Read the latest Ford truck news by Chad Kirchner here:

Trucks Aren't Getting Cheaper: Why We Need the Ranger - Ford Trucks

Should Ford bring the Ranger back?

 

And there needs to be a diesel option that gets 32-37MPG or better to compete with the 2016 Colorado diesel, the VW Amarok Highlights < Amarok < Models < Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles they may start selling here in the U.S. and Toyota and Nissan's diesels they are about ready to market.

 

Your article is incorrect.

Here is the exact quote:

"Our two test vehicles, an extended cab work truck with a sticker price of $23,300 and a crew cab Z71 pickup at $36,210, were the least expensive of the TOTY contestants."


Motortrend tested 2 trucks. The featured truck in the picture is the Z71 4x4 Colorado which stickers at just over $36,210.

The other tested truck priced at $23.300 was a 2x4 WT package with less equipment and a 4cyl.

 

There's two cheap ways for Ford to produce something from a development point of view

Option 1 is/was the F100 that they already developed.

If it was aluminum bodied it would weight another 750lbs less than the already aluminum F150. They could power it with the 2.0 and the 2.7 liter eco boost motors.

The result would probably be 25-29 MPG

Unfortunately this would not be any bit less expensive than the current F150 after rebates AND the fuel economy would only be marginally better.

Option 2 Make a new unibody truck using the transitconnect platform.

This option has interesting possibilities and is the most probable course Ford is going to take.

A 1.5 liter and a 2.3 liter Ecoboost motor as the options.

Probably a 2000-3500lb tow capacity. 1000-1300lb bed load capacity.

Fuel Economy would be 26MPG - 32MPG

Ford does has the 2.2 liter diesel, but the costs involved in bringing it to the US along with what it itself would cost to implement doesn't make it worth it. But it WOULD achieve 36-38 MPG in the Option 2 truck above.

 

Ford needs to bring the Ranger back so they can compete with the Canyon/Colorado. A diesel version would also be nice, especially if they want to keep pace with the industry.

Just for the heck of it, I went to the GMC site and "built my own" Canyon. I did not choose any options, and was quoted a price of $21,880 for my zipcode. The bare bones Canyon already comes with AC, power windows, power steering, power brakes, anti theft, electronic traction control and a rear view camera. I chose the cheapest configuration, that being the 2wd extended cab.

Jim

 

Those numbers aren't good enough for me to consider purchasing. (FYI, I already have a F350 Powerstroke to do my serious hauling/towing, I want a small, efficient daily driver like the Amarok 4x4)

Here is the benchmark to match or beat.

http://www.volkswagen-commercial-veh...4d2d8b4891e938

* Amarok, 2.0 l TDI engine with 103 kW, fuel consumption in l/100 km: urban from 9.3 (30.4MPG) to 8.8, extra-urban from 6.7 to 6.2 (45.6MPG), combined from 7.7 to 7.2.
** Amarok, 2.0 l BiTDI engine with 132 kW, fuel consumption in l/100 km: urban from 9.1 (31MPG) to 8.6, extra-urban from 7.2 to 6.7 (42.2MPG), combined from 7.9 to 6.7.

 

I like my ranger, plan to keep it. At this time if I were to be forced to replace it there isn't a option for me to remain a Ford customer, they offer NOTHING in compact trucks& the F150 has grown soooo large I would not consider buying that as a replacement. Wake up Ford give us back the Ranger in some updated, but not completely changed form.

 

Really there is no real reason to buy a 'new truck of any brand unless you just want one. My 94, 300000+ on it still gets 15-15 in town 19-20 on highway and NO PAYMENTS! The builders all want you to buy new for what 20-21 in town 24-25 on highway! The 94 will haul just as much ands still looks as good as anything, but just is not new.

My 04 PSD will haul about as much as I will ever need and it is paid off a long time also. I have not loked at new trucks but my BIL did and he is also going to keep his 04PSD said it ran better than the new one and there are no payments on it! $70K for a new truck like I've got no way for the big truck and 25-30 for a new little one sure.

 

I agree, the new trucks are just too expensive at the moment. The old trucks do the same work, and no payments is their best feature! My old F350 dually got horrible gas mileage, but I could buy gas for several years with what one of those would cost new.

Jim

 

I second that. While the 97-03 F-150's arent my preferred generation, with the tritons and all, at least you could still get a 4.6v8 5-speed manual 4x4, and the truck wasnt a mini F-250 yet.

My ranger has over 200k miles on it, and needs some work, but i plan on eventually swapping in a 302 in. Ten years ago, i could go on the ford website and build a ranger/superduty exactly the way i wanted it, and at the time i would have bought a brand new truck (had i been an adult and could have afforded it). These days...not anymore.

If i NEED to get a new truck, it would be a late model ranger, an 08 was in our dealership for a while at $18k, 30k miles, 4.0 5-speed 4x4. If i could have afforded it i would have bought it.

I used to be a die-hard ford fan, last decade that is. No more rangers (in America...dont get me started on the foreign rangers with 3.2 I-5 turbodiesels with 6-speed manual trannys). The F-150 turned massive and pussified, and the superduties have no manual tranny.

These days, i would consider a jeep for a brand new vehicle over anything ford has to offer.

 

I've wondered about this, it's one thing to restore or repair a 40 or 50 year old truck today. What is the likelihood of that today though with the current crop of wonder wagons? Maybe buy a parts donor, gotta have room though.

 

This thread has taken a very interesting turn. Have to say I completely agree with what's been said about Ford's recent offerings. The F150 is too large for many of us in the Ranger crowd and the Ranger's final fuel efficiency figures were disappointing. The early '80's diesel version was getting mid 30's mpg while the last 4cyl Ranger gave just mid 20's. Then Ford claimed there was no reason to continue the Ranger since the F150 was now providing the same 25mpg (not mentioning they were comparing the smallest F150 to the largest Ranger) and then around a year later Ford got in trouble for it's claims and had to revise the F150's efficiency figures down to 23mpg, so the argument for the F150 wasn't even true. Very frustrating.


You guys also made some great points about buying new. I paid cash for my current Ranger back in high school and now 13 years later am still driving it. All those saved car payments have helped get my wife and I to a point where we could pay cash for a new vehicle, but just don't see the point, and I suspect there's a number of us here in that position. My Ranger is old enough to legally drink but is still very dependable, looks good, and I've grown attached to it. My wife shares the sentiment and is still driving the '97 Taurus we paid $200 for years ago. When you're putting your own money down for a car, money you've worked hard to save, I believe you think about the transaction differently.


At some point I intend to pick up a 2011 model and drive that as long as I can until Ford hopefully resurrects their small truck line. I figure if I drive the next one as long as this one's lasted so far then I'm good until 2032 or so.

 

A donor is usually the best method for any year. Rapid prototyping in fifty years won't be prototyping and will be manufacturing as far as all the plastics and composites are concerned. The modern aftermarket is already enormously capable.

It's not a big deal to work on the new vehicles. Thousands of used car lots build trucks and cars from auction donors with little fuss. Make one out of two, place aftermarket orders for some crash parts if convenient, then send out for paint.

The K1500 I'm finishing was built from 2+ donors and it's so easy to find competitively priced parts off the internet I barely bother with local salvage.

Laser scanners can already scan parts to within a few .001's of an inch for import into CAD software. Repopping and improving parts is only going to get easier.

 

im necroposting here.... bringing this back to life, because I have to very bluntly disagree with a comment in your article.

"But in some parts of the country, a high-price, high-optioned truck is exactly what the market wants, and the manufacturers are more than happy to deliver."


No... Thats not why truck prices are high... truck prices are high because the damn banks and lenders keep giving the money to people who truly, cant afford that $70k dollar truck. the banks are driving the prices sky high and making it harder and harder for people like me to save and pay Cash for a truck. ( i will never pay interest, on anything, ever again, as long as I live. Period)

Start making these people put 25% down and see how many king ranches you sell.

if it wasnt for the banks screwing the market up, then competition would be much more feirce for every dollar, and you would see people driving what they can actually afford, and not taking 84!!!!!! months to pay for it!!.

you know I had a dealer the other day tell me they would not Lower the price if I paid cash? It would be no problem if I signed up for a loan... but cash.. nope.. you pay sticker. they dont even want you to pay cash anymore because they want their interest kickback.

its the same thing they are doing with houses. Ever seen how much a house cost in san franciso? I know people with half million dollar houses that drive a 92 accord because they truly couldnt afford that house, but the bank said...no problem.

sorry to rant.. but im over truck prices. when i was just out of high school working for ford and one of the nicest trucks on the lot was like 36k, as a tech making about 28k a year at the time I thought to myself... thats not to bad. i could save a year or so and put a big chunk down on one.. now, 12 years later that same truck is 65. 12 years... almost doubled in price.



I make much much more than i did out of high school, and i promise you... im not buying one of these overpriced heaps. no thanks.

 

Your (and my) personal dislike of credit is wise, but basing a sales model on such extremely rare customers would be corporate suicide.

We don't matter as a customer base and never will. Good for us. Other purchasers fill their place in the food chain so I don't need to.

A new truck is a luxury purchase except for businesses.

Used trucks remain affordable for cash which is how I've bought them all my life. I could afford a new truck for cash now but after wrenching so many years and working at a used car lot, "new" doesn't mean anything to me except "waste of money". I look at mileage and condition. I ain't rich but many very well off used car dealers and salvage yard owners agree with that strategy and drive their used inventory until it sells, and they'll sell their daily driver in a heartbeat. Since a "new" truck is "used" the second the MSO turns into a title I'll let everyone else eat the depreciation. What I've saved more than paid for my tools, shop buildings, and many other useful things including part of my (paid off) mortgage notes.

There are plenty of Americans who can effortlessly afford new trucks, bass boats, ATVs and so forth. Never make the mistake of thinking that ones own situation represents anything else. Despite fearmongering in the news, the economy has been steadily recovering in many areas. Sales reflect that.

In constant dollars prices have risen, but how much depends on the vehicle and options. Always use an inflation calculator when comparing eras.

The "nicest trucks on the lot" are optioned to make more money. Nobody needs a "nice" truck, they "need" a tough reliable tool. "Nice" always meant "expensive toy" which is fine, but should not be forgotten. I like toys as much as anyone.

Low MSRP on an F150 is about 26K. That's affordable for many folks.

Record New-Car Transaction Prices Reported In December 2015, According To Kelley Blue Book - Jan 5, 2016

Plenty of folks don't NEED to be thrifty. They can just make more money. Good for them, they are good for the economy, but I don't need to BE them.