Quoting @Caddyman “Few realize there is a 25% duty on all imported trucks…”
Of course that doesn’t apply to trucks built in Mexico or Canada due to NAFTA.
Ford’s little Transit Connect is imported from Turkey or Croatia as a passenger car, and then modified by removal of the rear seats and windows at a cost of about $100 per vehicle. Ford supposedly saves several hundred dollars in avoided duty on each one doing it that way. I assume the unused seats and glass are sent back to their factories for “recycling”.
In its last few years the Ranger was an antique with little safety gear and few creature comforts. It sold poorly because it was so badly out of date. From the late seventies to the nineties small pickups were a steady market. They cost little to engineer, make, or sell in the US since similar small worktrucks sell worldwide. One of the companies that sells a cheap pickup elsewhere should try it here. VW makes a popular one, though it’s hard to see how it would fit in with the VW premium image. Maybe sell it as a Skoda or Seat, brands unknown to the US. Set up Skoda to sell trucks, vans, crossovers, and practical family vehicles. Most of them market segments VW has struggled with
Yes, and it’s a shame. I don’t know why Ford didn’t keep them up to date. Maybe the profit margins were so low that they felt they couldn’t afford to invest in retooling, etc. With that kind of neglect, the Ranger’s demise was a self-inflicted wound.
Pickup trucks needing new features to be up to date? My 40+ year old Ford truck has pretty much all the functionality I need. A pickup truck is a utility vehicle, so as long as it does its basic function, its hard to imagine what else it should do. It’s got to be tough and have enough power for the job. But my 40 year old truck has that. I can’t imagine needing much else. The only improvement I’d actually want on the 40 year old truck is a little better mpg and front disc brakes instead of drums. I assume the modern Ford Ranger already has those features. So I’m wondering what other improvement buyers are looking for in pickup trucks that the Ford Ranger didn’t have?
A large percentage of people who buy pickups don’t use them for utility purposes
They use them as their daily drivers, to look like king of the road, or to make themselves feel better, etc.
Now that we’ve established that, it’s clear that pickups have to appeal not only to you, but also to people that simply want to use them as a form of daily transportation
And that is where the Ranger failed, in its later years, in my opinion
Yes, you are right dB. If every driver was like me, there’d be nothing but 40 year old trucks on the road and all the truck manufacturers would be out of business, as there’d be no buyers. Good thing most folks aren’t satisfied with their 40 year old truck.
The truck is no longer a utility vehicle in the sense that it is one dimensional, utility only. They are used for commuting and like cars, are expected to fill multiple roles. That’s why crew cabs are so popular, even at the expense of long beds. The short bed with standard cab is so unpopular with the average, non delivery use, it isn’t even sold here by some manufacturers. Utility in a truck ? You can rightfully say if it hasn’t taken a back seat but it has at least had to be compromised.
That’s why the Ranger cannot comeback and repeat. Back up cameras, sound systems , power lumbar, quite interiors, leather appointments, heated seats, cup holders galor etc. All indicate the truck isn’t for carrying a pile of rocks alone. And, economy is now a major selling point making both Toyota and GMC/Chevy rethink The mid trucks and start selling more of them as f150 and Silverado buyers down size as drivers get older and “wiser”.
The modern pickup has evolved into what disappeared from the market when Ford ceased production of the Crown Vic, and that’s a V8 powered full framed sedan/luxury vehicle. If you look at the pickups in most employee parking lots, you will see pristene beds, without so much as a mark on them.
I think @DrRocket is some what correct. The proliferation of crew cab models has skyrocketed of late. It is also the male answer to the minivan. I know my son in law is tired of being badgered by his friends about driving a minivan while they drive SUVs and crew cabs. These are all adaptations of the truck. Now, you can have a vehicle that will carry 5 people, luggage in back and tow a big trailer or boat. It’s mr do everything. When I bought a truck a month ago, my wife kept campaigning we get the crew cap for “me”. She being more social, wanted it for her. I held my ground and got a smaller access cab and a real truck with a larger for midsize, 6 foot bed. I said to her, “if you want a big crew cab,sell your sedan and get your own truck” So yes, I agree it’s replacing a lot of vehicles, including the Crown Vic. But, on the police side, the SUV is too.
Trucks are also Mr. Dangerous to the rest of us and a way that manufacturers get to duck a lot of federal standards. A Crown Vic, as a car, had to meet CAFE standards for fuel mileage about 30% tougher than the truck standard, and had to have bumpers and crumple zones up to certain levels of protection. Not true for “trucks”. Your SUV does not have to meet those standards either. And a truck over 6,000 pounds is treated much differently for tax purposes because it’s assumed to be a business tool. The height and weight of a standard pickup makes it into a lethal weapon against a regular car, because cars impact resistance and crumple zones are set up to deal with other cars. When a truck or SUV hits a car, it hits it higher, and inflicts a lot more dangerous damage.
I agree that the modern pickup is the manufacturer’s substitute for the old large family sedan that carried 6, and could pull a small trailer. They created it because of federal standards that made a similar car too expensive to build. Just remember that the new truck does not have all the safety gear a car has, gets worse mileage, and threatens the lives of all the car drivers around.
Ford did not think an update would repay the investment since their Ranger sales were poor to begin with. It’s just like manual transmissions. Few enough people wanted them to justify the extra expense of making them available.
It’s a chicken and egg thing. Toyota Tacomas cost more and yet outsold the Ranger (despite the dark years of frame rot) and presumably made profits for Toyota. If Ford had made the Ranger a better truck, it could have been profitable for them, too.
In rural Mexico, there are zillions of older Rangers. This is because for a long time pickups below a certain size could be imported by Mexicans if used “for agricultural purposes”.
All replacement parts can be obtained. Also, they can fabricate many parts, and can fix body damage at very low cost.
My BIL wanted one some years ago. We looked, but one had to be north of Oklahoma to find one below the Mexican price, since everyone knew the Mexicans wanted them.
@wentwest
Exactly…and today’s trucks are like yesterday’s cars as far as safety and fuel economy. Trucks though are rightfully exempt from a lot of “car” restrictions thought they still have to take crash tests. If you require the humble pick up truck that was used as it is supposed to be used to have all the regs of a car, it would cost twice as much. Imagine the construction of anenegy absorbing bumper if it had to perform adequately while carrying a full load of fire wood. Frame construction necessary for a lot of what a truck does, gets “in the way” .Neither does it handle safely at speeds over 65 mph compared to a car…heck, it arguably doesn’t handle safely as we would like at speeds over 45 mph.
Still, it has found it’s way into the car market by offering car features with out the requirements. Notice too that the Crown Vic has left the scene. It’s just too inefficient space and operation wise…so trucks rule whether we like it or not…as quasi cars for the red necks. (We red necks)
@jesmed1
It’s called marketing. The Tacoma takes sales from the Tundra as Toyota offers trucks in both markets. The F150 I would argue, would not be a sales leader year after year if two things happened. First, if they offered a Ranger as well engineered as a Tacoma and secondly, if they counted GMCs and Checy trucks as the same …which in essence , they are.
GM is now marketing a revamped a Colorado and aGMC counterpart to take Tacoma on head to head as everyone sees the truck market downsizing for economy sake. Both they and eventually Tacoma will give you what you all have wanted eventually…a small intermediate diesel powered truck capable of 30 plus mpgs as mpg requirements are now more stringent for trucks as well. Just be prepared to pay as much for them as a full size truck.
Even with the Ranger available the F150 was almost always the best selling truck. I don’t think people were cross-shopping the two actively. The Ranger’s problem was the perception that the Japanese trucks were more modern. When the Ranger had been made with modest changes for decades it’s unsurprising buyers felt that way.