When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The domestics gave away the passenger car market years ago. Unless Honda & Toyota have a major quality meltdown, the domestics will never regain the passenger car market again. Sad.
Imagine a Fusion.
A Fusion with two doors, no back seat, no trunk.
Think of a Fusion from the B-pillar forward as just a Fusion.
Then imagine the backseat and trunk area as a pickup bed.
Think Ranchero...
If Ford built it, and sold it for under 20K.
Would you buy it?
Would you buy this Ranchero or the Toyota Scion xP for the same 20K?
Just a thought.
With comparable economy of cost and operation, reliability ratings, yes.
I do not have a special fondness for Toyota, just respect for their emphasis on quality. I think of a lot of Toyotas product as refrigerators. Rather bland, and nobody loves their refrigerator. But they're reliable, and most run for years with normal maintenance.
The only way Detroit will survive in todays market place is to do the same. Slogans and brandnames will not automatically ensure sales any more. Let the car guys and not just the bean counters have a say in product.
Plus Detroit has the added handicap of trying to regain the respect of millions of Americans who lost trust in their products. Thats a hurdle.
The domestics always sold the majority of cars in America, right? The figures that I saw recently show that very soon the imports will cross over the 50% share. The share I remember was something like 53% at present for domestics.
Detroit has to get their act together pretty soon.
Just cause they put it together doesn't mean they have anything to do with its antiquated design, low power output and a size that is out of place in the American compact truck market. Good grief.
If they have spent the last 10 or so years assembling the Ranger and have NOT noticed it's shortcomings...well...maybe we should change their name to "CHARLES"...as in Ray Charles; for being blind.
Just cause they put it together doesn't mean they have anything to do with its antiquated design, low power output and a size that is out of place in the American compact truck market. Good grief.
While I acknowledge the downfalls of the Ranger - think of a couple of things.
Low Power output - yes, on paper it is. However, real world performance is a bit different. The Ranger isn't far behind the Tacoma/Frontier, and its on par with the 5cyl Colorado. Its weight/frontal area is major factor here...
Antiquated design - yes and no.
Remember, you can pick up a Ranger for a heck of a lot cheaper than a comparably equipped Tacoma/Frontier too.
While the Ranger needs a redesign, I don't think it needs to go in the direction that most people say. It is the last TRUE compact truck - and has an enviable market niche with that.
Remember when Datsun came in the late 50's early 60's with thier compact truck and sold them hand-over-fist?
Notice how the Japanese manufacturers have moved away from that... I think with an economy that is dwindling, there can be huge market share had from a small, basic truck.
The one thing I think the Ranger needs is improved fuel economy...
While I acknowledge the downfalls of the Ranger - think of a couple of things.
Low Power output - yes, on paper it is. However, real world performance is a bit different. The Ranger isn't far behind the Tacoma/Frontier, and its on par with the 5cyl Colorado. Its weight/frontal area is major factor here...
Antiquated design - yes and no.
Remember, you can pick up a Ranger for a heck of a lot cheaper than a comparably equipped Tacoma/Frontier too.
While the Ranger needs a redesign, I don't think it needs to go in the direction that most people say. It is the last TRUE compact truck - and has an enviable market niche with that.
Remember when Datsun came in the late 50's early 60's with thier compact truck and sold them hand-over-fist?
Notice how the Japanese manufacturers have moved away from that... I think with an economy that is dwindling, there can be huge market share had from a small, basic truck.
The one thing I think the Ranger needs is improved fuel economy...
The cost of owning and operating a Ranger is far smaller than the other offerings. If they can get better fuel efficiency out of the truck so much the better. Old Frontiers get in the upper 20s with a stick. Rangers about mid pack and the new Frontiers are less than the Ranger. I'm not so sure about the Tacoma and the Chevy, but it is my understanding that they suck in town but do much better on the road. They are heavier and they have more efficient and modern engines. The Chevy vibrates, the Toyota is nice. Then again, the Toyota better get alot better fuel mileage to make up the price of admission...I still can not get over how Nissan walked away from a good platform that got very good fuel economy, and was economical to buy. And for what? A midsize Dakota pig wannabe? If it's as reliable as the Titan, they screwed themselves.
I hope they dont try to advertise this as a truck! And i also hope they dont use the 1.5 liter motor they use in the Xa or Xb, cause they wont be able to haul crap in that. I am not a big fan of scion, but if i had to get one it would be the TC.....its the only non retarded looking one
Got a kick out of the scion comments-for background I was an owner operator for years, semi's. 40,000 lbs. on up, you don't haul with a pick up or a ton and a half. Same throughout the load range, you buy depending on what you want to do with the vehicle. Have a '90 4.9 that I love, but I don't love it for fuel economy at todays prices either.
But just one example of why Toyota is within reach of being the number one seller in America. Just one example.
I'm retired, deliver for a florist. They have always used Ford vans. A Windstar was the newest. The gas prices in the last couple of years have created a problem with the miles you accumulate during deliveries.
The Windstar at that time (and today), cost over $60.00 for a tankful that would last three days or less. In November '05 the Boss bought a Scion XB, a tankful would cost $30.00 or less and do the same work. And it does in 95% of the cases the same work. 28 to 32 MPG during stop and go.
Can you name a competetive Ford or GM, or Chrysler product for this purpose?
The Scion has zero problems other than normal maintenance, want to know the repairs with the Windstar, or the Aerostar for comparison?
Delivering flowers you carry no weight, but the engines idle endlessly, the vehicles have endless drivers. They are not your normal family vehicles, they lead a hard life. You hustle on deliveries.
Toyota designed the Scion's for the youth market, I would assume the XB pickup would be designed for the same market. Not to compete with the heavy duty whatever's.
So these are quirky vehicles, but they are well sorted out. The small engines and trannies complement each other to deliver a very adequate performance for their small horsepower.
you brought up a good point, you might be able to haul a pizza in them too.....but they weight more than flowers, so maybe not But your right, the MPG is probably the best benefit of these scions.
I hope they dont try to advertise this as a truck! And i also hope they dont use the 1.5 liter motor they use in the Xa or Xb, cause they wont be able to haul crap in that. I am not a big fan of scion, but if i had to get one it would be the TC.....its the only non retarded looking one
yes the tc is normal lookin and pretty sporty... but its not my type of thing
While I acknowledge the downfalls of the Ranger - think of a couple of things.
Low Power output - yes, on paper it is. However, real world performance is a bit different. The Ranger isn't far behind the Tacoma/Frontier, and its on par with the 5cyl Colorado. Its weight/frontal area is major factor here...
Antiquated design - yes and no.
Remember, you can pick up a Ranger for a heck of a lot cheaper than a comparably equipped Tacoma/Frontier too.
While the Ranger needs a redesign, I don't think it needs to go in the direction that most people say. It is the last TRUE compact truck - and has an enviable market niche with that.
Remember when Datsun came in the late 50's early 60's with thier compact truck and sold them hand-over-fist?
Notice how the Japanese manufacturers have moved away from that... I think with an economy that is dwindling, there can be huge market share had from a small, basic truck.
The one thing I think the Ranger needs is improved fuel economy...
The ranger isnt far behind on the power output, but if you think about it the Toyota had a 3.0 in their trucks until 94ish that put out 150HP and 180TQ (same as the modern Ford 3.0) and then toyota went to the 3.4 which is 190HP and 220TQ and now to the 4.0 (230ish HP and 250ish TQ??) from 2004 and up.....you can see the progression.....the fords have had the same 3.0 for years and the 4.0 i think got a mild redesign to put out a little bit more power in their 4.0s and better fuel economy in their 3.0's. I think they need to redesign the motor before the chassy. But thats just my opinion.
While I acknowledge the downfalls of the Ranger - think of a couple of things.
Low Power output - yes, on paper it is. However, real world performance is a bit different. The Ranger isn't far behind the Tacoma/Frontier, and its on par with the 5cyl Colorado. Its weight/frontal area is major factor here...
Antiquated design - yes and no.
Remember, you can pick up a Ranger for a heck of a lot cheaper than a comparably equipped Tacoma/Frontier too.
While the Ranger needs a redesign, I don't think it needs to go in the direction that most people say. It is the last TRUE compact truck - and has an enviable market niche with that.
Remember when Datsun came in the late 50's early 60's with thier compact truck and sold them hand-over-fist?
Notice how the Japanese manufacturers have moved away from that... I think with an economy that is dwindling, there can be huge market share had from a small, basic truck.
The one thing I think the Ranger needs is improved fuel economy...
The ranger isnt far behind on the power output, but if you think about it the Toyota had a 3.0 in their trucks until 94ish that put out 150HP and 180TQ (same as the modern Ford 3.0) and then toyota went to the 3.4 which is 190HP and 220TQ and now to the 4.0 (230ish HP and 250ish TQ??) from 2004 and up.....you can see the progression.....the fords have had the same 3.0 for years and the 4.0 i think got a mild redesign to put out a little bit more power in their 4.0s. I think they need better fuel economy in their 3.0's and more power in the 4.0s. And despite what others say I think they need to redesign the motor before the chassy. But thats just my opinion.
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Slideshow: The VelociRaptor Expedition gains a lift, upgraded suspension, Brembo brakes, and trail-ready equipment while retaining the stock 440-horsepower EcoBoost V6.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.