Ron Quixote
Well-Known Member
Lol that's not remotely true. Are scientific theories "conspiracies" before they're proven through experiment? Or are they just that -- theories. C'mon, man.Theories not based on fact are indeed conspiracies.
Sponsored
Lol that's not remotely true. Are scientific theories "conspiracies" before they're proven through experiment? Or are they just that -- theories. C'mon, man.Theories not based on fact are indeed conspiracies.
Explaining "why" is what theories are about. A theory is an explanation of observed phenomenon. What many have stated here regarding what they each observed in Ford's marketing behavior and their seeking to explain it is a theory, their theory. Their theory is valid until disproved because you cannot prove a theory, only falsify it. Theories hold until proven false. The sun rotating around the Earth with the Earth as the center of the solar system was a theory proven false. Ford factual evidence such as profit margins, realized sales, and other data serve to falsify theories. OTOH, a conspiracy is an evil plan to cause harm and involves two or more people. Would be hard pressed to find two people here conspiring over Ford. Of course, Ford head shed people can be asked to explain their marketing strategy and behavior and, if they choose to answer, you can now believe them or not. Verification of statements usually requires three independent sources saying virtually the same thing to be considered fact, not just one press release or scripted remarks made for public consumption. Your Bronco assembly line theory, however, matches up with Bronco vs Ranger sales, so your theory holds up, for now.Theories not based on fact are indeed conspiracies. On this thread so far it's been asserted that Ford "... is afraid of what it would do to F150 sales..." and "...Profit per truck is way lower than the F150". I haven't seen these assertions backed by verifiable sources, so while it seems obvious to those of us paying attention that Ford isn't marketing the Ranger at all, or seemingly putting any effort into selling the Ranger, it's merely speculation as to *why* they're not. Fear permeating their org chart? Maybe. Maybe not. Strictly a profit margin play to put emphasis on selling the F150? Maybe, maybe not. This one seems odd to me since I see the F150 discounted an awful lot, but I don't know so I too can only speculate. The other theory is that the Bronco which shares the assembly line is selling better so Ford needs to allocate production resources to the Bronco, leaving the leftover resources for the Ranger.
Ford killed the Supercab option on the F150 Lariat a couple years ago. I had one, it was perfect with the 6.5 bed. Farley is not paying attention to what people want, especially in Rangers. He decides what people want, and in his opinion that is a $4.5 billion investment in EV and PHEV, and now an F150 that operates like a diesel-electric locomotive or Chevy Volt. That the gas Ranger Tremor is coming back is a shock to me. Next, we will be told that you can get a 2027 RR in RED.i think they don't put the longer bed or an extended cab anymore because those models just don't sell as well as a 4 door truck. even though 4 or 5 people on the forum want one, thats just not enough for ford to make the changes to the frame, wiring, and all the other stuff that needs to become available to mass produce those versions.
they only make an xl model because of fleet use or i bet we wouldn't have an xl/stx trim either