FORd THE LOVE OF GOD!! PLEASE!! BRONCO

skwerl

tree hugger
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Posts
16,193
Reaction score
1,139
Location
central Florida
They dropped the Ranger because it sold for almost as much as an F150.

What do you do if you sell two trucks and you want to protect the number 1 selling truck in America? You stop production on the other one that costs almost as much to build and sell. They weren't selling a ton of them anyway, so they gassed it and concentrated on the F series.

They also quit updating the Ranger for the last 10 years they sold it. Their decision might make the bean counters happy but it also sent a lot of loyal Ford buyers over to Toyota, Nissan and Chevy. As much as I like them, I have no need for an F150 and cannot justify the cost. My next truck will not be a Ford.
 

pacettr

PJ Lover
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Posts
3,417
Reaction score
14
Location
Yukon, OK
They also quit updating the Ranger for the last 10 years they sold it. Their decision might make the bean counters happy but it also sent a lot of loyal Ford buyers over to Toyota, Nissan and Chevy. As much as I like them, I have no need for an F150 and cannot justify the cost. My next truck will not be a Ford.

You must not have compared an F-150 to a Ranger (price). The Rangers were slightly cheaper with far less rebates typically. Bottom line wasn't that different, and the Ranger didn't even get that much better fuel mileage. Of course all of that is relevant.


Prime example: I'm now at a Chevy Buick GMC dealership. Colorado/Canyon have no rebates and about $2k markup. Loaded 4x4 crew would be around $38k.

Comparable 1500 crew with rebates and discounts can be bought for low $40's, and I would argue a double cab has as much room as a Colorado crew. The Colorado/Canyon are also underpowered IMO.
 

Deez-67

forum member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Posts
6,282
Reaction score
34
Location
Edmond, Oklahoma
You must not have compared an F-150 to a Ranger (price). The Rangers were slightly cheaper with far less rebates typically. Bottom line wasn't that different, and the Ranger didn't even get that much better fuel mileage. Of course all of that is relevant.


Prime example: I'm now at a Chevy Buick GMC dealership. Colorado/Canyon have no rebates and about $2k markup. Loaded 4x4 crew would be around $38k.

Comparable 1500 crew with rebates and discounts can be bought for low $40's, and I would argue a double cab has as much room as a Colorado crew. The Colorado/Canyon are also underpowered IMO.

Don't come in here talking your chevy gibberish!
 

GallopingFord

I'm Cam - Mr. Indecisive
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Posts
15,369
Reaction score
10
Location
Northern Virginia
You must not have compared an F-150 to a Ranger (price). The Rangers were slightly cheaper with far less rebates typically. Bottom line wasn't that different, and the Ranger didn't even get that much better fuel mileage. Of course all of that is relevant.

Prime example: I'm now at a Chevy Buick GMC dealership. Colorado/Canyon have no rebates and about $2k markup. Loaded 4x4 crew would be around $38k.

Comparable 1500 crew with rebates and discounts can be bought for low $40's, and I would argue a double cab has as much room as a Colorado crew. The Colorado/Canyon are also underpowered IMO.

From what I've seen, it hasn't always been about just the price.

For many it's about the size of the truck. They simply believe that the F-150 is a colossal waste of space for going to the plant nursery. Now, I think a 1/2 ton is a better value for what you are purchasing... especially if you are buying new and there is a bigger market for a 1/2 ton versus a Ranger, Colorado, Canyon.

I do agree with you on the points of being underpowered with the regular gas engines, but with the diesel engine... there is no end to the customer demand for those things. It's absolutely nuts.
 

Shaffe

forum member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Posts
8,251
Reaction score
473
Location
Carol Stream, IL
From what I've seen, it hasn't always been about just the price.

For many it's about the size of the truck. They simply believe that the F-150 is a colossal waste of space for going to the plant nursery. Now, I think a 1/2 ton is a better value for what you are purchasing... especially if you are buying new and there is a bigger market for a 1/2 ton versus a Ranger, Colorado, Canyon.

I do agree with you on the points of being underpowered with the regular gas engines, but with the diesel engine... there is no end to the customer demand for those things. It's absolutely nuts.


Thats the argument I still don't understand though. These new midsze trucks are huge. Interior wise if you want similar dimensions, a crew cab mid size is almost identical to a extended cab full size.

A full size Colorado is only like 5 inches shorter than a full size extended cab and 6 inches wider. That IMO is not a huge difference...
 

GallopingFord

I'm Cam - Mr. Indecisive
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Posts
15,369
Reaction score
10
Location
Northern Virginia
Exactly. But I normally don't even get past the visual with those customers. They just see that first F-150 crew cab and immediately fixate on the size and how it is way to big for their needs... regardless of the actual size difference in comparison to a smaller truck. Many of those customers just walk on over to the Toyota dealer next door and I get a phone call next day about how the Tacoma was a better value (for them).

Also keep in mind that many of these customers are also first-time truck buyers and the size intimidates them. For some reason, I always lose those customers to a Toyota Tacoma. But then when they are back in the market due to realizing that a Tacoma four door cab doesn't seat a child seat comfortably... they give me a call for a F-150. Every.single.time.
 
Last edited:

04DarkShadowGT

forum member
Joined
May 2, 2013
Posts
428
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft Wayne, IN
You must not have compared an F-150 to a Ranger (price). The Rangers were slightly cheaper with far less rebates typically. Bottom line wasn't that different, and the Ranger didn't even get that much better fuel mileage. Of course all of that is relevant.


Prime example: I'm now at a Chevy Buick GMC dealership. Colorado/Canyon have no rebates and about $2k markup. Loaded 4x4 crew would be around $38k.

Comparable 1500 crew with rebates and discounts can be bought for low $40's, and I would argue a double cab has as much room as a Colorado crew. The Colorado/Canyon are also underpowered IMO.

Who is paying a dealer markup on a Colorado? That is dumb. People need to learn to search more than one dealer. I mean it is great for you and the dealer that people pay it though.

I searched the local dealer to me and the internet listed price are all under MSRP before any additional negotiation. I guess different parts of the country make a huge difference in cost.
 

pacettr

PJ Lover
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Posts
3,417
Reaction score
14
Location
Yukon, OK
Who is paying a dealer markup on a Colorado? That is dumb. People need to learn to search more than one dealer. I mean it is great for you and the dealer that people pay it though.

I searched the local dealer to me and the internet listed price are all under MSRP before any additional negotiation. I guess different parts of the country make a huge difference in cost.



Calm down. Not talking about markup over MSRP. MSRP - Cost = markup
 

Deez-67

forum member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Posts
6,282
Reaction score
34
Location
Edmond, Oklahoma
"Ford Everest Fire Symptom of Bigger Problem? Ranger Owners Chime In"

http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/ford-everest-fire-symptom-of-bigger-problem-ranger-owners-chime-in/
fordonfire.jpg
 

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top