| 02-15-2014 05:16 PM |
| Lie2me |
"Hall of fame worthy explanation as to why the Ranger died"
Oh, absolutely not to mention world record size link
|
| 02-15-2014 04:59 PM |
| Derek Kreindler |
SexCpotatoes said Lie2me said But GM is giving them an alternative with the Colorado/Sierra. Wouldn't you think that Ford would want to keep it's smaller truck buyer in house by offering it's own alternative? Far wonkier accountants than you or I have done the math and decided that anyone who was going to spend their money with Ford should move-on-up to the F150. Pickup truck buyers are notoriously brand reliable, and while the tooling on the Ranger was probably paid off shortly after the Panther Platform, you're still looking at a compact truck that has to contend with safety concerns from YOUR full sized truck in a collision. All the major full size trucks are sold at a profit, even the stripper, single-cab, grey plastic poverty-grilled Silverado. The upmarket trucks are sold at obscene profits. There's a price/profit curve on everything. Say you start a clothing company selling T-shirts with Tommy Hilldinger brand name, you could charge $10/shirt and sell 1000 shirts and make $10k. OR you could price the shirts at $100, sell 200, and make $20k, then feel free to clearance out or destroy the remaining 800 shirts. Â* The continued profit on the Ranger models in the US wasn't enough compared to the potential profit from some/most/but not all Ranger customers moving up to the F150. Ford probably said, screw the defectors, they'll be back, even if they're pushed into the used F150 market due to price. Plus there wasn't enough take on the 2.3L Manual Ranger to help hit the nut on Fuel Economy numbers! // =a.offsetWidth&&0>=a.offsetHeight)return!1;a=this. j(a);var c=a.top.toString()+y+a.left.toString();if(this.b.h asOwnProperty(c))return!1;this.b[c]=!0;return a.top
|
| 02-14-2014 07:17 AM |
| SexCpotatoes |
Maybe GM sees the Colorado as an "entry level" truck, for people who don't need to do much more than haul a four-wheeler in the bed, etc. They might figure, they'll move up as their needs mature and they go to bigger toys like camper trailers and boats. Plus, they've already got a billionty different engines to cram into the sumbitches. (Ha-ha, remember when the Colorado had that silly 5cyl?)
But the sheer volume of Ford F150s on the used market means that it's easier to get people on the lot into a used F150 as an entry level truck. Ford/GM/Dodge are the drug manufacturers, Dealerships are the pushers.
Also, I'm glad to have fully derailed this thread into a pocket TRUCK UNIVERSE.
|
| 02-14-2014 03:04 AM |
| Lie2me |
@ SexCpotatoes, I see your point, but what do the bean counters at GM see differently that makes a smaller truck viable for them and not Ford.
|
| 02-14-2014 01:43 AM |
| SexCpotatoes |
sorry for the double post, dunno how that happened, can delete this one
|
| 02-14-2014 01:40 AM |
| SexCpotatoes |
Lie2me said But GM is giving them an alternative with the Colorado/Sierra. Wouldn't you think that Ford would want to keep it's smaller truck buyer in house by offering it's own alternative? Far wonkier accountants than you or I have done the math and decided that anyone who was going to spend their money with Ford should move-on-up to the F150. Pickup truck buyers are notoriously brand reliable, and while the tooling on the Ranger was probably paid off shortly after the Panther Platform, you're still looking at a compact truck that has to contend with safety concerns from YOUR full sized truck in a collision. All the major full size trucks are sold at a profit, even the stripper, single-cab, grey plastic poverty-grilled Silverado. The upmarket trucks are sold at obscene profits. There's a price/profit curve on everything. Say you start a clothing company selling T-shirts with Tommy Hilldinger brand name, you could charge $10/shirt and sell 1000 shirts and make $10k. OR you could price the shirts at $100, sell 200, and make $20k, then feel free to clearance out or destroy the remaining 800 shirts. The continued profit on the Ranger models in the US wasn't enough compared to the potential profit from some/most/but not all Ranger customers moving up to the F150. Ford probably said, screw the defectors, they'll be back, even if they're pushed into the used F150 market due to price. Plus there wasn't enough take on the 2.3L Manual Ranger to help hit the nut on Fuel Economy numbers!
|
| 02-13-2014 09:10 AM |
| fredtal |
I'd like to see more station wagons, or at least trunks that allow me fit bulkier stuff in.Â* I don't really want to drive a high center of gravity, gas suckcing SUV when really a nice station wagon would do me fine.Â* Maybe a decent hatchback?Â*
|
| 02-12-2014 05:15 PM |
| Lie2me |
SexCpotatoes said NO effin way @badcoffee, you can't do anything that would ever give F150 shoppers any alternative. You don't poke the profit-bear. But GM is giving them an alternative with the Colorado/Sierra. Wouldn't you think that Ford would want to keep it's smaller truck buyer in house by offering it's own alternative?
|
| 02-11-2014 08:59 AM |
| SexCpotatoes |
NO effin way @badcoffee, you can't do anything that would ever give F150 shoppers any alternative. You don't poke the profit-bear.
|
| 02-05-2014 03:15 PM |
| badcoffee |
I'd love to see the Ford Ranger on sale here. Instead of branding it as a Ranger, badge it as an Explorer Sport Trac to justify the pricing, stuff it with high margin option packages, and move a few units to the weekend warrior crowd. Discuss?
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
