Jaje: It’s all about perception. Looking at other markets like Europe and Asia it’s unusual to see such large vehicles like those available in N.A. There’s really no need for the size except “tradition”. I was behind a JDM Honda Greeter van this year (what that was doing in Toronto I don’t know) and it was amazing just how small it was compared to all the vehicles around it.

If Ford had invested in a brand new redesigned Ranger, with an decent 4cyl, they would not have to depend on the F150 so much.

I would have been in the market also, not everyone needs an F150.

There is no frame under an Aerostar. Only a stub frame in front.

Ford has announced they are continuing the Ranger for (at least) two more years.

It’s actually a pretty neat kluge of the standard HHR. I think it gets pretty good EPA numbers, too.

As it stands now Ford has a real problem. They abandoned the Ranger platform just as that market has heated up and the theoretical replacement, the F100, ain’t anywhere near ready. Either they spend serious money trying to update the Ranger or rush the F100 development. Both will take lots of cash. Think they’ll do it?

I wonder which company will be the first one to have a valid small p/up a la the Hi lux or S10.

Even plumbers are not carrying that heavy of a load most of the time these days thanks to plastic and copper pipe being the material of choice instead of iron.

I used to see a lot of contractors running Aerostar and Astro minivans, but those are of course goners.

Not very long ago, Ford leveraged the Ranger platform very well. The Ranger, Explorer and Aerostar were all built on pretty much the same frame and drivetrain. Over time, Ford’s minivan and Explorer took their own development path and the Ranger was left to whither. Perhaps in the future we will again see a range of small utility vehicles built off whatever replaces the present Ranger.

I’ve edited Landcrusher’s original comment, as well as the subsequent responses. PLEASE do NOT respond to personal attacks in the comments section. Email me (robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com) and I will deal with it ASAP.

@ Landcrusher:

If you take such offense to someone pointing out that Contractors are actually smarter than you think by moving towards used or commercial minivans thereby avoiding the escalating prices of D2.8’s race to create luxurious huge trucks for the image conscious suburbanite (it seems obvious what kind of buyer you are).

Minivans (and my opinion) get better mileage, have better road stability, can do all the off roading most need, are cheaper to buy, just as reliable, can safely stow and haul most of their stuff without the need to buy a cap, can easily put ladders on the roof rack, etc. Seems many Contractors have made this move long before the $4 gas scared many away looking towards something more efficient.

Landcrusher :

Contractors have been buying minivans because they are DIRT CHEAP. They are so cheap because they are undesirable because they look like crap long before they fall apart. The nicer trucks that people have been buying have until very recently held their value really well.

As a contractor I take issue with your statement. GM, Ford and Dodge decided to make beauty trucks with sides so high you cannot load and unload the stupid thing. I used to use camper shells with sides that opened up to remove tools, cable and equipment. With the new trucks it’s virtually impossible.

I now use the Ford E150, Ford Rangers and fleet Chrysler mini vans for my whole company. The manufacturers forgot about contractors that needed light service vehicles. Heck, I can hardly find base Rangers.

Detroit catered to a fad and have been badly burned. In the process they’ve made trucks that are close to worthless for work. Honestly, what happened to the 6 cylinder, vinyl bench seat and floor, regular cab, manual transmission truck with an am radio without cruise, power windows, OnStar, nav and all the other fluff that does little but raise maintenance costs?

Didn’t Ford bump up the tow rating to 11,000 lbs. when the new Tundra was introduced?

btw: Ford sez: The warranty is void if the maximum GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) is exceeded.

There goes any chance of towing 10 or 11K lbs. including 4 ppl and all their gear.

jaje,

Contractors have been buying minivans because they are DIRT CHEAP. They are so cheap because they are undesirable because they look like crap long before they fall apart. The nicer trucks that people have been buying have until very recently held their value really well.

The car buyers you so maligned for making reasonable decisions, have now had the market change on them unpredictably and many now have lost a good amount of money because of it. 99% of car choices in this country are made on the basis of "want", not "need". Get over it. We don't even buy just what we need when we die, for Pete's sake. We get the nicest coffin we can afford.

The F-150 will ultimately replace a lot of the F-250s and 350s on the road drien by contractors who don’t need such a big vehicle. I think the truck hurt most by the new F-150 will be the Super Duty.

However, the F-series (Ford) as a whole has gained significant marketshare this year: 1.5 points. That’s better than the 0.3 points gained by Toyota, the only other company to post a marketshare increase in full-size trucks. And that’s all that Ford needs to do – gain marketshare. It’s not about absolute sales numbers this year (and probably next) because of how abysmal the market is; it’s about marketshare.

But then I have to wonder: does anyone ever hit the weight rating? It seems like anyone hauling really heavy stuff around (contractors) is going to head on up to the 250s and 350s.

John Horner: “Will they once again offer a traditional cab? How about bed-sides low enough to toss things over?”

It would be nice. The theory behind using the short door with the tiny, erzatz extended cab door behind it on the current standard cab must have been so Ford can use the same door on all of their light trucks and retain a shorter, cheaper wheelbase in the process, while being able to say that everyone of their trucks is an ‘extended cab’. But, sheesh, it just didn’t seem to work (or look) right.

Likewise, I never quite understood the high bed sides. I suppose they were a 50/50 proposition as to usefullness, but I thought they looked like hell.

Chrysler and GM’s more traditional approach to the standard cab configuration works a lot better. The more people who really didn’t need them bought trucks, the more they got away from their original intent. In that regard, the bottoming out of the light truck market might be a good thing in returning trucks to their true purpose.