rmc523
-
Posts
25,376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
123
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by rmc523
-
-
4 hours ago, T-dubz said:
Trax is doing really well at 44k for the quarter. Looks like it was only beat by the trucks and the equinox.
The new Trax is a good looking product!
-
44 minutes ago, Rick73 said:
Well, it should get interesting in that Tesla just today started taking orders for 2024 Model 3 Highland at same price. I thought some buyers may have delayed buying Model 3s waiting for upgrade, and if that’s the case, it may hurt Mach-E sales somewhat over next few months. Starting price for Model 3 is still +/- $40k.There is speculation (fancy word for guessing) that Tesla’s new smaller car (Model 2) will be about 15% shorter, 30% lighter, and with about 25% smaller battery. Analyst estimate COGS about 37% lower, roughly half from size-related savings and other half on more-efficient assembly if I recall correctly. That’s how the analyst roughly projects $25k as a reasonable target. I think even at $30k a smaller Tesla could interest a lot of buyers. It would me.
I guess my question to you would be that if Mach-E had been made a little smaller, would Ford have loss any more per car, and would sales have been that much lower? Not suggesting Mach-E is wrong size, just questioning if smaller and lower-cost would have been any worse.
Given they're trying to force it as an Edge successor (when it isn't, IMO), yes.
-
13 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Maybe it’s time for a new Lincoln Mark LT based on the Lightning…..
So they can sell 5 a year haha.
-
3
-
-
On 1/8/2024 at 5:08 PM, joseodiaga4 said:
Agree but let's hope they start to change it!
The Chinese Nautilus already has AR and from what I have seen there is a digital rearview mirror too (although a dealer-installed option)I did see our Nautilus at an auto show, and it looks really good!
But I don't think it gets those features. -
8 hours ago, AM222 said:
Pretty much the situation between the Bronco Sport and the longer Escape. Very expensive vs expensive (by non-luxury brand standards).
A Maverick-equivalent SUV doesn't need to be a Maverick, Ford just needs a lower-priced C2-based model.
The Corolla Cross for example is an example of a lower-priced crossover SUV positioned in the smaller-end of the compact class. Unlike the Bronco Sport, which is positioned above the Escape, the Corolla Cross is positioned below the RAV4. Ford needs something like this.
The base Corolla Cross L costs $24,960 with destination charges, the LE variant below costs $27,290 with destination charges.
Standard engine is a 169hp 2.0-liter inline-4. The AWD 2.0-liter Hybrid version has a total system output of 196hp and starts at $29,745 with destination charges.
For comparison, the base Escape Active 1.5 EcoBoost FWD costs $31,635 with destination charges.Many of us have wanted Puma to come over here to fill that smaller crossover vehicle gap. But it won't happen.
-
On 1/8/2024 at 4:51 PM, Rick73 said:
Maverick is a good example. ?Agree success is partly due to value and low cost. I like the size and looks too. To your point, I don’t know if Ford manufactured an electric Maverick, to what extend it would affect Maverick sales. I think it’s a given cost would be higher than ICE or Hybrid variants, but I would guess that proportionally it wouldn’t be much worse than Lightning is to ICE/Hybrid F-150. That’s not saying much though because Lightning sales are a small fraction of total F-150. Also, Maverick sales are much fewer, so an electric variant would not have the numbers to absorb development costs as easily as Lightning.
For now I like hybrids over BEVs, and Maverick Hybrid is one of few Ford vehicles I would consider buying.
They've increased prices and made the hybrid no longer standard, likely because they weren't making enough on the hybrid.
On 1/8/2024 at 4:29 PM, Rick73 said:
I won’t discuss points out of context again.
It makes sense to build lower cost vehicles because if you build expensive ones very few people can or will buy them, not unless you drop price and lose even more money per vehicle. GM Hummer is a good example. What good was building a vehicle that most people can’t afford? And let’s also consider damage its excesses have done to electrification’s long-term goals.
Opposite happened with Tesla. When they came out with more-affordable Models 3 and Y, buyers overwhelmingly preferred them over Models S and X. One report stated lower-cost Models 3 and Y now account for 97% of their sales.
If a manufacturer can’t build vehicles at a profit that people can actually buy, whether large or small,, then maybe they shouldn’t build them at all (obviously unless they have no other choice in order to meet government mandates in order to stay in business).
Not sure how it's "out of context" when you literally say "the idea that manufacturers should plan on building what buyers want doesn’t resonate with me." . But ok....
The problem is that just about everyone aside from Tesla hasn't figured out how to make the BEVs profitable at "reasonable" prices yet, because they're working on getting their infrastructures up and running and improving battery tech.
Down the road (ideally sooner than later), sure, it'd be great to have smaller models at good prices. But right now for most manufacturers, that's not a thing, like it or not. Expecting companies to just charge low prices and lose money NOW just to get BEVs going doesn't make sense.
Naturally you're going to have a larger customer pool at a lower pricepoint - that applies to any product. It also doesn't help that the S and X haven't received meaningful design changes....ever.
-
-
0 Series Saloon:
0 Series Space Hub:
Why do these new EVs from Honda and Hyundai have to look like 80s "future movies" vehicles?
-
-
Kia launches mod-and-modular PBV platform with 5 EV concepts at CES 2024 - Autoblog
Kia just made its big CES reveal, and it’s called the Platform Beyond Vehicle, or PBV for short. The “PBV” isn’t just one vehicle, though. In total, there are five PBVs that were just revealed at CES – three versions of the Concept PV5, the Concept PV7 and the Concept PV1. All of them are electric.
That’s a whole lot of cars, and they all have their purposes.The idea behind the line of PBV vehicles is to create a modular fleet of vehicles that can be modified to suit certain needs in quick order.
....
This whole project is a little more serious than many ideas you may see at CES, too, as plans for a PBV-dedicated assembly plant are already underway. To be built in Autoland Hwaseong, the factory is expected to be online in 2025 and produce up to 150,000 vehicles per year. A business and tracking system is scheduled to be launched alongside the PV vehicles that will allow for easier fleet management and monitoring of the vehicles someone might have in their fleet. It’s unclear if these vehicles will ever go on sale in the U.S. at this point, but we’ll be on the lookout for any news over the next couple years.
-
10 minutes ago, akirby said:
I was referring to the Chinese Edges.ah yes, nevermind then.
-
On 1/5/2024 at 7:57 PM, akirby said:
Oh I agree but it looks better than the previous one.You mean our current Edge? Or the Chinese one?
On 1/6/2024 at 2:12 PM, Dequindre said:I kind of like the look of the Evos. It might not be a huge seller in the U.S., but it's sleek enough where it may appeal to former sedan owners that still value form over function.
I agree - I think it'd have been a good "non sedan" offering that is close to sedan, but you could charge higher prices since it's a hatch, for those that really want to have that lower sedan-like vehicle.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Rick73 said:
Completely agree we need more electric vehicle choices, not fewer; but suggest they should include more at the bottom end of cost spectrum.
People don’t always “want” what they need or is good for them, or what’s possible, and in fact often choose things that are bad for them (smoking, drugs, overeating, etc.). I understand what you are saying, but the idea that manufacturers should plan on building what buyers want doesn’t resonate with me. Convincing (influencing) buyers to want vehicles they can actually afford, enjoy owning, etc. even if it means attracting a much smaller pool of buyers initially may be more effective. Tesla’s original vehicle, a 2-seater roadster, was never meant to sell in volume, but accomplished goal of selling BEV viability.
Electrification is struggling in my opinion in large part because Americans “want” to have their cake and eat it too, and that’s just not possible. We can’t have affordable large electric SUVs and trucks with long driving range, and somehow also have enough cheap clean electricity to quickly charge them, all without incurring more costs than we can presently afford as a society. We can make them more affordable through subsidies but tax payers will pick up the bill. Electrification expectations from beginning were not realistic. Obviously some (mostly rich) buyers are not deterred by high costs, but for mass adoption we need lower-cost vehicles too.
Unfortunately, given present state of technology and costs, the only way to profitably manufacture affordable BEVs for average-income buyers is to make them small “and” efficient. It’s not ideal but a reality nonetheless.
Tesla has been working on such a vehicle, Model 2, but face a problem Ford doesn’t have. If smaller and more urban-oriented Model 2 comes in under $30k, it will undoubtedly cannibalize Model 3 and Y sales, so to increase earnings, will need to sell far more units. Analyst believe that is possible because there are more buyers in that price range. Ford only has Mach-E in US so not as much to cannibalize by comparison to Tesla. I get that Ford may not be able to build any small vehicle profitably, but then they are not doing great with large BEVs either.
Yes. Since not giving the customer what they want is a good strategy.....
....also....your solution to jump to profitability on vehicle types that struggle to be profitable at already higher price (right now with setup costs) is to.......build a low cost model? How does that make any sense?
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:
The 650 and 750 have been running a model year ahead, the 2024's were introduced first quarter 2023. The 2025's will be out shortly and that's what got Ford in trouble with CARB, as it appears the 6.7L Powerstroke does not meet 2025 CARB diesel emissions standards. Thus 2025 650 and 750 diesels cannot be sold in California. The 600 and lighter trucks get to keep the Powerstroke through 2024 as those trucks are 2024 MY.
Last I heard GM and Navistar still have not released a gas engine option for the Silverado Medium Duty/International CV. That is surprising considering all the rumors that the gas engine option was 'coming soon', and the GM 6.6L gas engine has been EPA and CARB certified for medium duty trucks. Isuzu and Freightliner currently offer in it several medium duties. One story I heard was that the gas 6.6L could not be teamed with certain Allison transmissions, but if true even that has been resolved.
Freightliner will have a gasoline Cummins 6.7L available in the M2 soon. I suspect Navistar will follow, and possibly even Isuzu in their larger F series will offer the Cummins gasser shortly.
Why can't they just keep the '24 MY going through the end of '24 and avoid it in the short term?
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, tbone said:
Price is certainly a factor on most everything nowadays. Late in 2022, we were considering getting a Bronco Wildtrak, but didn’t pull the trigger at that time. Its sticker was around $60,000. Now we are no longer considering buying a Bronco as a primary driver, because we just aren’t seeing the value anymore. That same Wildtrak is now $68,335. That $8k isn’t getting you anything more. There are a lot of good options out there for $70k. If we ever get a Bronco now it will likely be a cheaper used model or perhaps new lower end model, and it will be used as a 3rd vehicle.
Yeah, I wouldn't have been able to afford the Wildtrak if I was buying one now - it's pretty crazy how the prices have increased....
That said, Wrangler just got a refresh, and Gladiator's is just coming out too.
And Cherokee and Renegade are going away, IIRC. Some of the other declines may also be attributed to the strike.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:
Ending production on a product like the Edge when it’s still a hot seller and definitely making money for Ford is a bad idea. They won’t do it, but how about rush a facelift and offer a high MPG hybrid model? Toyota keeps platforms around for years and just updates them. If it was a failing undesirable product I could understand, but the Edge still has life in it. I’m afraid what they are canceling the Edge for is going to be a slow selling money pit.
14 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:I believe he means there are too many two row crossovers and there aren’t alot of three row Bev crossovers so they chose that route. If that makes any sense
I think the problem is also that they don’t realize people like different size vehicles too, so dropping products people like “because” isn’t good either -
4 hours ago, akirby said:
The new one does look better.
Eh, I still don't love it - especially for "Edge" - it just doesn't look like an Edge to me.
-
4 hours ago, akirby said:
As much as us enthusiasts would have liked a RWD edge I think the C2 version would have been more successful.I think this is Farley’s personality showing in product decisions. Going too fast on new things and having to stop and change direction when issues come up or something more enticing. Ditching Edge and Nautilus for BEVs instead of building a new plant, then ditching the Rivian deal before it really got started (severe lack of due diligence on that one), starting then stopping the VW platform. Too much short term thinking trying to go too fast.
Yeah, I think C2 would've been just fine for it, and they could've spiced it up with a performance oriented tune on a hybrid model or something.
12 hours ago, ExplorerDude said:I hear you and I agree but it’s deeper for me. The cultural ignorance of so many decisions is the same “rot” that has doomed so many beloved nameplates over the years. The launch and abandon mindset is built into the culture. It was almost eradicated under Mulally but it grew back.
Had Ford followed through with the original plan for a CD6F based Edge, it would’ve been out for MY2022 almost 3 years ago. When the CD6F Edge was shelved in 2020 that’s when China started to develop their own C2 Edge (and Nautilus).
The company just can’t stay focused. Things get boring and change direction when the wind blows in a different direction. Mulally was adamant about consistency and continuous improvement but with Ford the lesson is never learned. I’m sorry I could go on for hours on this.
100% agree - they change directions far too often.
We criticize GM for coming out with a bunch of duplicate products and/or ones with questionable business cases, but at least when they set their mind to doing something, they stick with it, even if the model winds up cancelled after a generation. Meanwhile Ford stops and starts programs like a kid eating cake and candy at a birthday party.
-
4
-
-
Do they just keep a warehouse of random old "new" cars? I have no idea how they keep finding new Darts, 200s, Caravans, Town & Countries, and Patriots many many years after they've stopped production.
-
3
-
-
-
-
Here are Ford's Q4 and 2023 total sales numbers.
Charts with December breakdowns will come soon when I get a chance to update the file.
-
21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
I had my windshield replaced on my Bronco, didn’t even make the first payment yet, and it was $700 bucks after my deductible! I really think that they are “scaming” Labor time for reprogramming the sensors under the windshield.
in years past the average windshield replacement cost was under $500 bucks which was my compressivedeductible
I had to have mine replaced after they broke it when reinstalling it for that recall a while back. I was annoyed, as I had a UV tint on it that I still haven't had a chance to replace.
-
Public transportation isn't a realistic option unless you're in a big city, and even then, that depends on the city.
-
3
-
What happened to EVs? The sudden slowdown in electric car sales is a symptom of a much uglier problem
in E.V. Central
Posted
Many try to say that Mach E is a sort of Edge successor, and I disagree - it's being forced into that spot (at the moment) because Ford is dropping Edge. Obviously right this second Edge is still around, but I'm projecting forward.
You're not wrong, but IMO, neither product offers what Edge offers for those buyers. Mach E is too low, Bronco is too unrefined for that customer.