I know there are plenty of people who have issues with J.D. Power, but this still a good sign for the Ranger. What's crazy is how bad Land Rover always does in these, but they continue to sell cars. Also? At this point, I don't even know if FIAT is selling enough cars here to be included in the study... Not a good sign for them.

 

Saw that as well. Was very surprised and extremely surprised the F150 didn’t finish first.

 

No one on here has stated that the Ranger isn't well built just that it's overpriced, it's styling is eight years old and it lacks engine choices. These are all reasons for a dismal launch of what was one of the most anticipated arrivals this year.

 

Hey Tim...I think your use of the word "dismal" is short-sighted here. Chevy reintroduced the Colorado in 2nd quarter 2014 as a 2015 model, and 2014 sales were 8,000 trucks total in over a half year; 2015 sales grew to 84,000. When the full size Transit was introduced in June 2014, monthly sales were under 500 units per month for the first couple months, around 1,000 per month for the next couple months, and hit 10,000 in December 2014. You don't flip a switch and hit full capacity with a new vehicle.

Ford sold over 7,000 Rangers in May and as production ramps up, predict that the numbers will just get larger. I would think you'd have a better understanding of how production gets established at a completely retooled plant. (For the record, monthly sales of the entire Lincoln brand range from 7,000 to under 10,000 vehicles per month for all of 2019 so far--if you do want to talk about dismal--Lincoln-only dealers have to be pretty frustrated.)

I don't believe that many people in the US perceive the Ranger as an old truck--it's new in the US and very few "civilians" follow vehicles being sold in other parts of the world.

 

It seems to be the truck that everyone loves to trash, full size truck people hate it, fine it was not made to replace them, old Ranger owners cant accept it, no, its not the old compact truck. Not sure why, but it seems to get more love from outside rather than inside the Ford community.

While the underpinnings remain similar to the 2012 overseas Ranger the exterior redesign came in 2015, what else was given a face lift in 2015.........hmmmm, oh the F150. You got me on lack of engine choices, but thats a consequence of adapting a vehicle that was made to have inline diesels to North American market, V6,s dont fit.I will say they did pick a good one though! Im like everyone else when it comes to wrapping your head around the small 4 banger, but best in class towing, power and great reviews of this engine tell the tale.

Expensive, yup, but priced right in with the rest of its competition, its not an F150 so the value comparison does not work to me, compare it to a Taco or the GM twins if you want for a better comparison. The Jeep Galdiator is supposedly in the same category and is crazy expensive.

Anyway, Ive owned a string of old Rangers, Explorers and Sport Tracs, with a Crew cab F150 in the middle and it just wasn't for me, ended up in a Frontier when Ford gave up on the segment, but got right back into a Ford when these came out in Jan.

Its definitely not an F150 and is certainly not meant to pull owners from that market, Ford does not want that. Its made to get into the part of the market they lost when they dumped the Ranger thinking everyone would move up to an F150, they didnt.

 

I think you've nailed it here, Ont... Ford is trying to sell the new Ranger to a new recreational market (note its commercials and brochures featuring kayakers, rock climbers, and bicyclists) as an SUV alternative that has a few more tricks up its sleeve due to the pickup bed. This overlaps the market that the Gladiator is hitting (and although it's a "new" design, the Gladiator is meant to look like the 1940's). This recreational buyer is moving from a small-mid sized SUV or hatchback car, and has zero interest in an F150 that needs tugboats to park it in the city.

The first round of compact Japanese pickups, followed by the original Ranger and S-10, put a new group of pickup buyers into that market (although at that time those trucks were cheap alternatives to compact cars--and there is no big money there now).

The new Bronco, related to the Ranger, is going to take another hit at this "tough recreational" market where Jeep dominates. And off-roading videos of the Ranger show that it's quite capable, much more a truck than a car.

The sales numbers will tell the story after the first year or two. Ford has to create new customers after it dumps most of its cars. I had to look up Lincoln sales numbers for my post above and THAT is a sad place for Ford to be. Imagine being a big Lincoln-Mercury dealer a few years ago and having the rug pulled out from under you.

 

George, I fully understand and appreciate that you're protective of the Ranger. No one on here was more excited about it's arrival than me as I'm looking for the smaller truck in the future. I love that Americans are building this truck and the upcoming Bronco, these products are Detroit all the way and that is vitally important to me. The 2.3L ecoboost is a HOSS of an engine and more than capable of making this truck perform to it's capability. But it's lacking other choices.

But no matter how many times you counter my words or imply my lack of understanding, you can't make me like it's styling, it's pricing or it's lack of drive train options. I'm aware that other rolls outs were slow to gain momentum as the Ranger is and I'm certain that sales will gain traction soon but it's just not the truck for me.

This isn't anything new for me either, i skipped the entire 1997-2003 generation F-150 because of it's styling. I'm not overly pleased with the 2015+ F-150's either, the front clip isn't working for me and these trucks are having a slew of problems.

So, my intent here isn't to troll or irritate anyone with my low opinions of the Ranger and other Ford products.

 

To some extent, you are all missing the point.

Ford decided that if someone wanted a inexpensive (oops, almost said "cheap") truck, it would sell them an F-150 XL, and gave up on the small truck market.

Along came GM, who took a risk and ended up selling 100,000+ units of small trucks per year at good margins.

Ford sat on the sidelines for several years and watched GM laugh all the way to the bank before Ford decided to do anything about it.

Once under the gun, Ford hurried to get something, anything, for sale in the US market.

So what we got was a warmed over truck, intended and designed for an entirely different market. (In Ford's defense, the GM, Toyo and Nissan small trucks are no great shakes either.).

But instead of the best in class in every category, we got another example of what I call Ford's "good enough" mentality. The trucks just have to be good enough. So long as it says F-O-R-D on the hood, in Ford's mind, it will sell.

That is the takeaway that I see with the Ranger. And we should be demanding more. But I suspect Ford is right, so long as it says F-O-R-D on it, it will sell.

The Ranger is the second example of this mentality demonstrated by Ford in as many years.

GM invented the subcompact SUV market when it introduced the Encore. Now, the subcompact SUV market segment is one of the hottest market segments in the industry.

Ford, left standing on the sidelines once again, hurried the pitiful EcoSport to market.

Are you trying to tell me the Ecosport is why we should all be driving Fords?

 

Hey Tim...it's all good and I get your opinion also, but to call the Ranger rollout "dismal" is a bit strange...I assume you meant sales numbers(?) but maybe I was wrong. Your not liking the Ranger is not a reason that the market won't get the sales numbers moving on up.

As for price, Ford is building it in the US and wants to make money. So pricing high and preparing for eventual rebates or incentives is the strategy they have chosen. Trucks are cash cows, and Ford is in biz to make money for its stockholders--they could not do that selling Focuses for a loss.

As for lack of powertrain options, how many choices do you get in the Expedition? I'm pretty sure we'll see some choices in the future, especially if the rumors of the 2.7 Ecoboost in the Bronco (which shares the chassis) are true. But even the Edge and Explorer are cutting down to only 2 engine choices--a 4 cyl Ecoboost and a high performance V6 Ecoboost.

We are all entitled to our styling preferences but I have no problem with the Ranger styling myself. I'm assuming you don't like rounded front ends. I suppose Ford could make it look more like a mini F150 or something (is that what you want?) but it's a truck, and you can't see the front clip while you're driving (aside from the hood you're looking over). I've driven vehicles that I thought were not the best looking (hell, I'm in a minivan now--and it's not like I liked the looks of the full size vans I drove for 30 years) but some of them were the ones that served me best.

Have a great day; we finally have a summer day in Michigan after a couple rainy and cool months.
George

 

Ford moved to a single engine in the Expedition in 2005 and sales have plummeted ever since. They continued on that path with the 3.5L eco, but hey, at least they went with a great engine. But I digress.

 

I would guess that $4 per gallon gas (and a recession) had something to do with the reduction in sales, along with the introduction of big crossover SUV's that served the same purpose for families who didn't need to tow. Tahoe and Explorer sales also took a dive back then. F150 went from 939k sales in 2004 to 413k in 2009...I think Ford felt that more than losing 50k Expedition sales per year.

I wasn't fond of $125 fillups on my E150... Again, it's about following the market.

 

Actually Expedition sales are up significantly......

As for the Ranger, I have been critical of it. I found it disappointing that the 2.3/10 speed was the only option. I instantly got sticker shock like most. I then started shopping for a new truck. When I started comparing mid size trucks, the Toyota powertrain was the most disappointing of all brands to me. I spent several hours reading the Tacoma forums and even loyal Toyota buyers complain about the engine/transmission. The GM trucks were never on my radar, just don't like their styling. A 15 year old Frontier ( which I was certain I would buy) Pro 4X without the tech was $35,500 OTD. I then started comparing F-150's to Ranger's and when you compare features, the Ranger is significantly cheaper, at least in certain configurations. I was quoted $37,500 OTD on an XLT Ranger Screw, FX4, 302A Sport. This gives me SYNC3 with android auto/apple car play, heated seats, remote start, reverse and forward sensing, lane keep and pre-collision. An F-150 STX was $40.5 k OTD with none of the upgrades/features. An XLT with similar options was $45k OTD and I really didn't want another full size. It came down to the Frontier vs Ranger. For an additional $2,000 I felt the Ranger was a better deal, more safety, more features etc. I now own a new Ranger. I will always long for a 2.7 option, but the 2.3/10 speed is smooth and very adequate for this truck and IMO is the best powertrain combo in the class. The 2.7 would just have been a game changer. I have averaged 22.9 (mostly hwy), 23.75 (mixed, 55mph back roads) and 20.45 (mixed, mainly short trips and in town) mpg hand calculated on 3 fuel runs of varying conditions. I do feel the 2.7 would achieve similar and/or better results under certain conditions and as good in a vast majority, but I am still very happy with my purchase thus far.

 

Dude - where do you live? Because you are getting screwed on F-150 prices.

 

Only since the ecoboost was offered. Between 2005 - 2015 sales slumped pretty wicked.

 

Here is the best comparison I could find locally, the F-150 has a lot of offers but not many people are going to qualify for all of them. Apples to Apples the Ranger is cheaper.

These are both STX trucks, both listed as the lowest price crew cab 4x4 I could find.