. It’s timing for its latest pickup comments seem to be a few days prior to the monthly numbers.

    I do hope I’m correct again, isn’t that correct DiM, bball40dtw, etc;) Hmmmm…….maybe you guys will learn your pickup market better one day. And you guys swear it would never happen!

    I would expect the US Ranger to come with the great little 3.2 diesel, 2.7 EcoBoost and a 4 cylinder gasoline engine.

    Aaron Cole,
    Some of your comments are quite entertaining, ie, modifications for safety???? and FE???????. Is this your own interpretation? If it is you should become a comedian.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      I’ve told you, I’d be super happy if the Ranger shows up. It’s still not a done deal and it could just be a bargaining chip (I doubt it). I’ve always said that it wouldn’t happen anytime soon based on people I know in the truck programs and Glass House. I’ve also been consistent saying that Ford wouldn’t import it. If the Ranger does come over, it’s because Ford has seen the numbers that show the Colorado isn’t taking Silverado sales, like it used to. I think the date I’ve used has been 2020. Looks like they’ll beat me to it by a couple years.

      A few weeks ago I said MAP was going to get a truck or SUV that wasn’t the F150, I just guessed the wrong ones :).

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – “Mods” were mentioned in the article, for CAFE sake, not safety. Colorado/Canyon sales surprised the industry, not because of volume, or demand exceeding supply, but that Tacoma sales increased dramatically, instead of getting cannibalized by they twins.

      Except it’s even more interesting that the twins mostly cannibalized other, more profitable GMs. This little tidbit is just a reminder how bad an idea it may be for Ford. But who knows? For me, if it’s got a V8 I’ll buy at least one.

  • avatar
    Fred

    Too big and too late (for me at least).

  • avatar
    frozenman

    Agree with APaGttH, the only fullsize I would consider is a Titan Kingcab Pro-4x. Its a tidy older design with a low bed rail height, at least in appearance. Some of these new trucks look like aircraft carriers when they roll by, GM being the worst.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States