Compact trucks came onto the market with a low price and a really low operating cost due to their simplicity. They were almost as cheap to operate as a Toyota Corolla and barely cost more than one. And they didn't break, nor did they have much stuff on them to break.

The evolution of trucks from simple utility vehicles to "limos with a bed" is kind of nuts. Comparing a current F150 to a 1978 F150 is pretty stunning too.

I believe you can get Colorados with a regular cab, 4 cyl engine, for $20k. Heck, I just opened to the Colorado page to check and the picture says it all... Text says "Colorado from $20,200," and pic shows a Z71 crew cab with an "as shown" price of $40,315. That is freaking DOUBLE the price of a base truck.

Guess what the dealers will have in stock. Guess which one makes more money for Chevy.... How many regular cab F150 XL's do dealers keep in stock? Gonna be the same game with the Ranger.

 

Actually the Ranger cab went through a major change in 1998 to allow for more cab space and the suicide-style doors on the Supercabs. It's this cab that was with us for the next 13 years. But you're right though, the 2011 Ranger was at best- a 10 year old truck. 1998 is when the Ranger inherited the improved torsion bar front suspension from the 1995-01 Exploder. While 2001 is when the Ranger finally inherited the updated powertrains, including the SOHC 4.0 and the Duratec four cylinder. The dashboard remained the same from 1995-onward. I've spent a lot of time in a 1996 RC Ranger that my dad used to own, and I've driven a couple of the latter gen-Ranger's in the standard cab and there is quite a bit more leg room. I think the 1998-up cab is a good 3" larger than a pre-98 cab. I see that in your signature that you've owned a couple of Rangers, what model years were they? RC or SC?
As for whether or not a compact would sell now vs a mid-size; you and I might think so but apparently Ford's market surveys show different results. I think even Ford pondered the compact Ranger idea for a while but ultimately decided on the mid-size. I'm sure the cost to engineer an entirely new model had a lot to do with that as well. With the mid-size, all they had to do is re-engineer it for the US market using mostly off-the-shelf components. The basic hardware already exists. I'm sure in the long run this is saving Ford tens of millions of $$. Can you blame them for that? If that allows them to sell it at a starting price that is lower than the Tacoma and Colorado; that entry price alone could boost its sales.
At the end of the day, whether I buy one or not is undecided. When my current F-150 is all used up, I'll determine my needs in a truck then and what my budget is. But I do hope for Ford's sake that the new Ranger is a sales success for them.

 

Ford did get drawn into the 7/8 size war partially due to their own fault. The F-series trucks aren't easily available outside of North America so the Ranger is their version of a full size offering.

Ford would spend untold sums to go back to the drawing board for a smaller North American version of the same name plate. The Ranger will be a stand alone vehicle even when the Bronco comes out as it will show up in over priced short supply, I'm sure of it. I don't like where any of this is heading and I still believe that an F-150 may be more bang for the buck.

 

Agreed guys, I don't think we can fault Ford at all for adapting the foreign ranger to our market, although I am a bit saddened by it. Our old Rangers have been perfect for my needs and I'm not at all interested in something larger. Admittedly I'm still trying to get used to even the extra 3" in the '99, having driven pre '98's for so long. Part of me is afraid I'll be that guy in 2040 still rolling around in a 2011 or earlier Ranger because "the new ones are just too big with too much comfort-tech"

 

Historically, Americans have been conditioned to equate the price of a car or truck with its size and that is not a valid metric. Meat is sold by the pound but we need to get out of the mindset that a 3 ton vehicle is truly worth more than a 2 ton vehicle.

The Euro brands came to the US with premium vehicles in all sizes (like the 3 series BMW, the size of a Focus) and people who buy the Euro brands are willing to pay bigger money for a smaller vehicle if it is truly a quality machine. Lincoln's best seller right now is the MKC, which is Escape sized although there is a fair amount of quality material added (adding a Lincoln grille on a Fairmont is BS and does not work...)

Especially for people who live in cities and have to park vehicles on the street or in tight garages, or people who want to use a bit less fuel, a Ranger at 7/8 the size and 7/8 the price may be a better choice than an F150. Not everyone wants to drive something as huge as an F150 and although we may not get a true compact Ranger, it will be measurably smaller. I keep wanting an Expedition but know I would be better served by the new Bronco (the Everest is Edge-sized) in terms of my daily use.

And Ford has stated that it wants to REDUCE the number of platforms it uses around the world, so a different platform for the new Ranger would go against this strategy...

 

The new Ranger will be at the Detroit Auto Show this month (I will most likely attend) but it's at least a year out from production. Ford's CEO Hackett is aware of Ford's "too little too late" vehicle introductions per the attached article from the Detroit Free Press.

It also mentions small anticipated demand for the new Bronco (because consumers want crossovers--but not me!) and the low-end interior of the Ecosport which is imported from India... Kind of weird that we will have the Focus from China and the Ecosport from India. But Buick's top seller is the Encore from Korea (yuk), their Envision is Chinese, and their Regal is German...

https://www.freep.com/story/money/ca...nt/1002659001/

 

I may purchase a used 2020+ Ranger next (As a rule I hardly ever buy first model year vehicles to avoid the "new-car bugs"). I agree with Tim that the F-150 may be a better bargain than a "7/8-sized" Ranger that most likely will cost 7/8 the price when purchased new. However I'm realizing that I simply don't need a full-sized truck right now. And used F-150's are often selling for not a whole lot less than a new model after supposed rebates. When I bought my current ride in April of 2016 I initially started looking at used 2009-2011 Ranger 4x4 Supercab's and the ones I was seeing with low mileage were being sold for just as much or more than I paid for my 2012 F-150. At that point it became worth it for me to get into another '150 that still had low mileage and 4wd, but it meant sacrificing the extended cab. Even though it's an XL I still have most of the options I wanted.
My one beef with all new vehicles is all the da** tech gadgets they keep throwing at us whether we want it or not!

 

I've had a '94, '99, and '03 in my driveway over the years. All Supercabs.
The first two had no suicide doors, the '03 did. All of them felt exactly the same on the inside. The only difference is that the suicide doors made it easier to load groceries behind the seats. The overall size of the trucks was perfect. I could still load an ATV in the bed, and park the thing anywhere easily. And it would fit in any garage in America. And the sticker on my last one was $25k and that's nearly fully loaded with FX4 package.

I still say if THAT truck returned to market, albeit with new safety enhancements, they'd sell a ton of them. But it's going to be hard to justify a $35,000 Ranger when there's a $38,000 F-150 that's just a tad bigger sitting next to it.

 

There are people who drive pickups as commuters and daily drivers and simply want a smaller truck. If your use is carrying stuff home from Home Depot once a month, you don't need an F150. And you may not want a truck that needs a ladder to reach into the bed.

If you are shopping for a Mustang, it's unlikely that you will be tempted to buy the much larger Taurus sitting next to it for a lower price despite it being a better price "per pound" or "per cubic foot"...

I do think there will be more than a $3k savings on similarly equipped Rangers and F150's although it may not be a LOT more. But for city dwellers, smaller size can be a big advantage. Minivans took over the full size van market for family vehicles and commuters despite costing almost the same price. (Although large Explorer-sized crossovers have taken over the minivan niche for the most part...)