Leaderboard

Good point but I don't think ICE production will be ARTIFICIALLY extended, I just think the market will extend it because that is what the market will dictate. I believe many people recognize the false economy that is being used to sell electrification. To say nothing of our tax dollars paying for it.

I don't get the cult behind Subaru-they are mid level products...The styling isn't anything write home about either.

https://fordauthority.com/2023/10/tentative-uaw-deal-includes-8-billion-investment-from-ford/ The possible new product at Flat Rock is intriguing although it would require far more than $50 million.

Good points, typical small business that needs trucks starts with whatever car they have, then as volume grows they upgrade to a van or pickup. Beyond that Ford loses them with uncompetitive medium duty offerings and nothing with more than two axles that can pull a single "pup" trailer at best. Daimler understands this, that's why they've got their Mercedes car dealers selling Sprinters!

I've had that same thought..or question. Focusing on the 2billion for OAP, a lot of money and focusing on my favorite subject, medium duty, a bit disappointing to read "medium truck will continue". That doesn't bode well if that translates to "more of the same". Now if engineering/design is NOT in that number maybe there is hope that a future exists for the medium segment. I don't see how Ford can be a real player in commercial without paying attention to that segment. Medium is a natural progression for so many businesses. You see a start up commercial venture and they have vans, then step vans and "bigger is better" takes over and they are into24' box trucks. Amazon is a good example..at least in this area. I'm seeing more and more Hino conventionals wearing Prime colors.

It's unusual for Ford to be so candid about future product, but Mr Farley has, twice now, hinted at future Mustang product. Remember he tweeted "should we build a road going Mustang GT3?"......then a few months later, the GTD is revealed. Back in August, he hinted a hybrid Mustang coupe was likely. https://fordauthority.com/2023/08/ford-mustang-hybrid-coupe-more-realistic-than-ev-farley/ Given we know Flat Rock's paint process can only cope with low vehicles, we can assume any new product will be a variation of the Mustang coupe line-up, so this $50m could go towards prepping for a hybrid S650.

Alan Mulally rewrote the playbook as Ford's CEO, but as soon as he left Mark Fields tossed it to the wind and everything went back to the way it was. The Ford "culture" has been embedded so deeply for so many decades that I just don't know if it's possible to change it. There are so many management layers at Ford and a lot of unnecessary layers that embed to constant priority of protecting one's "job security" instead of making decisions that are best for Ford, the product and the customers. Just look at the product quality issues that have existed for decades with warranty costs now in excess of $2 Billion per year and keeps getting worse. Too many layers of management, too many people making decisions, too many poor decisions being approved, etc. It goes on and on!

Agreed, Medium/Heavy trucks should be just as high a funding priority as EV vans. Ford should really be working on cooking up a new big truck with Cummins upcoming 10 liter diesel and spark ignition engines, the aluminum Super Duty cabs, and at least 3 axles!

its never changed....

So what's your point? That the Equinox will be priced $5,000 more than initially estimated? Or that you just want to post new content to increase your post count? What's the point?

VW tried that too with a lifted Golf 7 wagon with AWD, I was tracking a couple hundred 2019 models in 2020-21 that weren't selling despite $7500 rebates, then they suddenly disappeared. Turns out a Colorado VW dealer who understood the Suburu market bought them up and had them sold in short order! GM had similar experience with the Buick (Opel) AWD wagon, despite similar big rebates Buick didn't understand the market.

This UAW Demand is a Big Mistake. It's Already Failed in China Incentives and competition fuel productivity and growth, while mandated equality leads to stagnation https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/uaw-demand-big-mistake-already-failed-china The United Auto Workers (UAW) have reportedly struck agreements with each of the Big Three auto manufacturers, hopefully bringing thousands back to work and restarting U.S. automobile production. With details still being finalized, it remains to be seen how damaging these agreements will be to the U.S. But if the UAW is happy with the terms, it’s likely that they could have detrimental impacts on the U.S. economy and workforce for generations. It’s easy to understand why. The UAW has made demands that could damage the competitiveness of U.S. auto manufacturers. They’ve asked for significant wage increases and a shorter work week, making it tough for U.S. manufacturers to compete globally and potentially weakening a core and beloved American industry. However, it's the UAW's third demand that is most troubling: the elimination of the two-tiered wage system, which would result in everyone in a given role receiving the same compensation, regardless of their experience or time in their position. This demand is fundamentally un-American and would have severe unintended consequences. Recently, UPS eliminated their two-tiered wage system. If the UAW secures this concession, the auto industry would be the next domino to fall, putting American industry on the perilous path of self-imposed decline. Negotiators need look no further than Communist Mao Zedong’s China in the 1950s and 1960s to see the disastrous economic effects of this policy. Unsurprisingly, Marxists are advising the UAW leadership and pushing for a similar wage system. Mao's vision of socialist equality, with uniform wages irrespective of occupation, education or skill level, led to disastrous economic effects and human suffering. When everyone is paid the same regardless of their performance or skills, the motivation to excel dissipates. FoxBusiness.com_2023-10-31_This UAW Demand is a Big Mistake.pdf

Unfortunately, Ford missed its opportunity to compete with Subaru decades ago with Subaru firmly embedded as an attractive, lower cost AWD alternative that has seen substantial growth over the years in selected regions such as New England where a lower cost AWD is very attractive.

But during the gas crisis of the 70s they absolutely limited how much gas you could buy at one time for similar reasons.

That’s really good. I pay $0.20 per kWh at home, so nearly 3 times higher; and expect it will go up to fund required Texas grid upgrades. Anyway, when BEVs were first being promoted as saving on energy costs, it must be difficult for manufacturers’ planning given such wide electricity cost variations. For people who can’t charge at home, energy costs alone is an issue, on top of higher initial cost. I can see why BEV sales have slowed some, for various reasons.

It appears a “congestion” fee at Tesla Superchargers is not a done deal yet. Whether it actually gets implemented or not, the question it raises for me personally is how much control do I want to allow “others” to have over my vehicle or what would have been considered personal decisions not long ago? In most cases I expect owners don’t have much choice other than not buy vehicle in the first place. When I pull up to an Exxon, they don’t care how much gas I buy or if I have enough already to get to the next gas station. https://electrek.co/2023/10/24/tesla-planning-controversial-congestion-fee-supercharger/

I recently paid $40.81 for 83.75 kwh. That was $31.83 at 38kwh plus a $8.98 charge for time on the charger.

That's a valid point, every car brand stops and starts development on certain projects, and changes their product plans, but Ford has been especially bad in this regard these last few years. Case in point, the supposed Subaru outback rival they were working on. It seems like they spent years developing that product, and then canceled it very suddenly for no apparent reason. Ford talks about being efficient with it's resources, but dedicating years to developing a product, and then canning it, well that's about as wasteful as it gets. I'd imagine there are quite a few designers and engineers within Ford who are disillusioned with the company, because these products they're pouring their heart and soul into keep getting canceled or molested by upper management.

Part of the problem over time has been when programs start and stop, then start and stop again. Especially with different teams of people. While only one example, the CD6 program is the more recent one that comes to mind. It was started and stopped 1 or 2 separate times. Each time a different team picked up the previous teams work. This is why the current Explorer/Aviator have suffered so many quality problems. Programs that get started and then shelved are a major brain drain.

I saw a post on another forum from someone who had the Ford Performance SC kit installed on his 2023 5.0L Tremor by the dealer before he took delivery of his truck. I was a little surprised that he did not know that Ford had made some major changes to the 5.0L in the F-150 for the 2021 and newer model years. He said that he did not understand why the dealer had refused to replace the oil pump gears before installing the supercharger. He did not know that Ford had switched to a belt driven oil pump on the F-150 5.0L until I told him which kinda makes me wonder if whoever he was dealing with at the dealership was even aware of that.

Any global automaker who walks away from BEV at this juncture is handing enormous business opportunities to their competitors on a silver platter.

From who? I find that most people are just repeating "lies" of what they heard or are sharing videos of BEVs catching on Fire, when ICE does it on a normal day. There is so much FUD out there (about anything) that its fucking annoying.

Ultimately the Edge should not have been cancelled and subsequently updated or replaced. You don’t have to change the frame every 5 years to improve a vehicle. Changing the sheetmetal and the interior will sufficiently make it a new vehicle. Enhanced drivetrains would be icing on the cake. A similar strategy sure seems to have worked for Toyota. I mean they do have the Chinese Edge that could be used, although they would need to change that ugly kick up in the rear beltline and probably take it back to two rows.

I agree with politicization, to a degree, because the vehicle ARE being mandated along the granola coast and in increasing numbers of countries...before the tech is really a full-on replacement for ICE. I am definitely among those that wonder why I'd ever take orders from "representatives" that supposedly work for...us...? That said, with inconsistent charging stations, various tech gremlins, and the other (slow charging, expense, etc) issues that plague even fully-functional examples, I'm certainly not sold, yet.

Perhaps you missed all my posts saying we need affordable BEVs. Maverick margins are good because it doesn’t need $4K cash on the hood. Don’t confuse good business decisions with personal desires. The problem is BEVs can’t turn a profit at low prices because the costs are still too high. Mach-E was losing money. It’s great for consumers short term but if the company can’t turn a profit they can’t stay in business very long. We’re several years away from profitable affordable BEVs. In the meantime there are plenty of ICE choices.