[Akfan]

The new '24 Ranger is 2" wider and longer and probably taller than the old one. Big enough to fit 4x8 sheet goods between the wheel wells like Ridgeline and full size trucks from 20 years ago. I think they are trying to turn the Ranger into the full size truck that some people wish the F150 still was. The Maverick is the old Ranger and the Ranger is the old F150.

As someone who bought a Maverick XL AWD for just under $30k about a month ago, I can answer why. I didn't want a bloated "mid-size" truck that's really a full size truck but I do need a truck. Which leaves the Maverick and SC. I want a work truck, which the SC is not. So the Maverick was really the only option and I was lucky enough to be able to get the base model optioned pretty much how I wanted it at MSRP right when I needed it (my S10 sadly wasn't going to pass inspection).

No, I get why nobody wants a ranger. We used s10 and Ranger for small people transporters at work right up until the Ranger and Colorado were as big and expensive as a half ton but half as nice and 1/4 as capable....with the same mpg. We use half ton now.we are down to a single old ranger left. An old 2wd 5 speed 2.3

I meant why buy a Maverick awd for 30k when an XL 4x4 F150 for 38-40k is far more capable. Far nicer. Double the power. Better mpg than the old s10 or Ranger in most cases. Better resale. Better longevity.... if you have a small garage then ill give you that. If you have no room for parking... I'll give them that too. But otherwise I don't get it.

The new Ranger is out in press forms. Its even bigger than the failing one they already have. 30-50k units a year? Fuel mileage still sucks. No manual trans. You can get a 400 HP 20 MPG version.....or you could just buy a 400 HP F150 and get more MPG....hmm. Ford sold more MACH-E than ranger last year. That ugly failure of an SUV EV with a Horse on it they are begging people to buy with a 7k dollar rebate....outsold the Ranger. Mustang outsold Ranger too. So how do you fix that if your Ford? Make it bigger and more expensive. Lol. Idk. Seems foolish.

 

[Leuf]

I meant why buy a Maverick awd for 30k when an XL 4x4 F150 for 38-40k is far more capable. Far nicer. Double the power. Better mpg than the old s10 or Ranger in most cases. Better resale. Better longevity.... if you have a small garage then ill give you that. If you have no room for parking... I'll give them that too. But otherwise I don't get it.

Why pay more for more theoretical capability that I don't need just to have a truck that's worse at everything I do need? I can reach over the bed sides of the Maverick. I can put a ladder and roof rack on the Maverick for carrying long stuff and reach them. And yes, it fits in the garage with enough room to get the snowblower out around it.

 

[Akfan]

Why pay more for more theoretical capability that I don't need just to have a truck that's worse at everything I do need? I can reach over the bed sides of the Maverick. I can put a ladder and roof rack on the Maverick for carrying long stuff and reach them. And yes, it fits in the garage with enough room to get the snowblower out around it.

The garage argument is perfectly good. That is a very valid reason. And yeah I'm well over 6 ft and still can't get a shovel out of my HD trucks. I can strain and get one from the 4x4 F150s though. But I can pull a 10k lb trailer or haul 3-4x as much. So that may Cancel out. And I have a power tailgate I can step on. Lol


Id just rather know it's there. Had the Cruz for 3 years....never once walked by my 21 F150 (bought the same week actually) or Silverado to take the Cruz in that 3 years. I take one of my actual cars or I take the reg cab truck if I want a truck. Or the suv or supercrew for the family. Whoever is in the back sure appreciates it.

And it's not theoretical capability. Its 100% verifiable and there. True 4x4 and triple the towing capacity while getting within 3 MPG of what the wheezy Cruz gets. Back seats that are comfortable vs the adequate but sorry back seat in the Cruz or mav. Other than handling its not a trade off....its just a loss. My girls love it BUT if I offered them either of the trucks they would never look back.

My point though was, if you keep making it bigger and bigger and closer to the price of the F150 or 1500 that 99.9% of people would rather have for the same price if they are honest....its not going to sell. Again 30k ranger sold last year. Thats awful for a Ford. Thats corvette sales numbers. Less actually People got fired over it. And the new peoples answer is to double down and give them a bigger more expensive one than the last bigger more expensive one that never topped 120k units at its peak (and closer in soze and price to the 700k full size that the people who wanted a real truck went and bought anyway). Back when the Ranger was tiny it sold 200-300k units all the way through the mid 2000s. Now it sells 30-50k? And its not people moving away from trucks. F series and 1500 Chevy have sold the same 700k a year for 40 years.

Maybe it works out for the Ranger. But nobody thinks it will. They will get a boost for a year or two but the Ranger is circling the drain. It can't move 30-50 k units and sell for F series prices. It just can't. They killed it last time because it slipped under 70k units the last few years 2010-12 (Maverick is limited at 80-90k btw) ....now it sells half. Lol. The old ranger sold 300k a year and s10, Dakota, and Nissan and Toyota sold many as well. Now the mav, Ridgeline, Ranger, and Cruz combined sell 200k total and people think they are on to something.

And I don't care BUT when it dies Ford will be stupid and make the Maverick bigger to "fill the gap" left by the dead Ranger (that sold less than the mav anyway) and kill that one too.

The Maverick sold because it was a 20k dollar cheap tiny truck. Literally half the price of a base F150. Great concept. Now the base awd mav is 28 while the base F150 hasnt changed. The old hilux, s10, Ranger sold 200-300k units each as tiny cheap puny spartan trucks. So let's tap into that by making a truck 99/100th scale of an F150 with less HP, worse MPG, and less capability and charge the same as the half ton for it....makes sense.

I don't care if the make a Raptor mav with the blown flat plane 5.2 from the GT350 for 20k.... I can't own one with the tag offset to the side. Asymmetrical is a no go.

 

[Leuf]

The Maverick sold because it was a 20k dollar cheap tiny truck. Literally half the price of a base F150. Great concept. Now the base awd mav is 28 while the base F150 hasnt changed. The old hilux, s10, Ranger sold 200-300k units each as tiny cheap puny spartan trucks. So let's tap into that by making a truck 99/100th scale of an F150 with less HP, worse MPG, and less capability and charge the same as the half ton for it....makes sense.

Every year they want to be best in class at everything. They see the Ridgeline that's all the truck most people need but people don't buy it because it's not a real truck and they figure if they make a Ridgeline that's a real truck people will be lining up for it. A base 4x4 Crew Cab F150 is $50k. Base 4x4 Ranger is $37k.

It's a different market now. They would rather sell half as many trucks for twice the profit margin. Can't really blame them.

 

[Akfan]

Every year they want to be best in class at everything. They see the Ridgeline that's all the truck most people need but people don't buy it because it's not a real truck and they figure if they make a Ridgeline that's a real truck people will be lining up for it. A base 4x4 Crew Cab F150 is $50k. Base 4x4 Ranger is $37k.

It's a different market now. They would rather sell half as many trucks for twice the profit margin. Can't really blame them.

But they clearly aren't lining up for it. Mach e and corvette outsold a truck that sold 200-300k units a year for 20 years.....


I've bought several in the past 3 years for work and 2 (one a GM) for the farm. Ive not paid over 56 for one and it was an xlt with a 5.0 (2k dollar) fx4 (1k) dollars and a joke....) with pro trailer handsfree trailer backing (1k) and the smaller pro power 2k inverter (1k) and a 400 dollar ugly paint.

Again the Ranger sold 50k and 30k the past two years. It sold 200-300k per year for the first 20 years. 120k was the best year (18) after they made it too big and too expensive. Its going to be hard to convince me that people are buying them instead of the F series.

Ridgeline is not significant to Ford either. 30-40k units max. Even the failing ranger sold that much. To me its too big too. Ridgeline/cruz/mav and the entire run of baja, combined sell less than Just the Ranger alone 20 years ago. And s10 was selling 200k each that whole time too. Plus dakota. Plus taco. S10 and Ranger alone sold 500k all through the 90s. And the half tons were still selling 700k.

The small trucks sold the big trucks sell. The goldilocks trucks dont

I service company trucks for several businesses. All had the old ranger and s10s in the past. Still have 2 s10 and 15-ish older Ranger among them. .. not one single new Ranger or Colorado. They all just buy half tons now. Better resale. Better room. Same mileage and more truck for near the same price.

I know they don't care what I think. But the data is there to back me up. The mav sold 90k and they cut it off. The Ranger sold 50k and 30k and sat on lots....the f series sold 700k. I think people overlook the middle size. I know I did. My company did. And every company I do work for did.

 

[Mark-mark]

In the sub forum SANTA CRUZ VS THE COMPETITION.....

Its a field of 2 vehicles (3 max, if you count the Ridgeline). This is the other one.

I didn’t buy the others so I don’t care or do I consider it competition, I bought the right vehicle fo me.

 

[JMII]

Ranger sales tanked as soon as the Mav showed up. In '22 the Ranger sold 56k and the Mav sold 74k and gap has only bigger since then. I guess everyone figure out what I did: the current Ranger is too big, its bed height is the same as an F150. Screen grab from a YT video...

The Ranger's HP and TQ are the same as SC turbo and only slightly more then a Mav, so its not like your getting a powerhouse either. Before people who wanted a smaller truck took the Ranger before, but now that Mav is around they are getting what they really wanted: a true SMALL truck. I did the same thing going from a mid-size Dakota down to the SC. Real truck buyers, who want BOF or lifted 4x4s will just get an F150. The in-between mid-size market is a dead zone now.

 

[Akfan]

I didn’t buy the others so I don’t care or do I consider it competition, I bought the right vehicle fo me.

Still pretty silly to come to the sub forum "Santa cruz vs the competition" and chastise someone for mentioning something other than a cruz, in forum specifically for mentioning something other than a cruz.

Ranger sales tanked as soon as the Mav showed up

The Ranger hasn't broke 6 digits since about 05. It tanked well before maverick.

It sold 200-300k a year before 05.

But I fully agree about the "mid" size being dead. The public spoke. A few of us wish it were a different market. Small and mid trucks just don't sell well. 40k units is not going to motivate much development. Especially when 2 million f- series/ Ram/ Silverado sell every year.

You can't make a cheap ranger/ s10 today. The safety that vehicles have to meet, plus the stupid power levels people demand assures it. A mid 90s ranger was 100 hp and 10-14k dollars. An f150 at that time was 250 hp and 20k. So a ranger was 50% or more cheaper. (And half the truck)

A base weak Ranger today has more HP than either brand big 3 half ton had. Completly forgetting the v6 engines, a 5.4 (biggest engine) f150 20 years ago had 240 ish hp and 330 ft lb tq. The best gm was the 5.3 with 285 hp and around 330 ft lb. And the ram was the 360 LA with 240 and 330.... compared to a 4 cylinder 1/4 ton ranger today with 270 hp and 300 ft lb. The 2.7 is 320 and 400 ft lb.

As far as that goes....a base 1/4 ton ranger in 24 has more as much hp as a 454 Chevy or v10 ford ton truck had in 2000. Lol. The optional (and pretty common) 2.7 in a 24 ranger has more HP AND TQ than the v10 or 7400 vortec ton trucks, much less any half ton.

And the 3.0 liter Ranger of today has more hp and tq than a Viper or corvette from before 2000.

The old 5 speed, 2.2 s10 or 2.3 Ranger with 90 hp and 4 bad speakers, bench seat, no sound proofing, no airbags, plain heater, one end abs etc etc etc wouldn't sell... and couldn't legally anyway. But it sold near 300k units every year back then.

The Ranger's HP and TQ are the same as SC turbo

The Ranger and turbo Cruz specs are almost identical.....In the Rangers weakest available engine. The optional 2.7 or 3.0 are quite a bit more powerful. The 2.7 is 40 more horses and 100lb ft of tq. And the 3.0 is 120 more horses and 120 lb ft.

I have no interest in one. But the Ranger as a whole is pretty easily more powerful.