Blank slate narrative is a mistake, and that needs to change

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it doesn't.

I took "used Teslas, new Civics, Corollas, Elantras, or whatever else" into account, and even gave them emphasis by mentioning them first, above of the Slate's unknown price.

Unless you have a Crystal Ball That Sees Into The Future you don't know what new 2027 competing models will be available, what the prices of those 2027 models will be, what will happen to used car pricing, and what the price of a Blank Slate will be.

It's ridiculous to say Slate has "failed on the price factor" when you don't know what the price factor is!

Every forum has at least one guy who doesn't want to be wrong, has to be right, and argues their point of view ad nauseam. I get it - I've been there myself and still get caught up in those dynamics.

And at risk of falling in the same pit myself, I think you're simply overemphasizing the point of supply vs. demand. I just don't think the demand for little trucks & SUVs is as big as you make it. I agree with your suggestion that we don't have a 'crystal ball' to predict the future. If I did, I just might use it for playing the lottery, not predicting the small truck & SUV market! 😂

I see similar sized offerings from Jeep - the XJ Cherokee (edit: don't forget the more relevant Comanche) and the Patriot. The Cherokee was initially offered as a two door but that was dropped after a few model years. All their other offerings in the class were four doors, no? And they were (at the time) a domestic manufacturer.

 

[beatle]

I agree that the Slate has "failed" on the price factor is too aggressive an assessment right now, but it's not for nothing. Being an EV, they created a big price gap between their rivals with the credit. Now the gap is objectively smaller. I can't see Slate offering it for any more than $27,500 or they'll have to eat their hats. However, they might make it just a touch lower to earn goodwill and press, but the margins here are already going to be slim.

I have a hunch they originally developed the Slate as a fleet vehicle and then decided to market it to the public for extra sales. A lot of their material revolves around people using the Slate for their business. They have fleet-specific events, and the platform really does check a lot of fleet boxes. The tagline, "We didn't build it for you, but we think you'll like it anyway" probably ended up on the marketing floor early on.

 

[GaRailroader]

Agree 100% on the fleet sales. I see a lot of Mavericks with steelies during my commute with wraps advertising their business. Pool cleaners, Orkin guy, etc. I think the motivation to buy the Maverick is that it’s the only new pick-up in the twenties. When it is a single craftsman operator I can’t help but think they couldn’t care less that the Maverick has 4 doors. Even if the Slate price is the same as the Maverick the advantage will go to Slate for a lower operating cost. I could be wrong, this is my opinion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In any case, whatever the initial price may be, it will be set by Slate, not by us here on the forum - and it will have to compete in the market based on what you get with what you pay for.

Whatever the price winds up being, I'm still going to consider it. And I'm coming from the perspective of owning a 2022 Tesla Model 3 with all its accompanying bells, whistles, etc. I'm interested in the appeal of a back to basics platform that meets modern safety requirements.

Pricing is not my decision to make. Still, I wish Slate success in this endeavor.

 

[beatle]

For sure. Here's just one example: a mobile detailer came to my house a couple years ago to give me an estimate on paint correction. He drove a Maverick with a decent sized water tank in the bed and a pressure washer locked to the bed tie downs. He kept a few more expensive smaller tools in the back seat since the cabin could be locked. He loved it, but he obviously had no need for the back seat other than secure storage. The frunk would be much more secure.

I also think of Amazon using the Slate as a delivery vehicle. They do have large Rivian and Dodge vans right now, but I also see a lot of independent contractors using their own vehicles to deliver packages - mostly driving small sedans and crossovers. A Slate with the SUV kit (sans seats) would be perfect for delivery in densely packed urban and suburban areas.

I could also see Amazon possibly moving to the Fedex model for part of their logistics. Much of Fedex delivery is actually done via independent contractors that buy their own Fedex trucks. Amazon could use the Slate the same way, especially for same-day or next-day deliveries. The Rivian EDV starts around $80k and only gets ~160 miles of range. The "low startup cost" of running a Slate would smoke the EDV. What's more, giant van-sized delivery vehicles are a liability and not an asset in the city. Heck, just last Sunday I was yelling at some delivery guy in a Sprinter who was double parked in a single-lane road in DC, blocking all traffic. Had he been in a Slate, I could have driven around him.

 

[E90400K]

I agree that the Slate has "failed" on the price factor is too aggressive an assessment right now, but it's not for nothing. Being an EV, they created a big price gap between their rivals with the credit. Now the gap is objectively smaller. I can't see Slate offering it for any more than $27,500 or they'll have to eat their hats. However, they might make it just a touch lower to earn goodwill and press, but the margins here are already going to be slim.

I have a hunch they originally developed the Slate as a fleet vehicle and then decided to market it to the public for extra sales. A lot of their material revolves around people using the Slate for their business. They have fleet-specific events, and the platform really does check a lot of fleet boxes. The tagline, "We didn't build it for you, but we think you'll like it anyway" probably ended up on the marketing floor early on.

My local Ford dealership, which up until 2018 was one of the oldest remaining independent family-owned Ford franchises that dated back to 1929. They had a huge business selling 2-door Rangers as fleet sales, mainly to the local branch of Pepsi Cola, all which dropped away once the Ranger went 4-door only. Why Ford does not sell a 2-door Maverick is beyond comprehension. I've test-driven the Maverick and it is compromised in size. The rear seat is too small and the bed is too small, both because of the 4-door cab configuration. Now that the Ranger is 4-door only, it makes no sense that neither platform offers a 2-door/long-bed configuration. I think Ford is missing out on sales of a 2-door/manual transmission small pickup truck that it could inexpensively derive from the Ranger/2-door Bronco platform.

I think the answer lies in the US DOT crash testing regulations, which IMO are outdated and severely limit model diversification throughout the industry, regardless of manufacturer.

 

[beatle]

Yes, since the Maverick is based on the Escape platform, they'd need to more or less go back to the drawing board to develop a 2-door Maverick, including crash testing. Keeping it 4 doors also lets them share other components between the Escape and Bronco sport. Coupled with the declining consumer market for 2-door trucks, I can see why they made it 4, even though I'd personally also like a 2-door pickup. So here we all are on the Slate forum.

MPG/emissions mandates and auto trans performance improvements have all but killed off manual transmissions, else Ford might offer the Lobo with the manual out of the European-only Focus ST. The Lobo's auto transmission already comes out of that car. I'd probably start my own "I'm cancelling my reservation" thread if they did bring the 6-speed over.

 

[E90400K]

Yes, since the Maverick is based on the Escape platform, they'd need to more or less go back to the drawing board to develop a 2-door Maverick, including crash testing. Keeping it 4 doors also lets them share other components between the Escape and Bronco sport. Coupled with the declining consumer market for 2-door trucks, I can see why they made it 4, even though I'd personally also like a 2-door pickup. So here we all are on the Slate forum.

MPG/emissions mandates and auto trans performance improvements have all but killed off manual transmissions, else Ford might offer the Lobo with the manual out of the European-only Focus ST. The Lobo's auto transmission already comes out of that car. I'd probably start my own "I'm cancelling my reservation" thread if they did bring the 6-speed over.

The Bronco has a manual transmission version for the 2.3L EcoBoost. The Bronco and the Ranger are built on the same chassis and share the same drivetrain components.

I think there is a business case for Ford to build a 2-door Maverick for fleet service purposes. But building a 2-door Ranger is probably easier since there is a short-frame Bronco 2-door. The manual transmission is just my personal want.

 

[GaRailroader]

But building a 2-door Ranger is probably easier since there is a short-frame Bronco 2-door. The manual transmission is just my personal want.

That would be a cool truck. Like the 1st generation Bronco half-cab. Dimensionally, how similar to the Slate would that be?

 

[beatle]

The Bronco has a manual transmission version for the 2.3L EcoBoost. The Bronco and the Ranger are built on the same chassis and share the same drivetrain components.

I think there is a business case for Ford to build a 2-door Maverick for fleet service purposes. But building a 2-door Ranger is probably easier since there is a short-frame Bronco 2-door. The manual transmission is just my personal want.

Yes, but the Bronco/Ranger are on the T6 platform, and Escape/Bronco sport/Maverick are built on the C2 platform. The 2.3l isn't currently available on a US Ford product unless you count Lincoln. I (and a lot of other people online) are 100% with you on offering the 2.3l on a C2 vehicle in the US. It sucks that so many options are "size-walled" to the larger vehicles.

Ford does make a 2-door Ranger, but not in the US. My guess is there isn't enough US fleet demand for a single cab mid-size pickup.

 

[E90400K]

That would be a cool truck. Like the 1st generation Bronco half-cab. Dimensionally, how similar to the Slate would that be?

I bet real close.

 

[E90400K]

Yes, but the Bronco/Ranger are on the T6 platform, and Escape/Bronco sport/Maverick are built on the C2 platform. The 2.3l isn't currently available on a US Ford product unless you count Lincoln. I (and a lot of other people online) are 100% with you on offering the 2.3l on a C2 vehicle in the US. It sucks that so many options are "size-walled" to the larger vehicles.

Ford does make a 2-door Ranger, but not in the US. My guess is there isn't enough US fleet demand for a single cab mid-size pickup.

Let me separate this for you; maybe I have not been clear. I think Ford should either make a 2-door long-bed Maverick using the Maverick platform and its native drivetrain(s) or make a 2-door Ranger/long-bed on the T6 platform. I think it is easier for Ford to make the 2-door Ranger.

The problem is a large portion of the market are buyers with a family, for who a 4-door is the preferred architecture. The manufacturers go for the largest portion of the market they can sell to because of the too numerous Federal regulations that dictate automotive design make it uneconomical for small-unit production of derivative models. I think the biggest hurdle to model diversity are crash regs that require live testing of platforms with all drivetrain combinations. If the Feds would allow computer-aided crash testing (i.e. finite element analysis), which would drastically reduce the cost of crash testing models. The regulations are drastically outdated.

 

[E90400K]

Yes, but the Bronco/Ranger are on the T6 platform, and Escape/Bronco sport/Maverick are built on the C2 platform. The 2.3l isn't currently available on a US Ford product unless you count Lincoln. I (and a lot of other people online) are 100% with you on offering the 2.3l on a C2 vehicle in the US. It sucks that so many options are "size-walled" to the larger vehicles.

Ford does make a 2-door Ranger, but not in the US. My guess is there isn't enough US fleet demand for a single cab mid-size pickup.

Ford of Germany (where you can buy a real American pickup truck) ...

Turbo diesel w/ manual transmission...

Mr. Farley... PLEASE!

 

[beatle]

Let me separate this for you; maybe I have not been clear. I think Ford should either make a 2-door long-bed Maverick using the Maverick platform and its native drivetrain(s) or make a 2-door Ranger/long-bed on the T6 platform. I think it is easier for Ford to make the 2-door Ranger.

The problem is a large portion of the market are buyers with a family, for who a 4-door is the preferred architecture. The manufacturers go for the largest portion of the market they can sell to because of the too numerous Federal regulations that dictate automotive design make it uneconomical for small-unit production of derivative models. I think the biggest hurdle to model diversity are crash regs that require live testing of platforms with all drivetrain combinations. If the Feds would allow computer-aided crash testing (i.e. finite element analysis), which would drastically reduce the cost of crash testing models. The regulations are drastically outdated.

That's the thing, since the C2 platform is a unibody, you can't just cut out 2 doors and call it the same platform; it's all-new since the body itself provides the strength to withstand a crash. Body-on-frame construction allows for a lot more flexibility in "reusing" the frame for other configurations since the body is not as important in a crash. This is why a 2-door Ranger is easier (possible) to make.

I'm not sure about whether the US is "outdated" in its crash testing regs or requirements. What can you point out? If you dramatically change the engine to one that weighs over 250lbs more, you have to crash another car. Europe is similar. They usually pick the heaviest engine/drivetrain and crash that one. The lighter options then "inherit" those test results. Doing an EV conversion to an ICE platform can save on development costs, but it's still a dramatically different vehicle at the end.

The fact that the US and Europe standards are just different make it more expensive than anything else., but crashes are also often different in Europe and the US.

I think plenty of 2-door pickup buyers also had families, but the trucks (and the driveways in which they were parked) weren't so expensive, so dad could have his pickup in addition to his sedan. Nowadays people demand one vehicle to rule them all because many people can only afford to buy and park only one. The same fate has eliminated almost all relatively inexpensive 2-door sports cars and has given rise to sporty crossovers. (That term made me kind of sick to type out.) I obviously think this sucks as well.

 

[E90400K]

That's the thing, since the C2 platform is a unibody, you can't just cut out 2 doors and call it the same platform; it's all-new since the body itself provides the strength to withstand a crash. Body-on-frame construction allows for a lot more flexibility in "reusing" the frame for other configurations since the body is not as important in a crash. This is why a 2-door Ranger is easier (possible) to make.

I'm not sure about whether the US is "outdated" in its crash testing regs or requirements. What can you point out? If you dramatically change the engine to one that weighs over 250lbs more, you have to crash another car. Europe is similar. They usually pick the heaviest engine/drivetrain and crash that one. The lighter options then "inherit" those test results. Doing an EV conversion to an ICE platform can save on development costs, but it's still a dramatically different vehicle at the end.

The fact that the US and Europe standards are just different make it more expensive than anything else., but crashes are also often different in Europe and the US.

I think plenty of 2-door pickup buyers also had families, but the trucks (and the driveways in which they were parked) weren't so expensive, so dad could have his pickup in addition to his sedan. Nowadays people demand one vehicle to rule them all because many people can only afford to buy and park only one. The same fate has eliminated almost all relatively inexpensive 2-door sports cars and has given rise to sporty crossovers. (That term made me kind of sick to type out.) I obviously think this sucks as well.

Outdated because computer-aided simulation is so good it can serve as a substitute for real crash data, which is why crash testing is so expensive.

The reason manual transmissions are not as prevalent in model ranges is because they have to be crash tested even if the same engine is used for the automatic transmission version of the car. The take rate on manuals does not justify the additional cost of crash testing the alternate drivetrain. Computer simulation can easily determine the crash results of swapping in a manual transmission for an automatic in an otherwise unchanged model. I'd say the same for 2-door vs. 4-door.