***
I wish I could reply individually to everyone; I do appreciate y'all taking the time to write.
Yes. I do indeed wish for a basic truck, and I do understand that the margins are slim. I also understand that the majority of consumers are willing to spec out their trucks with options, but that doesn't mean that I find that to be an acceptable option for myself.
The issue with the Ranger is twofold: most everyone commented on the Ranger's price, which, at $25.3 is too high. Too high as compared to what? The base F150 comes in around that price; the Colorado prices around 20k, as does Nissan's Frontier. A five thousand dollar price spread is significant.
Toyota's Tacoma comes in around $24,5, yet the Tacoma is an almost guaranteed 200-250k truck - properly maintained.
The other issue is the Ranger's powertrain: I can't imagine the majority of fleet buyers going for a 300HP truck, with a 10 speed automatic, that will be cost prohibitive to rebuild.
Ford is going after the "lifestyle/adventure" crowd with it's new Ranger; targeting a well defined niche while alienating fleet and work truck buyers - not the best strategy.
Moreover, there's a bit of overlap between the Ranger and the F150. A bit too much, actually. Why would I spend 30 grand on a Ranger when I could get a nicely equipped F150?
Had Ford come in around 20-22 thousand with the new Ranger, replete with a normally aspirated engine and manual transmission or six speed automatic, they would compete with Chevy and Nissan, while giving salespeople the option of upselling perspective customers.
The mid trim levels come in at $28-29; much too high for a midsized truck, especially when similarly priced full sized trucks are becoming more and more efficient.
