Ford Ranger Debut

[Buliwyf]

American oil isn't worth pumping unless the gas prices do go up. The Saudi's are artificially lowering the prices to stay in biz. Since we built them all their wells, the last thing they want to see is us innovating and bringing the cost of producing American fuel down. They 100% know we can pull it off, if need be.

Still, I can get from mid-Ohio to Key West for very little cash, even with my giant SD.

Our parks will be fine. I've been to the pipelines, the footprint is pretty negligible for this stuff. It's not the eye sore people think it is. And it's not permanent.

What the parks need BADLY. Is a way to make decent trails for us. I'll even settle for just some dirt roads. Decent remote campgrounds (just an open field on said trail). And more ways to accommodate jeeps, trucks and ATV's. There's plenty of ways to do it, without wrecking the environment.

Dirtbikes ain't the enemy they once were.

 

[OCD Overland]

Go ahead and scratch your head. Mid-sized trucks sell now, and will continue to sell well when the fuel prices eventually increase, which is inevitable. The Tacoma is selling at ~200k per year and GM's Colorado/Canyon sell at ~150k per year. There is a consumer demand for mid-sized trucks.

1/2 ton's and 3/4 ton's still dominate the market, but I will be surprised if that trend continues when fuel prices go back up. A lot of HD truck buyers are bro's who want to look cool and throw a hockey bag in the back. Want will very quickly give way to need when money becomes an issue.

The bros don't care about gas prices - contractors and other commercial truck buyers do. But they aren't buying Rangers. They'll buy the diesel F150 in droves though.

The Ranger as shown is diesel because it's the Australia spec and it's because of range, not fuel prices.

Which, of course, is what people here should be concentrating on. It will be interesting to see if we get the diesel Raptette here in the states. I'd have loved to have been able to order a Raptor with the 250's diesel in it. Again, because of range rather than fuel cost. You're lucky to get 500 miles out of the Raptor completely unloaded.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

The bros don't care about gas prices - contractors and other commercial truck buyers do. But they aren't buying Rangers. They'll buy the diesel F150 in droves though.

The Ranger as shown is diesel because it's the Australia spec and it's because of range, not fuel prices.

Which, of course, is what people here should be concentrating on. It will be interesting to see if we get the diesel Raptette here in the states. I'd have loved to have been able to order a Raptor with the 250's diesel in it. Again, because of range rather than fuel cost. You're lucky to get 500 miles out of the Raptor completely unloaded.

The raptor would be junk with the heavyweight 6.7 powerstroke in it, the balanve would be off and boost wouldnt build quick enough. I agree with Ford, as a contractor with 7 trucks on the road everyday we wont buy f150 diesels it just doesnt make sense. No diesel makes sense unless you need the towing power. Any savings on fuel are eaten up by a whole bunch of other costs.

 

[Dalko43]

Yeeeeeeeeesssss sirrrrrrrrr! gawd damn dude, you're such a stiff at times.

Wasn't trying to be political, simply saying gas prices might not be rising any time real soon.

Well sure. But you were making an overtly political statement, and the claim that public lands are being sold off is misleading at best.

Fuel prices will rise eventually. The main reason for the depression in prices is the glut of oil, largely due to the OPEC nations trying to run American oil and fracking out of business through price wars. The problem for them is that the domestic companies have learned how to survive in lean times. OPEC wants to increase their profits, there is still a hefty demand for oil and fuel....prices will go up, it's only a matter of time.

The bros don't care about gas prices - contractors and other commercial truck buyers do. But they aren't buying Rangers. They'll buy the diesel F150 in droves though.

The Ranger as shown is diesel because it's the Australia spec and it's because of range, not fuel prices.

The truck bro's you describe are also inclined to buy more than they need and use credit to finance their habit. If/when the market swings and fuel prices rise, which is an inevitability for both points, they will look to downsize to a smaller, more efficient vehicle or truck. I see plenty of pristine, pavement princess Raptors, Jeeps with 37's and empty 1/2 and 3/4 ton's running around my neighborhood...these are guys who go to work in an office. The market swings, and all of a sudden these types of guys, and they are guys, will find less and less of a reason to own big gas hogs.

Diesel trucks have already started to make a comeback in the various market segments, even if the price of fuel is a bit higher at times. I think that as all fuel prices increase, diesel will only become more relevant.

 

[Clutch]

American oil isn't worth pumping unless the gas prices do go up. The Saudi's are artificially lowering the prices to stay in biz. Since we built them all their wells, the last thing they want to see is us innovating and bringing the cost of producing American fuel down. They 100% know we can pull it off, if need be.

Still, I can get from mid-Ohio to Key West for very little cash, even with my giant SD.

Our parks will be fine. I've been to the pipelines, the footprint is pretty negligible for this stuff. It's not the eye sore people think it is. And it's not permanent.

What the parks need BADLY. Is a way to make decent trails for us. I'll even settle for just some dirt roads. Decent remote campgrounds (just an open field on said trail). And more ways to accommodate jeeps, trucks and ATV's. There's plenty of ways to do it, without wrecking the environment.

Dirtbikes ain't the enemy they once were.

Barring a catastrophic event, I don't see fuel prices going up anytime real soon. Though it seems they are ramping up for one. I don't belong to any political party, they are all knuckleheads in my book, interesting to watch the pendulum swing from one end to the other.

I have friends in the petroleum industry they are under such strict environmental orders, surface impact is minimal, wind farms and solar arrays on the other hand. Wonder which is worse.

Can't remember where but didn't one of the Midwest Northern states just open up 10'000 miles of perviously close back roads. Michigan I think?

You need to come to Idaho, we have one the best OHV programs in the states, we do have some of the most National Forest in the nation, with the threat of some of it closing has sportsmen and environmentalist concerned alike.

 

[Dalko43]

You need to come to Idaho, we have one the best OHV programs in the states, we do have some of the most National Forest in the nation, with the threat of some of it closing has sportsmen and environmentalist concerned alike.

Who is trying to close National Forest land in Idaho and where is this supposed closure taking place?

 

[Clutch]

Well sure. But you were making an overtly political statement, and the claim that public lands are being sold off is misleading at best.

"Well sure" You're agreeing that you can be a stiff?

Honestly dude, I didn't know else how to word it. Could of said this "I don't see fuel prices going up anytime real soon because of the actions in Washington." Which is rather vague, don't you think?

Was trying to word it with out slamming the current admin, but still say because of the actions of the President, "X" is happening.

Monuments are public lands, one guy expanded them this guy is tearing them down...which one is right? I don't know.

Fuel prices will rise eventually. The main reason for the depression in prices is the glut of oil, largely due to the OPEC nations trying to run American oil and fracking out of business through price wars. The problem for them is that the domestic companies have learned how to survive in lean times. OPEC wants to increase their profits, there is still a hefty demand for oil and fuel....prices will go up, it's only a matter of time.
.

They will, but I don't think we have to worry about it anytime real soon.

That said I would like to see better fuel efficiency, but it seems like it is awfully expensive to do. Diesels aren't exactly cheap, neither are renewables. It is awfully expensive to save a little on fuel.

 

[Clutch]

Who is trying to close National Forest land in Idaho and where is this supposed closure taking place?

I will have to look it up, they had a big rally down at the capital last year. (it may not be exactly National Forest, I am typing quick before i have to head off to work)

There was some huff about resource extraction around Yellowstone too, I am sure you can find something about it on the intergoogle.


Edit: here is a little blurb on it: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/mar/06/sportsman-rally-public-land-idaho-capitol/#/0

 

[phsycle]

Go ahead and scratch your head. Mid-sized trucks sell now, and will continue to sell well when the fuel prices eventually increase, which is inevitable. The Tacoma is selling at ~200k per year and GM's Colorado/Canyon sell at ~150k per year. There is a consumer demand for mid-sized trucks.

1/2 ton's and 3/4 ton's still dominate the market, but I will be surprised if that trend continues when fuel prices go back up. A lot of HD truck buyers are bro's who want to look cool and throw a hockey bag in the back. Want will very quickly give way to need when money becomes an issue.

I don't know if the trend will be bucked even if the gas prices surge. I look at my Tacoma and compare it to any of the big 3 half-tons.....the MPG is the same. Price is cheaper (in some trims). If I were a business owner, I couldn't think of a reason why I'd get a mid-size over a full-size, unless it's in an urban environment where storage/mobility/parking becomes an issue (in which case, I'd probably look at something like a Ford Transit connect anyway).

But midsize market will still exist and will sell well, as evident by the numbers you listed. The Ranger will take a big chunk of the Tacoma and Canyon sales, but overall, it should still be an active market segment.

 

[OCD Overland]

The raptor would be junk with the heavyweight 6.7 powerstroke in it, the balanve would be off and boost wouldnt build quick enough. I agree with Ford, as a contractor with 7 trucks on the road everyday we wont buy f150 diesels it just doesnt make sense. No diesel makes sense unless you need the towing power. Any savings on fuel are eaten up by a whole bunch of other costs.

Ford hasn't released pricing or economy figs on the diesel yet so you can't say. Dealers here don't even stock gas 250's. If you want gas, you have to special order - so the diesels sell for only about a grand over gas, which make the numbers work. The majority of the farm and contractor trucks here stay loaded enough that they pretty much get towing MPGs anyway. And they get wholesale pricing on diesel.

Which is all irrelevant since my point was why TF are we talking about gas prices?

 

[Clutch]

Which is all irrelevant since my point was why TF are we talking about gas prices?

Because we all have ADHD!?

oooooh, betcha it is that whole thing since mid-sizes aren't that much cheaper than a fullsize, and mpg's are roughly the same, aren't that much smaller...are they really worth it?

Have you seen the new Tacoma Pro's snorkel? Speaking of ADHD...

To bring this train back on the tracks...give it a minute...



...did someone say Tacoma, which the Ranger has its' sites set on. Will the Ranger hurt Toyota's sales? Time will tell, but it looks a hell of a lot better than the Tacoma, both in body and assumption specs.

and will Ford bring the Ranger Raptor here? maybe not with the diesel but a 2.7 Eco.

 

[Dalko43]

Honestly dude, I didn't know else how to word it. Could of said this "I don't see fuel prices going up anytime real soon because of the actions in Washington." Which is rather vague, don't you think?

Was trying to word it with out slamming the current admin, but still say because of the actions of the President, "X" is happening.

Monuments are public lands, one guy expanded them this guy is tearing them down...which one is right? I don't know.

Your original statements were equally vague, and inaccurate. No one is selling off federal lands. Two National Monuments where shrunk, but all of that land is still under Federal control (it still has BLM or National Forest designations). There is some talk of allowing lease-mining at certain sites, but that's the not the same an outright sell-off.

Go read the wording for the National Antiquities Act, which gave the President the authority to designate National Monuments. It gave that person authority to designate special protections for the "least" amount of land necessary to protect a site of historic, scientific, commemorative, and cultural value. It was intended for things like the Statue of Liberty, old forts, archaeological sites or specific pieces of terrain. It was not meant to encompass millions of acres of federal lands.

I will have to look it up, they had a big rally down at the capital last year. (it may not be exactly National Forest, I am typing quick before i have to head off to work)

There was some huff about resource extraction around Yellowstone too, I am sure you can find something about it on the intergoogle.


Edit: here is a little blurb on it: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/mar/06/sportsman-rally-public-land-idaho-capitol/#/0

Again, go read about what that's about. There were previous political movements, within Congress and state goverments, to transition land from federal to state control. The opponents alleged that state governments were more likely to sell public lands to the highest bidder. That political movement has lost most of its momentum.

The current administration has made no statement or gesture of selling off federal lands. You need to read into the situation before you start throwing out vague claims like that.

 

[Clutch]

Your original statements were equally vague, and inaccurate. No one is selling off federal lands. Two National Monuments where shrunk, but all of that land is still under Federal control (it still has BLM or National Forest designations). There is some talk of allowing lease-mining at certain sites, but that's the not the same an outright sell-off.

Go read the wording for the National Antiquities Act, which gave the President the authority to designate National Monuments. It gave that person authority to designate special protections for the "least" amount of land necessary to protect a site of historic, scientific, commemorative, and cultural value. It was intended for things like the Statue of Liberty, old forts, archaeological sites or specific pieces of terrain. It was not meant to encompass millions of acres of federal lands.




Again, go read about what that's about. There were previous movements, within Congress and state goverments, to transition land from federal to state control. The implication of such a move was that state governments were more likely to sell public lands to the highest bidder. That political movement has lost most of its momentum.

The current administration has made no statement or gesture of selling off federal lands. You need to read into the situation before you start throwing out vague claims like that.

Please sir, take all political rants to the fireside chat sub forum. (see what I did there) I am just pulling yer chain.


Hey I can make all the vague comments I want, I only skim all the BS articles and use it to raise the hackles on other inmates in the intergooglemachine. (that was joke, but as they say there is a lot of truth in joking)

All these forums are, a bunch of knuckleheads arguing over things they have no control over, we aren't going to change people's minds, we aren't going to change the world...but arguing over a bunch BS non-sense is kinda fun. Wouldn't take it too seriously. Try and lighten up a little...as it is all BS, we all die in the end. Try and have a little fun before the lights go out.

 

[OCD Overland]

...did someone say Tacoma, which the Ranger has its' sites set on. Will the Ranger hurt Toyota's sales? Time will tell, but it looks a hell of a lot better than the Tacoma, both in body and assumption specs.

and will Ford bring the Ranger Raptor here? maybe not with the diesel but a 2.7 Eco.

I think Toyota guys are loyal enough. To me the Ranger is really about keeping GM from gaining advantage with the Colorado. They've gotten a lot of good press with that truck and so Ford can't really ignore it.

It also has a lot to do with the ever increasing bulk of full size trucks. They've gotten so big that they're creating their own market for the Ranger and Colorado - trucks you can park without a ground crew. So not so much about stealing sales from Toyota or GM as it is keeping would-be F150 buyers from looking that direction.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Speaking of the Tacoma, does it still have a plastic bed? I wonder why GM and Ford don't hammer that in their ads.
.
I think Toyota's been resting on its laurels for too long. Sooner or later the King always gets complacent and somebody knocks him off the throne. Toyota is overdue for that.
.
If Ford decides to bring the Bronco name back (as they supposedly are doing) it will be interesting to see if they think it's worth getting back into the mid-sized BOF SUV market that every manufacturer other than Toyota (4runner) and Jeep (Wrangler/Grand Cherokee) has fled.
.
My theory (as I've said before) is that the market for mid size BOF SUVs didn't disappear, instead the mid-sized BOF SUV morphed into the mid-sized BOF double-cab pickup. Ditto for the full-sized BOF SUV - it morphed into the full sized BOF double cab/crew cab pickup (as I would argue that the current "full size BOF SUVs" like the Expedition and Suburban/Tahoe, are really super-sized Mini Van substitutes, i.e they are city-bound people haulers and highway-bound trailer-pullers and are not typically bought by people who want to take them off-road.) This explains why Ford dropped the Excursion and why GM dropped the 2500 Suburban from the lineup - they realized that the customer for the Excursion would be just as likely to buy a crew cab F-250 and the customer for the 2500 Suburban would just as likely buy a 2500 Silverado crew cab.
.
To put it another way, perhaps the people who bought mid-sized BOF SUVs had always WANTED a pickup, but they bought an SUV because they had kids to haul around. Once the double-cab mid-sized pickup became available and they had a place to put car seats, they abandoned mid-size BOF SUVs for the greater utility of a mid-sized double cab pickup.