Forum Discussion
55 Replies
- Odd article and testing as the people involved started out with reasonable tow loads and they only talked in the article about throttle response and cosmetics. Nothing about towing performance as with 25-60 acceleration, emergency maneuvering, grade control (with or without exhaust braking), tow package value, or even the capacity of the standard wheels and tires provided.
Pathetic. Car and Drive did a much better job with their review of 1-ton trucks as did etrailer.com with their testing a year earlier.
No need for them to pretend to do a road test as the information provided could have been obtained in a parking lot. Fordlover wrote:
Even GM declined to continue to produce the Colorado/Canyon until the complete redesign was ready. That should speak volumes to anyone who would insist that the previous gen Colorado/canyon twins were a homerun hit for GM.
I have never heard of anyone who would "insist that the previous gen Colorado/Canyon twins were a homerun hit for GM."FishOnOne wrote:
Fast Mopar wrote:
valhalla360 wrote:
This is what killed the Ford Ranger. There just wasn't a lot of cost savings and fuel efficiency wasn't much better, so it was hard to sell the small trucks.
No, this is not correct. What killed the Ford Ranger was that Ford decided to let the old design die on the vine. The F150 and the F250/350 HD trucks always get the latest modern updates every year. That has been Ford's focus, and they have done exceptionally well over the years with their F series trucks. The Ranger barely changed for the last 15 years it was on the market. The design was ancient and the powertrains were so outdated, inefficient, and sluggish compared to the F150. I really wanted to buy one of the last Rangers because that was the size I needed, and driving it was just a lousy experience.
And why did Ford let the old Ranger design die on the vine? Perhaps the same reason GM and Dodge did the same thing to their mid size trucks.
BTW... It's very rare for me to see the smaller Toyota and Nissan trucks on the road these days.
Come on out to Oregon. There are Tacomas on every corner.FishOnOne wrote:
And why did Ford let the old Ranger design die on the vine? Perhaps the same reason GM and Dodge did the same thing to their mid size trucks.
BTW... It's very rare for me to see the smaller Toyota and Nissan trucks on the road these days.
GM redesigned the colorado/canyon back in the early-mid 2000's and from what I understood never made back their investment. I think Dodge and Ford looked at GM's failure to succeed in the compact truck segment and decided it wasn't worth risking big $$ in the segment. So when their current trucks got so long in the tooth they couldn't inexpensively be brought up to current standards, they killed the line rather than invest in a complete makeover. Even GM declined to continue to produce the Colorado/Canyon until the complete redesign was ready. That should speak volumes to anyone who would insist that the previous gen Colorado/canyon twins were a homerun hit for GM.Fast Mopar wrote:
valhalla360 wrote:
This is what killed the Ford Ranger. There just wasn't a lot of cost savings and fuel efficiency wasn't much better, so it was hard to sell the small trucks.
No, this is not correct. What killed the Ford Ranger was that Ford decided to let the old design die on the vine. The F150 and the F250/350 HD trucks always get the latest modern updates every year. That has been Ford's focus, and they have done exceptionally well over the years with their F series trucks. The Ranger barely changed for the last 15 years it was on the market. The design was ancient and the powertrains were so outdated, inefficient, and sluggish compared to the F150. I really wanted to buy one of the last Rangers because that was the size I needed, and driving it was just a lousy experience.
While they did let it die, they let it die because it was cheaper to maintain a single line of pickups and marketing found that if there wasn't a ranger, the vast majority would just buy the 1/2 ton (which many were doing even when the ranger was available).
Not much difference driving around town with a regular cab 1/2ton vs a regular cab mini-PU, if that's a priority.
I liked the mini-PU's (owned 3 of them over the years) but they don't make financial sense for the manufacturers.- I think the potential is there for this market strategy to be successful. Personally I thought these would be dimensionally much like the S-10. I surprised when I saw they were as large as they are. A major factor in the success will be the quality of the product. I think we can say that GM fielded a quality product, something they did not do with the previous Canyon. The diesel version for this pickup could really generate sales in my opinion if it can hit mid 30's mpg. I had read somewhere that FORD was considering bringing a Unibody Ranger to the market. Between Ford and GM, they would have both ends of the compact pickup market covered (size wise). We would then see which (if either) was what the market wants in a compact pickup.
Fast Mopar wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
Very Interesting
Well, all knowing and all wise fanboy Fish, my Ford Freestar has been recalled a couple of times. But, I don't feel a need to post a link about it. Sometimes I just get tired reading your predictable posts. My Ford is great, by the way. So is my Chevy. And, my Dodge is great as well. Sorry Fish, just being honest here.
If I'm predictable then don't bother reading my posts or better yet just block my posts. :WFast Mopar wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
And why did Ford let the old Ranger design die on the vine? Perhaps the same reason GM and Dodge did the same thing to their mid size trucks.
BTW... It's very rare for me to see the smaller Toyota and Nissan trucks on the road these days.
It almost sounds like you are agreeing with me that Ford let the Ranger die on the vine. Almost.
Yes, GM and Chrysler did the same thing.
Keep in mind, Fish, that there just might be the slightest possibility that there is a market for modern efficient mid-size pickups. There is just the smallest possibility that some people might like something other than what you deem is appropriate.
I think these modern GM offerings will sell.
Keep in mind I simply stated my opinion... Having said that I'm not convinced there's a strong market for a mid size truck right now.FishOnOne wrote:
Lessmore wrote:
FishOnOne wrote:
Very Interesting
The old brand loyalty thing...again, I see. Why I ask myself.
BTW, ALL manufacturers are having difficulty with airbag malfunction...including Ford.
Here's an example.
Even more interesting Ford airbag recalls
Why would you leave your brand out of the spot light? :h
Chrysler Recall
Chrysler is not my brand. Never had one. But I'm certainly interested in considering one, next time I buy a new vehicle.
Just have had Ford, GM, Toyota, Volvo and VW in my near 50 years of ownership. Mostly GM, Ford and VW.
My point is...ALL vehicles are experiencing big recalls, not just GM...but all of them. I felt your focus on GM...alone..in a thread dedicated to a GM truck winning the MT truck of the year...was a brand loyal move. I could be wrong and please correct me, if I'm wrong, but that was my interpretation.
You will find that now and continuing in the future, federally mandated recalls...from all manufacturers will increase....due to regulatory authorities playing hardball, with increased fines and penalties, to any manufacturer that fails to heed and implement recall procedures.
I believe as a result, of increased enforcement and potentially stiffer penalties, there will be a lot more Ford, GM, Mopar Honda, Toyota, etc...recalls. IMO, there's nothing wrong with recalls. It's good for the consumer if faults are publicized and repaired by the manufacturer responsible.
Les :DFishOnOne wrote:
And why did Ford let the old Ranger design die on the vine? Perhaps the same reason GM and Dodge did the same thing to their mid size trucks.
BTW... It's very rare for me to see the smaller Toyota and Nissan trucks on the road these days.
It almost sounds like you are agreeing with me that Ford let the Ranger die on the vine. Almost.
Yes, GM and Chrysler did the same thing.
Keep in mind, Fish, that there just might be the slightest possibility that there is a market for modern efficient mid-size pickups. There is just the smallest possibility that some people might like something other than what you deem is appropriate.
I think these modern GM offerings will sell.
