akirby

Market share by itself is not a problem. You can easily buy market share with lower prices but at the expense of profit. Hyundai's recent market share jump saw no change in profit. The question is are they losing market share in profitable segments and the answer is no. Remember they didn't just lose car sales they replaced 5 cars plus ecosport with 4 new models (Bronco, Bronco Sport, Ranger and Maverick). 3 have virtually no competition and as a result should be fairly profitable. If you think bringing back cars is the answer then it's you that doesn't understand the problem. And it's not a problem it's an opportunity to grow market share and profit with new more affordable products that can sell cheap but still turn a nice profit. There might be room for cheap cars at some point but they won't be a priority above trucks and utilities. Don't blame Ford because customers prefer trucks and utilities over cars and are willing to pay extra for them.

Correct. Current hybrids here use the hf45 while the chinese models use hf55 with the 2.0L ecoboost.

Recreate the original Ranger as a unibody. 6 inches narrower than Maverick with a regular cab option. Apply ce1 principles to a clean sheet vehicle and factory. 1.0 ecoboost with a hybrid option. Or make it Maverick sized but with a regular cab option and cheaper platform to replace Maverick and Ranger. I just think they see an opportunity to apply ce1 principles to ICE and this is the most logical place to start. Single cab ranger was wildly successful because it was cheap. My first one was $7999 in 1990. Single cab Ranger or Maverick wouldn't be cheap enough to move the needle. I think a smaller single cab at $20-$25k will sell well just due to price and should still be nicely profitable, just like the ce1 EVs. Just spitballing here what all new affordable truck would be.

Now you're just arguing to be arguing. They said they were doing it and you have no proof they aren't or can't do it.

Insiders say they're killing Ranger in favor of more affordable trucks.

If you drive to work then solar charging is off the table and you can only charge middle of the night off peak. No way that's 90% savings.

They've been doing hybrids since 2005. They've done fwd, rwd and awd hybrids. Until recently they were making fwd hybrids, awd hybrids, fwd plug in hybrids and rwd hybrids. What more investment do they need?

Did you mean don't work at home?

I was explaining to jpd80 why automakers no longer want to make tons of cheap vehicles.

I was referring to the 80s and 90s and I said it got better.

A lot of that was driven by detroit owning the market and having to pay UAW workers whether they were working or not (Jobs bank) and CAFE compliance. It was good business to have lots of models and no foreign competition. The Asians really changed the market as did stricter CAFE regulations. Labor cost is better but volume without profit no longer works.

Unless you actually drive your car to work every day. It can certainly help when combined with solar but not 90%.

They certainly don't do proper risk assessment and mitigation. They'll swing for the fences hoping for a 10% roi with no backup plan rather than settle for a solid double with 5% roi with a viable backup plan until you're sure it will succeed then go whole hog.

Exactly, but you can blame Ford for how they went about it. Not doing proper due diligence with Rivian, choosing ugly 3 row utilities over edge and nautilus, overbuilding BOC for T3......

Keeping the removable roof and doors would maximize shared parts.

What would be the point of a Bronco pickup without a removable top? Might as well keep Ranger.

Bronco pickup only makes sense if Ranger gets replaced by a unibody version. I don't see how Ford can make all new affordable pickups at TTC unless they're small and midsized unibodies to replace Maverick and Ranger.

Sunk costs, dealers, Bill Ford, potential future EPA regs, UAW

The pink ones, obviously......

them whompies are closing up my sinuses. You better back off another 10...

Ford sells 50k Rangers now. Gladiator sells 45k. No reasonto think a Bronco pickup would sell less.

. Ford's proclivity to make minimal investments in cars is because they aren't very profitable to begin with. Some were absolutely losing money. We've already discussed ad nauseum the reasons why - too many redundant platforms and too many changes. Ford created 9 different ecoboost engines plus multiple versions of some while Toyota soldiered on with NA2.5s and 3.5s and a turbo 2.0. And their car platforms haven't change much in decades. That's how you keep costs down. So of course that is self inflicted. We keep saying that over and over but you guys don't hear it. But that's water under the bridge at this point - the question is how should Ford respond? Do they spend tons of money fixing fusion and focus and escape to realize a 3% return or do they spend far less money and replace them with products that have higher margins? Ford has that option. Others don't have those types of vehicles or good options to make them. And there is a huge difference between 3% and 10% margins. Let's talk $30k vehicles at 3% and $40k vehicles at 10%. It takes 550,000 units to make half a billion dollars on the cheaper one. And that requires 2 huge factories with 3 shifts each. And with only a $900 margin per vehicle if you get in a price war and have to put an extra $1k rebate on the hood you're losing money. No margin for error. Meanwhile the $40k vehicle makes $4k profit per unit so it only takes 125K units to make half a billion profit. That's one factory and 1 or 2 shifts - less than half the fixed overhead. And you can survive price wars or recessions and still turn a profit. It's also a zero sum game unless you have tons of extra cash (Ford doesn't) or you're willing to go into more debt to expand vehicle capacity by hiring tons more designers, engineers, testers, marketers and building expensive new factories. Especially if all you're getting is a 3% ROI. Therefore you have to kill existing projects to fund new stuff. What you thought when Ford was selling hundreds of thousands of small cars was that they must be raking in the cash. But when Mulally took over Ford admitted they were losing $3K on each focus they sold. So why were they (and GM) selling them of they lost money? Because of the CAFE offset that allowed them to sell larger more profitable ones. And back then if you closed a factory you still had to pay the workers. Now the rules are different so the incentives to make small cars at a loss or small profit just isn't there. To put it another way - corporations are investments. Why would they invest billions to make cars for a 3% return when Ford could put that money in bonds and get a guaranteed 5% or higher return? And I beg to differ on F series resources. They do visual refreshes every 3 years and major changes every 6 years. Also consider there are 2 cabs and chassis, 12 cab/bed combinations and 6 different engine/transmissions plus dozens of options and packages. That's a full time job for a huge team of people and part time for others. And at an average price of $60k at 15% net profit (which are both probably on the low side) that's a net profit of $9k per vehicle or close to $9B. From one line of vehicles in 3 plants. That's why it gets all the resources.

Yes. I had a 2013 Titanium and it was great but all I ever saw on the road were cheap SEs. They thought they could sell premium models with AWD and plug in hybrids and 350 hp but buyers said no we want cheap cars.

He's hauling dynamite and he needs all the help he can get....