bzcat
-
Posts
5,397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by bzcat
-
-
6 hours ago, Harley Lover said:
@bzcat, can it also be inferred that, if we assume Ford's supply of hybrid-specific parts has some sort of volume limitation, that Ford have made the determination based on your comments that those hybrid-specific parts would be better utilized on higher profit products, specifically Maverick and Bronco Sport?
I think we can infer that Escape hybrid and PHEV are not profitable or not profitable enough for Farley's liking.
2 hours ago, akirby said:Would a similar sized EV offset CAFE?
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.
.thumb.png.150792e2079be589f81d6a187862dba8.png)
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, rmc523 said:
I think most current C2-based products get a reprieve.
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.
-
1
-
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.
-
3
-
-
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/
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.
-
4
-
-
20 hours ago, jpd80 said:
I’m imagining an Ecoboost Mustang with Dark Horse parts and power upgrades but built on the assembly line and just using the tuner’s name..
If the above is true, it probably makes this performance version of the Ecoboost Mustang fairly easy for Ford to do.
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, T-dubz said:
If ford wants to compete with Porsche, it needs a new model. The mustang is a pony car and should stay that.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, rmc523 said:
They can overdo it too......we don't need 15 different Mustang models.
Keep it about where they have it.....Mach E, coupe/convertible, sedan, and leave it at that (with a caveat for the "Raptor" version, which remains to be seen whether it's coupe/convertible with special treament, or a shooting brake type that was rumored).
Expanding beyond that starts to harm the brand, IMO.
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:
And the reason for that is CAFE Footprint too...they'd make no money on a Civic sized Civic because it have to get 40-50MPG
Yet another reason why cars are getting bigger/more expensive.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.
-
2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:
I'm also guessing it made no sense to keep the Camaro either because the new Vette had similar sales numbers to the Mustang this past year.
Plus isn't the Mustang the Worlds best selling performance coupe anyways?
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.
-
3
-
-
16 minutes ago, Sherminator98 said:
Why where Mustang sales so terrible?
Americans aren't buying 2 door coupes. It's not a Mustang problem per se. It is one of the best selling model in a dying market segment.
Maverick continues to impress... I knew the model was going to be successful but it has done far beyond my expectation. Bronco Sport + Maverick pairing is probably a far more profitable C2 replacement for Focus hatch/sedan in North America.
Ford needs to replicate this kind of success in product development in other regions.
-
2
-
-
On 12/31/2024 at 7:31 AM, Rick73 said:
Iconic Ford design sounds fine to me, but I’m more interested in knowing what “software-defined” implies, particularly in real-world practical applications, not some theoretical and or marketing gibberish. Over-promising and under-delivering is becoming too common on many things, not just automobiles.On 12/31/2024 at 8:12 AM, Sherminator98 said:Software-defined means that a system's functions are controlled by software, rather than hardware.
The major distinction is for SDV is that all of the functions are on the same operating system instead of 20+ separate software systems that operate independently in non-SDV.
The easiest way to visualize this is SDV is top-down driven logic while conventional vehicles are bottoms up driven logic. In a top-down logic, all the functions follows the code from central electronic control unit (ECU). In bottoms up logic, the native codes are written at the function level and you have silos.
Another way to think about this is to understand who actually makes all the components of the car. A traditional car will have seats made by an external supplier who will program its ECU using its own software code. And the HVAC system is supplied by a different company who programs its ECU in a different way. And a 3rd company supplies the mirror and guess what, it also has embedded ECU that is also different than the seats and HVAC system. So the car company then spend all its time integrating it so the two subsystems talk to each other. Now when you press the heated seat button on the HVAC panel, the HVAC system knows how to turn on your heated seat; and when you press the memory button, it know how to adjust the seats AND the mirrors. One drawback of this approach is anytime you want to make a change to the HVAC system, you also need the supplier for the seats and mirrors to be onboard, even though you are not changing those things. You have to coordinate a lot of different moving parts and this all takes a lot of time and cost money.
In a SDV, seat controls, HVAC, and door mirrors will be controlled by the same set of ECU that controls that zone so there is no integration required. If you want to change how the HVAC works, it won't impact its integration with seats or mirrors. It can be done in a simple over the air update.
This article shed some light on how Rivian has advanced the art of SDV and why VW paid $5 billion to try to get it
https://www.popsci.com/technology/rivian-zonal-electrical-architecture/
The bottom line: SDV requires car companies to take control of the design decision on all the component rather than relying on Tier 1 suppliers to make the decision for them. This is why legacy car companies are struggling with SDV - it is fundamentally incompatible with how they've built cars in the last 30 years since the advent of computers in cars. A lot of the major car technology breakthrough in the last 20 or 30 years have been developed by Tier 1 suppliers like Bosch, Denso, or ZF. They have a vested interest to keep the silos so the car companies have to keep coming back to them for integration and licensing.
-
5
-
1
-
-
-
18 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Some interesting things form Ford’s UK website……..https://www.ford.co.uk/cars
Puma Gen E on the road price from £29,995
Mach E on the road price from £43,330
Electric Explorer on the road price from £45,875
Electric Capri on the road price from £48,075
ICE Puma on the road price from £26,350
ICE Kuga (Escape) on the road from £32,095
To my mind, the whole idea of the two EVs being built in Germany was to offer
affordable BEVs that bettered the price of the Mach E by a long way.
Look at the pricing above the Electric Puma and there’s nothing in that critical
£30,000 to £40,000 price segment …….that should be a big concern for Ford….
While an opposing view would show that other brands are similarly priced (maybe)
I think it’s important for Ford’s future that it has good affordable BEVs in front of buyers,
leaving the heavy lifting to Electric Puma is clearly the strategy here but not sure how
successful that will be……maybe I’m misreading the actual market due to my own bias?
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Explorer was supposed to be the Focus replacement but someone (maybe Farley?) saw that it wouldn't make money at the price VW is selling its ID.3 and Renault is selling its Megane, so Ford Europe is pricing it to make sure it covers its costs. Consumers aren't stupid... these are not compelling products at those price points.
The slow sales of the Explorer/Capri twin is direct result of the pricing strategy. It's almost as if someone wanted them to fail... If Ford can sell a larger EV imported from Mexico for lower price then a locally made EV, then what is the point of keeping the local manufacturing footprint?
-
1
-
-
On 12/25/2024 at 4:30 AM, Harley Lover said:
bzcat, could you also comment on Ford's plans for its "Pro" business in Europe? The OP article paints a bleak picture for Ford in Europe, but I'm under the impression that Ford continue to have a thriving, profitable business in the business segment (but can't quote details).
Ford Europe is the passenger car business and it is indeed bleak.
Ford Pro is the just marketing... the van business in Europe is under Ford Otosan.
Farley already placed its eggs in the Otosan basket with Puma (the best selling vehicle under Ford Europe) now made by Ford Otosan.
Ford Pro in Europe is just a natural evolution of the point #2 I made in my post... van buyers are not as price sensitive as retail B-segment hatchback buyers. And there are fewer competitors (e.g. Toyota and Hyundai are bit players in European van market) so Ford's pivot to Pro business is just a survival instinct... go where the margins are high and competition less fierce. There are only 4 credible van sellers in Europe: Ford, Mercedes, VW, and Stellantis. Renault is now struggling because it lost Opel to Stellantis so I think they will eventually exit the business. Compare this to the passenger car business with a dozen credible player plus the emerging threat from Chinese OEM... it's obvious why Ford doesn't want to sell Fiesta but is all-in on Transit.
The van business also less capital intensive because model cycles are long... 10-15 years between major update is pretty standard. In passenger car business, 5-6 year model cycle with 3 year midcycle update is standard. You can see why Farley loves the van business in Europe.
If I'm Farley, I would approach Renault and buy its van business. Combine that business with Ford Otosan will be transformative for Ford in Europe.
-
3
-
-
I posted on this topic extensively before. Ford has 3 challenges in Europe:
1. US GAAP requiring pension costs to be reported as expense at the time the pension is earned. IFRS allows companies to report pension costs as expense at the time they are paid. This is why GM couldn't turn a profit with Opel but PSA can turn a profit in year 1. Has nothing to do with the product or strategy. It is literally just how the costs are reported.
2. Ford doesn't have a premium brand in Europe so it struggles with margin. VW can justify making small margin on a Skoda Octavia because it makes 3 times that on an Audi A3 which is basically identical car. So it has to focus on market segments that are less sensitive to price - in the old days, it focused on "company car" market which were white collar employee perks in all the major European markets. These cars were purchased by the company and given to the employees to use. Employees do not pay income tax on use of car and employer write off the car in full as deductible business expenses. Large companies were often not very price sensitive because they needed the expenses to offset taxable income. Ford dominated the "company car" market in UK as well as a lot of the European countries without native brands - e.g. Belgium, Greece, Denmark etc. Together, it made Ford a major volume brand. The "company car" market has largely disappeared with tax reforms at EU level that gradually make "company car" less attractive employment perk (in most EU country now employee has to pay income taxes on use of company car). For companies that still offer this benefit, it just make more sense to give employee the cash and let them buy their own cars. When that happened, people started buying things like Audi A3 and Mercedes A-Class instead of Ford Mondeo. Ford never really adopted well to the post-"company car" reality in Europe.
3. UK and EU CO2 target. Unlike CAFE in the US, this is a hard target that cannot be cheated by making cars wider/longer. The only way to meet the target is to make cars that is lower CO2 emission - i.e. EV and hybrids. In Farley's calculus, it makes more sense to sell Mustang/Ranger and some EVs then a lot of Fiesta and some EVs. Mustang/Ranger have higher margins than Fiesta - it's related to the previous point but the regulatory framework forces that decision.
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 12/7/2024 at 10:21 AM, akirby said:
No reason for a PHEV to use a public charger. That’s why they bought a PHEV - so they don’t have to worry about charging in public.The vast majority of public chargers are Level 2 so Corsair PHEV is perfectly fine to use them.
There is very little need for PHEV to use DC charging (Level 3) because charging speed to directly related to the size of the battery pack. Adding DC charging to a PHEV is kind of a waste of money because they can't take advantage of the fast charging rate.
The best analogy is people putting high performance brake on family sedans. Sure, you can do it but why? The car will never exceed the capability of the standard brakes so why add more cost and complexity of race car worthy brake pads and rotors on a car that doesn't need the stopping power?
-
12 hours ago, akirby said:
Ford Europe manufacturing has always been expensive and inefficient.When the plants were running a full tilt, they were pretty efficient. Even as recent as 5 years ago, Valencia was considered the most productive plant for Ford worldwide.
Labor costs were always high in Germany and much lower in Spain and Romania but Ford is not unique amongst car producers in Europe. The big difference is US accounting rules regarding how companies have to account for pension costs. US GAAP requires US companies to report pension expense when the employee earns the benefit. Non-US companies using IFRS accounting rules do not have this problem as they can report pension expense when they are paid.
-
1
-
.png.37e68d5d03f0986b8ca1ad96c4da198a.png)
Ford Escape Remains On Track For Discontinuation By 2026: Report
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
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?