jpd80

Considering that GM is committed to an all electric future, I’m surprised it’s taken them this long to surpass Ford..

More likely, Ford took all their ICE project funding and put it into electric vehicles because that’s the way European Legislation is forcing manufacturers go. What we are seeing today is basically the fruit of decisions made four or five years ago.

Just my opinion, If the overall fuel economy targets were based on assumed BEV sales numbers that are not happening then, yes those target numbers should be revised lower.

The 6.8’s limited use is mostly due to the 7.3s maxing out production. Apart from that, I haven’t heard anything on a new engine variant so I’ll be surprised along with the rest of the folks here.

The upgrades were just increased production volume at the two plants for Coyote V8s and the 6.8/7.3 V8s. The V8s tend to be more fuel efficient under load compared to Ecoboost V6s, turbos need richer mixtures under boost and that makes an even bigger difference the heavier the load, like Super Duty trucks can tow….its the opposite of down sizing engines for fuel efficiency when running with no load.

The move to 3.5 V6 Ecoboost engines years ago has served Ford well and adding the Nano 2.7 and 3.0 V6 EB engines almost guarantees that Ford already has heavily amortised engine platforms that can do the job until no longer needed. While the 2.0/2.3 MPC EBs could possible be extended to I-5 or I-6, I don’t think that disruption is warranted at this time but perhaps an option for the future when ICE builds start to reduce significantly. My earlier comment regarding buy in of the Ram 3.0 DOHC I-6 turbo was in error as John Lawler made no such reference to Ram as a possible engine supplier. The truth is that Ram would kill to have the sales level that Ford has with F Series, so Ford must be doing a lot of right moves. Production upgrades to both V8 engine plants were announced earlier this year, so hopefully USMC agreements can be negotiated to permit this proceeding.

MPC upgrades had more to do with staying in front of emissions limits, I'm hearing anecdotes that the 2025 2.0 EB does not have GPF at least on some models.

I think you are right as I misunderstood what John Lawler was quoted as saying in the auto line link he was talking about two possible engine suppliers one being VW, the other I couldn’t quite make out but I think it was engine manufacturing spin off from Renault (?), I think he said “Horse” Anyways, sounds like small engines and for Europe and maybe ROW markets, so maybe not North America.

I wonder if Ford has seen an opportunity to pick up at low cost, the Ram 3.0 I-6 turbo, maybe indifferent sales of that engine in Ram 1500 has Ram knocking on Ford’s door… Also,I kind of agree with biker with regards to outsourcing smaller capacity engines and transmissions from say, VW? The main reason for Ford doing any of this would be to reduce ICE production assets as in, getting them off the books by out sourcing like it’s already done with big chunks of its other production assets… So, If they don’t see a down side to this, could that be a future problem?

Ford Australia is most likely waiting until 2026 when our new low sulphur fuels become available, Ford Europe stopped making the Euro 5 specific Puma so that dried up sales in Australia until after Christmas when we get Euro 6 version. So hoping Territory comes when the new fuel is available.

It’s common practice across several region that Ford tests the upper price thresholds and with it buyer dedication. Maybe taking premium pricing and “right sizing sale” a little too far to the high side….

Given the big price difference, Ford deliberately accentuates traffic towards the popular Bronco Raptor. Ranger Raptor is there for buyers who want a bargain but open to a pickup versus the iconic Bronco. The best thing Ford ever did was to make Bronco the first T6 mark 2 vehicle developed, sharing those North American gasoline power trains with Ranger is what keeps the costs down for RR, thank you Ford.

It’s always been about price perception, remember back when there was talk of $39,000 electric trucks, that encouraged a ton of reservations at Ford and Tesla that really evaporated as the price moved higher. It wouldn’t have been so bad but Ford began talking about BEV construction costs nearing that of ICE and didn’t all that turn to poo really quickly, construction price of Edge was $19k vs Mach E’s $44k. In my neck of the woods, we’re seeing BYD Shark 6 PHEV and Great Wall Motors Cannon Alpha PHEV, two pickups that are putting fire to the feet of Ranger PHEV even before it arrives. Time will tell…

And if Bronco Raptor still seems a bit high, the buyer always has the Ranger Raptor available for $23,000 less.

Indeed, you get the feeling that most people would be thinking that now is the best time to buy instead of waiting a month or so and perhaps regretting it big time.

If we look at nothing else, F Series sales at 79,817 is a fantastic result. Discounts or not, anytime Ford moves that many trucks, it’s a good month

The Chinese Territory/Equator Sport is a SWB share with the Equator platform, both vehicles developed by Ford China’s partner JMC but suspect its’s on the modified bones of the previous CD4 platform (width is 76” like Edge). irrespective that, it shows what is possible with enough thought, a vehicle the length and width of Territory would be different enough for product space from Bronco Sport but I realise it’s impractical to uproot it as is.

Pretty much the same way that full sized pickups are in Australia as most are AUS$120k-$150k (US$70k -$95k) In some instances maybe a lot more than that… There’s a fully maintained novated lease set up where the business pays a monthly payment that’s not subject to fringe benefit tax (no payment for personal travel). Those on high income higher tax brackets get a big leg up when a vehicle is included as part of salary package.

Just more gaming the rules, once a big battery BEV exceeds upper GVM limit for CAFE vehicles, it seems to be off the radar as a guilt free indulgence for those who can afford one.

GM is persisting with the big battery, premium priced vehicle route. Clearly, price limits the number of sales but probably helps with exclusivity that is expected with a much higher priced vehicle. I think it would be wise for Ford to consider all possibilities but most importantly, matching range expectations with the particular level, be that HEV, PHEV, small or large battery BEV.

Purely face saving for Tesla, no more talk of reservation numbers. Ford also silent on BOC as the current Lightning construction set up at Dearborn is well under capacity. All the dollars thrown at products that most buyers show little interest in.

Since the last minute delay/cancellation of GE2, a lot of the upgrades planned for Mach E have changed a bit as Ford scrambles to find the best fit of motors batteries and controllers to keep prices under control. Mach E having a coupe twin now seems so hard because it’s been too long (2018 when EMax changed) but Ford was lucky that Mach E was seen as a competitor to Tesla Y but BEV interest is a bit subdued ATM

Yes, the BYD Sealion 6 is a good package which means that anything seen as less value will struggle. I think Territory would work in Australia but understand that it would be fighting against established competition as well as newer Chinese brands. Ford needs a hybrid utility to go up against RAV4 which is romping away with sales.

Odd that it’s taken this long for Ford Authority to report on Q1 sales because back in April, other news outlets reported Cybertruck Q1 deliveries at around 6,400. Must have found some more…

Thank you both for added info. The frustrating part for me is that Ford China doesn’t supply more countries like Australia and New Zealand although RHD South Africa gets Territory /Equator Sport. The use of Chinese parts suppliers with older more mature Ecoboost designs would seem to point a reliable product. Hopefully Ford can build on that work for another array of affordable products, even only for Asia pacific region for now where there’s no present tariff issues between those countries.