By on September 30, 2016

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

Will they, or won’t they? That’s the question nagging the minds of Ford Ranger and Bronco fans as they patiently await an official announcement from the automaker on the models’ return.

The Blue Oval will only confirm that two new products will take the place of the soon-to-depart Focus and C-Max at the Michigan Assembly Plant. However, in response to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent comments about Ford, the plant’s UAW chairman identified those products to the Detroit Free Press.

As plant chairman for UAW Local 900, Bill Johnson represents workers at the Wayne, Michigan facility. He took exception to Trump’s recent claim that Ford was moving jobs south of the border to Mexico. Indeed, the automaker’s small car production is headed south — it’s the destination of choice for many automakers looking to free up domestic plants for higher-profit vehicles.

Still, Johnson argued, those Michigan jobs won’t disappear.

“We hate to see the products go to Mexico, but with the Ranger and the Bronco coming to Michigan Assembly that absolutely secures the future for our people a lot more than the Focus does,” Johnson told Freep.

Aha. Ford remains tight-lipped on future products, but we give thanks to those who blab.

The Focus and C-Max head to Mexico by 2018, at which point a pickup and SUV based on it will appear, likely as 2019 models. Ford promised the new product during last year’s UAW negotiations.

After vacating the North American market for years, the Ranger nameplate will return on a midsize pickup built on global architecture. That market segment has recently grown too hot for Ford to ignore.

While there’s no mystery as to the dimensions and layout of the Ranger, much speculation surrounds the Bronco. Will it be offered in a two-door? Can we expect a removable top? When O.J. gets out, will he return to the brand? Bronco fans, including TTAC’s managing editor, need to know.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

115 Comments on “UAW Plant Chairman Confirms Ford Ranger, Bronco Revival in Trump Comments...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Won’t he get in trouble for leaking this information ahead of the manufacturer’s timeline?

    Or is an OEM so scared of the union leadership that they don’t dare say anything to him?

  • avatar
    rpol35

    I wasn’t aware the Ranger was making a return though I guess it is an obvious move with the success of GM’s Colorado/Canyon – speaking of which, I think this Ranger graphic shows some design cues similar to the GM twins.

    Anyone have any info. on the Bronco?

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      I’m a huge Bronco fan, I’ve owned several from a few modified Gen 1 Broncos all the way up to a ’93 two tone black/beige Eddie Bauer full size. As much as I would like a new version, it would be the only truck that would get me to ditch my Raptor….I don’t see Ford producing a real successor to the nameplate. To essentially put a cap and rear seats in an F-150 makes no sense with 4 door CrewCab pick ups, nor do I see them building a new ground up body on frame Jeep fighter in the image of the ’66-’77 Broncos with a short wheelbase and fully removeable top(although I really hope that they do ‘cuz that is the one that I would buy). I think the likelier course is Ford slapping the Bronco name on a slightly beefier CUV….which would be tragic and a waste of time. I *hope* that I’m wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        ThirdOwner

        Exactly right. And the likely outcome for the new Ranger is similar -it’ll be what the new Escape is to the old one: overwrought, overcomplicated, overweight, overpriced.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          ThirdOwner,
          As an owner more or less of a new Ranger I think you might realise their is a massive difference between them.

          The old US Ranger is a dinosaur, light years behind the new Ranger.

          I would like to think Dearborn would use the 2.7 Eco in it backed up with the 3.2 diesel.

          The 2.7 would possibly make it one of the fastest pickups around. The 3.2 would make it one of the most flexible/capable pickups.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge

        The Bronco will be a Wrangler fighter. There will be a Rubicon competitor too.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Well in a purely technical sense a Ranger based Bronco would be a Bronco II which would still be a win in my book.

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge

          I’d rather have a SWB F150 based Bronco with supercab doors. I can dream…

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Adam,
            Have a good read of the Everest reviews.

            I’d say a Ranger based Bronco would have any F 150 for breakfast. Excepting the Raptor. Off roading in a tight environment the Broco will best the Raptor.

            A Bronco might even surprise a Wrangler on more than a few occassions.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ Big Al the Everest has nothing to do with this, the Ranger that will potentially be sold in the US will be a new design and only share the name and possibly some power train items.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Scoutdude,
            The Everest has the most to do with the Bronco.

            The Bronco will be a Spartan Everest with different sheet metal.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            No Al, the current global Ranger is nearing the end of its life cycle and Ford isn’t going to tool up to produce an old design for a year or maybe two. This will be a new truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Adam Tonge

            Al-

            Scoutdude is right. This is a new truck/platform.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge

      This more about the Bronco than the Ranger. Still, the Ranger does give Ford additional volume to keep the plant rolling.

  • avatar
    threeer

    Bring on the new Ranger! I sat in one (I’m assuming they will be similar) while at the Zagreb Auto Show a few months back. Of course, what we classify as “mid-size” now was more like “full-size” not that many years ago. As I pulled up alongside a Mazda B2200 the other day, my new daughter commented on how small it was. I had to laugh, as I actually owned a 1986 B2000 back in the day, and loved that simple little truck.

    • 0 avatar
      kogashiwa

      Yes, seeing a new Colorado/Canyon out on the road without a Silverado beside it for scale I can’t tell that it isn’t a full-size.

      Surely there’s room in the market for something actually compact.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        the proportions are deceiving. I parked my (PN150) 2011 Ranger supercab next to a global (P375) Ranger, and they were very close in length and width. The new one looks bigger partly because it’s about 8″ taller, has higher door sills/bed sides and is a crew cab which the PN150 was never offered as here.

        • 0 avatar
          kogashiwa

          True that a lot of it is vertical growth and styling.

          I just want my dad’s old Datsun 620 back :)

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          The percieved size difference in compact vs. midsize pickups is almost entirely in the height and the front overhang–other dimensions are only marginally unchanged.

          The T6 Ranger has a wheelbase only 1″ longer than the old NA model, IIRC, and the same can be said of the Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @threerer
      On the road about the same size as the 2003 F150. Kerb weight,4,900lbs for the 3.2

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    What, Trump made up some BS?

    Nawwww, couldn’t be…

    The line I can’t believe no one’s calling him on is “we should have taken the oil.”

    • 0 avatar

      Even liberal friends of mine have said we should have taken the oil, before Trump ever brought it up.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Yeah, but I don’t think your liberal friends were running for president, you know?

        Embracing the idea that you invade another country for their natural resources is a HUGE no-no for any head of state. Imagine if Putin had said, “you know, we should have invaded Canada and taken their oil.”

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Yeah, that was my reaction hearing that.

          (I can’t tell whether he’s so daft he thinks that’s a good idea, or just thinks it’d sell well to some set of voters.

          It was bad enough when the idiot-Left assumed it was “War For OIL!!!” back in 2001, despite that explanation never making a bit of sense.)

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al From 'Murica

          Well maybe nowadays but throughout history many a war has been fought over natural resources.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          The problem is “invade another country.” The particular excuse employed, is just theater to sucker the indoctrinati.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I’m certainly no Republican and I’m certainly not a neocon but…

        If you’re going to go to all that trouble in the first place you might as well: “take the cannoli.”

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          There are things you think but don’t say. I get it. But there are things you never say if you’re president of the United States. One of them is that you’re down with the idea of invading foreign countries to take over their natural resources. That’s the kind of crap Saddam Hussein did. Even if that idea makes sense to you, it’s best shared with your bathroom mirror, or a priest under confessional seal. You sure as hell don’t announce it to 100 million people on live TV.

          I mean, seriously…Trump likes to key on ISIS, but can you think of a better recruiting line for them than “hey, this guy wants to invade Muslim countries for their oil”? That’s just plain dumb.

          The more this guy runs his mouth…

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            ““hey, this guy wants to invade Muslim countries for their oil””

            That already happened, yet the oil wasn’t conquered as it should have been. One of the primary motivations was the preservation of the petrodollar, which could have been accomplished just as easily with a tactical nuclear strike in 2003. I also maintain the summer 2001 Energy Conference Darth Cheney called determined oil supply was about to peak and thus the plot to invade Iraq was born. Fracking was the variable which was not accounted for at the time and later rendered the occupation unnecessary.

            “That’s the kind of crap Saddam Hussein did”

            Saddam as much of an asshat as he was, did the bidding of Washington D.C from his beginning to the Gulf War. They wanted him to invade Iran after the Shah, he did. His economy crippled by losing the war and the 1986 oil price glut, he set his sights on Kuwait who was stealing Iraqi oil in a slant drilling operation. I maintain Saddam was led to believe D.C. would back him over Kuwait, and he was later betrayed by the Baker State Dept. Then after not removing him from power over a fear of a Vietnam style quagmire, Saddam sells oil for Euros in 2000 which effectively sealed his fate regardless of world oil supply. However combine this with the 2001 conference, whose entire minutes have never been released, and a pattern forms. Greenspan said in his 2006 book:

            “Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.

            Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

            “I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.””

            http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-greenspan-idUKN1728646120070917

            Why occupy a country unless you believe its oil will be needed? Petrodollar is an obvious reason but occupying troops would allow you to control supply in the event of a significant disruption and decline which never really took place – because of fracking.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            OK, 28, we all know invading Iraq was “about oil”. That I get. But it was not about **nationalizing their oil for us.**

            That’s what Trump’s talking about. And it’s just plain wrong…not to mention stupid.

            “I maintain Saddam was led to believe D.C. would back him over Kuwait, and he was later betrayed by the Baker State Dept.”

            Or, if I want to take a less conspiratorial view: Saddam figured that with the fall of the Soviet Union, a) someone was going to fill the power vacuum left behind, b) he decided it was going to be him, c) the West was too fractured and preoccupied with Russia to care, and d) if we glad-handed him when he went after Iran, we’d do the same vis a vis Kuwait.

            Plus, all that oil.

            Wow, was he wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I don’t think its wrong in the least, its just not practical without wiping out the indigenous population who will probably get uppity when you steal what they view as “their oil”. Kissinger found a better way to occupy oil through the Petrodollar, which had to be defended at all costs.

            The latter mission could have been done with N.B.C. arms cheaper and easier than occupying the whole country. They went into Iraq for multiple reasons including oil, but I think the original plan was to occupy the country as we occupy Germany, Japan, and South Korea to an extent in order to control the oil supply but allow a puppet government to rule in public. Eventually this became too difficult and they pulled out as we all know, however I think part of, if not the main reason, was the fracking miracle.

            The Soviet disintegration may have been part of the situation, but Kuwait was invaded on 2 Aug 1990, which means the invasion plans were made June or earlier, and the Soviet Union did not collapse until 25 Dec 1991.

            If we read the Gray Lady circa 1990:

            “‘Economic Warfare’

            Henry M. Schuler, director of the energy security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that, from the Iraqi viewpoint, the Kuwait Government was ”acting aggressively – it was economic warfare.”

            ”Whether he’s Hitler or not, he has some reason on his side,” Mr. Schuler said of President Hussein. He added that American officials needed to appreciate the economic and psychological significance the Rumaila field holds for the Iraqis and why Kuwait’s exploitation of Rumaila, in addition to its high oil output in the 1980’s, was an afront to the Iraqis.

            ”It’s not just the emotional man in the street in the Arab world who finds the Iraq case appealing,” he said. ”So do many of those who are thinking, intelligent people. If the Iraqi people feel they are the victims of aggression, and that their legitimate claims are being stifled now by American intervention, they will hang in there a lot longer than if that were not the case.””

            http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-the-oilfield-lying-below-the-iraq-kuwait-dispute.html?pagewanted=all

            Here’s an op-ed on the subject from 97:

            http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/23/opinion/its-time-to-think-straight-about-saddam.html?_r=0

            Given Saddam’s situation in the late 1980s, I am not too surprised he seized control of Kuwait (for gold/oil/and USD in central bank) and threatened Saudi Arabia’s northern flank. Had he handled things a little differently, he may had come out smelling like a rose like so many other Western backed dictators.

        • 0 avatar
          rpol35

          Ha ha, good one!

          And leave the gun right? Which unfortunately appears to be exactly what happened.

        • 0 avatar
          CaddyDaddy

          The whole Gulf War was about NOT taking the oil! The whole war was about keeping Saddam from challenging Saudi oil production and keeping the price of oil artificially high. The removing of Qaddafi by Clinton/McCain and the destabilization of Libya was the same goal.
          Remember $5/ GAL Diesel?
          It warms my heart that American ingenuity thru fracking technology busted the Saudi/Bush/Clinton oil cabal.

      • 0 avatar
        VW16v

        Doesn’t matter anymore what Trump says or does not say. Donald is so out of control jumping at the sparkling objects that Hillary throws at him.

        His latest tweet during the funeral of former Isreal leader Shimon Peres was to watch the porn video of so he calls her “housekeeper” Alicia Machado. Basically D.trump is throwing in the towel.

        Trump news network by 2018.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      The USA did that in Gulf War Version Bush 2.0. Before that, we had the Shah of Iran put in place by the CIA to prevent nationalization of their oil.

    • 0 avatar
      mtmmo

      Hillary Clinton is a war monger who’s poor judgement has led to the deaths of more than a million people in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Trump says stupid things. Have someone explain the difference to you.

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Claw

        @mtmmo That’s a gross (and likely inaccurate) oversimplification.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        I haven’t seen that kind of revisionist nonsense since Giuliani claimed there have been “no terrorist attacks here under a republican president.” I don’t know how he could have “forgotten” that one which took down some rather large buildings in his own f***ing city.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        mtmmo – and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld weren’t ?

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        mtmmo brings up a very good point. No we’re not letting the neo-cons off the hook, but Hillary’s foreign policy history has been in lock-step with said neo-cons: she’s never seen a conflict she didn’t want to get involved in. My understanding is that with Syria, she was strongly advocating for air strikes and no fly zones against Assad’s forces (she still is btw). It was ultimately Obama and more rational people in his cabinet that decided not to, despite the foolish ‘red line’ warning about chemical weapons.

        Look up youtube videos of her cackling about Ghaddafi’s death “we came, we saw, he died,” never mind that we’ve basically created Somalia 2.0 out of what used to be one of the most prosperous per capita North African countries.

        She was for the Iraq war, she supported Bill’s bombing of Kosovo.

        People warn us about Trump’s supposed predisposition towards armed solutions or claims that he’d launch nuclear warheads over personal spats. But I’d argue it’s a choice between the ‘unknown’ of Trump that the solid track record of non-stop warmongering from Hillary.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I can’t wait for the Bronco official announcement, can’t wait to see what it is actually going to look like.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      If it’s anything like that concept from 2004, I’m all over it.

      • 0 avatar
        Adam Tonge

        I recently heard that the design is not locked in yet.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          @Adam, good because my Tonka trucks growing up were more attractive than the 2004 concept.

          • 0 avatar
            Joe Btfsplk

            Is the new Bronco to be made of ALUMINIUM?

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @Joe, it wouldn’t surprise me if the new Ranger, Bronco and other potential platform derivative to have an Aluminum body. The rest of their body on frame vehicles have or are going that route. They have spent a lot of money on developing their processes and they are going to want to utilize them as much as possible. Plus they need them to be ready to be compliant with 2025 CAFE standards, and they aren’t going to want the basic body structure design to last more than 5 years.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      PrincipalDan – my hope is for a “original” style of Bronco. A Wrangler Unlimited fighter not an Exploder on stilts.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Personally I want a Ford Everest (Based on the current (T6) Global Ranger) but I know I’m really a party of one.

        BUT Ford is big on ONE FORD and GLOBAL FORD so if the new to the USA Ranger is going to be the global Ranger, why wouldn’t the Bronco be VERY HEAVILY based on something already in the product portfolio?

        Ford isn’t exactly keen on selling anything they can’t sell more or less world wide. Look at the changes that have been made to the Mustang as evidence.

        • 0 avatar
          Adam Tonge

          The Bronco will share underpinnings with the Ranger and Everest. It’s revised to be a Wrangler fighter, but it has it’s roots in that platform.

          • 0 avatar
            TEXN3

            What about the 4Runner?

            My predicament: wife wanted boxy Pilot for a long time, now wants a 4Runner. I like the 4Runner well enough as it’s suited for camping and Idaho conditions. The Pilot is a better people mover. We’d be selling the Accord for that vehicle. A new 4Runner would rule out the need or money available for a Bronco. So, should I do used Pilot and Bronco (replacing 2002 Escape) or new 4Runner.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @PrincipalDan
          From early reports the Bronco will be based on the Everest. I assume Ford Australia, will be doing a lot of work on the Bronco, as Ford is pumping a lot of money into the design and development operations at Ford Australia.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “Ford isn’t exactly keen on selling anything they can’t sell more or less world wide.”

          F-Series.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            The F-series is one line that sells enough at home. Yet nothing in the world outsells it, nor as profitable. It’s not designed for the world, except the grey market on them is strong enough to make you wonder how epic global sales would be. Not everyone lives in a Medieval village.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @JimZ
            NA only vehicle, like the Expedition. Demand is pretty well Zero outside NA.
            A Heavy Cab Chassis Van with a 6.7 Diesel would get a fair deal of interest though

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Do not kid yourself, factory RHD diesel, V8 and turbo V6 F-150s would sell like mad in OZ, even BAFO would kick his Mazda to the curb for one offered through Ford dealers and priced within spitting distance of your Ranger/Hilux/etc. Look at how Ozzies went straight bananas for Mustangs!!!!

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Do not kid yourself, factory RHD diesel, V8 and turbo V6 F-150s would sell like mad in OZ, even ”
            Lucky to give them away. A Heavy Van with a 6.7 Diesel. Quite a few would be very interested.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            On what planet would a BAFO trade his luxo crew-cab 4X4 pickup for a cheesy 2wd cargo van, over an F-150? Yeah right!!

            The F-150 would be a HOT seller in OZ, regardless of what you’re personally into or not.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “On what planet would a BAFO trade his luxo crew-cab 4X4 pickup for a cheesy 2wd cargo van, over an F-150? Yeah right!!”
            At least he drives a Pickup, not a Computer and pretend they know anything Automotive. You have obviously no idea of what I posted

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Your message was crystal clear. It’s the same one as always: “North American cars would fail outside of North America”, is what you and BAFO always say. Obviously that’s not the case with the Mustang, fullsize pickups and a few others ‘unique’ to North America, as much as you hate to admit.

  • avatar
    CombiCoupe99

    Driving cross-country in July, I saw a huge flatbed with three new Rangers on the back. If I had known they weren’t announced yet, I would have taken a picture! The Ranger is now a “big” truck. I had hoped for a compact (the kind small businesses used to buy by the fleet.) This one is just another bulky four door with a wimpy bed. Very disappointed…

    • 0 avatar
      jefmad

      Those small businesses that used to buy small pickups are already buying a different Ford product, the transit connect. So, the business case to bring the compact truck back better have a different customer base in mind.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

        Actually, the local AutoZone went from Rangers to Versa hatchbacks and now back to Fords, Fiesta hatches this time.

        I would love to see a coupe utility version of the Transit Connect, but small pickups have pretty much been regulated out of business here.

      • 0 avatar
        adam4562

        It’s pretty funny , this gut says we hate to see our products go to Mexico . i know it wouldn’t be cheap but why not build new factories in America . I get it money talks , they would have to hire more workers in the UAW . It is a lot cheaper to hire foreign workers and pay them 5 dollars an hour . If u notice all new factories are non American companies building non union jobs .

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          adam4562 – It is more than just labour costs. I’m sure that everything from taxes to real-estate to infrastructure support is cheaper in Mexico.

          In many respects it makes perfect sense to ship the low margin low profit stuff to Mexico to improve the bottom like and keep the high volume high margin stuff in the USA.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al From 'Murica

            Except that the logical conclusion is that you can make even more money if you build it all in Mexico. What if regulation or changing market conditions squeeze the profit margins on trucks one day.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Big Al From ‘Murica – there you go being all logical. LOL.
            I do think that there would be a lot of backlash if the auto companies did that.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Lou_BC
            Way things could go after the US elections, Mexico maybe become a default safer option

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      It’s only slightly longer than the old Ranger, and slightly wider (a lot taller, of course, but what isn’t?).

      And there will be a SuperCab model with 6′ bed, just like the Colorado, Tacoma, and Frontier. Curb your disappointment.

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    Can we combine them into one vehicle and call it the Branger?

  • avatar
    dwford

    I would argue that the “lost” jobs are the jobs that are getting created in Mexico instead of the US. Somewhere in the Midwest are 3-5000 people who would’ve loved to have become autoworkers, had Ford chosen to build a new plant here instead of in Mexico.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Wait, the small pickup jihad was right?

  • avatar
    TMA1

    I’m not a truck guy, but is this the Ranger that people are clamoring for? It’s nothing like the small, simple Rangers that so many people I know used to drive. All cab, no bed, still leaves no options for someone who wants a small work truck.

    • 0 avatar
      threeer

      That’s just it. The market spoke here in the US, and few people actually bought small work trucks…

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        Really? At the time it was axed, it was still outselling most of Ford’s car lineup, including the Mustang, Taurus, Fiesta, Flex, and C-Max. All cars that are still being produced. And the Ranger was 14 years old at the time.

        (source: http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/01/2012-usa-auto-sales-rankings-by-model7.html – sorted by 2011 column)

        And aren’t Rangers, Tacomas, and the like still holding their value pretty well? I can see Ford killing it due to capacity issues, and wanting to focus on more profitable full-size trucks, but I’m not yet convinced that no one wanted those trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          One of the reasons for the sales surge in 2011 was that everyone knew it was going away so some fleets essentially stocked up on them or replaced their current vehicles sooner than they would have. And those fleets were the big buyers and they were buying base model trucks, not the more profitable combinations of higher content vehicles. For retail buyers they had some hefty discounts to also boost those numbers and minimize the ones sitting on the lot come 2012.

          Yes the Ranger and Tacoma to a lesser extent do have a very strong resale market but those people buying the used truck are not the people who would buy new.

          So based on the volumes when they would have had to at the very minimum develop a stability control system for it there wasn’t a lot of sense investing in a segment that had seen many years of shrinking.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          yes, and most of them were white, 2WD regular cabs which would soon have the logo of an exterminator, auto parts dealer, or other business on the doors.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      It’s smaller than an F-150. “All cab, no bed”? There’s also a SuperCab/6′ bed model, just like every Ranger since 1983, and probably will be a SuperCrew/6′ bed model for North America. The T6 Ranger is longer in the front than the old NA model, but not much wider, and has almost the same WB and cab/bed measurements. It looks huge because it’s taller. “No options for a small work truck”? There’s an XL model–not every Ranger is a Wildtrak!

      RCSB compact/midsize pickups make little sense in most of the U.S. The basic cab is now an extended cab with the rear seats taken out. It doesn’t pay to make a special SWB frame that would have to get even better MPG just for a few people who like having no inside storage space.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @TMA1
      They have basically ceased to exist. Global Ranger is the new normal in size

  • avatar
    Grenade

    With Jeep’s massive success with the Wrangler, I’m hoping that’s the vehicle in Ford’s sights with the Bronco. And it just so happens the old school original Bronco is very similar to the modern day Wrangler in size and utility, plus it has the built in nostalgia with the name as Jeep also carries.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    I think this is going to be closer to a 4 runner than a Rubicon. Don’t see a solid front axle under the Ranger for one thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Adam Tonge

      The Rubicon is the benchmark for the higher end Bronco. I don’t know if that will mean a solid front axle. I’m sure the aftermarket will have you covered if Ford doesn’t offer that.

      Personally, I want a Bronco XL with Sync3, rubber floors, and the 2.7TT.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “it’s the destination of choice for many automakers looking to free up domestic plants for higher-profit vehicles.”

    Historically, small cars were a loss leader for Detroit because of a combination of UAW labor being too expensive and margin being too low because the floor price of automobile construction and distribution is apparently high. Although UAW costs I imagine have come down in the intervening years, I’m not sure I buy the “free up plants” argument.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      The US has a GTA with SA. SA is manufacturing the US Transit 3.2 diesels.

      SA manufactures Rangers. Why not build US Rangers? Fnck the UAW, especially if you can get a good quality product to the consumer cheaper

  • avatar
    frozenman

    The size of the grill is refreshingly normal! I wonder if they will mess it up for the North American market?

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    People expecting another Ranger-sized Ranger might be disappointed. The old Ranger was about the size of a 1955 F-100, but I suspect the new Ranger will be larger. The money is now in extended cab and four door pickups with options no one dreamed of in 1955 (or 1985).

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    I’ll just leave this here for posterity:

    2011 Ranger SuperCab/6′ bed 4×4:
    Wheelbase: 125.9″
    Overall length: 203.6″
    Height: 67.7″
    Width: 71.3″

    T6 Ranger 4×4:
    WB: 127″ (+0.87%)
    OAL: 211″ (+3.63%, and 6.3 of those 7.4 extra inches went to front overhang)
    H: 71.5″ (+5.61%, and also the dimension that contributes most to the perception of size)
    W: 72.8″ (+2.10%)

    When the T6 Ranger comes over here, it’ll almost certainly get a beefier-looking front end like the Colorado, which might add a little more front overhang.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: ttacgreg, Apparently there was an issue in the 70’s or 80’s with several manufacturers who got...
  • MoparRocker74: Im suprised this hasn’t happened sooner myself. Jeep is usually running some kind of patriotic...
  • nrd515: I’ve done the “buy and drive it home” a couple of times, both over 1000 miles. Other than...
  • ToolGuy: schmitt, My dad (an adhesives/composites/coatings guy) got all torn up on a trip to California when they...
  • Menar Fromarz: Ah, you obviously haven’t dealt with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. AKA The Dark...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States