By on August 26, 2015

everestfront

News today that the Ford Ranger pickup and Bronco utility could return to the United States and Canada is being met by very enthusiastic ears, including yours truly.

According to multiple outlets, the two vehicles could be built at Ford’s Wayne, Michigan plant, the same plant that will lose Focus and C-MAX production to Mexico in 2018.

But, is everything as it seems? Let’s dive into the Ford product portfolio and try to make some sense of it.

First, the Ranger rumor: The global Ranger — dubbed T6, which just received a refresh for 2015 and will likely be due for a redesign for MY2019 — will make a return to the United States and Canada.

There has been some recent Ranger activity around Ford facilities in Michigan. However, the larger evidence at play to support the rumor is growing interest in smaller trucks.

Tacoma sales are up even though the next-generation truck hasn’t really started selling yet. The GM twins — Canyon and Colorado — are flying off lots as quickly as the General can build them. Why there’s an increased interest in the mid-size pickup segment is unclear; it could be that full-size pickups have just grown too big for a decent segment of the truck-buying public, that people again see mid-size trucks as alternatives to the seemingly dead, truck-based SUV segment (see: Xterra), or increased competition and marketing is making mid-size trucks more visible to consumers.

The fact the Wayne, Michigan facility needs product is another strong support for the rumor. The previous plant to build the Ranger has been shut down, so it can’t go there.

I have professed some “Charger Love” as of late and would never consider a full-size pickup. However, a mid-size offering would certainly fit my own lifestyle, as I’m sure it would for many others.

The second and more involved rumor: The Everest will come stateside with the Bronco moniker.

This rumor requires some finessing of the Ford lineup, which means we must examine the Explorer and Taurus.

It’s no secret that the Ford Explorer and Taurus gain a significant number of their sales from police departments.

Year-to-date, nearly 20 percent — 5,929 to be exact — of the Taurus’ 29,967 total sales are of the Police Interceptor variety. The other 80 percent of Taurus sales aren’t just retail; those sales are split between retail and other fleets. While a breakdown isn’t available, it does mean less than 24,038 Tauruses were sold retail year-to-date. (For comparison, FCA has sold 28,889 units of the Chrysler 300 to retail and fleet.)

The Explorer has become far more popular with police departments than the Taurus. Year-to-date, Ford has sold 14,920 Explorers to police departments, but it makes up a smaller percentage of the Explorer’s 145,785 total sales — just over 10 percent. Currently, the Explorer is the 6th most popular SUV in America behind the Nissan Rogue and ahead of the Jeep Cherokee.

The Taurus, as TTAC has reported in the past, is not long for this world … at least the American world. The sedan is likely to continue on in China, but is expected to be cancelled here. Other D4 platform mates — Lincoln MKS, Ford Flex and Lincoln MKT — have also been rumored for the guillotine. That means if Ford wanted to keep the Explorer in its current form, it would likely be the only vehicle riding on a platform currently shared between five different models. Goodbye, economies of scale.

So, let’s assume that even though Explorer sales are doing fine, it’s not going to stick around either, leaving a significant hole in the Ford lineup above the Edge and below the Expedition. That hole is very similar to another one found within the Lincoln lineup between the MKX and Navigator.

Enter Everest — or, as you might be calling it in the future, the Ford Bronco (or possibly Explorer) and Lincoln Aviator.

The Everest is based on the Ranger, so the “Bronco”/Explorer and Aviator would both be a body-on-frame, rear-wheel drive SUVs. Instead of a Wrangler competitor, this would be a Grand Cherokee/Durango competitor. If you were hoping for a droptop Bronco, you’re out of luck here, folks.

“By 2020, we expect to expand the segments that we participate in by adding two new nameplates to the Lincoln brand,” said Stéphane Cesareo, spokesman for Lincoln, when we inquired on the Lincoln Aviator rumor, and the Everest would fit the bill for a premium, rear-wheel drive SUV for the Lincoln brand in addition to the return of Continental. There’s your two “new” nameplates.

This possible plan leaves Ford without a full-size sedan to sell to police departments and lacking a livery car for the Lincoln brand. However, that new Lincoln Continental could do livery duty, and a Ford-badged Continental derivative could fill the spot left by Taurus.

Whether this all comes to fruition, we’re not sure. However, as far as speculated plans are concerned, this seems like the only option for Ford (and Lincoln) going forward if the “Bronco” is anything but a rumor.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

42 Comments on “Let’s Break Down The Ford Ranger and Bronco Rumors, Shall We?...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Gah! This was the first “New Post” email notice I’ve received, in the past 3+ months. Still received new comments emails as appropriate. You must have fixed somethin’.

    • 0 avatar
      DubTee1480

      Me too. Honestly I’ve been too busy to scan the site daily and without New Post emails to draw me in to a particular story my visitation to TTAC has dropped. Hopefully they keep coming, I’m sure I missed some good stuff here and there.

  • avatar
    xflowgolf

    That evolution of the Explorer makes no sense. They won’t revert the now car based 3rd row champion back to a midsize body on frame truck derivative.

    I’d counter, that with the the Explorer now evolved into a soccer mom 3 row transporter, there’s room for a more rugged “trucklet” SUV on the Ranger platform below it, something more functional than the cute ute Escape.

    • 0 avatar

      “They won’t revert the now car based 3rd row champion back to a midsize body on frame truck derivative.”

      Sure they can. They already make a 3-row Edge for China. I am sure they can just bring that to North America.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @ Mark Stevenson
        As I and Big Al from OZ have been saying despite the shrill cries, Ford will bring a Midsize back to the U.S too counter the new models by Toyota, GM and possibly Fiat/Chrysler.. Considering the fact that fuel costs are at rock bottom, Midsizers are increasingly building a bigger niche.

        The Everest has been designed to take on the Toyota Prado, which is not sold in the U.S. People scratching their heads here about that as the competition is releasing new cheaper in price, not capability or accessories, models

      • 0 avatar
        Rob

        Why would they need to discontinue the crossover explorer? Your talk of scale extends outside of production, and the R&D necessary for the platform can still serve Mulally’s “One” vision even if he is now gone.

        I’d also go so far as to say there is room under such a shared cost initiative for both the explorer (shared with the cars) and a new body on frame SUV (shared with a TRULY global Ranger) stateside. The model seems to work just fine for this little upstart Japanese company called Toyota.

  • avatar
    TheAnswerIsPolara

    “If you were hoping for a droptop Bronco, you’re out of luck here, folks.”
    Why is that the case? Sounds exactly what Dodge did with the Dakota…

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    The Explorer won’t die. Ford isn’t killing that cash cow. However I can see the Ford SUV/CUV lineup looking like such:

    EcoSport (next generation)
    Escape/MKC
    Edge/MKX
    Bronco
    LWB Edge/Flex thing
    Explorer/Aviator
    Expedition/Navigator

    • 0 avatar

      With every other D4 platform vehicle rumored to get the axe, I don’t think they can keep the Explorer going on its current platform. If they do keep the Explorer, it would have to be built on a stretched Fusion platform like the Continental, I think.

      Or maybe they will just rename Everest to Explorer for North America.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        They aren’t killing that name though. Even if Ford kills the D6 platform (which I doubt), they will still keep the name for whatever stretched Edge thing they make.

        • 0 avatar
          slance66

          Agree with bball40dtw. Other than the F150, the Explorer is the most valuable thing they have. That name is never going away. It won’t revert to BOF either, as it hits the sweet spot now as a three row CUV that dads aren’t embarrassed to drive (something Toyota is trying to accomplish).

          I can see the Ranger coming back. I can see the Flex going away and being replaced by a Bronco that is midsize and BOF.

          • 0 avatar
            George B

            Explorer: “three row CUV that dads aren’t embarrassed to drive”

            +1000! Women aspire to own a Lexus RX 350 with most settling for one of many CUVs that mimic its rounded shape. The beauty of the Explorer is it drives like a car-based CUV, but it looks much more like a truck.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I think the Continental being on CD4 is a temporary thing until D6 is out. D6, in theory, will be modular and able to support FWD, AWD, and RWD vehicles. It would replace D3/4 and CD4.

        • 0 avatar
          SlowMyke

          I agree with this. The explorer, Taurus, and mks all share a platform now. They are making a new Taurus and mks (continental), so why wouldn’t they all continue to use the same platform, regardless of what it may be?

          And I also highly doubt Ford will kill the explorer name. They may have killed the Taurus name once despite its “healthy” name recognition, but I suspect Ford knew what they were doing. Even though Mullaly brought it back, replacing the Taurus with the fusion certainly didn’t hurt and replacing the five hundred the Taurus only mildly helped. The explorer, on the other hand, is selling and reviewing very well.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            “only mildly helped”

            I must disagree. Taurus sales are noticably higher than the Five Hundred’s were, and in markets such as California, the Taurus does very well compared to the Five Hundred’s performance there. I forget what percentage the sales jump was there when the 2010 was introduced, but it was significant. The full size sedan market as a whole has shrunk considerably, but had they continued with the Five Hundred, I think the yearly sales wouldve been lower than what the Taurus is selling now. Changing the name, adding the 3.5L, and giving it a much needed style infusion did well for Ford considering the market shift away from this type of car.

            Two weeks ago, I took my parent’s 2012 to a fairly large city to a doctor’s appointment. While filling it with gas, a guy in a new Range Rover walked over from two pumps away to ask me about the car. “I saw you pull in, and I just had to ask about it.” I thought it funny that for what he paid for the R-R, he couldve bought two examples of this sedan that impressed him enough to walk up to a stranger to ask about. I remarked that I owned a 95, and that although this is a much different car, there are similarities such as the integrated decklid lip spoiler, the shape of the head and tail lamps, etc. Parking them side by side, you can see the earlier car’s influance on the designers. Its not a copy, really, but it is similar in some ways.

            Like it or not, the Taurus name does carry a lot of recognition with the buying public. That has only helped the car since it was the Five Hundred. The reason the Fusion was able to take over the midsize market from the old Taurus was due to several factors, mostly that the Taurus had grown larger than Camry and Accord, and cars rarely shrink when redesigned. That, and the fact that Ford neglected the model for so long that it became a fleet queen or a car for the value-focused shopper rather than the trim, economical, innovative, sporty, stylish and well-handling car that it once was when it out sold the Camry/Accord or ran a close 2nd or 3rd. Coming out with a smaller model, more inline with its main compeditors in those areas again, wouldve been hard to do with the Taurus name, so a new model was introduced with a new name.

            Had the Contour stuck around and been more successful, it wouldve played that role, especially now that the car is akin to the Mondeo once again. Eventually, it would have grown into the Taurus’ old shoes to compete with Camry/Accord and the Taurus wouldve grown into the Crown Vic’s shoes to compete with Avalon and Impala. Turns out that all of that ended up happening anyway, but due to Nasser’s cost cutting and other factors, a bumpier road was taken to arrive where we are now.

          • 0 avatar
            SlowMyke

            @JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Don’t get me wrong, I like the Taurus a lot, I’ve had three over the years. All I’m saying is that by the time Ford killed the original Taurus line in favour of the Fusion line, the brand was damaged in the eyes of the public. It wasn’t a terrible move to kill it off at that point, the Fusion line had been fantastic overall.

            Bringing the Taurus back as a full sixer did help. Ford did a lot to the five hundred, and I personally love the ’08-’09 Taurus very much. I had one and still browse the used ’09s from time to time. However, as you pointed out, full sizers seem to be on their way out, limiting the positive effect bringing the Taurus brand back has. The current Taurus is a nice car, although it is way too cramped inside for its size outside. Especially when you look at how massively spacious the ’08-’09 Taurus was. It has its faults and doesn’t review as well as the other full sizers. It’s been five years in the current generation without any major updates and looks to have a sixth in store, leading everyone to speculate it’s demise.

          • 0 avatar
            dtremit

            @JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            “Taurus sales are noticably higher than the Five Hundred’s were, and in markets such as California, the Taurus does very well compared to the Five Hundred’s performance there.”

            I can’t speak to California, but that isn’t actually true for overall US sales. 500 sales were a disappointment relative to the old Taurus, but they hit 107k in 2005 and 84k in 2006. The most they’ve sold since was 69k (or 80k with PI sales included). The 2010 refresh did help (and I’m looking at calendar year data, which could hide a model year bump), but only compared to already much declined sales in 2009.

            I suspect this all has more to do with the collapse of the full-size sedan market than the particular car, though.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            @Myke

            My point was that sales of the car, no matter its name, wouldve fallen by now anyway and name recognition has helped keep afloat a sinking ship. I was speaking of when the full size (especially the 2010) was introduced. My contention is that with bland styling and a name nobody remembers, sales wouldve been worse than they are.

            The current Taurus is quite old compared to what else is out there now. But, it reviewed well when it came out. I just do not agree with the statement of it being crampt. I drive their 2012 all the time, and with four full size adults on board, noone is hurting for room. I have stated several times how I dont get why some think the console is too large. Ive been in cars where my knees/legs rubbed on the center console, and the Taurus is not one of those cars. I think the preception created by how tall the console is compared to other cars leads one to think its intruding into their space. Other car’s consoles (including the Five Hundred/08-09 Taurus) are lower and give the feeling there is more room. Im not saying the 2010+ is as roomy as the previous car, Im simply saying it isnt NOT roomy. They gave up some space in trade for an interior and exterior that doesnt look like it came from 2002. I think that it was worth it, as the car attracts complements and praise from people who wouldve looked right through the older version as “just another car”.

            Case in point: when my mom still had the Grand Marquis, I convinced a Ford dealer to let me take a used 2009 Taurus home so she could see it, drive it, etc. She did, and although she didnt dislike it, she didnt really like it, either. A few days later, she drove a new 2012 and was very impressed. The car made an impression. Same car, really, just with an interior and exterior that made her say “wow” instead of “hummm”. Now she owns a 2012 and 68k+ into it, she still loves it.

      • 0 avatar
        cdotson

        I don’t see why the D4 Explorer would have to die with all the other D4 vehicles. The D4 platform is pretty dang old, isn’t it? It seems to have been used on any number of vehicles of questionable success, and the Explorer is selling pretty well in its own right. While I have no doubt that being on an orphan platform would throw future vehicle update plans up in the air I see no reason why it would have to die alongside its platform mates. The biggest platform costs are development, beyond that I don’t think any product on the D4 platform has been successful enough to make a huge impact on the Explorer’s economy of scale for continuing production.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I can see Ford doing a GM style Explorer Classic and Taurus Classic for fleet/police use.

        • 0 avatar
          dwford

          The D4 is ancient at this point. Ford reworked the ancient old Volvo S80 chassis to make the Ford 500 way back in 2005, so the original chassis was designed in the mid 90’s, debuting in 1998 for Volvo. So it is WAY overdue for a replacement.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The P2 platform was ahead of its time in both safety and the use of AWD systems in a transverse engine platform (aka voodoo). If I had to guess Volvo AB designed it to last a minimum of 15 years in their use (I think it was still acing crash tests in 2014). If I had to guess, the new Volvo “SPA” platform is actually an evolution of P2/3.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Oh, they’ll re-platform it eventually.

        But it’s not like it costs that much to just *keep making D4 Explorers*, especially since from the looks of it it was always the bulk of D4 sales anyway, right?

        Making a new Explorer-only platform would be stupid, but the R+D into D4 is sunk costs.

      • 0 avatar
        Rob

        But given the current global initiative at Ford to make one car, you haven’t really said why.

        As I said previously the R&D for a single platform can be shared across the entire global market. Who cares about how each plant is outfitted? It’s not like the Volkswagen group only builds MQB cars at one plant.

        The longterm viability of a single LWB platform doesn’t create the issues you mention especially when you consider what you and others have said regarding the age of the current platform.

        A truck platform that, again if Toyota is any indicator of success, can push out sales for over a decade is worth the investment for a North American plant since it’s already developed.

        You are now looking at a decade of cars and if Ford pulls a Volkswagen, they might try and make the midsize/full size car platform as versatile as MQB is supposed to be. I know that’s much harder than with compacts and smaller, but it is an option.

        You are essentially stating your opinion and then sharing a set of facts the, if not blatantly, at least subtly contradicts your assessment.

        Remember Ford is a global company. Any one platform with a decent lifespan can justify the range of options.

        • 0 avatar

          I doubt Ford will kill the 3 row crossover explorer it’s way to popular. This would be an addition to like highlander 4runner at toyota. Sure theres the global thing but selling 150k of one vehicle in one market is enough to keep that vehicle around.

  • avatar
    stuki

    A Bronco really, really needs a Raptorized version. The BroPtor, if you wish. In most of the world, moneyed people aren’t too keen on cruising around in a pickup. But a legitimate Range Rover/G-AMG slayer is a hot commodity pretty much everywhere.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      How does a two-door Bronco ever compete with a Rover (whichever one is in the G-AMG range), let alone the G-AMG?

      A two door Bronco might steal some *Wrangler* sales, and some *Explorer* sales, maybe.

      But it’s not going to steal any Rover or G-Wagen sales; those “moneyed people” aren’t real likely to want a Ford, if they were shopping a G-Class… especially a two-door one.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        The Broptor will steal RR/GAMG sales by literally jumping over them anywhere there is even a hint of a bump or berm available…… :)

        Some buyers or Raptors and GTs are very much more moneyed than the average “Ford demographic” member. They’ll slum it down to a $75K Ford if it’s faster, hotter, meaner, more Leno’ish than their current premium brand contraption. Not all, but definitely some. And in today’s market, where Leno, Trump and two other guys are the only ones who can afford more than an ashtray, those some account for a rapidly rising share of profits, even if not necessarily sales.

  • avatar
    dwford

    There’s no reason Ford can’t make a LWD Edge as the new Explorer and the Everest. I’m sure the police would like a more sturdy BOF design anyway.

    As for the Taurus, there will be a new Taurus, and Ford could just sell it here as the Interceptor if there is no retail case for it, and even import it as GM did with the Caprice.

    All of this is idle speculation based on what we see as the current Ranger/Everest. They are going to be redesigned in a couple years anyway, so the timing lines up perfectly and Ford can include the US needs from the start.

    • 0 avatar

      Our local departments haven’t complained about the lack of BOF in Explorer or Taurus. I’m sure there are departments that take more abuse that need it, but most of America doesn’t see their police vehicles used for ramming.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    I dont get the part about Ford killing the Taurus, and then bringing out a new sedan in its place with a different name. If Ford builds a sedan above the Fusion, there is no reason to call it anything but Taurus. I suspect they will continue with the current Explorer and Taurus until replacements for both, on the same platform and with the same names, is ready. If the Taurus goes away, there will be no replacement for North America.

    The Explorer will not go back to BOF, that ship has sailed. Its fate is sealed: its a family-oriented crossover from here on out. No reason to screw up a successful product by dramaticly deveating from its current formula. It might be less capable off-road capable than Grand Cherokee, but it outsells it, along with the Traverse, Highlander, Pathfinder and Pilot.

    I hope the Bronco will be more of a Wrangler compeditor than anything else. Everyone seems to be afraid of attacking the Wrangler with a product that meets it squarely in the eye. Before you mention FJ Cruiser and XTerra, which one was avalible in soft-top form and in both two- and four-door configurations? Yes, they were truck-like, but they didnt fight the Wrangler on all fronts and thus became also-rans.

    Ford has a real oppertunity to use the Ranger platform (shortened) to build the Bronco to compete with the Wrangler in all of its configurations, while adding the Transit’s I-5 PowerStroke and the Mustang’s 2.3L EcoBoost to give it an edge (no pun intended). If the Wrangler-fighting Bronco hits all the right buttons, with a legendary nameplate, unique Ford styling (F-150-like, not mimiking the Wrangler’s fender/hood look, no round headlights, no Hummer-esque verticle bar grille), unique powertrains, light weight aluminum body (in multiple configurations) with excellent off road capability, I think it would out-Jeep the most iconic Jeep and do what nobody else seems willing or able to do. Such a Bronco could be sold world-wide, also taking on the likes of the Land Rover Defender.

    The Wrangler has mass appeal, just like the Mustang. Both can be purchased by a 19 year old college girl wanting something more stylish and with more attitude than a Corolla or a 35 year old male interested in the vehicle’s true capabilities or a 65 year old male who wants something more fun and youthful than his golfing buddy’s Lexus and they work perfectly well for each of those customers. The fact that the Mustang pulls this off didnt stop GM from bringing about the Camaro, but why does it stop anyone from bringing out a true Wrangler rival?

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    Read the article and it’s clear the story is about the global Ranger and a SUV based on the Ranger that would be in addition to the existing crossover line up Ford currently has. The additional product would mirror that of Toyota with the RAV4, Highlander, 4Runner and Sequoia with the new Ford SUV playing the 4Runner part, as well as becoming the Police Interceptor. Lincoln gets the MKC, Aviator (based on the Explorer or the SUV) and the Navigator.

    As for the Taurus, the market is showing no love for full size cars in general, or even mid-size cars. Here it would seem to make sense to limit the number of offerings to the Fusion, MKZ, and Continental, which essentially replaces the MKS.

    On a related note, saw a Mazda CX-3 on the road today. Why anyone would buy one of these or the other mini-crossovers (Buick Encore/Chevy Trax???) over a car makes no sense to me.

  • avatar

    I would say the edge or expedition has a greater chance of the axe then the explorer.

    • 0 avatar
      dtremit

      Explorer isn’t going anywhere, but they’ve also invested too much in the Edge for it to be axed.

      I’m curious about the possibility of a new Expedition on a Ranger/Everest platform, though.

      The Everest is 192″ long and 73″ wide; the Expedition is 207″ long and 79″ wide. Seems like a pretty easy platform stretch for a BOF vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The Expedition is already being developed on the current F150 platform. It will be aluminum bodied and have no carry over from the current model. There will also be a Navigator stable mate.

        • 0 avatar
          dtremit

          Given how few Expeditions they sell, I find it hard to believe that an aluminum-bodied, F150-based Expedition wouldn’t be cannibalized past the point of profitability if some variant of the Everest goes on sale here.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            There’s virtually no overlap between Everest and Expedition. It’s an even bigger gap than Ranger and F150. The interior room difference is unbelievable. People that buy an Expedition won’t step down to an Everest.

          • 0 avatar
            dtremit

            How many people actually buy an Expedition for interior room, though? My impression is that a huge proportion of their sales are driven by the need to tow.

          • 0 avatar
            JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

            Youre speaking as though Ford sells 20-30 Expeditions a year. It actually sells pretty well. Not as well as its GM equivilent, but far better than Sequoia or Armada. There is no reason to believe that a new aluminum bodied Expedition based on a very capable and compeditive platform wouldnt sell as well or better than the current model. To suggest otherwise is ignorant.

          • 0 avatar
            dtremit

            It’s not a question of whether it sells well, but whether it sells well enough to make up the expense of developing the new model.

            Ford has sold between 30-45k Expeditions annually over the past several years. To put that in context, the Flex has sold somewhere between 25-40k units a year in that same timeframe. Yet everyone assumes the Flex is living on borrowed time.

            I suspect that a decent chunk of Expedition buyers buy it because it’s BOF, not because it’s enormous. People who tow big campers and boats and the like are pretty big Expedition fans — and I’ll bet a lot of them would prefer to have a slightly smaller vehicle when they’re not towing. The Everest would provide that.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    The Explorer name is not going away anytime soon, period, end of story. It is the best selling Midsize and 3 row SUV/CUV. Yes the compact segment is hotter now but there are still buyers for the midsize segment. You do have it right that the next Explorer and its Aviator stable mate will be RWD based but it will be unibody not BOF.

    The Ranger rumor is just that a rumor it won’t be coming to the US.

  • avatar
    redav

    I don’t see a two-door SUV selling. Sure, people point to the Wrangler, but I think that’s demand for the “Wrangler” not the type of vehicle. I suspect any competitor will fail, regardless of configurations, soft tops, etc.

    I get that Ford wants to dump their large car platform, and that likely will affect the Explorer. But if they do bring the Continental to market, I would expect them to use whatever goes into it as the basis for the next gen Explorer, police car, & Taurus (if the nameplate stays). Maybe the various sizes of those vehicles prohibits that, though. But the Explorer is not going away, and it has to be built on something, and it won’t be a Ranger.


Recent Comments

  • threeer: I actually rather liked the 318ti and seriously considered one back in the day. Even then, it was apparent...
  • ToddAtlasF1: There are several times as many guns in the US as there are cars, but guns kill a fraction as many...
  • The_real_JB: Is there a link anywhere showing all 140 concepts?
  • cdrmike: 2002 Z3 2002 M3 Continue to rewrite misspent youth…leftover cash towards “two girls at the same...
  • cdrmike: Damn, that’s TESLA money.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff