It was just a matter of time before we take the worlds most abundant metal and use it for body parts. We use it for many of the the mechanical component housings. The big deal is making it economical to extract and work with. When you start getting orders for metal to be used in the body of the biggest selling vehicle in the US, at some point you have to expect it will creep into a lot of other items including compact cars if it hasn’t begun already.
I agree with you about Gas Buddy. I check it once a week when I need gas. Ther are 3 or 4 stations I might use, and Gas Buddy is usually correct about which one has the lowest prices. Oddly, itis almost always a Shell or Exxon station. Regular is $2.29 at the Exxon and $2.35 at the Shell this morning.
Just so ya all don’t feel bad, I paid $2.92 for mid grade on the Chicago toll road.
Humphrey Davy named aluminum. He spelled it as Americans do. Another British scientist suggested aluminium looked more classical, and most other elements being isolated in the early 19th century had ‘ium’ endings. In the 19th century the names were used interchangeably, with some preferring one and some the other. Eventually the UK and US each adopted their preferred spellings and away we go. The official scientific bodies recognize both as proper.
I wish Ford luck with this. I think they have a very precise idea what it will cost as there have been a number of aluminum-bodied cars. The Jaguar XJ introduced while Ford owned Jag was mostly aluminum, and that was years ago. Most automakers have relied on the expertise developed by the big aluminum companies. They’ve developed most of the fabrication techniques currently in use.
I’d love to see a true small truck again. Probably because I was in my teens in the late seventies/early eighties when they were very popular. I see no reason why one small truck couldn’t find a market if it was fairly cheap and not too crummy. Back then they were an alternative to a subcompact car, similar in price and amenities (not many.) If they could sell one starting in the low twenties, I could see it selling. They did before, and that was when full-size trucks were smaller than now. Mostly because few had back seats.
About the only way I could see a small truck becoming popular again is if they brought over some Australian Utes. They could go the retro route and rename them the Ranchero or ElCamino for US consumers.
speaking of small trucks . . . .
A relative has a Ranger as his daily driver
regular cab, short bed, vinyl seats, stick
I believe he gets slightly better than 25mpg, and it’s been a pretty reliable truck
As far as he’s concerned, it’s one of the best vehicles he’s ever owned
From what I have read, if Ford decides to sell a small truck that is not competitive with the f150, it will be a unibody design like a smaller Ridgeline.
“… if they brought over some Australian Utes”
Unfortunately the Australian auto plants are all shut down, or will be shortly.
Something along the lines of the Jeep Comanche might be okay, as long as it’s a fairly basic vehicle
Unlike the Ridgeline, which was pretty nice, and probably is far too big for somebody who’s really just looking for a small and basic truck
There is no market for a small basic pick up. For one thing, it’s been tried before, many times over by all truck manufacturers as standard cab short beds. None make them anymore that I know of. Extra and extended and crew cabs are all that is left.
Once you put a functional 6 foot bed on an extended cab, you literally have a truck that equals the size of a full size 15 years ago. No one will buy a truck you can’t tow up to 5 k to 7500 pounds in numbers worthwhile enough to make them.
Yes, some may dabble in a little unibody wannabe but even they will not be cheap with back up cameras, Bluetooth, power this and that , awd etc. as small trucks are inherently less safe. They are poor handlers with frames while unibodies limit their tooling for varied body types except for the most popular variety…the crew cab. Then…even they get big and expensive again.
A cheap Ford two place 6 foot bed Ranger could only be made with all the features that made it cheap, including a Pinto motor.
Anyone who has a compact suv pretty much has a compact trash only hauling pick up with a cap which can also serve as a family hauler. You guys who want a two place return of the Ranger are in the minority. If there were a lot of you, a Cheap pinto powered Ranger and a Brat would still be made.
Heck, NO ONE made more small trucks then Toyota and even they don’t now make a two place standard bed pick up which was before, a small, reliable, economical and a great off road vehicle. It had it all along with a cheap price and they could not sell enough here except as parts trucks .
The 2000 Ranger was the last with the Pinto motor
The 4 banger that replaced it for the final 12 years . . . ? . . . was a thoroughly modern engine
I understand all that. It was an euphemism representing the Ranger as an out dated vehicle
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Ford_Ranger/
I had an early Mazda PU which shared a Mazda based motor with an aluminum head and overhead cam waaaay back when most small pu 's were pretty much in the same boat. With whstevrr motors, sales still dropped to just over 5 k sold per month and Ford just stopped updating them. Ford just realized that more money was to be made with full size and gave away the market to Toyota. Though in many respects the early toyota trucks were just as archaic, among their followers were devoted off road enthusiasts which helped keep even this backward truck alive with it’s greater capabilities. There is the same mystique with Hard riding out out of date Jeeps that for years, kept them alive for the same reason. It literally survived by default and still has today. I would not have one of these POS Toyota trucks either if not for where I live and it’s capabilities. In it’s cheapest form, toyota trucks are all excellent off Road. The Ranger never was by comparison. That was deadly for a small truck competing with Toyota.
The small trucks of the seventies and eighties had much in common with subcompact cars of the day, including price. Even cheapo subcompact now have power locks, windows, doors, and other niceties. There is no reason similar features would make a small truck unaffordable, any more they do cars. All manufacturers make plenty of engines that would work well enough. They are also used in modestly priced cars somehow, without driving the prices up. Sure, a modern small car would have to be heavier than those of yore to provide acceptable safety, refinement, and features, but that, again, is entirely true of small cars.
Small trucks thirty years ago sold to people who would have otherwise bought a small car, not someone who might buy a full-size pickup. Some were sold as work trucks, but only to people who didn’t need to carry much. Lawn services, pool guys, etc. Some of those services have bought the Transit Connect small van the last couple of years, another vehicle many predicted no market for. It sold because it is simple and cheap and big enough for many uses. That those owners could have had a bigger, more capable van for more was unimportant as they didn’t need one. But, in my memory, most little trucks were sold to individuals who preferred a bed to a back seat. Most put shells on them. I don’t think sales will be anywhere near what they were at their peak (well over a million per year.) Ford would no doubt be happy with a pretty small fraction of that if they don’t have to develop a truck just for the US.
I agree with those who suspect it will be related to a model sold elsewhere. That cuts down on development costs and let’s them make money selling fewer. It’s also consistent with Ford’s efforts to sell true world vehicles instead of having lines for the US, Europe, and everywhere else. The Transit Connect was a well established model overseas and Ford imported them from Turkey until its redesign last year. Very little risk in that. They have taken chances on other foreign models, also, like the S-Max that failed to catch on a few years ago. The smaller C-Max, also well established elsewhere, seems to be doing better, though most I see are cabs or other fleet vehicles.
Ford will never sell a truck in the USA that competes with the F150. They
put too much developmental costs in it here. Large trucks cannot even fit on the roads world wide. I don’t feel Ford will sell the overseas Ranger here in the near future in it’s present form. It will be too expensive and still not perform as well as the new 150. Ford’s eggs are in the full size basket here as far as framed trucks are concerned . The low end transit is unibody. I feel that may be their direction in a small truck…it will then be a slow seller compared to small SUVs and the better midsize offerings from GM and Toyota coming out next year.
http://m.motoring.com.au/news/2014/car/ford/ranger/new-look-2015-ford-ranger-revealed-47812
You won’t see this here anytime soon.
Small pickups are still alive and well in South America. They have pickups from all the major companies. Many were never sold in the U.S…
Small trucks in third world countries where speeds are much less and many roads are narrow and unpaved are ideal. Passing semis on the garden state parkway is best done in bigger vehicles. You are right…many weren’t sold here and some still aren’t .
“Passing semis on the garden state parkway is best done in bigger vehicles”
If there are any semis on The Garden State Parkway, they are there illegally and will be promptly escorted off the road–and ticketed–by the NJSP.
Did you mean The NJ Turnpike?
But I always return to the question; what would the automobile market be if financing regulations limited the terms to 24 month pay offs and required 20% down? The automobile industry will give you all that you deserve at payments you can handle.
Look where the easy credit financing got US with real estate.
Look where the easy credit financing got US with real estate.
Easy credit financing had about a 5% influence into the real estate mess. Should look it up sometime.
http://www.mybudget360.com/what-caused-the-housing-crash-two-words-crushing-debt/
While the housing and credit bubbles were growing, a series of factors caused the financial system to become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. These entities were not subject to the same regulations as depository banking. Further, shadow banks were able to mask the extent of their risk taking from investors and regulators through the use of complex, off-balance sheet derivatives and securitizations.[17] Economist Gary Gorton has referred to the 2007–2008 aspects of the crisis as a “run” on the shadow banking system.[18]
The complexity of these off-balance sheet arrangements and the securities held, as well as the interconnection between larger financial institutions, made it virtually impossible to re-organize them via bankruptcy, which contributed to the need for government bailouts.[
But no one can become the victim of crushing debt unless the lenders hand over the money too easily. But yes, many Americans eagerly let themselves become the victims of easy credit. And it was the collaboration of investment banks and mortgage brokers who were the predators in the scenario. And they walked away the winners in the end.
Today cars are a big part of the credit market and certainly the used car market is so obviously outrageous
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/12/buying-cars-subprime-autos-next-financial-crisis
but when new car dealers offer the buyer 20% cash back at signing can we agree that the situation has become a scam. I am unable to get a link but my local Buick dealer advertises a cash rebate on several models. And in the minds of a great many people how can they pass up a chance to own a new car and get $5,000 in cash along with the keys.