3 ms·

This is a common talking point amongst the the anti-regulation crowd (not that I'm accusing you being in that group :), but it's not really true. The Ranger wa

This is a common talking point amongst the the anti-regulation crowd (not that I'm accusing you being in that group :), but it's not really true. The Ranger was killed in 2011 because its market was disappearing, due largely to the marketing success of the F-150. Jackie DiMarco, Ford's Chief Engineer for the F-150, said as much when confronted about it: "We're investing in F-Series because the small truck segment has steadily shrunk from almost 8 percent of total industry sales in 1994 to 1.9 percent of industry sales in 2012" [1] I agree that CAFE, as instituted, contains some perverse incentives, but that's an argument for more sensibly crafted regulation. It's not a good argument against regulation in general. 1 - https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/a8845/reddit-reminds-us-why-the-ford-ranger-is-no-more-15388686/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/a8845/reddit-re...

derekp7 9y ago
But how much of that market shrinkage was due to the Ranger price being too high, when compared to the F150? Could it have still had a market if it was able to be built cheaper? That is, I though that was part DiMarco's argument, that the market would completely disappear due to the price needing to be almost as much as an F150. But then again, I haven't seen the actual statement(s), so I could be remembering this from one of the anti-regulation proponents. BTW, I definitely agree with your point that the regulations need tuning and flexibility. Having them inflexible is just like having zero-tolerance policies that ruin lives without taking into account circumstances.
- nate_meurer 9y ago
  > "Could it have still had a market if it was able to be built cheaper?" That's a good question, and the answer is no. The Ranger really was as cheap as it could possibly be. The engines are pretty bog standard, normally aspirated, 4 or 6 cylinders, iron blocks. The fanciest thing in them was variable valve timing. The 2.3l Duratec in particular was very cheap, fuel-efficient engine that got the job done, and in my opinion the best of the Rangers. MSRP for the base-model regular cab 2011 Ranger was nearly $5000 less than the regular cab F-150. It really couldn't have been any cheaper regardless of CAFE. I think crash safety regs have a much greater effect than fuel economy regs. Just a theory of mine.

derekp7 9y ago

But how much of that market shrinkage was due to the Ranger price being too high, when compared to the F150? Could it have still had a market if it was able to be built cheaper? That is, I though that was part DiMarco's argument, that the market would completely disappear due to the price needing to be almost as much as an F150. But then again, I haven't seen the actual statement(s), so I could be remembering this from one of the anti-regulation proponents. BTW, I definitely agree with your point that the regulations need tuning and flexibility. Having them inflexible is just like having zero-tolerance policies that ruin lives without taking into account circumstances.

nate_meurer 9y ago
> "Could it have still had a market if it was able to be built cheaper?" That's a good question, and the answer is no. The Ranger really was as cheap as it could possibly be. The engines are pretty bog standard, normally aspirated, 4 or 6 cylinders, iron blocks. The fanciest thing in them was variable valve timing. The 2.3l Duratec in particular was very cheap, fuel-efficient engine that got the job done, and in my opinion the best of the Rangers. MSRP for the base-model regular cab 2011 Ranger was nearly $5000 less than the regular cab F-150. It really couldn't have been any cheaper regardless of CAFE. I think crash safety regs have a much greater effect than fuel economy regs. Just a theory of mine.