Miss the Ford Ranger? Or the Ford Bronco? Both might be coming back.

[mmcartalk]

Due to steadily-increasing demand for 5-door SUVs at that time, Ford hasn't built a 3-door Bronco since 1996 (virtually 20 years) and dropped the compact-size Ranger pickup from the American market several years ago, as many potential buyers shunned the Ranger (and the Mazda B-Series trucks, which were simply rebadged Rangers), finding that they could get into a full-sized F-150 for not that much more money.

Well, product planners at Ford have noted a steady, if not necessarily huge, demand, for the return of both models, especially with the introduction of GM's successful new Colorado/Canyon mid-size trucks and a soon-to-be-introduced new mid-sized Toyota Tacoma, though we haven't heard anything from GM about a new 2-door Blazer/Tahoe, which was the old Bronco's chief competitor.

The last person I went truck-shopping with, BTW, (an ex-co-worker of mine), went home with a new F-150 (actually a factory-program truck, which means it was company-owned but never titled/registered). He settled for an F-150, but said that if the full-size Bronco had still been available, he would have gotten one instead. The new (proposed) Bronco would be mid-sized by today's standards, but still clearly a truck....with body on frame design.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gh-returning-bronco-ranger-production-to-u-s-

Ford Motor Co. is considering a revival of the Bronco sport utility vehicle and Ranger small pickup in the U.S., where truck demand is booming, said a person familiar with company’s plans.

The two models would be built at a Wayne, Michigan, factory that now makes small cars, said the person, who asked not to be identified discussing product plans. The move would help Ford preserve some U.S. union jobs amid contract talks. The company may assemble the Focus and C-Max in Mexico, a person familiar with the matter had said.

The return of the Ranger and Bronco, which drew unwelcome renown as O.J. Simpson’s getaway car two decades ago, gives Ford key models to compete with offerings by Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. The Bronco would also bring back an iconic name that has struck a chord with young buyers despite being out of production for almost 20 years.


“It’s a good move,” John Wolkonowicz, a Boston-based independent analyst, said of reviving the SUV. “Gen Y has discovered the original Bronco. Ford has seen what the Mustang can do for them, and they are bringing back their iconic names.”

The Bronco debuted in 1966 as a rugged competitor to the Jeep CJ, now known as the Wrangler. It has become popular with millennials in southern California, said Wolkonowicz, a former product planner for Ford.

Mid-Sized SUV
The new Bronco will be a mid-sized SUV, like the Explorer, the person said. It will be built on a pickup frame, making it tougher than the Explorer, according to the person.

“The only way this makes sense is if it is more rugged and likely targeted at Jeep,” said Jeff Schuster, an analyst at consultant LMC Automotive in Southfield, Michigan.

Ford made its last Bronco in 1996 and ended Ranger production in 2011.

The Ranger may also find new buyers for the Dearborn, Michigan-based company, Wolkonowicz said. GM and Ford both killed off their smaller pickups in the past decade as gasoline prices hurt truck sales. Late last year, GM brought back the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon as mid-sized pickups. The automaker sold more than 66,000 of the two models this year through July, while also increasing deliveries of its Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra large pickups.

Ford “never should have gotten rid of Ranger in the first place,” Wolkonowicz said. “GM proved there is a buyer for them.”

Mid-sized pickups such as the Toyota Tacoma have been big business in the U.S. for a long time. Toyota sold about 155,000 Tacomas in 2014, while Nissan Motor Co. sold 74,000 of the Frontier. This year through July, deliveries totaled about 106,000 for the Tacoma and almost 39,000 for the Frontier.

Union Jobs
For Ford, bringing back the Bronco and Ranger would also secure jobs for the United Auto Workers union, which is in talks for a new contract to replace one that expires next month.

“We will move production of the next-generation Ford Focus and C-Max, which currently are built at Michigan Assembly Plant, beginning in 2018,” Kristina Adamski, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement. “We actively are pursuing future vehicle alternatives to produce at Michigan Assembly and will discuss this issue with UAW leadership as part of the negotiations.”

She declined to comment on future products for the factory. Brian Rothenberg, a spokesman for the Detroit-based UAW, declined to comment on the negotiations.

The Detroit News reported earlier on the Ranger plans.


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/08/27/ford-planning-for-new-small-pickup-in-us/

Ford is making plans for a return to the small pickup truck market in the U.S. with a new version of the Ranger.

The company is negotiating with the United Auto Workers about making the truck at a factory in the Detroit suburb of Wayne, Michigan, a person briefed on the matter said Wednesday. A new small SUV that may be called the Bronco also is under discussion, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the talks are part of national contract negotiations and no agreement has been reached.

The Wayne factory, which Ford calls the Michigan Assembly Plant, employs more than 4,400 workers. The 5-million-square-foot facility now makes the Focus compact and C-Max gas-electric hybrid. Ford is expected to move those products to a lower-cost factory in Mexico in 2018, but has yet to confirm the move.

Yee haw! The Ford Bronco turns 50

"We actively are pursuing future vehicle alternatives to produce at Michigan Assembly and will discuss this issue with UAW leadership as part of the upcoming negotiations," spokeswoman Kristina Adamski said Wednesday in a statement.

The UAW opened contract talks with all three Detroit-area automakers last month. The contracts expire Sept. 14.


In the 1990s, Americans bought more than 1 million small pickups every year, attracted by their lower prices, reasonable gas mileage and ability to haul light loads. Sales tumbled when bigger pickups, such as the Ford F-150, caught up in fuel economy.

Ford got out of the small pickup market in the U.S. in 2011, followed by General Motors in 2012. But GM has returned to the market, selling nearly 88,000 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon models this year. Through July, small pickup sales are up 62 percent to more than 211,000, according to Autodata Corp.

The smaller trucks, which are more efficient that full-size pickups, could help GM and Ford meet government fuel economy requirements. New light vehicles must average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 under the standards.

Ford says it's negotiating on a vehicle for the Wayne plant but wouldn't talk about future products.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ford-bronco-could-be-set-for-a-return-2015-8


In its heyday, the Ford Bronco was one of the most popular and iconic off-roaders in the world.

Now it looks like the big SUV may be about to make a comeback.

According to Bloomberg's Keith Naughton and David Welch, a source familiar with Ford's product planning said that the company is considering the revival of the Bronco SUV.

According to the source, the new Bronco will likely be a midsize affair comparable in size to Ford's popular Explorer.

However, unlike the Explorer — which is now a crossover — the Bronco will be based on a midsize pickup truck.

There's just one problem: Ford currently does not offer a midsize pickup in the US.

That's where the Ranger comes into play. According to Michael Martinez of The Detroit News, sources within Ford say that the Ranger pickup could return to the US market as early as 2018.

(This means the new Bronco will be more akin to the Ranger-based Bronco II, which Ford sold during the late 1980s.)

From the early 1980s until 2011, the Ranger was a well-regarded compact pickup that sold very well in the US.

Unlike previous iterations of the Ranger, the upcoming edition will be a midsize truck poised to compete against General Motors' recently revived Canyon/Colorado.

Although the Ranger name may be defunct in the US market, Ford has been selling a midsize truck overseas using the name for nearly 20 years.

Ford, like many others, abandoned the compact pickup-truck market during the late 2000s, when growth in the segment slowed, and instead focused on the development of more profitable larger trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. However, with the recent return of the GM duo and a revamped Toyota Tacoma, there is new life in the once dormant segment — albeit with slightly larger vehicles.

FordFord Ranger sold outside the US.

The Bronco was Ford's flagship SUV from the late 1960s until it was canceled in 1996 and replaced with the Expedition. With four doors instead of two, Ford believed the Expedition would be better positioned to directly compete against GM's full-size Tahoe and Suburban models.

For many, the Bronco will be forever linked to the role it played in the saga of involving former football star OJ Simpson in 1994. Days after the murder of his ex-wife, Simpson took a convoy of LAPD patrol cars on a low-speed chase across Los Angeles in a white Ford Bronco.

According to both Bloomberg and The Detroit News, the new Bronco and Ranger will likely be built at Ford's plant in Wayne, Michigan.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ford-bronco-could-be-set-for-a-return-2015-8#ixzz3k3lFbske

 

[CIF]

Well, product planners at Ford have noted a steady, if not necessarily huge, demand, for the return of both models, especially with the introduction of GM's successful new Colorado/Canyon mid-size trucks and a soon-to-be-introduced new mid-sized Toyota Tacoma, though we haven't heard anything from GM about a new 2-door Blazer/Tahoe, which was the old Bronco's chief competitor.

Really Ford? You just figured this out now?

I'm not even a Ford fan, but as a general auto enthusiast I have observed for a long, LONG time, the HUGE popularity of used Broncos and used Rangers. Not to mention hearing directly from Ford fans, as far back as 10 years ago, that they were pleading to Ford to make a next-gen Ranger and Bronco. So Ford fans have been asking for these products easily for over a decade. Yet Ford only realized this now?

In this situation, I have absolutely zero sympathy for Ford. This is just sheer incompetence at a very high level.

 

[mmcartalk]

Really Ford? You just figured this out now?

I'm not even a Ford fan, but as a general auto enthusiast I have observed for a long, LONG time, the HUGE popularity of used Broncos and used Rangers. Not to mention hearing directly from Ford fans, as far back as 10 years ago, that they were pleading to Ford to make a next-gen Ranger and Bronco. So Ford fans have been asking for these products easily for over a decade. Yet Ford only realized this now?

In this situation, I have absolutely zero sympathy for Ford. This is just sheer incompetence at a very high level.

From what I understand (and, to be clear, I'm not necessarily defending those decisions), the Ranger was dropped in the U.S. because, while perhaps popular as a used vehicle, it wasn't selling that well new, since it was apparently) priced too close to the F-150. Of course, maybe Ford could have dropped the Ranger's price, but the Ranger didn't have quite the same profit margin the big F-150 did...one of the largest in the industry. The Bronco, again as I understand it, got axed because of the growing demand (at the time) for 5-door SUVs. The Explorer and Grand Cherokee were literally dominating the SUV market at that time....but many 5-door newcomers were also being added.

Over at GM, we saw the same thing...but in a somewhat different scenario. In the same year (1996) the Bronco got dropped, the big GM full-size, body-on-frame, RWD V8 sedans were also dropped....to make room at the Arlington, TX plant for the rapidly-growing demand for Chevy and GMC pickups and 5-door SUVs. And the 2-door Blazer/Jimmy/Tahoe SUVs at Chevy and GMC ended up suffering the same fate as Ford's Bronco......discontinuation.

 

[mmcartalk]

In this situation, I have absolutely zero sympathy for Ford. This is just sheer incompetence at a very high level.

Incompetence or not, though, Ford did manage to avoid a formal bankruptcy and buyouts from government, UAW, and foreign companies, where GM and Chrysler did not. Of course, a lot of Ford employees lost their jobs at least temporarily, if not permanently, during the corporation's struggle to avoid bankruptcy.

As I indicated above, though, maybe (?) the Ranger could have stayed in the U.S., and not been dropped, if Ford had merely dropped the price a little to separate it from the larger F-150.....though, as I'll point out in a second, it would have been a risk. Or, conversely, raised the F-150's price, since was already selling like hotcakes and does every year)....but Ford was already making enormous profits on most F-150s. The base Ranger, however, was just that, base in every sense of the word....a standard small work-truck with no frills, and there probably wasn't much Ford could actually remove from it to lower the price and still make it street-legal by DOT/EPA standards. Otherwise, simply lowering the Ranger's price, without decontenting, would have hurt profitability at a time when Ford sorely needed cash. So, while I agree with you that some of what Ford did with the last Ranger and Bronco was questionable at best, I'm not going to toss any stones at them for the decision....they were facing some tough times

An interesting question, though, which the article does not speculate on, is if a new line of Mazda B-series trucks would come back with an all-new Ranger. The last B-series was dropped from the U.S. market from poor sales, a few years before the Ranger was dropped. Decades ago, back in the 80s and early 90s, Mazda sold their own B-series here, which were fairly popular, and won several J.D. Power awards for them. Then Ford got more control of Mazda, and replaced the nice Mazda-designed trucks with rebadged Rangers, also adding the 2-door-Explorer-Sport-rebadge Mazda Navajo SUV. Later, of course, Mazda sold the Tribute, a Ford-Escape rebadge....it was, IMO, the best of the Mazda Ford-rebadged trucks/SUVs.

 

[Och]

An interesting question, though, which the article does not speculate on, is if a new line of Mazda B-series trucks would come back with an all-new Ranger. The last B-series was dropped from the U.S. market from poor sales, a few years before the Ranger was dropped. Decades ago, back in the 80s and early 90s, Mazda sold their own B-series here, which were fairly popular, and won several J.D. Power awards for them. Then Ford got more control of Mazda, and replaced the nice Mazda-designed trucks with rebadged Rangers, also adding the 2-door-Explorer-Sport-rebadge Mazda Navajo SUV. Later, of course, Mazda sold the Tribute, a Ford-Escape rebadge....it was, IMO, the best of the Mazda Ford-rebadged trucks/SUVs.

I never knew Mazda ever had their own B-series, I thought they were always rebadged Rangers.

I just looked it up, and it turns out that decades ago not only Mazda had its own B-series, but it was also rebadged and sold as Ford Courier before Ranger was introduced in the US.

 

[mmcartalk]

I never knew Mazda ever had their own B-series, I thought they were always rebadged Rangers.

I just looked it up, and it turns out that decades ago not only Mazda had its own B-series, but it was also rebadged and sold as Ford Courier before Ranger was introduced in the US.

Yes, in the 1980s and early 90s, Mazda sold its own line of Japanese-designed/built trucks (I remember them well, as I drove Mazda cars throughout much of the mid-80s to mid-90s). Here's a shot of a 4WD version:

Later, of course, they were replaced with rebadged Ford Rangers. Here's an example below:

....and, below, a 70s-vintage Ford Courier, which (as you correctly note) was a Mazda design rebadged as a Ford....the opposite of what happened in the 90s.

 

[Och]

I believe right now the most popular small pick-up is the Nissan Frontier. In mid 2000's I worked for a company that had two Frontiers. Certainly not redneck status symbols like the Ford F series, but very practical for running work errands. Nissan and Ford also both introduced very practical compact cargo vans - the Ford Transit Express and Nissan NV200. If Ford brings back the Ranger it should do very well.

 

[Tragic Bronson]

I won't throw Ford under the bus because they make some cool cars now (Mustang, ST models)...but a new Ranger for the US market was as much long overdue as an all-new Tacoma. They kept drinking the F150 kool-aid for too long and now GM and RAM are pushing back in the full-size market.

 

[CIF]

Tragic Bronson hit the bullseye.

Everything you stated mmcartalk is something I'm aware, and certainly relevant, however it doesn't change my opinion here. The only reason Ford didn't need a bailout was because they were still making massive profits off the F-Series (being the best selling trucks in North America), combined with the fact that GM and Chrysler were more mismanaged at the time than Ford was.

The Ranger not selling as well as the F-Series...not being as profitable...these are all weak excuses for not offering a new generation Ranger 10 years ago, when there was very clear demand for it. Ford was naive to think Ranger sales ever would have come close to F-Series sales, and to be disappointed by the reality they wouldn't be close. It was a highly unrealistic viewpoint to begin with. I fully agree with Tragic Bronson here. Ford drank the F-150 kool-aid too long, and that's why they're in this situation now. Same thing as Ford becoming too attached with the Explorer at the time, and completely ignoring owners and fans who wanted a next-gen Bronco. Ignoring an entire market segment because it's not as profitable as your company's top cash cow is silly IMHO.

GM doesn't get a pass either. They forgot and ignored all the owners and fans of the Jimmy and Blazer, because GM all that time was too busy drinking the full-size SUV kool-aid.

Compare this to Toyota. They've offered the Tacoma in North America continuously since 1995 (and for many years before that, the Toyota Pickup, a rebadged Hilux).

Who has been the biggest winner here due to the incompetence of GM and Ford, other than Toyota? Chrysler with Jeep. Jeep has really taken by storm, the market for cool 2-door rugged crossovers and SUVs. It's not even a contest. At present day, when most people think 2-door rugged SUV, they almost automatically think Jeep. Combined Wrangler sales for July 2015 in the US were almost 20K. That's astounding if you think about it.

 

[Tragic Bronson]

Tragic Bronson hit the bullseye.

Everything you stated mmcartalk is something I'm aware, and certainly relevant, however it doesn't change my opinion here. The only reason Ford didn't need a bailout was because they were still making massive profits off the F-Series (being the best selling trucks in North America), combined with the fact that GM and Chrysler were more mismanaged at the time than Ford was.

The Ranger not selling as well as the F-Series...not being as profitable...these are all weak excuses for not offering a new generation Ranger 10 years ago, when there was very clear demand for it. Ford was naive to think Ranger sales ever would have come close to F-Series sales, and to be disappointed by the reality they wouldn't be close. It was a highly unrealistic viewpoint to begin with. I fully agree with Tragic Bronson here. Ford drank the F-150 kool-aid too long, and that's why they're in this situation now. Same thing as Ford becoming too attached with the Explorer at the time, and completely ignoring owners and fans who wanted a next-gen Bronco. Ignoring an entire market segment because it's not as profitable as your company's top cash cow is silly IMHO.

GM doesn't get a pass either. They forgot and ignored all the owners and fans of the Jimmy and Blazer, because GM all that time was too busy drinking the full-size SUV kool-aid.

Compare this to Toyota. They've offered the Tacoma in North America continuously since 1995 (and for many years before that, the Toyota Pickup, a rebadged Hilux).

If the rumor is true about the Bronco, they need this:

not this:

The fact that Jeep Wranglers are still strong sellers means there is a place for true off-road vehicles, much like how 4Runners have seen a recent resurgence (I thought the new ones were somewhat uglier, but I find myself wanting one). Perhaps Toyota should reconsider a second FJ generation or something to that extent, since the market is still good for vehicles like that in the Middle East, where most of the world's supply of Land Cruisers are sold.

That Kool-Aid cost Ford the chance to beat GM's twins to the market...Toyota stuck with it all throughout, even if the Taco was little long in the tooth because of a lack of better competition besides the Frontier.

 

[mmcartalk]

If the rumor is true about the Bronco, they need this:

I understand what you're saying from a size/simplicity point of view, but I think we both can agree that producing something like that, or a modern version of it, even in today's electronic age of traction/stability aids, would be quite difficult in meeting today's safety, roll-over and center-of-gravity issues. The original Bronco of the mid-60s, like the Jeep CJ-5, the original Toyota Land Cruiser, and the Suzuki Samurai, was a flip-over just waiting to happen.

not this:

The 90s vintage Broncos were true off-roaders from a chassis/drivetrain standpoint, but I agree they were too big and unwieldy to go the same places as Wranglers could.

The fact that Jeep Wranglers are still strong sellers means there is a place for true off-road vehicles,

Polls show that only 4-5% of average SUV powers actually go off-road (oddly, many of their insurance policies don't cover off-road use)...but the Wrangler is a clear exception. From 25% to 40% (maybe even more, depending on the poll) of Wrangler owners have gone off-road with their vehicles or will do so. This shows, IMO, that what works for the Wrangler doesn't necessarily work for some of its competitors.

Toyota stuck with it all throughout, even if the Taco was little long in the tooth because of a lack of better competition besides the Frontier.

........and Suzuki took away another admittedly slow-selling competitor (the Equator, a rebadged and decontented Frontier), when they packed up and left the American market.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the Kool-Aid argument, though, at least with the Ranger. Sales seemed to lag with the previous Ranger, not necessarily because buyers or Ford itself was that enthralled with the F-150 and its huge sales numbers (though it indeed was profitable), but because a number of buyers decided that the difference in size and hauling/towing capacity between the F-50 and Ranger was worth the small difference in price. (presumably that would also be the case for the Ranger's rebadged Mazda B-series cousins).[/QUOTE]

 

[mmcartalk]

.

Everything you stated mmcartalk is something I'm aware, and certainly relevant, however it doesn't change my opinion here.

Your opinion is also quite relevant, and I respect it...I wasn't trying to change it.

The only reason Ford didn't need a bailout was because they were still making massive profits off the F-Series (being the best selling trucks in North America), combined with the fact that GM and Chrysler were more mismanaged at the time than Ford was.

The Silverado and Ram were (and still are) also big money-makers for GM and Chrysler. The difference was (and I think you are onto something here) was that Ford was simply managed better....GM and Chrysler didn't have someone of Mulally's aptitude running them, and Mary Barra had not yet risen to the top.

The Ranger not selling as well as the F-Series...not being as profitable...these are all weak excuses for not offering a new generation Ranger 10 years ago, when there was very clear demand for it. Ford was naive to think Ranger sales ever would have come close to F-Series sales, and to be disappointed by the reality they wouldn't be close. It was a highly unrealistic viewpoint to begin with. I fully agree with Tragic Bronson here. Ford drank the F-150 kool-aid too long, and that's why they're in this situation now.

Like I replied in a earlier post, though, was the Kool-Aid actually at Ford or with the F-150's buyers? They were the ones that decided that the Ranger was priced too close to the F-150 (and, as you note, also probably too far out of date).

Same thing as Ford becoming too attached with the Explorer at the time, and completely ignoring owners and fans who wanted a next-gen Bronco. Ignoring an entire market segment because it's not as profitable as your company's top cash cow is silly IMHO.

The early Explorers had far worse issues than that. Ford stuck with an ancient 60s-vintage Twin-I-beam front suspension, poorly-designed Firestone Wilderness tires, too-low-recommended inflation pressures, and (probable) owner-neglect in tire-inspections and PSIs. The result was a disaster.

GM doesn't get a pass either. They forgot and ignored all the owners and fans of the Jimmy and Blazer, because GM all that time was too busy drinking the full-size SUV kook-aid.

I agree that that the Blazer/Jimmy fans were ignored (as were fans of the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood) to make room in the plants for added production of full-size pickups and bigger, 5-door SUVs, which, at the time, were rapidly increasing in demand. But was that GM's fault that buyers wanted those type of vehicle? The economy was booming, we had cheap gas under $2, and a lot of people weren't overly concerned with vehicle size, power, or gas consumption.

Who has been the biggest winner here due to the incompetence of GM and Ford, other than Toyota? Chrysler with Jeep. Jeep has really taken by storm, the market for cool 2-door rugged crossovers and SUVs. It's not even a contest. At present day, when most people think 2-door rugged SUV, they almost automatically think Jeep. Combined Wrangler sales for July 2015 in the US were almost 20K. That's astounding if you think about it.

Even at Jeep, the real winner is not necessarily the Wrangler (which has always been popular off-road) but the plush and impressive Grand Cherokee. The 2011 redesign completely transformed it, making it light-years ahead of its predecessor in smoothness, drivetrain, refinement, comfort, interior trim and power. (if you have not already done so, take one out on a test-drive, and you'll see what I mean). Unfortunately, some reliability problems still remain....quality has not been consistent with them across the board.

 

[mikeavelli]

Makes sense...a big Bronco could sell and be super profitable...

I read an article recently saying "where are the cheap trucks"....Ford could be on to something.

 

[mmcartalk]

Makes sense...a big Bronco could sell and be super profitable...

As far as the term "big" goes, though, Ford's current Bronco plan seem to be for a 2-door mid-sized SUV (perhaps something along the lines of the last Chevy/GMC Blazer/Jimmy), not a larger 2-door F-150-based product.

I'm not sure if you remember them or not (I do), but, several decades ago, Chrysler used to have a couple of 2-door full-size rebadged twin-competitors, too...the Plymouth Trail Duster and Dodge Ramcharger. One of my former colleagues had a 4X4 Trail Duster, and used it for some off-road projects (I went with him on a couple of them).

 

[CIF]

Your opinion is also quite relevant, and I respect it...I wasn't trying to change it.

The Silverado and Ram were (and still are) also big money-makers for GM and Chrysler. The difference was (and I think you are onto something here) was that Ford was simply managed better....GM and Chrysler didn't have someone of Mulally's aptitude running them, and Mary Barra had not yet risen to the top.

Like I replied in a earlier post, though, was the Kool-Aid actually at Ford or with the F-150's buyers? They were the ones that decided that the Ranger was priced too close to the F-150 (and, as you note, also probably too far out of date).

The early Explorers had far worse issues than that. Ford stuck with an ancient 60s-vintage Twin-I-beam front suspension, poorly-designed Firestone Wilderness tires, too-low-recommended inflation pressures, and (probable) owner-neglect in tire-inspections and PSIs. The result was a disaster.

I agree that that the Blazer/Jimmy fans were ignored (as were fans of the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood) to make room in the plants for added production of full-size pickups and bigger, 5-door SUVs, which, at the time, were rapidly increasing in demand. But was that GM's fault that buyers wanted those type of vehicle? The economy was booming, we had cheap gas under $2, and a lot of people weren't overly concerned with vehicle size, power, or gas consumption.

Even at Jeep, the real winner is not necessarily the Wrangler (which has always been popular off-road) but the plush and impressive Grand Cherokee. The 2011 redesign completely transformed it, making it light-years ahead of its predecessor in smoothness, drivetrain, refinement, comfort, interior trim and power. (if you have not already done so, take one out on a test-drive, and you'll see what I mean). Unfortunately, some reliability problems still remain....quality has not been consistent with them across the board.

I still pin most of the problem on Ford, than the buyers. A combination of Ford being too greedy with Ranger pricing, not investing enough in updates, and getting complacent with all the high-profit F-Series sales. Toyota stuck through it, even when the market was weak, and midsize trucks weren't making headlines like they are now. That's the difference. When you stick through it with consistent product year in and year out, that's the sort of commitment that makes for a market leader, not a market loser.

My point about the Explorer was that it was very popular at the time, before the scandal. Another example of Ford putting a lot of their eggs in one or two baskets.

Regarding GM, same thing as what I said about Ford.

I've driven the new Grand Cherokee actually. I will agree they've improved overall material quality and refinement. Quality-wise, they still have problems. Lately the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee keep popping up in new recalls from FCA, and I'm not surprised. Quality was bad before, and now merged with Fiat, I expect Chrysler quality to stay bad.

 

[IS-SV]

I still pin most of the problem on Ford, than the buyers. A combination of Ford being too greedy with Ranger pricing, not investing enough in updates, and getting complacent with all the high-profit F-Series sales. Toyota stuck through it, even when the market was weak, and midsize trucks weren't making headlines like they are now. That's the difference. When you stick through it with consistent product year in and year out, that's the sort of commitment that makes for a market leader, not a market loser.

Agreed. Ford claiming to be a full line major automaker should have (Ranger or whatever they want to call it) mid-sized truck now.

 

[mmcartalk]

Agreed. Ford claiming to be a full line major automaker should have (Ranger or whatever they want to call it) mid-sized truck now.

The Toyota Tacoma has always been a credible competitor, but, with the unimpressive and poorly-done last-generation mid-size trucks from GM, and the Ranger's own lack of sales compared to the F-150, Ford probably didn't feel a strong need to keep it on the market to compete with the GM trucks. Now that we have good, credible mid-size trucks from GM, I think there will be some pressure on Ford to come back and join the club.

 

[IS-SV]

The Toyota Tacoma has always been a credible competitor, but, with the unimpressive and poorly-done last-generation mid-size trucks from GM, and the Ranger's own lack of sales compared to the F-150, Ford probably didn't feel a strong need to keep it on the market to compete with the GM trucks. Now that we have good, credible mid-size trucks from GM, I think there will be some pressure on Ford to come back and join the club.

Exactly the point, just lame excuses and examples of reacting (due to feeling the "pressure") rather than taking leadership position in automotive industry and showing some vision. No wonder (weak) profitability is also not industry-leading too.

 

[mmcartalk]

Exactly the point, just lame excuses and examples of reacting (due to feeling the "pressure") rather than taking leadership position in automotive industry. No wonder profitability is also not industry-leading too.

Low fuel prices, right now, are also helping with truck sales, although the Ranger couldn't really be included among the most fuel-guzzlers.

Strictly my opinion here (not necessarily fact)...but, just as the Dodge engineers, with the last major redesign of the Ram, gave that truck unprecedented ride-comfort/noise-isolation/refinement among full-size trucks, I think Ford engineers would be wise to do the same for the new Ranger. The last Ranger (and this may have also impacted its sales somewhat) was rather uncomfortable to drive and/or ride in. The Ram's driving manners have really helped with its image and sales, and would probably also do the same for the Ranger among mid-sizers. While many truck buyers today, especially the more traditional ones, are still more concerned with the capability to work or tow than with driving/riding comfort, an increasing number are demanding more civilized road manners. Ford acknowledged this with the new aluminum-body F-150, and, to an extent, delivered, though its level of refinement still doesn't quite match the Ram's.

 

[IS-SV]

Low fuel prices, right now, are also helping with truck sales, although the Ranger couldn't really be included among the most fuel-guzzlers.

.

Which is why Ford should be in this segment now. Sales aren't dependent on high (or low) fuel prices. Mid-sized trucks are preferred by many buyers and Toyota and GM have enjoyed significant sales even if not of the massive sales of F150.