akirby

And 90% of those were bought used.

This wasn’t viable in passenger vehicles until the advent of 4 channel ABS which allowed the computer to brake one wheel at a time. This led to electronic traction control which can brake only the spinning wheel sending torque to the other side via an open differential and stability control which can brake the inside rear wheel helping the vehicle manage corners at higher speeds.

But the question is how much does it cost in terms of money and other resources to become competitive and is that money better spent elsewhere. In the case of Fusion and Focus they didn’t just cancel them - they replaced them with other more profitable products. Some of you don’t seem to understand that for Ford or any automaker to bring out a new model it requires expansion (more employees, new factories, etc) which usually requires new debt or you have to replace an existing model. It’s a zero sum game unless you mortgage the future.

All you talk about is sales volume. F150 brings in almost twice the revenue as RAV4 and probably generates 8-10 times more profit. Bronco, Ranger, Bronco Sport and Maverick replaced Fusion and Focus and generate significantly higher revenue and profit margins. It’s not about what you can sell - it’s about what you can sell at a good profit margin. Ford has choices like Bronco and Bronco Sport that other mfrs don’t have. And while its true that Ford’s cost structure for cheap cars was always too high and that having a lower cost platform like Toyota and Hyundai would yield better margins - the cost for Ford to do that right now is too high when they have better options on the table. The opportunity for Ford is to change that with CE1 since that’s a clean sheet design and represents a new market segment much like Maverick.

Here is one article but it’s mostly just common sense understanding how people shop for vehicles and looking at various conquest rates. And understanding how young people today view cars and driving and purchases which is very different than our generation. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Brand-Loyalty-Takes-a-Backseat-for-American-Car-Buyers.html#:~:text=Nearly half of Americans are,loyal to a specific carmaker.

But that may not be enough volume to be viable as a stand alone model. You need the boring stuff to subsidize the exciting stuff but you can’t make much money on the boring stuff. So it really comes down to whether it’s worth the investment for say a 2% overall margin. Its a lot easier if you already have a cheap well amortized platform and infrastructure.

Urban myth. People who buy cheap cars aren’t brand loyal. By contrast Ford’s current products enjoy a lot of conquest sales.

The two best selling segments in Europe are small and compact SUVs. Also 4 out of the top 6 segments. They’re moving to crossovers and away from cars just like North America.

No they’re not. The ST and RS models were but nobody bought them. They’re just cheap basic transportation that have to compete on price alone.

Reminder - sales are not necessarily profitable.

You haven’t been around Bronco, Bronco Sport or Maverick buyers. Very passionate owners.

Honda debuted 4 wheel steering with the Prelude way back in 1988 or so. Of course that system was mechanical and not computer controlled.

Cars didn’t make a comeback - cheap vehicles made a comeback. Honda Accord was down to 164K. Market share and volume based on cheap cars is worthless if you have other options.

T3 is in between F150 and Ranger

Originally they thought they needed all that capacity for T3 which was supposed to supplant F150 sales in 10 years. And since F series is the cash cow it made sense at the time. But why they’re sticking with that plan given where we are today is a little baffling to me.

You’re partially right - both the Rivian and VW EV deals were done before he became CEO. But he owns closing Oakville and killing Edge and Nautilus and pursuing the 3 row EVs.

Except they’ve never done this with F150 and they wouldn’t jeopardize their cash cow just to save a few bucks delaying an update by a year. This is apples and oranges and obviously a totally different situation.

I think they’ll bring out the 2028 model earlier in 2027. You can’t build and sell 2027s in January 2028.

Agree but Ford’s track record with F150 new models and mid cycle refreshes has been stellar and I don’t see them pinching pennies on their cash cow.

I think people are misreading “cost savings” in this case. I don’t think this is the same situation as letting other products get long in the tooth to save money. I think they’re making some fundamental platform change that will drastically lower platform costs but which requires more time and resources which couldn’t be done on the normal 3/6 year cycle. If they stick with the current cycle the 2027 would have been launched without the new changes and they’d be stuck with it for 6 more years. By delaying 18 months they can then reap the benefits for the next 6 years. And I would bet a lot of money that we’ll see cosmetic changes in the meantime to mitigate the impact. We dealt with this situation in IT my entire career. Do we put this new feature out today or do we wait 12 months so we can deliver it on a new platform. Let’s assume they do another mid cycle refresh with appearance changes - that should mitigate any potential lost sales without derailing the new platform.

Those accidents were squarely on Boeing for adding MCAS but purposely not mentioning it in the training documentation. The reason it was not disclosed was because doing so would have required re training all pilots which Boeing thought would cost them sales and money. Same reason they modified the old design in the first place. Had MCAS been properly tested and the pilots been trained on it those accidents would not have happened. You're right that Ford needs to think more long term and less short term profits but I think this delay is 100% about design and engineering changes that will save Ford beaucoup bucks as Farley already alluded to. Let’s hope they don’t rush it into production without proper testing and certifications.

I expect they’ll be using similar electronic architectures (eliminating separate modules) which Farley already mentioned and I think that might be the biggest reason for the delay.

IMO his biggest flaw is going too fast and too hard on EVs - the failed Rivian and VW deals, killing Edge and Nautilus and investing too much too quickly in BOC. And now putting the new EVs in Louisville instead of BOC makes no sense.

We’ve already established your orders of magnitude more sensitive to exterior styling changes than the average consumer. As for how it might be a good business decision it’s simple. You calculate what you’ll lose in sales (if anything) including having to add rebates (maybe) and you compare it to what the company will save not just the first year or two but every year and those kind of savings add up quickly. My guess is it has something to do with being software defined and eliminating modules which is probably shared with T3 and skunkworks. And I would bet they’ll at least do a grill change which will mitigate the impact of an extended model run.

Border security is the responsibility of BOTH countries, not just the U.S. This is something Canada and Mexico should have been doing all along. Its a reasonable request.