bzcat

A properly designed EREV should not be an extension of ICE manufacturing process. Fundamentally, EREV is EV with ICE added in PHEV is ICE with battery added in So EREV conceptually would not have most of the legacy ICE stuff like transmission but PHEV would. Also, properly designed EREV would most certainly be software defined whereas PHEV probably need to rely on traditional ICE sub-systems for major functions.

A normal company faced with a 2 year gap between new products will just keep the current one in production. But not Ford.

I'm picturing something with mid mounted engine with hybrid setup and AWD. Probably with monster suspension travel but sits fairly low. It will probably be purpose built like Ford GT.

It's a big miss. Ford was the first to switch to NACS but Hyundai beat them to the punch with the first one you can buy.

The plant is already on 3-shifts so I'm not sure how you can realistically grow Ranger sales without impacting Bronco volume. But one thing that is a bit of mystery to me... how can the plant be on 3 shifts and still making so few vehicles? How many man-hours does it take to put together a Bronco?!? The 3rd shift began in January 2024 and you can clearly see the impact of that in the Jan 2025 result (i.e. Ranger sales up 1386%). But if you look at the full year results from last month, Ford sold 109K Bronco and 46K Ranger in 2024... that's only 155K volume. Add another 30K (maybe?) exports, we are still under 200K on 3 shifts. I don't understand the utilization at all. The conventional wisdom is auto plant needs to operate with 250K volume on 2-shifts to be economically viable.

The big drop in Explorer is concerning. Hyundai Palisades came out after the current Explorer and there is already a new gen which will be on sale in a few months time. The speed at which competitors are moving in this segment really reminds me of the final decade of Taurus when Ford just couldn't keep up and can only chase fleet sales.

We discussed this before. It has to do with utilization of the Michigan plant. There is very little overlap as Toyota has demonstrated with sales of 4Runner/Land Cruiser and Highlander/Grand Highlander all hitting records. There is fixed costs involved in building Everest at Michigan which Ford wants to avoid - you need to invest in some tooling and you need to expand the plant since it is already on 3-shifts... capacity is at max. So clearly Ford is not going to spend a couple of billions and bring Ranger/Bronco production down for a year or two to expand the plant to make room for Everest. So if they are stuck with the current output, bring in Everest will likely mean reducing either Ranger or Bronco volumes. That's the kind of math problem that Farley loves. And right now, he thinks he is better off making more Bronco than adding Everest. But Farley must also have noticed how much Toyota is making with its 4Runner/Land Cruiser/GX triplets. Maybe Ford should seriously consider importing Everest from somewhere. Ford has 5 worldwide T6 production sites: Michigan, China, Thailand, South Africa, and Argentina... surely one of these must have room to supply 30K Everest for US market?

I'm sure that is the case. The EV business is burdened by high R&D, startup, and depreciation and amortization charge. This is what Ford says about its cost burden for Model E business segment - straight from the SEC filings (emphasis mine): Structural Costs – primarily measures EBIT variance driven by absolute change in cost categories that typically do not have a directly proportionate relationship to production volume. Structural costs include the following cost categories: ▪ Manufacturing, Including Volume-Related – consists primarily of costs for hourly and salaried manufacturing personnel, plant overhead (such as utilities and taxes), and new product launch expense. These costs could be affected by volume for operating pattern actions such as overtime, line-speed, and shift schedules ▪ Engineering and Connectivity – consists primarily of costs for vehicle and software engineering personnel, prototype materials, testing, and outside engineering and software services ▪ Spending-Related – consists primarily of depreciation and amortization of our manufacturing and engineering assets, but also includes asset retirements and operating leases ▪ Advertising and Sales Promotions – includes costs for advertising, marketing programs, brand promotions, customer mailings and promotional events, and auto shows ▪ Administrative, Information Technology, and Selling – includes primarily costs for salaried personnel and purchased services related to our staff activities, information technology, and selling functions

No one knows... Ford changes its plan 3 times a day it seems. Based on previous reports, CE1 is probably a small pickup truck and CUV (i.e. next gen Maverick and Bronco Sport). Maybe Ford will build the EV CE1 version in Louisville and keep the ICE C2 version in production in Hermosillo. Ford will need to replace the Mach E eventually too on CE1 since GE2 is cancelled. So that brings Cuautitlan into the picture too. How many CE1 plants does Ford need?

I think we can infer that Escape hybrid and PHEV are not profitable or not profitable enough for Farley's liking. Yes. EV is calculated using MPGe which is a multiplier. Getting rid of Escape but introducing Explorer Sport (EV) for example is probably overall a positive CAFE move. The issue is that Ford had scraped all its EV for the US market - first the Explorer Sport MEB was scuttled. And then the big Explorer GE2 was cancelled. The "low cost" TE1 based EV won't arrive for a while. So Farley rather just not sell anything to stay complaint with CAFE. Basically any model is expandable unless they are tied to the "Iconic 4": F-Series, Mustang, Bronco, Transit.

This is the point in the thread, where I pull out the CAFE chart and say sit down and listen... 😄 Just rough calculation... Escape wheelbase and track width are 106.7" x 62" or about 46 sq ft That means 2026 model has to average 50 MPG to hit the target. In order to get there, Ford has to discontinue the ICE 2.0 Ecoboost version (26 MPG) and probably the 1.5 Ecoboost AWD version too (28 MPG). The hybrid is 39 MPG but the real hero here is PHEV at 101 MPG. So just do the math on product mix... Ford can only sell hybrid and PHEV but the nameplate is so damaged from years of cheap interior and questionable reliability that Farley doesn't think he can charge the same money as RAV4 (which similarly will become hybrid only in 2026). So the easy thing is to not compete... Ford cannot win. I don't know what Ford plans to build instead at the plant but making Edge and Nautilus in the US is my guess. More importantly, what is Ford going to do with next gen Bronco Sport? It has to get bigger to slide down the CAFE curve.

Didn't Ford said a year or two ago that they were done using Shelby licensed name? This is why they introduced Darkhorse... keep all the IP inhouse. Ford has a closet full of names it can slap on performance Mustangs... No need to pay Shelby royalty IMO.

There is nothing majorly wrong with Escape styling. It is not very exciting but boring sells in this segment... compact CUV is the equivalent of midsize sedan from before times - people want reliable transport that are good value. The thing with Escape is that basically the competitors got better, and some of them can just sell based on reputation for reliability and value along... Escape nameplate doesn't have that kind of equity, which is why Farley is going to kill it. I'm not saying I agree with the decision BTW, I'm just offering my observation and explain what might be going on at Ford. Farley seemed to have concluded he can get more mileage from next gen Bronco Sport than trying to revive Escape. Wouldn't surprise me if the CE1 replacement is call Explorer Sport instead of Escape - assuming Farley actually has a plan to replace the big Explorer (he doesn't right now). Remember, the MEB Explorer EV sold in Europe was originally going to be a worldwide model with the US version going to Oakville under Hackett... so Explorer Sport name likely was going to be used for the US market for that car. Farley pulled the plug on MEB in the US once he became CEO.

I wouldn't say most. Some... sure. These are the C2-based products: Focus Escape/Kuga/Corsair Mondeo/Zephyr Edge/Nautilus Maverick/Bronco Sport One one C2 adjacent product: Equator/Equator Sport I grouped Maverick and Bronco Sport together because their fate are clearly tied together as they depend on each other to keep Hermosilo volume up like Corsair with inevitably tied with Escape. You can't really have one without the other. So looking at this C2 portfolio and thinking about Ford's off-road/SUV performance focus and Farley's "no boring car" edict, make your pick which one will get investment for another generation... I know which ones I won't bet on.

The strategy makes sense since those are the products that Ford can still wring profits from. It's hopeless for Ford to try to compete with Yaris, Corolla, Prius, RAV4, Highlander, Siena, or Camry. But it can still quite effectively compete with Tundra, Hilux, Tacoma, 4Runner, Prado etc. Also, I believe Farley senses weakness with Jeep and Land Rover brands as their owners are distracted. He wants to establish Ford as the alternative go-to brand globally for rugged vehicles before Haval gets there first. Ford essentially has 4 core products/families and so any products that are based on these platforms and are associated it with it by marketing is in Farley's mind "not boring" and will be safe. F-Series sub-brand: F-150, Raptor, Lightning, Super Duty, Expedition, Navigator Transit sub-brand: Transit, Transit Custom, Transit Connect, Transit Courier (and their Tourneo twins) Mustang subbrand: Mustang coupe, Mustang convertible, GTD, Mach E, supposed sedan, 4x4 coupe (Mach 4?) Ranger family: Ranger, Raptor, Everest, Bronco, Dadao, Yuhu, Baodian Everything else must have some sort of tie in with the 4 core products or they are in the "boring camp" and likely to be dropped: Explorer ICE/Aviator: Ford has no plans to replace it (and the EV replacement is already cancelled) Edge/Nautilus: Will is still be around if Ford ends up reducing its line up in China like it did elsewhere? Escape/Corsair: Boring! Equator/Equator Sport: see Edge/Nautilus Explorer EV/Capri: DOA Mondeo/Zephyr: Who really thinks there is a future here? Focus: Already sentenced to death Fiesta: RIP E-Series: Dinosaurs survived and became birds... E-series may sprout wings and fly one day 😂 Puma: Saved because it shares platform with Transit Courier Bronco Sport: Saved by riding Bronco coattails Maverick: Saved by approximation/association with Bronco Sport I don't know how Farley plans to market the upcoming low-cost EV platform and the low-cost compact ICE from India but chances are they will have some sort of tie in with the Core 4.

Camaro's demise has many dimensions (dropping demand, CAFE, GM pulling out of Australia etc.) but ultimately, it is just not as iconic to Chevy as Mustang it is to Ford. They've got the Corvette over there to carry the torch. Mustang and Corvette are not competitors in the market place but they occupy similar mind space in the corporate office. Camaro is more like Thunderbird at Ford... it's a nice to have product but if you had to choose one, the answer is always bet on Mustang.

Wage increase has outpaced inflation since end of 2022. We are in a period of very robust economic recovery. https://www.epi.org/blog/average-wages-have-surpassed-inflation-for-12-straight-months/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americans-wages-are-higher-than-they-have-ever-been-and-employment-is-near-its-all-time-high/ https://www.marketplace.org/2024/10/30/wage-growth-slowing-outpace-inflation-jobs-earnings-payroll-wage-gains/ But it is also true inflation outpaced wage growth from end of 2020 to 2022.

The footprint rule exist for one reason and one reason only: to accommodate pickup trucks. But car makers quickly figured out you can just make cars fatter and longer so that the vehicle in question can slide down the scale hit a lower target. And that's what happened across the board with every car company and every vehicle segments. Customers didn't ask for longer sedan or wider CUV but the temptation by car companies to cheat is too much to resist.

This arrangement with RTR is interesting. I think Ford has a vested interest in keeping the tuners engaged with Mustang platform and they are probably testing out a few things to see what sticks. If this is really OEM from the factory (all the preview article says it is "factory-tuned"), it is likely just a re-naming and change in marketing of the previous Ecoboost performance package. Not that different than Ford licensing the Shelby name before.

They are not competing with Porsche. They are replicating that business model at a lower price point. If you are not selling as many units as before but you have to keep the model for other reasons (it's part of Ford's icon line up), you have to generate more profit per unit and you have to try to keep as many diehards as possible. In the Mustang context, that means more V8 and more niche performance models that people are willing to pay. And less rental car spec convertibles. Mustang has to become a coveted car not just an affordable sports car. That's where GTD and Darkhorse come in.

Supply (price) is not the issue. In fact, Ford is restricting supply in a big way. Flat Rock can pump out a lot more Mustang. The problem facing Mustang is demand. End of story. It's the same issue facing all other OEMs that used to sell coupes and convertible. The only one immune to this trend is Porsche because they've built up a really big halo on the 911 and Boxster/Cayman line. And that's what Farley is trying to do with Mustang... more upper end performance variants that actually generates demand for the entire model range.

Depends on how strong the Mustang brand is obviously. Porsche has 20+ variants of 911 and every new version just prints more money. The key is to limit supply. As long as you make 1 less than the market demands, you are fine. I can see all of the following Mustang variants working: Coupe, convertible, GTD, Mach E, "Raptorized" lifted coupe, ute, shooting break, "Gran Torino" 4 door coupe. And of course don't forget the usual limited production editions like Bullitt, Mach 1, GT350, GT500.

Yea... The last Civic to be fully designed and for sale before CAFE footprint rule came into effect was the 9th gen (2011-2015) and the footprint was about 42 sq ft. If Honda had kept the Civic at the same size, it will have a 60 MPG CAFE target in 2025.

I'm guessing BMW sells more 4 series coupe and convertible than Ford sells Mustang but I bet the numbers are close. I think one way for Ford to keep the Mustang name relevant but at low volumes is to keep pushing the average MSRP higher and make people chase special performance edition / limited production variants. Basically what Porsche does with 911. Ford is kind of headed that way with GTD but I think there is an untapped opportunity to make Mustang variants that can be certified as EPA trucks which will partially solve the CAFE problem. Mustang Rally - take the GT 5.0 add AWD and lift the suspension by 2". Re-certify this as a "truck" with EPA like Subaru did with Crosstrek and Outback since it should have enough ground clearance to qualify. Since it is a truck, it has lower CAFE target which means Ford can sell more of them. Think of it as a 911 Dakar competitor for 1/3 of the price. Mustang Ranchero - hear me out... if Mustang Rally 5.0 is already certified as a "truck", how hard would it be to chop the roof off, yank out the back seat, install a bulkhead and a cargo bed where the backseat and the trunk used to be? These won't be huge sellers. Ford just need to make enough to keep the Mustang name alive. And more importantly keep Flat Rock in business. If Flat Rock is shut down, Mustang will go with it. Ford is not going to invest in another plant to build it.

You guys are assuming Ford wants to sell more Mustang... I'm not sure that they do. It's not CAFE friendly and despite S650 still based on S550's aging bones, it's probably not that profitable once you factor in Flat Rock's under-utilization. Sure, Ford can lower the price by 20% and sell a ton more but it seems clear to me that they are also constraining supplies so it doesn't create a bigger CAFE hole. What Ford really needs to do is find something else to build at Flat Rock. The single model production line in a modern car plant thing doesn't really work.