Who knew this about the Ford Ranger?

[GhostStrykre]

It's only the best seller because they stack the deck to keep it that way.

Way more Rangers would be sold here if they advertised it and promoted it instead of giving people a free kidney and six months of mortgage payments to buy an F150 instead

I’ll add to this in saying that Ford/Farley are concerned about losing that “best selling truck” claim due to its impact on their stock value. If Ford made a Ranger with a crew cab + long bed, and maybe a manual transmission option, it would sell quite a few units. Many would buy it instead of the F150. I’m not saying it would outsell the F150 because as many pointed out Americans love big trucks. I just think it would sell enough that the total F150 sales lead over other full size pickups could dwindle.

I just think Ford stock value is a concern that many don’t discuss.

Sponsored

 

[Murphie]

It makes you wonder why they still don't promote the Ranger more in N. Am. I get that the F-150 has been a best-seller for most (if not all) of everyone's life, but a full-size truck doesn't fit everyone's needs, budget or lifestyle.

Strictly a random thought/opinion. Since the F series has been the best-selling truck for 47 years, maybe Ford doesn't advertise to avoid taking sales away from the F series.

 

[Motorpsychology]

Jeep would probably have tried to sue over the first option! Interesting Fact, the Troller T4 (first picture) also used the Ford 3.2 i5 diesel as used in the Global Ranger everywhere except North America after Ford took them over.

I don't think a suit would've gotten very far. Ford built the M151 from 1968-88. Had a 2.3L I-4 70 hp engine and part time 4wd, with a single range transfer case. This replaced the the Willys MB, or "real Jeep." It had horizontal grill bars, and unibody construction.

 

[Muffin1]

It makes you wonder why they still don't promote the Ranger more in N. Am. I get that the F-150 has been a best-seller for most (if not all) of everyone's life, but a full-size truck doesn't fit everyone's needs, budget or lifestyle.

Maybe it's the cost per unit being higher than the overseas Rangers due to union contracts or even regulations here in the US.
Here they can hide the higher build costs in the high demand F150's better than the Ranger so their margins are higher on that model here in the states. So the Ranger is less profitable.
IDK just a guess, though the Ranger does seem to be the forgotten one .

 

[LaBalbe]

Strictly a random thought/opinion. Since the F series has been the best-selling truck for 47 years, maybe Ford doesn't advertise to avoid taking sales away from the F series.

It's not that random a thought; certainly many of us share it, and there's probably a good amount of truth to it, even if it'll never be officially confirmed. I can also see @GhostStrykre 's point about the impact that it might have on Ford's stock value.

Maybe it's the cost per unit being higher than the overseas Rangers due to union contracts or even regulations here in the US.
Here they can hide the higher build costs in the high demand F150's better than the Ranger so their margins are higher on that model here in the states. So the Ranger is less profitable.
IDK just a guess, though the Ranger does seem to be the forgotten one .

I don't know that union contracts & regs are the real culprits, after all, variations of both exist in all of the major markets, and may be more or less disadvantageous to Ford; the answer to that would take a more in-depth research than I have the time to undergo at this time.
That being said, I think that you're probably right when you say that in N. Am. they can hide the costs of those more easily in the F-150's high demand. Conversely, in overseas markets where the F-150 is simply too big and the Ranger is an ideal size, it's probably easier to hide those same costs in the Ranger's demand, and doing the same in a 150 would just drive an already "too-large" truck into "way-too-expensive" territory as well.

 

[BronzedAussie]

Here's an article in the latest FA:
https://fordauthority.com/2024/02/farley-says-ford-almost-pulled-out-of-australia/

It caught my eye, but this is what I found the most interesting - it's an extract from the article - Farley states:

“The second highest volume vehicle at Ford is Ranger. Ranger globally outsells Super Duty. We are now number two in pickups outside of the U.S. and pickups are growing big time. We sell 5,000 Raptors in China for $150,000 each, and we’re the best-selling vehicle in Australia. We almost pulled out of Australia. The Ranger is number one in South Africa, huge pickup market. We’re number one in pickups in Europe. The Ranger is growing and super profitable in South America. It is our only vehicle in South America.”

Who knew???

The Australians here knew ?

 

[veedubtuner]

The Ranger competes with the Hilux as number 1 pickup throughout the world.

I think I'm ok with #2 ?

 

[Cmar]

I don't think a suit would've gotten very far. Ford built the M151 from 1968-88. Had a 2.3L I-4 70 hp engine and part time 4wd, with a single range transfer case. This replaced the the Willys MB, or "real Jeep." It had horizontal grill bars, and unibody construction.

True but didn't Ford secure / was given the right to build Jeeps during WW2 for military use without having to pay Willys / Bantam any license fees. Ford could argue that this was just a development of that vehicle. I think that Willys did patent the vertical grill bars. Ex WW2 Jeeps are not uncommon over here ( I have one myself) because the Australian Army used them as well. We never saw these however, as after the war we used Landrovers.

 

[Cmar]

@ Rob. Farley has said he wants to get warranty claims under control - Ford's is the worst in the industry and is costing the company billions. A guess on my part, but suspect the reason only 100 Rangers were built was ironing out QC issues. Ford began a third shift a few weeks ago and Rangers are building up on Ford's lots ... with none being shipped. Why? Lots of speculation, but only Ford knows.

Another fun fact: Sweden drove on the left side with LHD vehicles. In the '50s they decided to change to drive on the right side. The put up new signage throughout the country but covered them with cloth covers. Lots of press about the changeover and during early morning one day, they switched sides, driving on the right side. Everyone was asked to remove the covered sign(s) near where they were and place them over the old signs on the left. It went very smoothly and in fact, the accident rate went almost to zero as drivers drove cautiously until comfortable with the rules. As a kid I remember seeing pictures in our paper of people changing the covers and moving to the other side. Somewhat eye opening when thinking that the entire country did the change all at once.

It was in fact Sept 3rd 1967 that Sweden changed sides (after about 40 years of argument). The rest however is as you say, apparently there were no major accidents, I must admit a pretty good job of organisation.

Thought was given to switching sides here in the 1970's, but as most of SE Asia and Oceania drives on the left and they are our major trading partners, it would be us that would be out of step. Believe it or not in the 1970's Australia actually exported locally built cars to Japan! As well as NZ, South Africa, Pacific Islands, and SE Asia.
Also the change over cost was enormous, we are a much larger country than Sweden, and even things such as freeway ramps would have to be rebuilt as of course the merge ramps are much longer than the off ramps.

 

[Cmar]

I think I'm ok with #2 ?

I must admit, why has no one ever taken Toyota to task over that. I suppose they are purchased through some legitimate "third party"

 

[Bob902]

I must admit, why has no one ever taken Toyota to task over that. I suppose they are purchased through some legitimate "third party"

 

[JimJa]

It was in fact Sept 3rd 1967 that Sweden changed sides (after about 40 years of argument). The rest however is as you say, apparently there were no major accidents, I must admit a pretty good job of organisation.

Thought was given to switching sides here in the 1970's, but as most of SE Asia and Oceania drives on the left and they are our major trading partners, it would be us that would be out of step. Believe it or not in the 1970's Australia actually exported locally built cars to Japan! As well as NZ, South Africa, Pacific Islands, and SE Asia.
Also the change over cost was enormous, we are a much larger country than Sweden, and even things such as freeway ramps would have to be rebuilt as of course the merge ramps are much longer than the off ramps.

Interesting. Can't imagine the U.S. changing. Look how well the metric system was accepted after the big push. As you say the cost would have been significant. Lived in Japan for two years from '73-'75 and don't recall seeing any Australian vehicles in country. Actually went the length of the country on a motorcycle - twice. Always thought it was a mistake for McCarthur to not make Japan drive on the the right side after WWII. Would have been easy as the country was re-starting from scratch after the heavy bombing during the conflict. In the '70s, the Japanese emissions were such their vehicles would pass U.S. spec, but U.S. vehicles would not pass theirs. It was a way to keep U.S. manufactures out. Very clever.

 

[Motorpsychology]

True but didn't Ford secure / was given the right to build Jeeps during WW2 for military use without having to pay Willys / Bantam any license fees. Ford could argue that this was just a development of that vehicle. I think that Willys did patent the vertical grill bars. Ex WW2 Jeeps are not uncommon over here ( I have one myself) because the Australian Army used them as well. We never saw these however, as after the war we used Landrovers.

The Willys MB was created using Willys, Ford's and Bantam's elements which through R & D, resulted in the final 1/4 ton truck. Ford called theirs the GPW, but they were essentially the same vehicle, and both were used in WWII. because of the war, Ford and Willys Overland built the vehicles to supply the War Department's quota. Ford also built North American Aviation's B-24 Bomber.

 

[Cmar]

Interesting. Can't imagine the U.S. changing. Look how well the metric system was accepted after the big push. As you say the cost would have been significant. Lived in Japan for two years from '73-'75 and don't recall seeing any Australian vehicles in country. Actually went the length of the country on a motorcycle - twice. Always thought it was a mistake for McCarthur to not make Japan drive on the the right side after WWII. Would have been easy as the country was re-starting from scratch after the heavy bombing during the conflict. In the '70s, the Japanese emissions were such their vehicles would pass U.S. spec, but U.S. vehicles would not pass theirs. It was a way to keep U.S. manufactures out. Very clever.

You wouldn't see many, we built a widened version of the Mitsubishi Dimonte locally with a larger engine, and some Holden models which were sold as luxury models in Japan and never large numbers.

 

[Markubis]

It makes you wonder why they still don't promote the Ranger more in N. Am. I get that the F-150 has been a best-seller for most (if not all) of everyone's life, but a full-size truck doesn't fit everyone's needs, budget or lifestyle.

Because the fatties in the US that live in McMansions need a bigger truck then the other guy.

There, I said it.

The Ranger is the perfect sized truck and the rest of the world can see that.

Sponsored