Recently by Eric Peters: Girlie Cars of the Recent Past

Heres the first known victim of the latest CAFE (government fuel efficiency) increase to 35.5 MPG: The compact pick-up truck. And the American truck buyer.

OK, thats two victims.

Ive just discovered that Ford has dropped the Ranger  Americas last compact-sized truck – for 2012. But not from its lineup. Just from its U.S. model lineup. Not only will the Ranger continue to be sold in export markets, the 2012 model will be a heavily updated model which, among other things, will offer a new diesel engine  something you cant get in any current pick-up in the U.S. thats not at least a 2500 series behemoth with a price tag well over $30,000. Meanwhile, the Aussies, among others, will get a brand-new Ranger, revealed at the Thailand International Motor Expo last month. It is a handsome-looker, with an available quad cab body and an all-new interior.

The 2.2 liter, four-cylinder Duratorq TDCi diesel-equipped version  offered with either six-speed manual or six-speed automatic  sounds like just the ticket for the U.S. market, too.

But, we lose. Its not coming here.

The official reason for not giving American buyers the opportunity to buy this truck is that  supposedly  Ranger is too close to F-150 and so redundant.

Which makes no sense, especially since as recently as the 2010 New York Auto Show, Ford Spokeswoman April Fursten told www.pickuptrucks.com that We took a long look at Ranger sales over the last two years and the numbers are better than we forecasted. Year-to-date, its outpacing 2009s numbers, selling better than the all-new Flex crossover and is only about 2,000 less units than the recently updated Mustang . Fursten added that (Ford CEO Alan) Mullaly said we be nuts to kill the Ranger in the U.S. because more than 7 million have been sold since 1983.

I dont get it, either.

The Ranger may not be a best-seller, but its a consistently solid seller. And its been a staple of the Ford lineup for three decades.You dont just throw away brand equity like that. Also, its the only compact truck on the market, so Ford has the market all to itself.

Well, it did.

Ranger has a reasonably fuel-efficient four-cylinder engine capable of 22 MPG city, 27 MPG on the highway. The best the much larger F-150 can do is 17 city, 23 highway. That 4-5 MPG split may not sound like all that much but to many people in this economy, its a difference that matters. (I own a compact, four-cylinder pick-up myself that I bought precisely because I did not need a V-6 nor want to feed a V-6.)

And with the new Duratorq diesel, the upated 2012 Ranger is probably good for 30-plus on the highway, which would surely draw buyers attention. And not just because of the better mileage. The diesel would be better-suited to pulling and off-roading. You know, the kinds of things that people who buy trucks tend to be interested in. And theres longevity. Assuming its a solid design, a decently cared for Duratorq engine ought to last longer than the truck itself. Another selling point.

Price is another factor. The current Ranger (2011) starts at $18,160. The base 2012 F-truck starts at $22,990. Thats a more than $4,600 difference. A huge difference. Ford is going to make you pay more for gas and make you pay more for a new truck. A lot more.

I expect a lot of people are not going to be happy about this.

Size also does matter to many people.

Not everyone wants a 1500 series truck. The F-150 is a big truck. Even the regular cab model stretches 213.2 inches bumper to bumper vs. 189.4 for the regular cab Ranger. Thats about two feet (and about 500 pounds) more truck than a lot of buyers need.

A compact-sized truck makes a great runabout. Its easier to maneuver and park. And its pretty good on gas. Whats wrong with this picture? What would make Ford think that the compact-sized Ranger, which has sold well for decades, is wrong in concept? Actually, not wrong in concept  because after all, Ford committed major resources to significantly update it for 2012. Which certainly implies that Ford sees a future for the truck.

Just not here.

Again, why?

The only thing I can come up with is CAFE. The federal governments fuel efficiency edicts. But wait, isnt the Ranger more fuel-efficient than the F-truck? Wouldnt a diesel Ranger be even more so? Yes, and yes. So?

Bear with me.

CAFE is about fleet averages, which are measured based on annual production totals. So, the more of a given vehicle that gets less-than-par MPGs (35.5 MPGs by 2016) the lower a car companys overall fleet average CAFE score. By getting rid of the Ranger, Ford will produce fewer trucks overall that dont make the CAFE cut, which will help float the final number.

Ford is not going to drop the F-truck, a best-seller. But the merely ok-selling Ranger is expendable.

So, sayonara.

But dont blame Ford. Or at least, dont be too hard on Ford. It did what it probably had to do. Faced with the Hobsons choice of keeping Ranger in the U.S. lineup and losing probably millions courtesy of CAFE fines or dropping the truck and losing a few thousand buyers  some of whom Ford knows it can probably up-sell into a new F-truck  the decision was predictable.

Its just too bad that, once again, American consumers get to pay more  and get one less choice to make themselves  courtesy of the Clovers in Washington.

The Best of Eric Peters