jpd80

I get the whole idea of minimum number of plants with production right sized to true market need, that’s a clever way of saying fewer plants and employees working harder, making only highly profitable vehicles. The big failure of “One Ford” was that it took global vehicles too far, ignoring proper regional tailoring as well as the opportunity to use multiple vehicles/sales channels to deliver higher profits by reaching more customers. America is a treasure trove of niche customers - all they want is to be given vehicles that fill that need and it’s $$$$. The stripped down minimalist view of the auto industry is looking through the accountants eyes, it misses everything that makes Ford buyers pay premiums for vehicles that stands out from the competition. Maverick showed how quickly Ford could get a desirable vehicle to market when it ignored out of date research to the contrary. Rowing against the tide and actually making vehicles that are different to all the “vanilla” competition is the right path, they just don’t see it yet. Ford took its eyes off the market when it went after BEVs 100% drawing $11 billion out of ICE programs and sending its most experienced engineering teams down the road. Ford has no plan B, current changes are only aimed at stemming the bleeding, it’s just fortunate that Bronco, Ranger and F150 are still strong enough to pick up the slack

I’m wondering about that. Thailand and China parts supply have really ramped up in the last 6-8 months with more shipments to Australia &New Zealand. So either North America T6 parts supply is back to normal or being supplemented by parts come from Asia Pacific. Either way, Ford gets to concentrate on more popular models including more F150s.

I think that Ford has given up on high volume sales for Mach E and now it’s just seeking out niche buyers. Just thinking, many potential Mach E buyers probably went the Tesla Y route and this distinctive color may appeal to them.

Less? Was there any to begin with?

No, other governments do all that shit too and then some, you guys just have different priorities on where money gets spent…

Yeah see, Ford has done a good job of indoctrinating people that “One Ford” was the best plan economically it referred to offering buyers choices in the same segments as unnecessary duplication. Anytime a vehicle comes under heavy competition, it folds and calls it a commodity vehicle. The Escape refresh was a disaster, the Bronco Sport is basically a return ot the old original boxy Gen 1 Escape. Let it take as much of that market as it can. I think we agree on Maverick Utility as a replacement for Escape but in a different way to Bronco Sport, a longer wheelbase would take the fight to the likes of RAV4 and others that are just a sea of bland styling. Exactly, would that they could make and sell as many Mavericks and Bronco Sports as buyers actually want. The most frustrating part is Ford cannot get on top of supplier issues and that really sucks big time. its like that vast majority of people at Ford do nothing but get in the way…… the first thing managers at Ford learn is to say no to good ideas that might cost money and improve sales because he will get reamed by his boss and lose his bonus.

The more I read these threads, the more I become convinced that manufacturers like Ford dont really know what the majority of vehicle buyers want these days and that’s because theres so much choice. Ford thought that Utilites would replace cars, they did but Ford decided to build only a few types and wondered why everyone else was eating their lunch…… The RAV4 is no great shakes but it has done more to transition Toyota car buyers that any other brand. The fact that Toyota openly admits that most Camry buyers will probably switch to RAV4 says a lot. Maybe one day, Ford will get a clue about the millions of buyers who don’t even consider it anymore.

The citizens are amongst the happiest in the world because their government actually does things for them.

I find it ironic that the Maverick took such a short time to develop from a concept to market delivery, just a shame that Ford didn’t double down on Maverick Utility, Escape is now branded a commodity. A more provocative Bronco Sport development would have seen its length at 180”, same as Escape, making the choice simply between rugged boxy design and soft, perhaps too bland Euro styling.. Maybe that’s where something like a Maverick Utility could offer the perfect replacement for Escape, expanding an existing vehicle in a low cost Mexican plant without having to revisit any other changes…. Just spitballing ideas here but knowing that Ford can’t go back and lengthen Bronco Sport, maybe keep with your thinking with the Bronco family theme while perhaps extending Maverick to replace Escape? It would definitely be low cost to develop and much easier to implement along side Maverick pickup.

It’s not just that you lose total range in the freezing cold, the battery must also be kept warm and that’s where the parasitic power loss comes when left out in the open on a street. It’s one thing to think you have enough charge left to make it to a charge station and then discover that the battery has been significantly drained because it needs to stay at a certain temperature….

When you think of all the added complication, it’s just easier to go buy a gasoline vehicle and fill it up every few days..

The joys of electric vehicle ownership. People have enough problems with ICEs parked out in the open in the freezing cold. I wonder how many folks with BEVs will have a change of heart if they get bit by a dead car because of the cold weather…..

In global markets, the Hyundai Tucson has the 7-speed DCT transmission but the updated 2024 hybrid is a 6-speed auto with 1.5 turbo engine. So there’s variations within their range (we also get a diesel version). Some buyers don’t like the sometimes jerkiness of a DCT shift and this is why an automatic with a hybrid is preferred, it also simplifies the process by switching out the torque converter for a drive motor - that’s much harder to do with dual clutch.

This is more of a Ford Europe vs Ford North America thing, Europeans prefer the 7-speed DCT because it feels and drives like an automated manual transmission. US based customers prefer a true automatic and the E-CVT is evolved from the 6F transmission and tooling. So yeah, probably more to do with perceived customer preference.

Sorry, late to the discussion but a little digging shows that Transit Courier is built with Puma at Craiova plant in Romania and is basically a development of the Fiesta platform. It looks like Ford made this van big enough to replace the SWB Transit Connect possibly because the TC is switching to VW Caddy platform …….

That particular problem is clearly a shortage of power at peak loadings. Solar and wind could definitely be affected by current weather conditions but I’m wondering if it’s more about things like gas peaker plants having issues with the cold or maybe even insufficient distribution grid when transferring power at max loadings - the transmission lines may not be able to send enough power to where its needed to even out supply. Power utilities might also be biasing supply to commercial supplies and asking etail customers to take the hit…..just sayin’ that there could a few possibilities….

I guess governments and industries are trying to do all the changes at once to avoid being singled out as laggards but I have a big issue with conscripting buyers to electric vehicles before the technology and infrastructure is ready. The greening of the power grid should be priority one as should increasing roof top domestic solar installations, not so much about selling power back to utilities but to permanently take pressure off the grid for domestic power consumption until wider electrification begins and the supporting public charging infrastructure develops. No politics here, encouraging industry and power users in the right direction is one thing but prematurely regulating against gasoline and diesel before we’re ready for mass migration is a mistake that could cost billions and actually set back the whole cause…

Considering Ford Europe’s approaching BEV line up for passenger vehicles: 1. BEV Puma covers popular subcompact crossover utility segment (and much nicer than Ecosport) 2. BEV Explorer covers that EV Escape compact utility segment 3. BEV Capri crossover sort of covers buyers wanting something between Puma and Explorer 4. BEV Mustang Mach E sells as a sportier long wheelbase vehicle but I wonder if Euro buyers prefer the Explorer. Apart from being cautiously optimistic, we have no idea how or if Ford will attract buyers to these vehicles over the VW offerings like ID4, ID5 or the Up electric vehicle or Peugeot/Stellantis or even Tesla 3, Y and coming 2. I don’t think the CD weighs in as much as you think in Europe. That’s because of population density and reality that much of the intended travel and distances is done at less than highway speeds and more like urban/suburban speeds. The popularity of subcompact vehicles also reduces power consumption needs even at lower speeds where the drag caused by higher than desirable CD exists simply because people prefer short bulky people carriers that are much easier to park and ride in than a dart shaped vehicle.

Perhaps people now realise that bigger reductions on greenhouse gasses are possible by reducing the use of coal in power generation, replacing it with gas, solar, wind and batteries. Pressing harder with help to achieve that in the first place also gives more time for utilities and power suppliers to improve delivery grid capacity. People who have choosen not to buy BEVs are not going to immediately embrace hybrids and PHEVs but companies offering affordable hybrids at entry level trims will certainly help their CAFE numbers. What’s often forgotten her is that manufacturers are being compelled to meet tighter emissions and fuel economy targets, how they spin that as an advantage to customers is the key. So in order to stay in business and avoid fines from the EPA, companies like GM and Ford now have to go back to the drawing board and come up with near term solutions that make economic sense. Plenty of buyers know the government is increasing CAFE requirement and expect that improving fuel economy should be baked into the vehicles they buy at no added cost, I know this is unrealistic but it’s part of the problem that manufacturers have faced for decades. People don’t necessarily want to pay extra for better fuel economy but will for added performance. So how all of that is sold as an overall package is important.

Problem is that you can’t directly compare prices charged in Europe/UK with USA, they’re generally 20% higher price.That 35,000 pound expected price for the BEV Puma is why I think Tesla model 2 will be a similar price in Europe…. If the Tesla 2 starts in Europe at say, 30,000 pounds, you can see that BEV Puma will be in trouble as soon as the 2 is launched. Smaller EVs will be profitable in Europe and China but, I just don’t think that price would work in North America, maybe that’s where Tesla was floating the $25,000 price but again, we’ve seen that dance before… From what I’ve found, external width of Puma with mirrors folded is 71” maybe take another 3” off that without mirrors. Interior shoulder room - Front 53” Rear 51.96”

well here’s the thing, most of today’s Tesla buyers are stuck with buying either a “compact” 3 or a Y and from memory, the 3’s original starting price was $35,000 but Tesla first refused to build many and then cancelled that trim level to force more buyers into more profitable trim levels. So then Tesla tried the same bait and switch thing with Cybertruck $39,900 entry point that no longer exists, disappointing many buyers who signed up hoping for the $40k truck. so…getting to Tesla 2’s $25,000 starting price…..I’d take that with a grain of salt. We’ve seen this dance a couple of times before…it will start north of $30,000 and more likely, the the original 3 starting price of $35,000 but in 2025, not 2019. Aww, you were soo, close… Just take the wider top hat of the Ford Edge and kick the front axle forward the same as they did with the original E-Max to Mach E plan. That way, Ford would end up with a Tesla X competitor using the wider GE2 platform that doesn’t need to command Tesla X’s $79,000 “discounted” starting price.

Until recently, the Tesla X was nearly double the price of a Tesla Y but mercifully, the price is now just under $80,000. It shows us that Tesla is not serious about increasing the volume of the X, an Edge sized vehicle and that other manufacturers have time to develop vehicles that are better priced. There’s no magic bullet size for BEVs but better choices to begin with may overcome some of the resistance.

Maybe it’s time for a new Lincoln Mark LT based on the Lightning…..

We thought the same thing about Tesla’s styling of the 3 and Y yet they do remarkably well around the globe. It may be wise to consider that the majority people looking at BEVs are looking for something different and perhaps not necessarily an electrified version of their current pickup or utility. I would hate to think that we get to 2026 and Ford is still counting on selling 600 K “gen 2 Lightnings”….

Yeah, Ford dealers have already done this dance with Ford… The problem is that Ford’s BEVs haven’t been the tear away sales that Ford was counting on… GM is in a similar position, you can’t press for $1M dealership upgrades when BEV foot traffic is still comparatively low. A I sense that this year, GM and Ford will resort to basics by simply maximising profits from the main go to, full size truck and utility sales, getting rid of supplier restrictions.