In reply to alfadriver:
I know I am a very small minority but I would buy an Escape based truck. My commute is to far to justify the expense of a bigger truck. Not just the fuel but the tires and other bits. Since the truck I want will never be built I am trying to build up the nerve to try and swap an Ecoboost into a Ranger.
Driven5 wrote:alfadriver wrote: If there was a market and money could be made, someone would be.Often said...And often wrong. Most people seem to think you can can make a product for the market, and whether or not you make money is determined by whether or not there is enough of a market. But just as often somebody who manages to comes up with the right product for the market will succeed with the same market where (many) others have failed. In fact many of the most successful products ever made, did so by creating a market for themselves from people that didn't even know they had a demand for the product. That is the very nature of innovation.
That suggests that the entire car manufactuing community wrong. All of them.
Do you really belive that?
I can understand the agst against Ford dropping the ranger if there was still a 500k a year small truck market. Or against GM. But nobody is filling this apparent need.
If you REALLY think there's a compelling market, then I suggest you joining your favorite car company, and beat some heads in. As much as I want a small truck, too, I do understand that the market was not a big money winner.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:alfadriver wrote:Really? As I remember, almost the entire last run of Rangers went to Fleets.SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:How about not enough to justify making a small truck? If there was a market and money could be made, someone would be.Zomby Woof wrote:I beg to differ, but let's agree to disagree.SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to Zomby Woof: I wouldn't be so quick to be cocky. You forget that there are also businesses that want small trucks.No there aren't.
So?
Seeing Rangers used as pizza delivery trucks tells me that they were virtually given away. Certainly a fleet that has no real need for a small truck, but a cheap vehicle.
Instead, it more appears that the small van market has more legs right now.
irish44j wrote:alfadriver wrote: In reply to Driven5: Why spend $25k on a small truck if I can get a big truck for $27?perhaps because if you're someone who doesn't want a big truck, the price of the big truck is totally irrelevant....because you don't want a big truck. Hey, why buy a Miata $25k if you can buy an Accord for $30k. The Accord has more power, has more doors, bigger trunk, and more space.....right?
Ok, you win... comparing a small truck to a large one is EXACTLY like an accord to a Miata. perfect.
BTW, you do realize that accords outsell Miatas by ~30:1, right? So you really do a good job illustrating my point.
That, and ask Mazda why they can't apply the ideas in making the Miata into a truck. That way you can buy a mini-truck for $27k.
Wally wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I know I am a very small minority but I would buy an Escape based truck. My commute is to far to justify the expense of a bigger truck. Not just the fuel but the tires and other bits. Since the truck I want will never be built I am trying to build up the nerve to try and swap an Ecoboost into a Ranger.
Me, too. We had an F150 for one of our lease trucks, and I hated every second of driving it. I've had a few F150's as test car, and can't stand driving them much, but have to. We should not have to advertise a step ladder to get access to the bed- that's nuts.
BUT.
We've sold 356,000 F150 trucks through the first half of the year. That's more than ALL of the SUV's we make combined, buy 10,000. Just 50,000 short of ALL of the cars we've sold.
Someone knows what's going on.
Zomby Woof wrote:SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to Zomby Woof: I wouldn't be so quick to be cocky. You forget that there are also businesses that want small trucks.No there aren't.
I disagree here. I see a lot of Ford Transit Connects being used by companies around here for deliveries and as work "trucks". Last time I had roto-rooter out, they used one of those fleet rangers as their service trucks. We also use small trucks here at the Borgata for maintenance and security.. and they certainly would be more useful than the golfcarts that Harrah's uses nextdoor
alfadriver wrote:irish44j wrote:Ok, you win... comparing a small truck to a large one is EXACTLY like an accord to a Miata. perfect. BTW, you do realize that accords outsell Miatas by ~30:1, right? So you really do a good job illustrating my point. That, and ask Mazda why they can't apply the ideas in making the Miata into a truck. That way you can buy a mini-truck for $27k.alfadriver wrote: In reply to Driven5: Why spend $25k on a small truck if I can get a big truck for $27?perhaps because if you're someone who doesn't want a big truck, the price of the big truck is totally irrelevant....because you don't want a big truck. Hey, why buy a Miata $25k if you can buy an Accord for $30k. The Accord has more power, has more doors, bigger trunk, and more space.....right?
it was a random comparison to illustrate that size is irrelevant to price if one doesn't need a larger vehicle or more load capacity. I could have just as easily compared a smaller Civic ($25k) to a larger Chrysler 300 ($30k) to illustrate the point that people don't automatically want a larger car just because it's larger. Else we'd all be driving around in old Buicks and Lincolns.
Well, this degenerated into quite the argument.
I'm with alfadriver - there isn't enough market to justify this. :(
I like the idea. This is a truck that could replace my DD car, AND provide modest truck-like abilities. Basically the same as having an economy car and a small utility trailer, only more convenient and slightly more capable (my car is only rated for 1000lb towing).
But, given that I'm a huge cheapass and have no intention of buying a NEW car, I'm either waiting 5-10 years for these to sell and get cheap, or just continuing to rock the 16 year old econobox + utility trailer.
alfadriver wrote:SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:So? Seeing Rangers used as pizza delivery trucks tells me that they were virtually given away. Certainly a fleet that has no real need for a small truck, but a cheap vehicle. Instead, it more appears that the small van market has more legs right now.alfadriver wrote:Really? As I remember, almost the entire last run of Rangers went to Fleets.SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:How about not enough to justify making a small truck? If there was a market and money could be made, someone would be.Zomby Woof wrote:I beg to differ, but let's agree to disagree.SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: In reply to Zomby Woof: I wouldn't be so quick to be cocky. You forget that there are also businesses that want small trucks.No there aren't.
Pizza delivery? I've never seen a pizza place purchase "new" Rangers solely for delivery. I'm talking about the companies that actually use them like Orkin, Roto-Rooter, big box parts stores, etc. Pretty much all the companies the last of the Rangers went to.
I just think its funny that everyone is like "there's no market for this." Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I'd assume that large automakers like Chrysler/Fiat will do plenty of market research beforehand to determine if its profitable to sell it here for whatever business plan they want to sue (or for CAFE or for whatever other reasons).
But when it comes down to it, I don't see why ANYONE here would be against them bringing it over. If the market doesn't support it, it's no money out of your or my pockets either way. I personally am all for Fiat (or any other european or japanese or korean) company bringing over any car that we don't currently have here. Some will be hits, some will be misses. Even if I don't want to buy the car, bringin new ideas and designs is always a good thing in my book. This is the very reason there are so many cool old low-production cars that we all love that pop-up here and there. Most of them were sales failures that we think are the coolest ones now...
In reply to irish44j:
Thank you. My feelings exactly.
Can you imagine how successful a car company founded by forum dwellers with kickstarter would be? Number 1 worldwide in 5 years!
logdog wrote: Can you imagine how successful a car company founded by forum dwellers with kickstarter would be? Number 1 worldwide in 5 years!
No way in hell we would ever agree on anything. Not a chance.
nicksta43 wrote:logdog wrote: Can you imagine how successful a car company founded by forum dwellers with kickstarter would be? Number 1 worldwide in 5 years!No way in hell we would ever agree on anything. Not a chance.
I'm pretty sure we could all agree on something with an LS (but a diesel version of the LS) under the hood, RWD, manual transmission, the size of a miata but with the storage space of a Country Squire, and of course a 14,000lb towing capacity. And it would get 50mpg, weigh 1900lbs and have no safety equipment, electronic nannies, or be "cute."
In reply to irish44j:
I'm not against it. But I'm pointing out the reality that the truck isn't going to be cheap. It's probably going to be in the low to mid $20k's, and at that price point, how many people who were banging the door for this product really going to get one?
If it sells, that's great.
It's just that the days of the super cheap small trucks have passed.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: Pizza delivery? I've never seen a pizza place purchase "new" Rangers solely for delivery. I'm talking about the companies that actually use them like Orkin, Roto-Rooter, big box parts stores, etc. Pretty much all the companies the last of the Rangers went to.
Realistically, all of those would be better served with a small van. One can carry the same stuff, in an easy to get to a protected body. There's no real need for an open bed.
But the choice of the truck at a give away price was too good to pass up.
I would never once use fleet sales as a guide of demand. We played that game too long, and it cost us billions in profits.
I understand the compact high mileage AWD truck market consists mostly of me but it would still be nice to have. I can also admit that with the new half ton trucks getting decent mileage I would look at an F 150 if my commute wasn't so long.
You can drive a Kawasaki Mule in the road in Michigan. Its basically a little truck you can get brand spanking new for 7k. I think that base model even comes with a carburetor for those that want simple.
mad_machine wrote: I disagree here. I see a lot of Ford Transit Connects being used by companies around here for deliveries and as work "trucks". Last time I had roto-rooter out, they used one of those fleet rangers as their service trucks. We also use small trucks here at the Borgata for maintenance and security.. and they certainly would be more useful than the golfcarts that Harrah's uses nextdoor
I see a lot of companies using small vans / wagons / hatchbacks in place of trucks here in Atlanta. Most of them seem to be businesses where an enclosed design like the Transit Connect makes more sense than an open design like a pickup, though.
MadScientistMatt wrote:mad_machine wrote: I disagree here. I see a lot of Ford Transit Connects being used by companies around here for deliveries and as work "trucks". Last time I had roto-rooter out, they used one of those fleet rangers as their service trucks. We also use small trucks here at the Borgata for maintenance and security.. and they certainly would be more useful than the golfcarts that Harrah's uses nextdoorI see a lot of companies using small vans / wagons / hatchbacks in place of trucks here in Atlanta. Most of them seem to be businesses where an enclosed design like the Transit Connect makes more sense than an open design like a pickup, though.
Besides the Transit Connect, Nissan sells a NV200, which is pretty much the same thing- small van, 4 cyl, etc.
And the whole usefulness of vans is going to change, soon- as we introduce the whole transit line to replace the E-series. Which are light years more useful than pick ups are for many, many things.
ProDarwin wrote: Well, this degenerated into quite the argument.
It always does - this isn't the first time we've had this discussion.
I'll also agree that fleet use had as much to do with cheap buy-in than it being a truck. When I worked for a parts house, we used late 80's Mitsubishi Mighty Max trucks for deliveries. These were pure stripper models - short bed, 5 spd, zero options - not even a radio. The company had about a half-dozen of them and IIRC, they were bought for under $6K at the time. 25 years later, I still have vivid memories of driving those trucks.
The local parts houses use mainly small hatchbacks now, which is arguably a better choice. The actual cargo space is about the same with the added benefit of being protected from the weather and more secure. They started making this change years ago when the Ranger was still in production, but even the cheapest Ranger was more expensive than some of the cheap econo hatches.
The compact truck segment needs a forward looking approach, not a history lesson if its going to be revived. The Fiat seems like a step in the right direction.
If they can address the areas with poor satisfaction in the previous compact trucks and the current mid/full size trucks someone will make a big splash. The problem areas I see (and read on here):
Size: 4 doors and seat 4 adults (or 2 adults + 3 children), narrow enough to fit in modern parking spaces, and keep the length to wear it can be parallel parked. Jump seats aren't really practical for a family car (just look at how many Tacoma are double cab vs access cab).
Cargo - 1/2 ton, with a 5 foot bed (6 foot with the gate down). Fits a dirt bike, bicycle, camping gear, or 8 foot lumber safely without putting it over the roof. (4 feet between wheel wells would be a big win over the current mid size trucks)
Towing - Ideally 3000-3500 lbs (my wife's Sedona or a 4 door wrangler can do this). 1200 lbs will handle a utility trailer or 2 snowmobiles, but 3,500 opens the door to larger boats, and 4 place snowmobile trailers (not necessarily the best option for long distance, but enough to get to the local lake or trail entrance). Less than mid sized trucks, but more than most cars.
Fuel economy - high 20's combined. Should be achievable with modern engines. SUV's can do it with AWD.
Cost - High teens to low 20s. Keep it competitive with small SUVs and cars like the Elantra/carolla/forte etc. Creeping to the mid 20s with AWD still undercuts the full/mid sized trucks.
Options - Offer manual trans, rubber floors, and manual climate for simplicity.
Just my $0.02
You should keep a copy of all this for the next time (and the next time... and the next time...) we have this discussion... it'll save you some typing...
Thats how i feel about all the long posts i made in the 'why did small trucks go away' threads we've had, but i didnt save it and im too lazy to dig any of it up or rewrite those long ass posts. 
You know if the US would just communize it's EPA and safety regs with the rest of the world we could just bring them in..........
Sit's back in smug satisfaction as the GRM forum implodes into a black hole as two of the most common arguments meld into one. I think I just did the GRM equivalent of Ghost Busters crossing the streams 
Seriously. I think Alfa Driver is right...... For now. The overall market wouldn't support a small truck. Buyers voted with their pocket book years ago hence the death of the Ranger and before that baby TurdYota's, VW combi's etc. But just as the car market has started to re-embrace small cars over the last decade with the Mini, Fiesta etc. I can see 10 years down the line the truck market re-embracing small car based pick up's when they are tired of needing a step ladder to get into even the base model 1/2 ton pick-up.
In reply to jstand:
Umm... you pretty much spec'd out the typical 1500 series pick-up (of which there are 3 parked in my white-collar office lot), except the cargo capacity, which tends to be be higher. Your bed-size puts the truck squarely in the "fullsize" range. None of the current compact trucks have beds that wide.
You'll need to log in to post.
