"PelicanHazard" (pelicanhazard)
10/20/2013 at 21:34 • Filed to: ford, ranger, amazing race
1
10|
"PelicanHazard" (pelicanhazard)
10/20/2013 at 21:34 • Filed to: ford, ranger, amazing race | 1
| 10 |
Ford refuses to sell the new Ranger here. Yet they then go and feature them in tonight's Amazing Race. A show where they had previously exported a small fleet of new Fusions to Germany for those valuable advertising placements. WHY.
Blondude
> PelicanHazard
10/20/2013 at 21:36 |
|
y u do dis 2 me ford?
PS9
> PelicanHazard
10/20/2013 at 21:40 |
|
Fuck you, ford. Don't gimme that 'no one would buy it' garbage, when morons are still willing to spend $63k on this piece of horseshit.
Atomic Buffalo
> PelicanHazard
10/20/2013 at 21:41 |
|
Maybe this is their way of gently gauging interest.
xxstich666xx
> PS9
10/20/2013 at 21:44 |
|
MUCH more than $63k. The Escalade Platinum Hybrid is near $100k.
|
PS9
> xxstich666xx
10/20/2013 at 21:46 |
|
Those are the exception, not the rule.
|
PelicanHazard
> Atomic Buffalo
10/20/2013 at 21:53 |
|
I hope they get the message.
ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
> PelicanHazard
10/20/2013 at 21:53 |
|
Because herp derp F150 derp derp
Seriously, they had better be working on something about the size of the last Ranger, but no bigger than the mid-90's Dakota, with either a 2.0-2.3L Ecoboost engine or their 5-cylinder diesel they have in Europe, manual and auto transmission options, as well as a cab with 4 seats. Not 4 doors, but just an extended cab. It would be even better if they offered bed-length options as well.
Ideally one could spec one of these with a 2.0L Ecoboost, 5-speed manual, extended cab, 7-foot bed, and 4WD for around $24,000. I would buy one tomorrow. I'm not even joking. I have a 94 Dakota currently, and I would very much like to find something about the same size that is nicer, drives better, and gets better mileage. I'd take on a car payment for this mythical truck. [fryshutupandtakemymoney.jpg]
Sure the Ecoboost has issues when you actually use the boost, but trucks like this are generally a second vehicle, and as such are rarely driven around with a load. If it could get at least 20 MPG around town, that would be perfect for those who commute in one during the week and then need something to haul things in on the weekend.
We'd all love for them to build us a light truck with a small-displacement turbo-diesel engine. But that's probably never actually going to happen.
|
Atomic Buffalo
> PelicanHazard
10/20/2013 at 22:04 |
|
Well, Tweet the hell out of it.
You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
> PelicanHazard
10/21/2013 at 08:31 |
|
They don't actually refuse to sell the Ranger here so much as the market and regulations conspire against it being profitable in our market. As great as small pickups are for a lot of people the pricing is so close to full size trucks that a lot of people who would buy a small truck end up buying a full size because it is perceived as a better deal. Combine that with fuel economy regs being written in such a stupid way that they incentivize building large trucks over smaller more fuel efficient trucks and you have a recipe for a slow selling, non-profitable disaster.
|
PelicanHazard
> You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
10/21/2013 at 11:02 |
|
Except then you have the examples of the old Ranger sales being quite respectable for a model that hadn't been updated in a decade and Ford themselves saying they're investigating a smaller pickup for the US. On top of people constantly calling for a replacement to their old Rangers because they will not buy a full-size and Chevy bringing over their global small truck. The market is there, it was just ignored. Ford saying potential Ranger buyers will just move to a full-size is like Volvo saying V70 buyers would move to the XC70 when the former was killed. Some did, but they lost many more, and we're getting the V60 now because of that.