By on April 6, 2017

2017 Ford F-350 Super Duty King Ranch - Image: Ford

In March 2017, for the second time in three months, the Ford F-Series range generated more total U.S. sales than the entire General Motors pickup truck lineup.

Total F-Series sales jumped 10 percent to 81,330 units in March, a total that far eclipsed the 71,786-unit figure achieved by the Chevrolet Silverado, GMC Sierra, Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon — combined. The F-Series’ 10-percent jump occurred as GM pickup sales tumbled 13 percent; as the total truck market grew just 2 percent, year-over-year.

The F-Series’ March performance also represented its sixth consecutive monthly improvement, a sign of consistent growth that suggests Ford may well sell 900,000 pickup trucks in 2017.

Moreover, the F-Series’ consistent growth was cemented in March even as midsize pickup sales growth hit the skids.

New Ranger?

Ach, who needs it?

While all of GM’s pickup truck sales growth in 2016 stemmed from the rise of the still-fresh midsize twins — a pair of appealing trucks that added nearly 32,000 sales to GM’s ledger while the Silverado and Sierra both declined — Ford’s pickup sales growth in early 2017 is occurring in large part because of the biggest trucks in its lineup.

Ford, like GM and Ram, doesn’t provide a breakdown of light-duty and heavy-duty truck sales. But with Ford touting a 26-percent March uptick in retail F-Series Super Duty sales, we looked at production figures to see if we could get a better feel for 2017’s Super Duty emphasis. Through the first-quarter of 2017, the Super Duty accounted for 34 percent of total F-Series production, up from 29 percent in Q1 2016. Total Super Duty production is 17 percent higher this year than last. F-150 production, meanwhile, is down 8 percent, year-over-year. In early 2016, Ford amplified F-150 production to build up inventory after changing over to aluminum.

If we assume the production figures translate to sales, Ford has sold roughly 70,000 Super Duty pickup trucks already this year. (And around 135,000 F-150s, enough to be the top-selling vehicle in America sans Super Duty.)

Not only is the volume high, but Ford also says the three highest Super Duty trim levels — Lariat, King Ranch, Platinum — generate more than half of all Super Duty volume. Average transaction prices on Super Dutys rose by $6,100 in March 2017, year-over-year.

Time this Super Duty surge with decreased GM truck sales and Ford’s dominance of America’s pickup truck category becomes particularly obvious in early 2017.

Ford’s market share in March, for instance, grew by more than 2 percentage points, year-over-year, to 33.6 percent. GM’s March pickup truck market share, meanwhile, slid 5 percentage points to 29.7 percent. In fact, March was just the third month since 1999 in which the Ram P/U line, which we’d all prefer to know as the Dodge Ram, outsold the Chevrolet Silverado.

2017 Ford F150 King Ranch - Image: Ford

Excluding the Honda Ridgeline, midsize pickup truck sales are down 8 percent this year, as Toyota attempts to expand Tacoma production, as the Frontier loses its hold on Nissan’s pickup division to the ramped-up Titan, as the Colorado/Canyon become 2.5-year-old trucks with not-quite-so-fresh faces.

Nevertheless, it’s entirely possible the midsize pickup truck market is healthier than it presently appears. Another truck may simply be needed to spur interest in the segment, just as the Colorado and Canyon did in late 2014.

That other truck is the upcoming Ford Ranger, due nearly two years from now. But does Ford even need to tap into a segment worth only 16 percent (and currently shrinking) of the overall truck market when the Blue Oval is exerting such control with larger, high-dollar F-Series pickups?

Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

212 Comments on “Does Ford Really Need A Ranger In America? Ford F-Series Sales Are Soaring, Topping GM’s Entire Truck Quartet...”


  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    That early-’70s gravity wagon in the background looks so tiny by today’s standards.

  • avatar
    prisoners

    I’m sure there’s a market for a small/midsize pick-up with 4WD and a modestly outfitted cabin for around $25k. I have no need or desire for a full-size truck but would find a small size very useful. I leased a 2000 Ranger and while it was the right size for me it was a real POS quality-wise.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      There is, and Toyota owns it, pretty much.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        It’s pretty obvious Ranger’s most direct competitor – not its most successful (Tacoma) but its most direct – will be Colorado and Canyon. So, any sales Ranger gets will take a further bite out of Ford’s chief pickup rival.

        If it sells enough to make money, which is likely, Ford comes out ahead for having that option. Just as you can’t have too many SUVs to offer these days.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        Been there, leased that.

      • 0 avatar
        dodgeron

        Yeah, Toyota currently owns the “smaller” segment with the Tacoma.. but the 70’s are on the phone and they want their drum brakes back! Seriously? A $30k truck.. with drum brakes!?.. lame. Even Nissan’s 100 yr old Frontier gets rear disc.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      Unless the cost difference between 1500 and small pickups gets bigger, then small pickups are pretty pointless. Why would you not want a vehicle that is more capable with similar gas mileage? They make no sense, even though I do want a diesel colorado with the new off road package.

      • 0 avatar
        prisoners

        Yep. A 4WD F-150 just above the stripped work truck trim is well over 30k. I don’t see why a small version couldn’t come in around 25. If it ends up being 30 there’s no point.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        I’m somewhat cross-shopping the F-150 and Colorado right now.

        Equipped the way I want:
        -Lower trim level
        -2wd
        -Extended/Super cab
        -Tow package
        -Cruise and power windows etc
        -V6 in the Colorado, 2.7 Ecoboost in the F-150
        -8/10 speed transmission

        As per TrueCar the price breakdown is ~$25k for the Chevy and $32k for the Ford after incentives but before taxes.

        I’m sure it varies a lot between specific builds, but in this case the ~$7k price difference is pretty significant; more than a quarter of the price of the cheaper truck.

        I’m still on the fence which to get (or whether to buy at all) but if the Chevy provides a satisfactory level of “capability” for my uses for thousands less then why pay the extra money?

        Plus it fits in my garage.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          It is an interesting dilemma. I was looking at pickups with my 15 year old son. Right now I can get a new 2016 F150 regular cab XL 4×4 long box with 5.0, 3.73 locker diff, heavy payload package, spray in liner and headache rack for 33k (10k discount). A Colorado extended cab 4×4 with V6 and auto is 31k.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            Definitely, the ability to get a fullsize in regular cab helps to even out the cost comparison significantly if you don’t need the extra interior space.

            In my case I want the additional dry storage and the rear seats (even if they’re not comfortable) so I’d go extended cab with either model.

            I find that most of the pricing comparisons people make fullsize to midsize to show “no real difference” are also regular cab to extended cab. That’s fine if all you want is a regular cab, and maybe indicates that the OEMs should have true regular cabs available. But in any apples:apples comparisons I’ve done the midsizers come out to be non-trivially less expensive.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            @bikegoesbaa I did take a look in my area. I actually like the colorado a lot and I was looking at extended cabs 4×4. Midling trim, and I was finding the actual out the door price difference of less than 10%. So I gave up and will stick with my paid off gas guzzler.

            I did just see that the Colorado is now being advertised as 10% off msrp so maybe there is a bigger difference now than there was last summer.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            bikegoesbaa – I have no problems comparing a reg cab 1/2 ton to a small extended cab truck since there isn’t a lot of usable space in the small truck.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I was committed to buying a midsize, before I knew what they actually wanted for them, after any rebates. Slightly more money than fullsize pickups, shopping “crew cab” midsize vs “extra cab” fullsize. Both have very similar rear leg room, uncomfortable for adults for more than a few minutes ‘trips’.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You buy what you need. If you need more rear-seat legroom, you get more rear-seat legroom. if you need the space for gear, the amount of legroom is irrelevant. I carry, at most, three adults and one child. One of those adults is little larger than an average 12-year-old. An extended cab mid-size is more than large enough for me. An extended-cab compact would be even better.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        “Why would you not want a vehicle that is more capable with similar gas mileage?”

        Because it’s too big to park comfortably anywhere I go on a regular basis. 80″ wide and cities are not compatible.

        • 0 avatar
          Russycle

          This. If you live in the sticks or suburbia, sure, an F150 is great. Dragging all that vehicle around narrow streets and tight parking spots? No thanks.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…Dragging all that vehicle around narrow streets and tight parking spots? No thanks.”

            It’s not as bad as you claim. Ask me why I know.

            But find me a big US city or beach community without a heavy presence of Tahoes, Suburbans, Escalades, Expeditions, or Navigators.

            These things are everywhere. And mostly piloted by chicks, soccer moms, etc. How do they do it??

            They’re just as wide as fullsize pickups, except can carve a tighter circle. Yes fullsize pickups are very popular anywhere there’s people. Somehow they figure out the physics of it. Not a big deal.

            3-point turn instead of a quick U? Totally worth it!

          • 0 avatar
            Moparmann

            There was a woman that worked in my building who drove a huge Expedition. Each morning, there would be a 10+ minute circus show watching her trying to park. She would back into a space, straddling the lines, pull straight up, and repeat, get out and look , try again, and then finally giving up she would go to her office,. Upon arrival, she would receive a call from security saying that she was taking more than one space, and needed to properly park her vehicle!EVERY morning! LOL!:-)

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          dal, I see people in Seattle in suburbans/f150s every time I’m there so I don’t know. Is 75 inches that much easier than 80?

          I admit though I live in suburbia and all my viewpoints are based on my lifestyle.

          • 0 avatar
            Russycle

            Not saying it’s unpossible, I used to drive my parents’ ‘burban everywhere. I personally like something smaller, but if I were Ford I’d just keep cranking out F150s.

          • 0 avatar
            Jagboi

            Buses drive in city streets too, but it doesn’t mean it’s easy or I want to do it.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            When the parking lanes are 84 inches wide, an 80-inch vehicle doesn’t give you a lot of extra room. And many of the private parking spots aren’t much wider.

            The difference between 75 and 80 feels huge in the city.

            People do drive the big trucks. My neighbor has a last-gen F-150 SuperCrew that’s constantly impinging on our bike lane. But they constantly complain about the size of parking spots. And even a full-size car like my LS460 (200″ long, 75″ wide) fits a whole lot easier.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Russycle,
            Ford also pump out Rangers. Why not allow Ford the opportunity to use this capacity and sell them in the US?

            From what I’m reading here at TTAC many of the fullsize pickup guys say Americans want fullsize and not midsize.

            So these imported midsizers are not a threat …… or are they?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            If they’re the smaller version, I’d think they’ll be a threat. At nearly full-sized dimensions, they’re not moving as well.

      • 0 avatar
        16vjohn

        Perhaps not to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. I don’t want a full size pickup. Even if everything was equal, price, efficiency, power, I just want a smaller truck. I want it to handle like a car, park it in the city easily, and on the weekends go camping and tow my fishing boat. Besides, heretofore, full size trucks have been very poorly put together. They’re getting better, but they’re also north of $40k now. If you’ve ever been to Europe, the pickups there (like the upcoming ranger) have interior quality that matches that of a lot of a lot of German brands you see in the states.

        Lastly, it probably does need mentioning… Fuelly.com tells us the best MPG we can expect from an F-150 is 18.5 combined, where the diesel Colorado will do mid to high 20’s combined.

        Again, truck ownership isn’t the sum of what’s the biggest.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        As they say, size matters. While I may be persuaded to replace my Tacoma with a full-size truck because of the economics, the trade-off is not something I’ll gladly make.

        The Tacoma is certainly big enough for my needs and, as it is, it already fills a typical parking space. I recognize, however, that I’m not a mainstream truck buyer.

        The smaller truck largely out died because of the huge demand for full-sizers and the resulting economies of scale, especially when you consider the refresh lifecycle. The last Ranger soldiered on for almost 20 years without a redesign. In that time Ford redid the F150 at least four times in order to stay competitive. It’s not hard to understand that some manufacturers saw no reason to continue to spend the money to chase the smaller truck market.

        With the exit of Ford, Chrysler and GM, Toyota and, to a lesser degree, Nissan were able to generate decent numbers without much investment. They are niche vehicles compared to the those in full-size market.

        When my Tacoma lease is up next year, I will look at the F150 as well as the Tacoma, Colorado and the Ridgeline which, truth be told, better fits my needs. If I can get a decent lease deal on the Ridgeline, that may be my next truck.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          I just bought a new Silverado. The Colorado just wasn’t worth it. I think as comparably equipped as I could get them, the Colorado would only have been about $2k less. (Still V6 in the Colorado vs V8 in the Silverado) The Colorado is big where it’s pointless with random sheet metal, and small in the bed and cabin. The Silverado has useless sheet metal too, and I wish it didn’t, but the cab is huge, and so is the bed. I wish someone would come out with a modern full size truck that is the size and height of a 90s model.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You’re not going to get those thin doors any more and that’s exactly why the Colorado, despite being nearly the size of the 80s/90s full-sizers, will have less interior space across the seat. The interior length issue has more to do with the front seats being pushed forward to make more legroom in the back–where it is least needed for most owners. Moving the seat rails back just two inches would make for a much more comfortable seating arrangement for driver and front passenger. When my wife and I actively looked at one, she simply could not get the driver’s seat far enough back to feel comfortable at the controls. Toyota has this exact same issue.

            Take a tape measure and measure the thickness of those doors compared to the 25-year-old models; you’ll understand why they’re so cramped today by comparison.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @MBella – New pickups are basically the same dimensions as old pickups. An inch or two is insignificant.
            I do agree that price wise, small trucks don’t stand much of a chance.

            Congratulations – which V8 and transmission combo?

            @Vulpine – the Colorado/Canyon front seats are much more comfortable than the Tacoma.

            Doors have gotten thicker due to side impact standards as well as needing room for airbags.

            A huge interior space waster are those large center consoles. That is why I love my F150’s 40/20/40 split bench.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “@MBella – New pickups are basically the same dimensions as old pickups. An inch or two is insignificant.”
            — An inch or two can be very significant for some.

            “@Vulpine – the Colorado/Canyon front seats are much more comfortable than the Tacoma.”
            — Tell that to my wife, who could NOT sit behind the wheel of either vehicle comfortably with the seat moved all the way back as far as it would go.

            “Doors have gotten thicker due to side impact standards as well as needing room for airbags.”
            — Thank you for confirming my statement.

            “A huge interior space waster are those large center consoles. That is why I love my F150’s 40/20/40 split bench.”
            — But how many trucks on the lot carry those wide benches without a center console any more? Unless you go for a pretty low trim level, they’re almost impossible to find.

          • 0 avatar

            The belt lines hood height bed depth and ride height have all grown. It also depends on what trucks you look at the GMT 400 for instance was was a bit smaller about 3.5″ narrower and a few inches shorter. Not huge but very noticeable.

          • 0 avatar
            MBella

            Thanks. 5.3L, Auto, 4WD “Double Cab”

            Not everything is just about crash standards. Normal cars pass them as well, and have much smaller doors. A good portion of it is to make the truck bigger and more imposing. Dodge really started the trend, and the others caught up. Crash standards also don’t dictate that​ the bed has to be at shoulder height. It needs steps in the rear bumpers, because the top of the bumper is too high off the ground. If they really wanted, the trucks could pass crash tests with less bulk, but that wouldn’t impress the urban cowboys. It was amazing how hard I had to fight dealers to get a truck that didn’t have 20″+ wheels. I had to explain to them how one of the main reasons for getting a truck was to have a vehicle that​ could survive Michigan’s post apocalyptic roads.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Ford does not need any vehicle other than F series truck.
    With only F series truck Ford profit margin would soar.

    What do you say Timothy, Should Ford jettison everything except trucks?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “Ford does not need any vehicle other than F series truck.”

      I agree.

      If Toyota didn’t have that magnificent 5.7L Tundra, I’d be buying a Ford pickup truck.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        In case you missed it, that comment was meant to be satirical.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Still you gotta wonder. F-series operating profits, around $10 billion a year. What?? Yep around $12,000 profit per pickup, up to 900,000 units a year. Hmmm…

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Drzhivago138 – not lost on me ;)

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          ” that comment was meant to be satirical.”

          Nevertheless, a true statement since the F-series line is what keeps Ford afloat.

          And……, members of my Traveling Elks posse have all changed over to a F-series to tow their travel trailers.

          I believe that Tundra owners like myself would opt to buy a Ford V8 truck if Tundra didn’t exist. Many told me so.

          My oldest son also bought an F350 DRW SuperCrew for his cattle business.

          Ford doesn’t need to sell anything but F-series trucks to remain alive.

          Anything else Ford brings to market is redundant for Ford and the market place.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Oberkanone
      It will like that in Australia soon, Ford’s Euro based sedans are not selling, Everest based on the Ranger is selling ,but not setting records. 2018 could be an Interesting year for GM and Ford here. Global Colorado is having zero impact

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “Ford does not need any vehicle other than F series truck.”

      The “F-Series” is not a vehicle. You can’t go to a dealer and buy a 2017 Ford F-Series.

      “F-Series” is strictly a business term that allows Ford to advertise sales stats such as “best selling blah blah blah” without being sued.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        F150, F250, F350, F450….. different strokes, for different folks, but all part of the F-series of Ford pickup trucks.

        No reason to market a Ford Ranger in the US. Buy a normally aspirated V6 F150 SuperCab Shortbed instead.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “No reason to market a Ford Ranger in the US. Buy a normally aspirated V6 F150 SuperCab Shortbed instead.”

          The Ford Ranger WILL sell. Why? Because not everyone wants a full-sized truck, not even a normally aspirated v6 supercab shortbed. I happen to like the size of my 97 Ranger and I don’t want a larger truck–just a newer one.

  • avatar
    Clueless Economist

    Not everyone wants or needs a full size truck. Insert my usual whiny comment about Hyundai missing a great opportunity by not producing the Santa Cruz trucklet. I just want to sit up higher, get good gas mileage, and not have to buy a four door mommy CUV. Is that too much to ask?

  • avatar
    Sigivald

    Go old-school: Offer a “Ranger” F150, just like they did before the Ranger was a compact, from ’65 to ’81.

    Everyone wins! (Or loses?)

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Sigivald – “Old” full sized pickups aren’t appreciably smaller than new pickups.
      1990 F150 regular cab short box 4×4 versus 2017 F150 regular cab 4×4
      Maximum Seating 3 seats……….. same
      Wheelbase 133 in………… 122.4 (short box) 141.1 (long box)
      Length 210.2 in…………209.3 in.
      Width 79 in…………… 79.9 ( no mirrors)
      Height 69.9 in…………. 76.9 (cab height)

    • 0 avatar
      cdotson

      Wasn’t the old Ranger a trim level of the F-100, back when the F-150 was the “heavy-half” pickup?

      So build the midsize Ranger, call it an F-100, and even if it cannibalizes low-spec F-150 sales the “F-series” sales juggernaut continues!

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        cdotson – “Ranger” was a trim level on all of Ford’s pickups. My dad had one. IIRC a 1970 F250 Ranger. He also has a 1977 F250 Explorer.

        • 0 avatar
          zipper69

          Do you suppose Ford have some agreement with Polaris, who feature the “Ranger” as a model name ?

          • 0 avatar
            A strolling player

            No.

            Trademarks only go so far as the type of product the trademark is used on. Sea-Doo does not need Chevrolet’s permission to use “Spark” (or vice versa). Ski-Doo has models called Renegade, Expedition, and Tundra (and Summit).

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Doesn’t Ford need the Ranger here to justify the reborn Bronco? Or keep the Bronco factory humming 24/7 or something like that?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      You’re right it does justify. Broncos and Rangers could run down the same assembly line. As long as Ford is answering the Wrangler, bring on the Ranger. But what about a Cherokee fighter?

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I’m just saying that was the argument we kept hearing when the rumblings began that there would be a “Bronco and Ranger” returning to North America.

        “Hey Everybody! We’re getting a Ranger because BRONCO.”

        “You’re welcome.”

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Have we seen market saturation for the so called “small” trucks?
    There is the argument made by a small number of people that the current “small” trucks are too big.
    Would a truly small truck sell better?
    I seriously doubt it.

    Full sized 1/2 ton pickup sales took off when companies built a crewcab model. Even Jeep Wrangler sales took off when Jeep added 2 doors. Unlimited Wranglers outsell the Wrangler 2:1.

    I rarely ever see 2 door sedans. I see way more Chargers than Challengers.

    People want interior room and it isn’t there in a 70’s spec small truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      Not everyone wants interior room – me included.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        So far, the unofficial “who wants a really small truck” poll is you and Vulpine.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Unofficial is the working term here, Lou.

          If everyone were to answer the question as to which size pickup they would prefer and have three visible examples to choose from, the vast majority of truck owners would pick the full size. The mid-sized would be picked by some truck and SUV owners while a true compact would be selected by sedan and CUV owners.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            We all know what the various “internet warriors” want but when it comes to setting foot on a dealer lot and signing on the dotted line, that is a decidedly different story.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Is it, Lou? Is it really? Even after you’ve seen me be right before? You were one of those who refused to believe the Colorado/Canyon would realize any sales and would be cancelled within a year; where did that forecast get you?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Vulpine – actually no. I never forecast that. I’ve never been anti-small truck. I’ve owned small trucks, 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Have we seen market saturation for the so called “small” trucks?”
      — These aren’t exactly “small trucks”, they’re bigger than their predecessors by quite a bit.

      “There is the argument made by a small number of people that the current “small” trucks are too big.”
      — They are. Almost 25% larger than their predecessors.

      “Would a truly small truck sell better? I seriously doubt it.”
      I don’t. They would probably sell quite a few more than the current mid-sized options and probably have no effect at all on the current full-sized options. When I stand next to a Colorado on the lot and find the door sill almost up to my knee, the current round is much too large, as in tall and long. I understand the crew-cab models will be longer, but even the extended cab Colorado is longer than I like and the roof is well over my head in a 2WD version. I can, just, look over the roof of my 2WD ’97 Ranger and that’s a good height as far as I’m concerned.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    That can’t be true, the B+B have told me over and over again that aluminum bodies and Ecoboost would devastate F-series sales.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @bikegoesbaa – it does appear that the market disagrees with the anti-aluminum, anti-turbo V6, and anti-full-sized truck contingent.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Not to mention high gas prices and CAFE standards.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “…the B+B have told me over and over again that aluminum bodies and Ecoboost…”

      No that was just BAFO carpet bombing any article or tread mentioning the aluminum and or Ecoboost F-150.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        DenverMike – there are a few , “HUGE V8 is the only way to go” groupies here too.

        If one looks at engines, no one makes a true big block V8. Ford’s 6.2 is more “mid-block”. GM’s 5.3 and 6.2 are small blocks. FCA’s 5.7, 6.2, and 6.4 are small blocks. Tundra Iforce 5.7 is small block. Titan’s 5.6 is also small block.
        Maybe, just maybe, the new Ford 6.9/7.0 will be a true big block.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          I don’t demand a HUGE V8, but it has to be a V8, or I won’t buy it. Plenty of old/current V8 cars/trucks/etc, to keep me happy for decades.

          I’ll make exceptions for GNXs, SVOs, etc.

          Unless ya *got* a HUGE V8??? Or a replacement for the V10. Turbo, SC V8s I’m OK with.

          • 0 avatar
            OldManPants

            “I don’t demand a HUGE V8, but it has to be a V8, or I won’t buy it.”

            Who’d have ever guessed you’re Chinese?!

            “No. 8 has long been regarded as the luckiest number in Chinese culture. With pronunciation of ‘Ba’ in Chinese, no. 8 sounds similar to the word ‘Fa’, which means to make a fortune. It contains meanings of prosperity, success and high social status too, so all business men favor it very much.”

            travelchinaguide.com/intro/social_customs/lucky_number.htm

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Yea nothing says “great design” like a 3.5L V6 getting worse mileage in a heavier truck with a 6.2L V8.

      Ford’s definition of progress is quite warped.

  • avatar
    Corollaman

    They should make it and designate it as the F100

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      Or make it truly small and call it the F-50.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Or just take a sawzall to a Fiesta since only 1,000 people will buy a *NEW* tiny truck.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          I’d wager a lot more than a mere 1,000. Compacts are pretty popular in SA and CA (South America and Central America (including Mexico). They simply haven’t been offered to us in NA because the OEMs think they know what all NA drivers want–and they’re being proven wrong in so many cases.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            There might be a case for custom shops, upfitters, etc. That’s if there’s *real* demand for a 2-door small/subcompact pickup. It’s doubtful, but that’s where “new” concepts often originate.

            Before there were US midsize crew cabs, stretched “Custom Cab” and other upfitter pickups helped fill the void.

            Before there were F-450 medium-duty “pickups”, the aftermarket handled the need.

            But the US is a different market than Mexico, SA and others. They have fullsize pickups too, but most are regular cabs.

            There’s lots of reasons for regular cab’s wide acceptance in those countries. They’re more in-tune to the *need* aspect, vs want. Minimalists? Partly, but right or wrong, we’re not.

            And extra/excess passengers are always welcome to (legally) ride in the bed!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            That’s a return to your old tales, DM; people buying these brand-new would not be taking them to custom shops right away; that’s for the second-hand owners.

            IF, such a smaller truck were to arrive in the US between now and 2020, I would be in line to buy one.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            You’re not listening. “Custom” and “upfitter” as in taking a “sawzall” to a compact/subcompact CUV, wagon, cube, Fit, minivan, Connect, etc, and modding it into a “pickup”. I’m sure you’ve seen some around.

            But OEMs are waiting for true demand. If there was, the most resourceful and innovative among the Vulpii demo would be fabbin’ them up.
            That’s if they were serious. But the reality is they just only love to hear themselves complain.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Why, DM, do we foxes need to fab up something that’s already factory built by the brands currently available in the U.S. BUT NOT SOLD HERE? FCA has the RAM 700 and Ram 1200 already on the roads–in Mexico and South America (as Fiat Strada and Fiat Toro.) General Motors already has the Tornado and Montana in South America. BUT, they can not be imported until they’re 25 years old and by that time they’re worn out! They need to be brought to U.S. standards and sold in the U.S. Then they can prove themselves either popular or not without all this arguing.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Vulpine – that was just hyperbole on my part but the point is, there isn’t going to be a big enough market in the USA or Canada to warrant a factory to build a truly small truck.
            VW said that they would need 100,000 units per year for the Amarok. I’m betting that the economies of scale still apply to 7/10ths truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            As I just told DM, they’re. already being built. GM and FCA don’t have that 100,000 unit issue because all they need to do is upgrade them to US safety standards and ship them in by train.

            VW is a whole different ball game and the Amarok is the same size as the current Ranger.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Vulpine – is there a “tariff free” zone that currently builds small trucks?

            The Fiat700 aka Strada is built in Brazil. Brazil also has some very weak safety rules. That would mean a very expensive upgrade. I’ve read that differences in safety standards are akin to adding a 20% tariff on a vehicle.
            The Strada would cost 20% more than a Brazilian one to meet USA standards then face another 25% import tariff.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Vulpine – is there a “tariff free” zone that currently builds small trucks?

            “The Fiat700 aka Strada is built in Brazil. Brazil also has some very weak safety rules. That would mean a very expensive upgrade. I’ve read that differences in safety standards are akin to adding a 20% tariff on a vehicle.
            The Strada would cost 20% more than a Brazilian one to meet USA standards then face another 25% import tariff.”

            Thank you. You just made my point for me. One point: The new Compass is built in Brazil. I believe the US version is built elsewhere. They are essentially identical other than the safety gear and, as best I can figure, priced somewhat equivalently. I would also note that Brazilian safety standards have become much, much stricter over the last few years, reducing the amount of re-engineering for the task.

            It’s not that hard to move production of a model into the US OR into Mexico, which currently doesn’t have to fight that 25% tariff to ship trucks in.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “OEMs think they know what all NA drivers want–and they’re being proven wrong in so many cases.”

            They aren’t going to spend a billion or two just to discover you and “thousands” others are the only ones wanting a real small truck.

            Why bother taking the risk when millions will buy a full sizer with a huge profit margin.

            They don’t care about what *all* NA drivers want.

            They care about what *most* will buy.

            That is exactly the same reason why you don’t see too many standard transmissions.
            Most will buy an automatic but most won’t buy a standard.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…I’ve read differences in safety standards are akin to adding 20% tariff…”

            @Lou – You mind telling us where you read that? OK I’ll save you the trouble. It’s complete BS nonsense and it came directly from BAFO. So I pushed him for a “link” and it originated from a “study” by a group of automakers including GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Nissan, lobbying for “harmonization” of safety standards/emissions.

            Should. Have. Known.

            Costs of standardization vary greatly, mostly depending on how many cars get sold, to defuse all costs. If there’s only 2,000 yearly sales, I could see standardization reaching 20% or more. But who’s fault is that? So they’ve got a weak selling product, with very limited appeal. It could be a weak selling, mostly unwanted, import stove or dishwasher.

            But mostly it was OEMs looking to expand into Europe, for a lot less “upfront” investment/cash outlay.

            Then you quote VW?? They’re more full of sh!t than any automaker! And yet they have no trouble building cars in Mexico already. And “loophole” Complete Knockdown kits (CKD) are the way to test any foreign market. And somehow VW doesn’t know this??

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @DenverMike – google costs of international harmonization of vehicle safety standards. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

            I’m not in the mood to spoon feed you data that you aren’t going to bother reading or even remotely try to believe.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Mostly it depends on who you ask. The cost of harmonization is a constantly *moving* cost anyway.

            The more you build/sell, the less it costs, per vehicle.

            It’s like saying R&D is 10% of a car’s price tag. I’m sure that’s true for some cars, but with “fixed costs”, you won’t know how much it ended up costing *per vehicle* until the platform/generation is over and done with, or retired.

            If you’re selling tens of millions per generation, fixed costs are down to almost nothing per vehicle. Good examples are F-series/Expedition, GM fullsize pickups/Tahoes/etc. That’s partly what makes them so obscenely profitable.

            So 20% to harmonize, says it a low volume, niche vehicle. Those are hella expensive to build/sell/import/export, and usually a losing proposition.

            Try to be more specific on which cars you’re referring to. Whatever links you may have, I’m certain are worthless, and propaganda based, or you’d have them front and center.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    That Ford produces an F-series every 33 seconds, 24/7, amazes me.

  • avatar
    Higheriq

    Ford absolutely does NOT need the current “Global Ranger” in the U.S. – it is too damn big. What Ford needs is a truly SMALL Ranger.

  • avatar
    WrittenDescription

    Offering a Ranger sharply distinguished from the F-150 in price and fuel economy should work nicely. Ford needs prospective buyers to cross-shop Rangers and Tacomas, not Rangers and F-150s.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Yes, it’s called product choice. What a concept.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Henry Ford did say, ““A customer can have a car painted any color he wants as long as it’s black”

      The modern version, ” You can have any pickup configuration you want, as long as it’s full sized.”

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    They’re missing out on mid-size sales, though to be quite honest they should consider a true compact rather than the current-sized Ranger.

  • avatar
    zipper69

    My ’94 Ranger Splash only needs the extended cab offered later to be a perfect runabout to handle the “rough stuff” that your regular sedan is too wimpy to attempt.

    A 2018 Ranger 2-door 2WD with extended cab and six foot bed and with a healthily lower price than the starter F150 would fulfill the needs of a lot of families.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      An extended cab Colorado isn’t going to be very user friendly for typical families with kids in car seats. It also isn’t going to be too roomy for any teenager or adult. The Tacoma extended cab rear seating is rather pathetic.
      A “healthier lower price” is basically nonexistent with the current crop of small trucks unless you go with an ancient Nissan Frontier.

      I had a Ranger Extended cab and sold it because the back had no room for booster seats or was too cramped for bigger kids.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        A) Not everybody hauls their whole family in their trucks. Most people have CUVs for that purpose.
        B) Not everybody has a “typical family”, for me it’s just me, my wife and my dog.
        C)Simply put, not everybody wants a Road Whale™ to drive on an everyday basis when something notably smaller is much more maneuverable and easy to park.

        I fall under A, B and C.
        Thank you.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          But if a person can only have or afford ONE vehicle, the four-door pickup truck is the best all-around vehicle to have, no matter the size.

          Did you ever find something that fit all your needs?

          I ask because I’ve been away awhile and have not kept up with the “regulars.”

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “But if a person can only have or afford ONE vehicle, the four-door pickup truck is the best all-around vehicle to have, no matter the size.”

            We finally agree on something. LOL

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “But if a person can only have or afford ONE vehicle, the four-door pickup truck is the best all-around vehicle to have, no matter the size.”

            Except that they will probably not buy ANY pickup truck unless they absolutely need that open bed; they will choose a less expensive, fully enclosed vehicle like a CUV instead. Why? Because no matter how cheap that pickup truck may be, if they’re buying it used, it is practically guaranteed you will have to spend an extra $5K to make it roadworthy again. TTAC itself carried an article specifically on that point. That pushes the pickup truck right out of the level of affordability if they can only afford one vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Vulpine, probably very true in YOUR area. But in MY region, the Chebby pickup truck, in any iteration, is THE vehicle of choice for illegal aliens heading out of the Great State of New Mexico and on to other Blue States and Canada.

            I had no problem selling my 1988 ExtCab Silverado 350 in 2011, at a lot more than any American jockey would pay for it, and that truck is still doing DD duties for an illegal at a Nebraska meat packing plant.

            He sends me a Christmas card every year, the last one with a pic of his dolled-up truck. It’s still White but it is now a Lowrider Silverado.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    If only they weren’t the size of Peterbilts.

    Why a manufacturer cannot make a 1/2 ton pickup more the size of a 1980 Ford F-150 I fail to understand.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      RedRocket – width and height hasn’t changed much. The 1980 is much shorter but I suspect an error in measurements.

      1980:
      F100-F150 Regular Cab 4×2 with 6′-3/4″ (short) bed:
      Width: 77″……………………1990 = 79 in…………… 2017 = 79.9
      (2017 = 2.9 inches wider)
      Overall Length: 192.1″………1990 = 210.2 in………….2017 = 209.3 in
      (17.2 inch difference)
      Height:
      F100- 69.1″
      F150- 70″ Height……….1990 = 69.9 in…………. 2017 = 76.9

      The dimensions of my 2010 F150 Supercrew 6.5 box 4×4 are very close to that of my neighbour’s 1979 Extended cab long box 4×4.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “The dimensions of my 2010 F150 Supercrew 6.5 box 4×4 are very close to that of my neighbour’s 1979 Extended cab long box 4×4.”

        I don’t think the difference is going to show up in comparing external max. dimensions. If I made a giant box with each dimension the same as the L, W and H of an F-150, it would clearly be larger than an F-150 even though it had the same “dimensions.”
        .
        .

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Good point. I think bed height and hood height (and overwrought “big rig” grilles) have a lot to do with the perception of modern halftons being much larger than precursors.

        • 0 avatar
          bikegoesbaa

          But since the max L x W x H dimensions effectively determine where I can park the thing and how big of a hole it punches in the air; why *not* make the most use of the box it represents for a machine with the primary task of transporting people and cargo.

          Maximizing the enclosed space per unit footprint (boxprint?) seems like a reasonable approach to me.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        You are wasting your breath Lou. You can throw out all the facts you want but people are going to continue to perpetuate the myth that Trucks have grown significantlyficantly.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Almost all the difference in length goes into the cab. SuperCab and crew cab F-150s from 1974-2003 all rode a 139″ WB, then they were lengthened 6″ in 2004 (SuperCabs) and 2009 (SuperCrews) to a 145″ WB, where they’ve stayed and will probably go no further–a 2004 and 2017 F-150 are for all intents and purposes the exact same size. There are very few buyers who don’t appreciate that extra 6″, but at the same time, anything more than that gets to be kind of unwieldy.

        Some length difference goes into front overhang, but that’s more a trend of all new vehicles, not just pickups.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      ^^This. I don’t get why modern pickups punch such a large hole in the fabric of spacetime.
      .
      .

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Master Baiter – the BIGGEST change affecting dimensions between a 1980’s spec truck and a 2017 is TIRE SIZE.

        My brother had a 87 F150 with 215/75/15’s. My 1990 F250 was 8.5 x 16 or 215.

        My 2010 F150 is 275/65/18. Overall tire size isn’t much different between my 2010 on 18’s and my BiL’s F150 on 20’s.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I “get” the clamoring for small trucks now that I own one a lot more than I did prior. Yes on paper one can’t complain about the bargain that base, discounted fullsizers represent for someone looking for a weekend hauler. But I really like the small size and fun runabout spunkiness of my little stick shift Ranger, totally different driving experience than an automatic fullsize, or even something like the current midsize Tacoma. To be fair I had to split my hauling of a cubic yard of gardening soil into two trips, but I consider that not too big of a price to pay. With 1/2 cubic yard dumped in the bed (1000ish lb?), I still had plenty of leaf-pack travel to go, and the 110hp engine had to work somewhat harder, but still got me up to highway speeds safely, even up an inclined on-ramp. The RWD got me around just fine the extremely muddy and potholed landscaping bulk-supply place, it’s more so driving in rain starting from stop lights that gets the rear wheels slipping pretty significantly some times.

    A modern interpretation of this with a safer cabin and minor NVH improvements and a Focus 2.0L retuned for some more low-end and sold for $15k in base guise would be really cool to see. Hell I wouldn’t mind if they switched to a FWD platform for winter traction so I could use it year round for commuting.

    • 0 avatar

      Yeah once you own one I think you understand better. They are much more entertaining to drive around town then the big boys. My favorite car of my past is still my 87 xtra cab toyota.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Small trucks are fun to drive but can be a handful. My first truck was an 1984 Ranger Reg cab long box 4×4. That small flick-able maneuverability translated to twitchy, skitterish, and easily deflected when on an icy road, slushy snow, a road with big bumps or on a logging road where there is a narrow packed set of ruts and the rest is marbles.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Lou I’m most definitely not planning on driving that Ranger in the winter, no way, no how when I have a snow-tire shod 4Runner as an alternative. And yes it gets thrown around a lot on broken up pavement. Currently a large part of that is the worn-out-to-hell shocks (soon to be rectified) but part of it is truly the nature of the beast and its light rear end and twin-I-beam front end. I’m actually really looking forward to driving it down to my usual outdoor stomping grounds here in Indiana for some small game hunting and ripping around the gravel roads down there. Surely less technically competent than my coil-sprung 4Runner with double wishbones in front, but also a lot more fun.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            gtemnykh – I always had to use 4×4 in the winter with my 84 Ranger. The Extended Cab Ranger I owned was more stable. That extra weight and length made a noticeable difference.
            My F250 reg cab got through the winter rather well in 4×2 but I did have an extremely heavy canopy on it. My current F150 is great in the winter.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    My worry is this: that by the time the Ranger finally hits the dealers, the midsize truck will have collapsed again. I love my ’13 Tacoma, but I might trade it for a Ranger if they offered a turbo diesel, or a V6 with cylinder deactivation (to help with gas mileage). I won’t touch the new Tacoma as long they’re offering that minivan engine in it. I drove one, and I hated it.

    A Colorado with the Duramax might be okay, but I don’t see those as being as reliable or long-lived as a Tacoma, or even a Ranger.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    I saw one of the newer Rangers recently (a Mexican one). I wanted to stop and check it out, but it was in a gas station being filled up, and not parked, where I could look it over.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I’m not in the market for anything, but I wonder what makes the Ford trucks supposedly better than the GM models?

    Although I’m a Chevy guy at heart, I did own two Rangers. I’m pretty neutral Ford vs. Chevy in the truck segment. I suspect “momentum” of sales is driving it?

    Funny, The Tundra gets better CR reviews, and Ford & GM behind the Tundra with FCA last. Titan? Who?

    • 0 avatar

      Ford owners seem to be the most brand loyal. They also have a better system for fleet buyers (according to the fleet buyer at the last company I worked for). Then you also have the brand recognition most people think F-150 when you say pickup. Based on the numbers above it seems there was a lot of pent up demand for super duties. Given how long the old one was around that’s not surprising.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    1997 298,796
    1998 328,136
    1999 348,358
    2000 330,125
    2001 272,460
    2002 226,094
    2003 209,125
    2004 156,322
    2005 120,958
    2006 92,420
    2007 72,711
    2008 65,872
    2009 55,600
    2010 55,364
    2011 70,832

    Above are Ranger sales from 1997-2011. In 2003 Ford sold over 200K Ranger.
    What happened to the market share after that? Other than lack of investment and updates to the design where did the market disappear to?

    There is a big hole in the market for a compact truck. Minimum of 100K per year for quality product priced reasonably.

    I’d argue the new Ford Ranger is too large at midsize.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Oberkanone: It appears by your list that word of the Ranger growing in size from the 1990 size to the 2004 size is when sales started to drop off. This appears to be good proof that they’ve grown too large.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “1990 size to the 2004 size”

        Nonsense. The facelifts happened in ’93 and ’98, and again in ’01 (and lasted through 2011). Throughout all that the hard points on the truck stayed the same, I believe the reg cab may have grown like 2 inches in length in ’98(?). The ’93 was 4.5 inches longer than the equivalent squared off ’90 and had a 1.4 inch wider track out back according to Consumer Guide. Whatever was influencing midsize truck shoppers, it was not incremental size differences of what was fundamentally the same old truck (for better or for worse).

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Larger is larger and people who want smaller won’t buy larger. I bought a 1990 F-150 several years ago because I had a need for a truck that could carry large objects. Over the course of three years, I put 4000 miles on it. I now have a 1997 Ford Ranger and it took me less than one year to put the same kind of mileage on it. There are thousands of people across the US that want a true, compact, pickup truck; one about the size of the 80s-early 90s Ranger, Dakota, S-10, etc. As the compact trucks have grown larger, their market has shrunk because the people who bought the smaller trucks refused to accept larger. Bring back a truck with a total length of 15-16 feet (with extended cab), a lower roofline, lower seating (about level with an average CUV) and they would practically fly out the door. The CUV market would be slashed by current owners moving back to the size truck they really want.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “There are thousands of people across the US that want a true, compact, pickup truck”

            Funny, didn’t I just get “sorted out” for saying basically the same thing?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Thousands means multiple thousands, like more than ten thousand. You only wrote, “1,000.”

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            You keep throwing out numbers and claims with no sources or data to back them up. It’s disenheartening.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I currently own the Ranger and posted photos of it on a Ranger forum, including the shot of the odometer when it crossed the 20,000 mile mark as I was driving it home from Tennessee, where it was given to me. The data is out there.

            The F-150 was featured on my own website, roadwhale.com, shortly after the original purchase. The data is there. Now, have fun disproving them.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “You keep throwing out numbers and claims with no sources or data to back them up.”

            I fear that sort of thing is the new world order.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I’m talking less about physical dimensions and more about the “thousands” figure in your previous post, and the assertion that a compact pickup would “practically fly out the door.” I don’t disagree on principle, but what was your methodology?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            What was my methodology? Personal interviews with people I know who are currently driving CUVs because they don’t want Road Whales™, not even mid-sized Road Whales™. No, they are not “friends and family”, they are people I talk to during my daily travels, such as bank tellers, cash register operators, in-store sales consultants, etc. In other words, ordinary people. If I stand and wait in line to reach a register, I will talk to people around me and guide the discussion towards cars and trucks to see what they like. You’d be surprised how many people miss the true compact trucks and how even younger people who never saw the small trucks wish there were smaller ones available.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Honestly, that doesn’t sound very scientific.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            How many people actually buy their cars on scientific principles?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Drzhivago138 – the results one obtains depends on how one words the question.
            I’m betting on Vulpine’s question being:

            “Pickups are too big, wouldn’t you prefer something smaller?”

            I’ve owned a few small trucks and have never had a person walk up to me and ask me how I liked it.
            When I first bought my 2010 F150 SuperCrew that was a common occurrence at gas stations and parking lots (even by women). Some thought I had the EB 3.5 but they were still interested in what I had to say about the 5.4.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Bet on whatever you wish, Lou; that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right.

            When I bought my ’02 Saturn Vue, people came up and asked me what it was like.
            When I bought my ’16 Jeep Renegade, people asked me how I liked it.
            They didn’t ask about my ’08 Wrangler.
            They didn’t ask about my ’90 F-150 XLT Lariat
            They DO ask about my ’97 Ranger because of its condition. They’re amazed at the low mileage until I tell them how I obtained it.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    http://www.chevrolet.com.mx/tornado.html

    Would be great if Ford offered a small pickup in the size range of the Chevrolet Tornado.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Good link, Ober. Thank you for finding that.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      This. This would make sense. A compact pickup the size of a RCSB Ranger, S-10, etc. would have to be a FWD/AWD unibody to meet CAFE regs, but it could still have a good-sized open bed for bulky (not necessarily heavy) loads and get much better MPG than any older BOF compact truck.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        You’re getting the idea, Doc.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          “Getting”? I’ve known about the Chevy Montana for quite some time. I’ve never been against the idea of a FWD unibody pickup.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            You’re one of the few then, Doc. THIS is what I have been arguing for every year over the last 5 years and more. But as you can see, the vast majority of truck-owning Americans responding seem to think this would be an abject failure in the US market. They refuse to understand the usefulness of a small rig like this.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Unless it has 4 doors it isn’t going to sell well.
            I have zero issues with these trucks. If one looks at import tariffs and economies of scale, it isn’t worth the effort for a company to build a factory or even modify an existing factory.

            Get rid of the Chicken tax and it would be viable as a product even in lower numbers.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Two and two-half doors are plenty. More than that and the utility of the open bed is almost lost. That’s why the Baja and Explorer Sport Trak both died.

            Standard or extended cab versions will likely sell VERY well.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            An extended cab a la the Fiat Strada would probably do all right. We can’t be so sure about a single cab. 2-door cars in general have become scarce in the US market, and outside of performance models, a 2-passenger vehicle is essentially DOA.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            ” 2-door cars in general have become scarce in the US market.”
            — But not so much in other markets. Why is that? The only 2-door cars you can buy here are either European made (i.e. BMW 2/4/6 series) or are special-purpose sports coupes (Camaro/Mustang/Challenger.)

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I should have said “vehicles,” since I was including regular cab pickups in that definition. A single cab compact FWD unibody pickup would only have 2 passenger seating, which limits its utility vs. an extended cab, even if (when) that extended cab’s seats are almost an afterthought.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I’m fine with the afterthought. I want the interior space for materials (and a dog), not people.

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    According to Cain’s own figures on his website (YTD2017)

    If Ford dropped EVERYTHING it sells that isn’t an F-Series, it would STILL be the 5th largest seller of new vehicles in the US.

    YTD F-Series: 205,281

    Chevrolet (all vehicles): 471,723
    Toyota (all vehicles): 470,766
    Nissan (all vehicles): 373,330
    Honda (all vehicles): 333,531
    Ford F-Series: 205,281
    Jeep (all vehicles): 188,743

  • avatar
    oldowl

    I had a used base Tacoma before they got bigger. Wish I could get a new one, same approximate size with four doors and a short bed. Modest load and modest towing capacity would be fine. Do I need to look for a barn find Baja?

  • avatar
    denster2u

    Just because F-series outsells all GM full-size and mid-size trucks combined, doesn’t mean Ford can’t further expand it’s market share by adding the Ranger back into the stable. GM has already won a bet that Ford was previously unwilling to wager – that a mid size truck can be marketed and sold along side it’s full size brethren, without cannibalizing many sales. While I still cling to my 2011 Ford Ranger, knowing we’ll likely never see another new compact pickup truck on the market, I would consider a mid-size Ranger, but not an F150.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      And while it is definitely midsize, the global Ranger isn’t insanely bigger than the compact one. It sits on almost the same WB, with the same length cab and bed (5′ or 6′). If there was a halfway point in dimension between a compact Ranger and an F-150, the global Ranger is still closer to compact than full-size.

      http://cars.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b3c669e20147e39be5d5970b-pi

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        We can only hope the Americanized one is the same size as the global one. Problem is, the Americanized Colorado is NOT the same size as the global one; at least, according to at least two from OZ and supposedly someone from Asia who have commented either here or on PUTC over the years. I’m not betting that the new Ranger will be any smaller than the US Colorado.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          I wouldn’t bet on it either. But how much is the size difference between a global Colorado and an Americanized Colorado, really?

          L: 212.7″ vs. 211.1″ (5361 mm)

          WB: 128.3″ vs. 121.9″ (3096 mm) [FWIW, the previous compact Colorado was 126″]

          H: 70.1″ vs. 70.86″ (1800 mm)

          W: 74.1″ vs. 73.8″ (1874 mm)

          (All dimensions taken from US Chevy Colorado webpage, or Holden Colorado brochure PDF)

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Sometimes, Doc, it’s not the numbers that count but rather the appearance. The tall hood of Americanized trucks adds to the impression of size even when it doesn’t affect overall dimensions. What it DOES do is affect fuel economy by adding to frontal area.

            Tall hoods are also ugly. Modern pickups simply don’t need them any more to fit gigantic engines and sloping the hoods would improve frontal visibility enormously. The Colorado itself looks much, much better than the Canyon, though still carries a too-tall of a hood line.

            Your chart did note one thing of interest though. While the overall length of the US vs Holden versions was only 1.6 inches difference (American one longer), the wheelbase difference is 6.4 inches, meaning the Holden version would be the more maneuverable one in tight conditions. That six inches could mean the difference between an easy U-turn and a three-point turn.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      denster2u – there is the risk of Ford just cannibalizing F150 sales. Ford feared that when they killed the old Ranger. GM has been notorious for filling ever vehicle category with something and not making money at it. Ford’s strategy was “One Ford” Global means: concentrate on the 20% that makes 80% of the profits. In the USA/Canada that is F-Series.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “Ford’s strategy was “One Ford” Global means: concentrate on the 20% that makes 80% of the profits. In the USA/Canada that is F-Series.”

        Which is why they’re now scrambling to bring the Ranger back.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “Which is why they’re now scrambling to bring the Ranger back.”

          I do suspect that most companies assumed that the small truck market was functionally extinct. I do believe that the resurgence in small truck sales is tied directly to the boom in SUV/CUV sales.

          The majority of people I know aren’t interested in cars but they view pickups and SUV’s/CUV’s or minivans as viable alternatives to each other.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I’m an outlier. I’d trade my Lexus IS-250 for a new Ranger. Lariat, crewcab, red with tan leather. Ford needs to a make a Transit Connect-O-Line. XL trim, unibody bed, 4cyl engine, stripper model MSRP $16,995.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    If you are comparing a regular cab stripped half ton to a better optioned midsize extended cab pickup then yes pound for pound the single cab half ton is a better buy. If you want a smaller less optioned extended cab you can go on cars.com and find a Colorado Base with a 6 speed manual for about $18,900 which I doubt you will find any new regular cab half ton for much less. You have to shop around and search on the internet. Comparing the full MSRP of a midsize truck to a discounted full size is not a fair comparison. Would any of you not search for the best price on any vehicle you would buy regardless of size. How many buyers actually pay full MSRP?

    Over the long haul it is better to buy the vehicle you want otherwise you will be dissatisfied and not want to keep the vehicle very long.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Jeff S – earlier I was comparing a fleet spec reg cab F150 max cargo and 5.0 to a fleet spec Colorado extended cab 4×4. 33k for F150 with 10k discount. 31k fro Colorado. I probably could find a fleet spec F150 minus 5.0 and max cargo and be the same if not less than the fleet spec Colorado.

      The biggest problem facing small trucks is the fact that companies deep discount everything else. My 2010 F150 was 4k cheaper than a comparable 2010 Tacoma double cab with similar options.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Like I said earlier, if someone really wants or needs a smaller truck, it doesn’t matter how much the bigger truck is discounted, they’ll buy the smaller one.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          At this point in time, there is price overlap between small trucks and big ones. Fuel economy is close enough that it is no longer a viable purchase metric. Even size isn’t that much of a metric.

          The only reason to by a small truck is if you “want” a small truck.
          Not being able to fit in one’s garage or being scared/uncomfortable in a tight spot is a very weak “need”.
          But hey, if it helps you climb Maslow’s pyramid, more power to ya.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Lou, the only way to fix that problem is to figure a way to improve competition.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Improve competition? Offer more size choice.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            The ones climbing Maslow’s Pyramid are the ones driving full-sized trucks when they have no functional need for a vehicle that large.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            How is not being able to garage a vehicle a “weak need”?

            It’s pretty nice to be able to park in attached garage on a cold day, or unload your groceries without getting rained on.

            It’s also more secure and better for the machine. Not sitting out in the rail all the time and starting up every winter day with the oil at 60F rather than 10F is worthwhile.

            For me, the utility of a vehicle would decrease significantly if I couldn’t garage it.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Big Al from Oz – agreed. I’m not a fan of the chicken tax. It isn’t going anywhere with twitterpotus at the helm.

            @Vulpine – “Offer more size choice.”

            That isn’t going to happen under the current political climate. It is too expensive for the anticipated sales volumes.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “That isn’t going to happen under the current political climate. It is too expensive for the anticipated sales volumes.”
            — Perhaps. But Chevy has proven that “anticipated sales volumes” can be wrong. I’m thinking GM is more than a little surprised at how well these are selling.
            Though I think they’re also beginning to realize they need to start putting some money on the hood. My local Chevy/GMC dealer has almost half as many Colorado/Canyons on the lot as they have Siverado/Sierras. That seems to be giving the lie to the, “limit production to keep prices high” policy. They want $32K for a 4×4 mid-trim extended cab version when it would probably sell easily at $28.9K.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @bikegoesbaa – it is actually harder on a vehicle in the winter to sit inside a heated garage. The engine/trans will like it more but not the rest of the vehicle.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Vulpine – initial GM stats on conquest sales indicated that most buyers were crossing over from SUV’s/CUV’s and full-sized pickups.

            The GMC/Chev dealer in the biggest town in my region will have 10-12 Colorado/Canyon’s and probably 50-60 1/2 tons and the remainder are HD’s.
            I’ve seen around 2k on the small trucks and depending on the time of year, 10-15k on the hood for big trucks.
            They know small truck buyers are no longer fixated on price. The fleet queen spec small trucks are what rot on the lot. I’ve had a few car salesmen tell me that same thing. The loaded ones fly off the lot.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            So imagine what an even smaller truck could do to the CUV market

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do believe Ford needs the Ranger. But it should be imported so there is a larger price gap between the two vehicles.

    The price difference between the two vehicles will remain close when you have a much lower volume and “similar” sized Ranger forced to be manufactured in a sheltered market.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The market sets the price. Or does Toyota sell “Hecho en Mexico” Tacomas for a bunch less than US made Tacomas??

      Same with Mexican Silverados/Sierras vs US Made Silverados Sierras.

      But selling midsize pickups for the same money (or more) than fullsize, similarly equipped, seems like the correct thing to do, as longs as many (not most) are more than willing to pay MORE for less.

  • avatar
    xidex

    paging Big Al

    ummm i thought you said the aluminum trucks were going to fail?

    Al? hello Al? you there….

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      xidex,
      I thought I said Ford would remain number two.

      If you look at the platforms GM is in a better position than Ford. Don’t forget the SUVs.

      Who the fnck are you anyways xidex. Why not just use your mormal TTAC name?

      • 0 avatar
        xidex

        xidex is my ttac name. Couldn’t resist the jab after reading your comments about aluminum trucks failing over and over again on the pickuptruck site !
        never mentioned who’s number one or two, just that you said ford would tank when the aluminum trucks came out, seems to be well received per the article

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @xidex: The desirability of the Aluminum Fords hasn’t really been tested yet. I agree that their sales haven’t exactly declined but then, they’ve only been on the roads a couple of years now. What we don’t know is the durability of the bodies under everyday driving conditions. With most trucks now being used as “big boy toys” and general family cars, they may do quite well and last at least as long as the modern, thin steel bodies. However, with aluminum being a softer metal, parking lot dings will tend to be deeper and more noticeable with a lot more expense involved to straighten them out when it comes time to trade. This could have their trade-in value fall drastically despite how well they may have been maintained.

          And don’t forget those used for “real work”. Their beds are going to get beaten to pieces whether you use a liner or not. Sure, the liner will prevent any major damage inside the bed but have you ever looked at what the drop-in liner does to the rails? Loading and unloading are also going to be hard on the body sides around the bed as no matter how careful a lift or crane operator may be, invariably something will happen to have the load strike the outside of the box and leave a big dent. Certainly not necessarily enough to make it undriveable, but enough to ding its trade-in value, especially if the lot chooses to repair the damage before resale.

          What I’m saying is that the effects of going aluminum may not be felt for another three or four years when their trade-in value becomes more established. A pristine model may show decent trade in but one with obvious damage may lose several thousand dollars in a hurry and aluminum is more likely to show damage than steel in the shorter term.

  • avatar
    DIYer

    BEIJING (Reuters) – Ford Motor Co (F.N) plans to launch its mid-size Ranger pickup truck in China in 2018, hoping to draw more Chinese consumers, who generally prefer sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), towards a new segment of cars.

    Ford would import the Ranger to China and currently has no plans to manufacture it locally, a spokeswoman said.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    My problem with most full size pickups is that they are a large box on wheels that have the handling and maneuverability of a large truck. There is little driver engagement in one and driving one on a day to day basis would get tedious. If I just needed a truck for hauling then maybe I would get a cheap short bed Chevy, GMC, or F-150 regular cab and not drive it everyday. Not only is it easier to park a midsize or compact truck but there are still a few offered with a manual transmission which I still find more engaging to drive and which I believe make me a better driver in that I concentrate more on my driving and less on other distractions and boredom. At this point I am willing to forgo the 4 wheel drive and cloth seats just to have a manual transmission. I wish that more vehicles were offered with a manual transmission but I realize they are a dying breed and most drivers care more about electronic toys and being able to text, tweet, and talk on their smart phones. I actually would rather have an autonomous vehicle if I am not enjoying the driving experience. If I needed and wanted a large truck I would buy one but I find they about as desirable to drive as a school bus or a semi. Maybe I am in the minority but that is what I prefer and a couple of grand difference is not that much over many years of ownership. I believe when Ford re-enters the midsize market that you will see more discounting on midsize trucks.

    Maybe pound for pound a full size pickup is a better value which the same was said about the full size cars of the 70’s versus the midsize and compact cars. Ounce for ounce you might get a better buy at Sam’s and Cosco on a large bottle of ketchup or pickles versus the smaller ones at Kroger but they don’t tend to fit as well in the refrigerator and they tend to get shoved to the back of the refrigerator to become spoiled and discovered several years later with a mold colony on them. Bigger is not always better or cheaper when you do not need or use it, it is just bigger. A smaller pickup based on the Transit might be a better option for those who desire a smaller less expensive pickup while continuing to make the full size pickups. There is room in the market for more than one size of pickup just as there is room for more than one size of crossover. Not everyone who wants a crossover needs an Enclave and that is why an Envision and Encore are offered as well.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Vulpine–I believe you are correct especially in the King Ranch and Platinum trims. The grills and the letters on them need to be much bigger and throw in some LEDs.

  • avatar
    dodgeron

    While I haven’t read all the comments.. A big problem for me is that a $40k+ truck won’t fit in my garage! C’mon Ford!.. please bring back the short bed extended cab in standard F150 (NON RAPTOR trim!) I had this back in 2005. It fit in my garage! Better yet.. how about bringing back the “F100” nameplate using the last F150 series truck?.. standard cab or extended cab short bed only? Equipped with the 2.7 Ego-boost only, and XLT trim only??? Make it a true lite duty with a lower capacity.. I don’t carry 4×8 ft sheets of plywood?? Many of us want a lighter duty truck.. many of us aren’t 250+lbs and don’t need interior space the size of Rhode Island. Dont load the truck down with options to keep the price point low.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “Better yet.. how about bringing back the “F100” nameplate using the last F150 series truck?.. standard cab or extended cab short bed only?”

      By last series, do you mean the ’09-14 F-150? Because an ’09-14 and a ’15+ are for all practical purposes exactly the same dimensions. In fact, a ’15+ regular cab is actually 4″ shorter than a 2004-14.

      Or did you mean the ’97-03 jellybean F-150s? Those were only 6″ shorter than current F-150s in the cab, but essentially the same in all other dimensions.

      You say “don’t load the truck down with options,” but then say it should be XLT only. STX would be the better trim level to choose for such a truck. Not barebones like an XL, but still lower than an XLT.

      A 133″ WB SuperCab/5.5′ bed is kind of a neat idea, but there was a reason it went away in 2010: Not enough buyers wanted one (except for a Raptor) to make it worthwhile.

      • 0 avatar
        dodgeron

        By last model I am referring to the sheet metal truck, bin sourced, no new federalizing would be necessary.. possibly a way to shave cost, increase margin.. distance the model as the F-100.. other than colors.. maybe short extended cab only? For people that need more, step up to the F-150. Maybe in 2005 this combo wasn’t popular but times (and markets change) I had a extended cab, 5.5 ft bed, XLT, 5.4 wish I still owned it. Ford sells this combo now but only as a $60k Raptor!

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      dodgeron,
      Blame CAFE for most of your woes regarding pickup size.

      I’m an ardent supporter in the removal of CAFE and using fuel levies to reduce the carbon footprint.

      You can still have reasonably priced vehicles. The bonus is there will be more funds to direct towards infrastructure.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “I’m an ardent supporter in the removal of CAFE”

        Maybe CAFE made sense when it looked like we were going to be short on dino-fuel, but we in America will be swimming in a deluge of oil, natgas, coal, solar, wind, and nuclear energy generation for at least the next 200 years. And that’s just the known reserves. And not counting geo-thermal and wave for select areas.

        Maybe in 200 years we will have cold-fusion energy generation?

        I sure hope this new administration, specifically Pruitt and Chao, get rid of all that green-weenie EPA crap that so thoroughly ruined the auto-enthusiast experience, and put the kibosh on “big” gas engines.

        I’d really like to see big V8s make a comeback. Fiatsler is doing some of that. Let’s get Toyota to make a Tundra 6.8L gas, all-aluminum, 32-valve, DOHC, V8.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          V8s make a come back?

          If you had not realised V8s are still here.

          I do think if you can afford it why not. But fuel prices need to increase via levies as vehicles become more efficient to adequately maintain infrastructure.

          Even business should not be able to write off fuel tax. The reason for this is to ensure ALL who utilise road infrastructure pay to maintain it. User pays.

          This would be a targeted and fair indirect tax on goods and services to personal transport paying a targeted price for a service.

          People whine and cry they are paying extra in taxes, but on the other hand support industrial welfare, that’s regressive and promotes inefficiencies.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…But fuel prices need to increase via…”

            @BAFO – Aren’t you the buffoon that’s constantly squawking about “CHOICES”???

            Yeah we don’t need to be Europe. Look what a Phucked up mess that turned into!! They shoved sh!tty little diesels up everyone’s A$$!!!

            Not everyone wants a muscle car, pickup, large SUV, etc, but if they do, god bless America!

            CAFE ain’t perfect but what else ya got? Except it should stay where it is, vs 2025 targets nonsense.

            Yes bigger vehicles are allowed to burn more fuel, but that’s the way it SHOULD be.

            It’s common frickin’ sense, like bigger houses burn more energy to cool, light and or heat. Owners of theses and bigger vehicles “pay more”, but it’s their choice. Not just more fuel, but other weight based taxes, yearly at the DMV. Where that extra money goes, who the hell knows?

            So it isn’t that CAFE is soft on bigger vehicles, CAFE just asks too much from smaller cars/trucks/etc, with harder to achieve targets. That’s as it should be too, at least in theory. In practice, not so much.

            That’s where CAFE fails.

            As we know, smaller “footprint” midsize pickups are expected to achieve much better fuel economy than fullsize, large footprint (again, as they SHOULD). In reality, midsize do poorly compared to fullsize pickups.

            Now that’s not CAFE’s fault necessarily.

            But at least we have the “CHOICE”, midsize and fullsize, up to medium duty. No doubt it would suck to only have one class of pickups. I’ll bet a lot of Australians are P!$$3D!!!

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Simply put, smaller pickups–truly smaller pickups, not this 10% crap–could easily achieve 50% better economy than the majority of full-sized trucks running gasoline engines. Given decent aerodynamics, it could improve on that even more.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “I’d really like to see big V8s make a comeback.”

          How can they not? When a modern 3.5L V6 gets worse mileage than a 6.2L V8 in a heavier truck, it’s pretty clear that the V8 is the way to go.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I’m hoping, all things considered, that more V8s will show up in trucks, SUVs, CUVs and larger non-luxury sedans. The time is right. Fuel prices are low. Time to get CAFE-mandates repealed.

            There’s just something inherently soothing about the slow-turning, stump pulling torque of a V8.

            For those who prefer nervous-rodent engines, they can still opt for a heavy breathing V6 or I4.

            Modern V8s like Fiat’s 5.7L, GM’s 5.3L, Ford’s 5.4L, Toyota’s 5.7L and Nissan’s 5.6L are far simpler than any of those hi-tech squirrels now being forced on us.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–I would say that the transition to alternate fuels will be in much less time and it will be less a matter of running out of oil and more of pollution in highly populated areas and competition from cleaner and less expensive fuels. Coal is experiencing this as natural gas has become more abundant, less expensive, and a cleaner fuel. The USA has at least 200 years of known reserves of coal and some experts predict over 1,000 years. There is some debate about where oil comes from. Offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico that were predicted to run out of oil in the 70’s actually have more oil. Cameras in some of these wells show oil seeping into them from below. One petroleum engineer’s hypothesis is that the center of the Earth is liquid and mainly oil and as oil migrates to the surface it picks up organic matter which is why in the past scientist thought oil was created by dinosaurs. This engineer says that by the time we would run out of oil that the Earth itself would burn up.

    The original combustion engine ran on vegetable oil. It was John D. Rockefeller that had one of his engineers develop an engine that ran on gasoline and John D first used these engines on his oil wells. Rockefeller sold his own engines to manufacturers. Rockefeller then approached the early auto manufacturers such as Henry Ford and got them to switch to gasoline and thus Rockefeller expanded his Oil business and became Standard Oil. Before electricity oil wells were drilled to refine oil to kerosene for lamps when kerosense replaced whale oil. When Tesla and Edison created electricity from power plants which replaced kerosene with electric lamps. Rockefeller was left with a product he could no longer sell in volume and with a byproduct that was dumped into streams to get rid of. Rockefeller asked his engineers to develop an engine that would run on this waste product (gasoline). After many attempts his engineers developed an engine that would run on gasoline.

    There is always a newer technology that will replace an existing one. Most of us would have never predicted that we would use smart phones or that the human genome would ever be discovered and mapped. Exxon has been working on bio fuels that are developed from algae. I doubt it will take 200 years to get away from oil but it could take 50 years even if an alternative were developed now. It takes time to transition to newer technology especially to get people to buy it and then develop technology where the average person can afford it. It also takes time to develop the infrastructure to re-fuel vehicles whether they be electrical, bio-fuels, or hydrogen.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      A good discussion with some interesting theories, Jeff. I’m not so sure about the “oil seeping up from below” analysis but I won’t dismiss it out of hand, either. I can think of other ways that oil could appear to be seeping up from below that has nothing to do with the Earth having an oil-filled center; too much other research in geology suggest our intermediate levels of Earth’s core are molten rock instead. Coal, meanwhile, is most certainly dino-fuel; the fossils have been found to prove it.

      As for the alternate fuels discussion, the issue is not to create an alternate fuel but rather to eliminate the burning of fuel to extract the energy, this is what causes the air pollution that so-poisoned our cities for so long.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, as usual you give an outstanding dissertation. But I should add that I am a big fan of ALL sorts of energy generation. The complete spectrum.

      My belief is there is room for all of them because some work better than others in different locales. Sun and Wind work very well in New Mexico, but I detest having to pay for it but not getting to use what I pay for. And that’s the way it is now for us.

      At least I don’t have to pay extra for the oil that is pumped in NM, refined in NM, and sold in NM. But this is where the Triple Taxation comes into play where NM (and most states) tax the producers, the refiners AND users like me for it.

      So, yes, I am looking forward to even more abundant sources of energy being available to the public but I am also a traditionalist in that I like my gasoline, natgas, and other utilities.

      The house I live in at this time (until my next trip) has refrigerated air, natgas heat, natgas outdoor grill, natgas water heater, natgas 22KW Kohler stationary AC generator, electric stove and electric clothes dryer.

      That’s my approach to energy diversity. I did much of the work myself, over time.

      The prior occupants, our renters who went back to Germany, had monthly natgas bills of $50-$160 depending on season, electric bills of $150 a month on average.

      The 20,000-gallon pool is solar heated from the panels on the roof of the house, and the diatomaceous-earth filter pump runs off a solar-panel powered Best UPS consisting of 10 AGM H7 12v batteries (now in their 11th year).

      I dread the day I have to replace those H7s. Maybe I get a discount for buying them in bulk. I hope APEX batteries has a good deal going on at that time.

      My take on all this is, “Let’s utilize all the energy resources we have to make the cost to the consumer as low as possible.”

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      There are alternative theories on oil production. Biotic or biogenic i.e. organic and abiotic/abiogenic or non-organic. Scientists say that there is evidence of abiotic/abiogenic oil formation but not in sufficient quantities to be viewed as viable/credible oil source. Most see it in the same light as the earth being flat.

      Oil seeping into wells is highly probable. We tend to view everything through our finite life cycles. Oil production occurs over millions of years and that process is still ongoing.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Not in disagreement highdesertcat. I did a research paper on Alternate Sources of Energy years ago and I was in the oil industry for years. I don’t think it is wise to not use all sources of energy including coal but eventually technology will find much better choices. Kentucky Utilities has mini power plants at landfills using the methane gas off of the rotting garbage that feeds into their energy grid. Many of these things are simple and do not cost a fortune to develop. It takes time to develop technology into affordable and practical. The very computer, tablet, or smart phone that most of us use was at one time impractical and not affordable. The replacement of oil will not happen overnight but will take years but I seriously doubt it will take 200 years. Global population has been growing and cities are become bigger and more congested. Even China has been developing cleaner sources of energy. I doubt most of us want to go back to pre-pollution standards but there is always the cost to consider as well.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, that explains your insightful comments. I’m pretty much a “live for the here and now” kinda guy and I certainly enjoy the modern conveniences.

      I also believe that if there is money to be made, industry or entrepreneurs will find a way to make all that new tech profitable for them.

      My objection is to being forced to pay for government-subsidized projects like solar, wind, and whatnot, without being able to derive any use from them.

      And my electric rates have more than tripled over the past 6 years.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I do think the automobile companies will still develop more efficient vehicles. Recently there was an article on this site about Ford developing carbon fiber as alternative to steel for frames. There was also an article on this site about Ford using more hybrid power trains on future vehicles. Some of this technology like hybrid power is nothing new but has been developed over years and has become more efficient and less costly. Locomotives have had some form of diesel hybrid for over 50 years and Toyota has had a hybrid gasoline system on the Prius for almost 20 years.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–We all have to live for today, none of us know how long we will be alive. Having said that the technology that I have seen over our live times has been revolutionary. As with all changes some has been good and some bad but nevertheless there will always be something new. Think about something as simple as the microwave oven or the transistor radio which many of us bought as kids during the 50’s and 60’s. The polio vaccine was significant in that it wiped out polio. Computers have significantly changed the way most of us work. When I started out in the workforce in the 70’s I would update journals and ledgers by hand and the few computer records that I would keep would be ones that I would write down on a sheet that would be input by computer coders and run on a tape and printed on dot matrix printers. The computer programmers were behind a glass wall wearing ties and operating in a large room with large computer systems. I now keep electronic records on a laptop and use excel spreadsheets. There still are computer programmers and main frame computers but now I can input my own information and save it as an electronic records all teleworking from my home. I can even conduct meetings and share information on my computer screen. The advent of 3D printers is another big one where an aircraft part, auto part, etc. can be made. Jay Leno has a 3D printer which he has used to make molds of rare auto parts that he has manufactured on some of his auto collection. Even living in the present we will still experience significant changes in all of our lives in the future and many of those changes are occurring now. It was during the turn of the 20th Century when many believed that the Patent Office should be closed because there could not possibly be anymore new inventions.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      There has never been any human environment as heavenly as those big, bright mainframe sancta sanctorum with their deathless, hypnotic sursurrations of priority-1 air-conditioning.

      Let the rest of the hospital, bank, office building or whatever go as hot and clammy as Trump’s palms from whatever mishap, those central system rooms were inviolable.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, I like what tech has done for me. Overall, change has been good for me because I didn’t fight it.

      As changes came about, I adjusted to make change work for me, or find a way to circumvent it. As when the trend was to smaller gas engines, I opted to buy the biggest V8s I could afford, like the V8s in our Sequoia and Tundra. Size matters – I don’t care about the price of gas, or mpg, or green-crap. I know what I like.

      But since national politics has an indelible effect on cars, trucks, even lawn mowers and chain saws, I am a lot more careful in what I embrace there. For instance, the EPA was established with the best of intentions at a time before the green-weenie eco-freak alarmists had taken over the government, like during the last administration.

      So now my sentiment re the EPA, the government, the IRS, etc is, pare back, pare back. Close agencies that are irrelevant or redundant.

      I sure hope that Trump can keep the promises he made to the people who voted for him. That’ll get him re-elected.

      And Trump’s re-election will directly affect the US auto industry. If a ‘crat gets elected in 2020, America will go back on that same path of self-immolation that the last guy had envisioned for us.

  • avatar
    seanx37

    I would think something SMALLER than the Ranger might work. Like the size of the the 90s Ranger/S10. Cheap, stripped down. For commercial use mostly.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–Agree the prospect of paying 60k for a turbo 4 cylinder engine with less than 2 liters is not something that interest me. I like 4 cylinder engines but I don’t think they belong in heavier vehicles and I only see more mechanical issues. I did forget to mention the advent of air conditioning–that is something that I will not do without.

  • avatar
    cnate

    why would people buy what everyone else already have and seen it everywhere they go?

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • burgersandbeer: Count me in too. The latest styling has really grown on me. With NA engines and a traditional roof...
  • Moparmann: I think there are a lot of us out here that are suffering from an advancing case of “OLD”, but...
  • Moparmann: I despise no show socks, if I’m gonna wear ’em, then you gotta see ‘um!! :-)
  • Moparmann: I recently saw an ad for a remarkably immaculate ’73 Dart, and the asking price was $12K. Prices for...
  • nrd515: Whenever I think about one of these wheel falls off incidents where nobody gets hurt, I think of the all time...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber