Roland
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Roland
-
-
On 4/5/2024 at 1:17 PM, rmc523 said:
I'll stand by my opinion that removing features, especially while simultaneously raising prices, isn't a good look.
Classic Ford decontenting. Makes me miss my Contour SVT.
-
1
-
-
By what standard is Apple "dominant" in the smartphone segment? What monopoly power do they hold other than people's preference?
I suspect the feds are just upset that Apple isn't playing ball with their surveillance plans.
-
On 2/25/2024 at 9:15 PM, silvrsvt said:
Gutted the product line? Got rid of an product that had no real viable way of going forward? Sedans/hatchbacks where dead by 2020.
Yes, gutted the product line. Ford has one affordable product in it's entire lineup. Practically everyone has more affordable models than Ford. If you're not a luxury brand then you're not going to be around if you can't make affordable vehicles.
-
On 2/23/2024 at 5:23 PM, mackinaw said:
The pressure came from the investment community. Five years ago, influential Wall Street analysts, like Adam Jonas (Morgan Stanley), predicted the EV wave would be like a tsunami. He was predicting mass adoption of EV's in a matter of a few years. If your company wasn't seen as investing in EV's, then it had no future. So, fearful that they would lose investors, every manufacturer fell in line and developed EV's. Fast forward to 2024, and the mass adoption of EV's is moving at a much slower rate than anyone expected (outside of Akio Toyoda). As is always the case, the marketplace has the final word.
Nobody who understands the technology or the market believed that timeline. Any objective analyst understood that transition was going to take at least a decade and probably more. Jonas is a cheerleader for the change because it creates a lot of new growth opportunities. He really doesn't care whether it burns down the legacy automakers. He can make a lot more money pumping new makers and new suppliers than he can make collecting Ford dividends.
People who make predictions like this aren't making rational assessments of the market. They're talking about what they want to happen. In a similar vein, a think tank called RethinkX was pushing the idea that personal vehicle ownership would end almost entirely by the end of the decade, replaced by on demand rental of autonomous vehicles. Farley bought into all of that.
Farley gutted the product line to dump billions into these technologies and he has nothing to show for it. There is no question that some of these changes are coming, but Ford has thrown away billions in a panic. They've gotten away with it so far because pandemic impacts propped up extortionary pricing. But that's ending and the chickens are coming home to roost. You can't up-market your way into long-term profitability. The market won't support it. Consumers are over-burdened with debt and a correction is inevitable.
-
The regulatory regime has gone from being a way to implement bipartisan policy goals to a means to implement the political agenda of the bureaucracy. The EPA didn't dictate catalytic converters back in the '70s. They dictated limits on pollutants and allowed the manufacturers to figure out how to make that happen. They did such a good job that those pollutants became a non-issue anywhere outside of congested areas with atmospheric challenges.
But the bureaucracy changed in the intervening years and they were determined to get what they really wanted, which was the end of the ICE. So they declared CO2 a pollutant and decreed that the ICE must die. That has little to do with solving any actual problem. Even if you believe that global warming is as big a problem as some claim then the quickest path to a solution would be plugin hybrids. That solves 90% of the problem with no adaptation from the public required.
But that will not do. This is a religious war against the ICE and the affordable personal mobility that it provides.
The number one thing that consumers are buying in a vehicle is convenience. BEVs are great if you can park in a garage with a 240V charger and you never travel beyond their range in a day or have to tow or haul anything. But outside of those parameters they are not as convenient as ICE vehicles. People are discovering that as BEVs start to expand beyond their original niche.
My boss is a perfect example. He bought a Mach E. His wife loves it. It's great for running around town. He just has to make sure it gets plugged in at night. So when they were planning a cross-country vacation I asked if they were taking the Mach E. No, he looked at it but wasn't willing to deal with the charging hassle. He took their F150 with over 100k on it instead. There is no way an average consumer wants to spend 40 minutes at a charger on a trip. Period. And that's before all the tales of range loss and charger failures in extreme cold this winter.
These are city cars for the well-to-do. That's the only market for them outside of BEV enthusiasts. It's no wonder that they are not selling.
-
3
-
2
-
-
This just central planners talking about what they want to happen. Pushing the unwashed masses out of personal transportation into busses and trains has always been the goal. Making transportation too expensive is part of the process and "climate crisis" is the excuse.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
A hybrid Fusion would be nice. ?
This would have been obvious if they had been paying attention to consumers instead of jumping onboard with a government program to railroad people into BEVs they don't want and can't afford.
-
3
-
1
-
-
So sorry to hear this. Thank you for all the help you've given over the years, including with my current ride.
As someone who has been there, done that in a different industry I can tell you that for me, being forcibly separated from a company that I had invested way too much of myself into was the best thing to happen in my career. A harsh reminder that a company will never love you back.
Wishing you the best wherever you go from here.
-
1
-
-
If Ford has any sense they'll rip the Mustang badge off their electric SUV, declare it some kind of special edition, and relaunch it as a Thunderbird. Thunderbird has always been about sporty, stylish, personal luxury and that's much more in tune with what they've delivered than calling it a Mustang.
But they won't. Because Ford sucks at brand management. They have exactly two brands that they haven't managed to destroy, "Mustang," and "F150." There's still time to save, "Mustang" and you can make a good start at rebuilding "Thunderbird" if you do it right.
-
26 minutes ago, akirby said:
There is zero evidence that consumers will switch from CUVs to cars. Today’s teens and twenty somethings grew up in SUVs and crossovers. It’s what they like and it has nothing to do with image. There is no image in an escape or edge or Ecosport. As folks like me get older they have trouble getting in and out of cars. And fuel economy is a non starter with full sized trucks and SUVs in the low to mid 20s, mid sizers in the mid to upper 20s and smaller ones and hybrids in the 30s. It’s not happening just because you want it to happen.
Actually, early indications are that Gen Z are more frugal and practical than Millennials and are preferring cars in the used market.
QuoteCurrent trends reveal that Gen Z buyers like Nevels lean toward used sedans — a vehicle segment that favors Japanese makes like Nissan, Honda, and Toyota. This is in contrast to Gen X and baby boomers, who prefer trucks and SUVs and tend to keep their mobile devices in their pockets. Gen Z buyers keep their smartphones at the ready, constantly confirming pricing, features, and even the dealer.
https://www.autonews.com/sponsored/decoding-gen-z-car-buyerFord wants to serve up CUVs to these buyers and market them as more practical than cars, but these buyers don't want to pay a premium for "practicality" that they don't need 99% of the time just so Ford can pad their margins. Does it have enough room for their friends and their stuff? Does it have the technology that they want? Is it cheap to run? Check, check, check, and check. Fusion owner ends up in a Corolla. This is Ford's future history happening now.
Other reports bear this out. Focus buyers are largely moving to the competition, many of them to remain with cars. Results for the Fusion may be a bit better since buyers are already at a higher price point. But it's still not going to be good. Not saying that the CUV trend won't continue for a while. But there is a bottom and Honda, Toyota, et al are taking advantage to consolidate their strength with young buyers.
My generation grew up in station wagons and we liked them. But they fell out of fashion. The next generation grew up in mini vans and liked them. But they fell out of fashion. Young people may embrace the things that made their parents cool but they want to differentiate themselves from the things that made them staid and boring. You and @Assimilator are arguing that the CUV is the ultimate and final form of automotive evolution which will never fall out of fashion. That's silly. Fashion will continue to change just as people's perceived needs and preferences continue to change.
23 minutes ago, akirby said:
How many vehicles was GM selling every year when they went bankrupt? I think it was somewhere around 2.5 million. Just because you sell a lot of something doesn’t mean you make a lot of money. Sometimes you’re better off not selling anything instead of losing money.I'm not arguing that Ford needs to keep making unprofitable vehicles. I'm arguing that if Ford can't be profitable in the same segments as their competition then those same economics will eventually catch up with them in the segments that they're retreating to. Honda and Toyota are already sell more Civics, Corollas, Camrys, and Accords than Ford does Escapes - nevermind Rav4s and HRVs. And this is while Ford is still dumping Fiestas and Fusions.
-
5 hours ago, akirby said:
Manufacturers aren't pushing anything on consumers - they're responding to what consumers want to buy. Edge gets 24 mpg while Fusion gets 27. Not a big difference.
I don't understand why some people just can't comprehend that some of us like crossovers just because we like them, not because we're brainwashed or trying to impress someone.
No, sorry. I don't buy that Ford is just writing off half a million passenger car buyers a year and not trying to move them into something that they're still making. And I don't believe that all of those buyers - or even a substantial portion - are just waiting for the opportunity to move into a CUV.
People may think that they're not trying to impress anyone but consumers are conscious of what they think their buying choices say about them. A wagon might fit their needs and be more efficient but wagons are unfashionable. A minivan might fit their needs and be more practical and more efficient, but minivans are unfashionable.
I'm not even saying that it's Ford's responsibility to convince these people that there are better options. I'm saying that Ford makes this same mistake over and over. This is a fashion trend. They can't run from entire segments because they can't compete economically and think that those same economics aren't going to catch up with them across the board. And every time they go through this cycle, they come out with a lower market share. I expect that will be the outcome again.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, rperez817 said:
You're thinking about cars and light trucks in a rational manner Roland sir. That's good. But automotive retailing doesn't work that way. It is a fashion oriented industry. Automakers and dealerships constantly figure out ways to get people to buy stuff that they don't need. Or in many cases, stuff they didn't even want at first. Just the nature of the business.
Absolutely. But this is also why people are foolish to think that the CUV trend won't reverse because they're not as vulnerable to fuel price increases as the full sized SUVs were. Wagons became unfashionable. Minivans became unfashionable. It will happen again because CUVs are just pointy mom vans. The response I see that Ford will be able to respond quickly this time because they have world platforms is laughable. That's what they say ever time. The Ranger took forever and it's nearly indistinguishable from what already existed. The Bronco is taking forever. Ford is still glacially slow even when they have an existing platform.
-
1
-
-
I hate CUVs because they're ugly, inefficient, ill handling vehicles that dominate the market because the buyers think that jacked up station wagons with body cladding are somehow more expressive of their personal style or rugged individualism than the wagons, minivans, and SUVs that they replaced. The whole world is driving AMC Eagles and they're oblivious to how stupid that is.
I hate them because manufacturers like Ford are pushing them on consumers who don't want them because they can't compete in the segments that those people want. I hate them because manufacturers like Ford are stupid enough to believe that this isn't a fashion trend that will swing on a dime, just like it did with minivans, just like it did with big SUVs.
"But they can always bring the cars back," say the apologists. The last time Ford let their product mix get this far out of wack it took a decade to fix and they had to mortgage the company. All the attention to saving their asses in that moment meant that they still couldn't fix the systemic problems that leave them unable to compete in those segments that they worked so hard to fix. So less than a decade later the only treatment that they can think of is to amputate. Now they take on the Japanese and Koreans as the one legged man in the ass kicking competition. But they're confident that the corner that they've backed into is safe and they can always get out of they need to.
All of that said, people are free to buy what they want, just as I'm free to think that their choices are foolish. I'll shop with the makers who serve the segments that I'm interested in. Someone here responded to a similar remark with a "Bye, Felicia." That's pretty funny in a forum dedicated to a manufacturer who has been loosing market share for decades. While you're being flip, get comfortable with these. "Sayonara, Totyota." "Ciao, FCA." "Annyeong, Hyundai."
-
2
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, akirby said:
The sad part is people like Roland would probably prefer that. Just kill the name and let it live on as a distant fond memory never to be sold again. Now that would be abject stupidity.Why would not putting the name on an SUV kill it? You guys have been arguing that the real Mustang isn't going away and that this won't impact it at all. Now you're saying that if Ford doesn't put the Mustang name on an electric mom van that it's going to end up a distant memory? Can you at least keep your story straight?
Look, BEVs don't bother me - that has nothing to do with it. I'd be thrilled if the Mustang Mach E were a proper electric pony car. That would have been a perfect opportunity to Ford to showcase their technology and beat Tesla to the punch at something. Instead they decided to build this Tesla Model Y copycat and they figure they can just slap tri-bar tail lights and a Mustang brand on it to tart it up. It makes it painfully obvious that they're desperate and grasping. You'd think that the roles between them and Tesla were reversed.
But I suppose in a way they are. Tesla is living in an investor fantasy world where profits can forever wait for tomorrow while Ford must deliver results now. But if Ford's auto experience were the advantage over Tesla that they claim they could have built them on the same platform, launched the Mustang then quickly teased and followed up with the mom van. But of course that won't do because Ford is now run by bean counters now and it's much cheaper to just slap a Mustang badge on the mom van.
Ok, sorry to have disrupted the Jim Hackett School of Short Sighted Management and Brand Destruction Fan Club with the petty concerns of someone who evidently cares too much about the Mustang and it's maker. Ford is working to cure that. I won't keep disrupting your big launch party.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, akirby said:
Overreact much with that last statement? Do you really think this will impact mustang coupe sales in any way? I don’t.
As for Panamera I was obviously referring to styling. There is no mistaking the 911 front and rear,
As for trading on the Porsche brand, that’s EXACTLY what a Ford is doing with their mustang brand. They’re bringing mustang performance and brand values to a new type of vehicle. It may have 4 doors but it’s faster than a mustang and probably handles better. It’s the same proposition as Porsche and will be just as successful. A real mustang fan would not be offended in the least.
I guess we’ll here the same thing when the baby Bronco appears since it will be smaller and unibody and fwd based. Oh the horror!
Again, sharing a styling language isn't a problem. The fact that Porsche has one of the most distinct styling languages across their entire line doesn't make a Panamera a "4 door 911".
911 owners have always known lesser models that closely shared their styling or heavily used their styling queues. This is an imagined issue by people who think the Panamera is a "four door 911". For decades 911 owners have happily parked next to thousands of lesser cars that share their Porsche badge - but never their 911 badge. They did have an issue with Porsche making something other than sports models. Porsche handled brilliantly by trading on the brand values of their Make and not the brand name of their Models.
Obviously we're not going to agree on this, so I won't belabor it any further. Time will tell.
13 hours ago, akirby said:
They didn’t have to market it that way. One look and you knew it was a 4 door version of a 911.And that last statement is not true. Ford wasn’t going to add a fwd coupe branded mustang - they were going to REPLACE it altogether. If they were replacing current mustang with Mach-E I would agree but they’re not so it’s a terrible analogy.
As for panties in a wad, look in the mirror. There is no logical reason to be upset about this.
Whether you agree with that analogy or not, you can't pretend that this reaction is new or unexpected. There are many instances through the years of Mustang loyalists defending the brand. When Ford first teased the "Mach 1" name for this vehicle the outcry was loud and immediate. John Clor of Ford Performance told MCA members that Ford had heard Mustang enthusiasts loud and clear. John Clor in Mustang Times over a year ago:
They threw us a bone with the Mach E name, smiled in our faces, and stabbed us in the back.
Logical? Of course it's not logical. Brand loyalty to a particular brand is not logical, it's about passion. I guess I should be happy that Ford is trying to be make it easy for me to forget that passion, be logical, and go buy something else.
-
1 minute ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
I work for the company. I talk to people all the time. Mustang as we know it isn't going anywhere.
Yeah, I've talked to lots of guys like that. They probably believe it. It may even be true. And then one day they're in a meeting and someone has run the numbers and it's not.
It's tough for all of us. Sorry, there was just nothing we could do. I mean, we've still got a Mustang, right? And what's the point of a halo car for a company that doesn't make cars anyway.
Sorry, any faith you're putting in Ford's current leadership is sadly misplaced.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
For as long as there's a member of the Ford family on the executive board
Given that they allowed this move, I think your faith is misplaced. For all we know they've already acceded to the death of the real Mustang and this is a move to keep the brand alive. If Ford can't make money on cars that sell 200k units when they're competitive then they're not going to make money selling 50k Mustangs which is where they're going to be once they've sucked the value out of the brand.
-
2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
Because the Mustang as we know it isn't going away.
Lighten up Francis
And that's assured for how long, Kreskin?
-
26 minutes ago, Deanh said:
I think what A Kirby was referring to was the Panamera is 911 influenced ...which it most definitely is, as THIS is to the Mustang...I have zero issue with Mustang being mentioned in any form or fashion regarding this vehicle...amazing what people get their panties in a wad about lately....no doubt this vehicle will spark a Street protest somewhere and sales will be boycotted solely on the basis of its affiliation with perhaps Fords most iconic brand name...
Porsche didn't market the Panamera as 911 influenced. They simply designed a sedan in their styling language with their brand values and people made that association.
"Lately" as though this is some new sensitivity. 30 years ago Mustang fans wouldn't stand for a FWD sports coupe (the Probe) branded as a Mustang. Now it's "panties in a wad" because someone dares to point out the abject stupidity of putting the brand on an SUV.
-
4 hours ago, akirby said:
People said EXACTLY the same thing about Porsche which at one time was synonymous with 2 door sports cars. But then they made a Panamera which is nothing more than a 4 door 911 regardless of the name. Then they made (gasp!) SUVs! Did any of the diminish the 911? Of course not. Because those vehicles perform like a Porsche. And mach-e performs like a mustang - even better in some cases.
Mustang coupe isn't "tainted" because another version has 4 doors. At least not for 99.999% of potential buyers.
A Panamera is nothing more than a 4 door 911? How does that work with the engine at the opposite end?
No, it's not the same at all. First, Porsche had an order of magnitude greater brand equity than Ford (because Ford destroys every brand they build). Second, Porsche didn't slap an iconic model name on a completely unrelated model in a totally different segment. They didn't call their sedan, CUV, or electric vehicle a 911 Carrera S, C, or E. They generally didn't even mention the 911 in their marketing. Instead they traded on the Porsche brand and emphasized how these new segment entries brought Porsche brand values to those segments. Even the biggest Porsche sports car purists couldn't deny that Porsche delivered on those values and in the end they did nothing to sully their iconic brands.
Unlike Ford who has now burned the Mustang brand. A Mustang is not an SUV and an SUV is not a Mustang. If you survey the automotive forums around the Internet this is widely being laughed at or viewed with horror. Even the people who express interest in the new model commonly do so in spite of the branding and not because of it. Some of those who like the whole thing admit to liking it purely in a trollish sense.
-
8 hours ago, atomcat68 said:
Also, I don't think there are many Mustang owners that will stop buying the real Mustang because the electric Suv also has the name. It would not stop me.
SUVs are not pony cars. This taints the Mustang brand. Seeing electric mom vans complete with plastic cladding running around looking like a fat Elvis version of the Mustang is going to be tough to stomach. It's a stain that you can't wash off. It damages the appeal of the vehicle that it's mocking. It's like meeting an attractive woman and then seeing her parents and noticing that she shares features with her fat, ugly dad. There's not enough eye bleach to unsee that.
As much as I try not to be brand conscious when I'm making purchase decisions I can't deny that it exists and has an impact. When I bought my Mustang the Mustang was an icon and Ford was a positive based on decades of experience with their cars. Now Ford is a truck company that sees no future in cars and Mustang is a muddled brand with no real meaning that Ford can stamp on anything that they consider "exciting."
My last purchase decision was a near thing. Since then the competition has improved or at least not gotten worse while Ford has become a bizarro world parody of every bad marketing decision they've ever made. There's little doubt that my purchase decision would go another way today. So that's one. And I seriously doubt that it's the only.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
Possibly but until that time automaker will cash in on the higher prices commanded by Utilities, the billion extra made with Utilities will more than make up for not carrying cars through to then. Nothing could be more breath taking than the change over at GM, Killing four car plants at once and embracing Utilities.....the change is being driven by buyers wanting Utilities and trucks.
Same short sighted blunder as before. Bleeding market share to focus on the cash cows. Last time around Toyota, Honda, and Nissan ate up ten points of their market share before they got the ship righted.
What they found out the last time around was that abandoning segments takes them off people's shopping list. When a kid has to buy a Hyundai or Honda starting out he may never bother going to the Ford store when he decides it's time to buy one of those cash cows. When domestic manufacturers lose customers to these brands they are very difficult to bring back. Ford is throwing away customers that it may never get back.
-
2
-
-
On 2/18/2019 at 9:04 AM, Trailhiker said:
The puckered face of the new model would not have helped matters in the US. Sure, the ST and RS added credit to the name, but selling enough of the rest of the line at a profit was always an issue. Now the plant is making Rangers, and I think they will sell more in the $30K to $40K range than the Focus ever could. There is too much competition in the reduced compact segment at a competitive price, and too many options for only a bit more in other segments.
I've heard that all before. In five to ten years they'll be scrambling to bring back their passenger car line. Again. Fashions change and today's SUV or crossover is going to be tomorrow's mom van or station wagon.
-
That’s a popular theory but there is very little evidence to support that theory the last 10 years.
Just a year ago Ford was touting the fact that their sporty Fiesta, Focus, and Fusion models attract a younger, more affluent buyer that tends to opt for imports.
http://www.torquenews.com/106/ford-focus-fiesta-and-fusion-sporty-models-attract-younger-buyers
This whole misbegotten scheme has already gone off the rails. Ford is in a denial phase where they think the problem is the coverage.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-responds-to-criticism-over-passenger-car-plans-100492.html
-
2
-
Yet another study shows plug-in hybrids aren’t as clean as we thought
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by Roland
This begs the question, "Why are these people not plugging in?" The assumption is that these people would have shown greater gains if they would have bought a BEV. The truth is probably that most wouldn't have bought a BEV because they can't or don't want to plug in.
You can tell that we're dealing with a religious argument rather than an economic or scientific one because nothing less than full compliance with the dogma is acceptable. ICE must be eradicated, nothing less is acceptable regardless of the impacts on economics or quality of life.
Can't plug in at night because there are no chargers at your slum tenement? Get on the bus where you belong, prole. Can't tow your boat more than 100 miles in a day? Property is theft anyway. Up against the wall, Kulak.