justins

Subscriptions and recurring revenue are the big thing in the corporate world now. Media was first, then software, and now everyone that can will try to jump on the bandwagon. Buying a vehicle is a once off, non recurring income for the manufacturer. It's essentially worth nothing once the transaction is made. There's no guarantee you'll go back, and at best it may be every few years. Recurring revenue is where it's at. Ford Pro software is the start of it, and has the potential to be huge, but features in consumer vehicles will follow, make no mistake.

True. But what was it 12 months ago? And is lightning at full production capacity yet? And further, what was GM's all electric %? Or Stellantis?

Yeah, but I see cases like Oz being test cases towards everyone doing this wherever they can. Manufacturers get the full retail margin, minus a handling fee. Tesla have shown it works.

Honda and Mercedes have gone to this model here in Oz. Set prices, no negotiation, dealer acts as agent, gets a fee for "handling" the vehicle. The automaker is the "dealer" and owns the (one) dealer license.

I think 4k units will be underestimating things. It will still be a drop in the ocean, but I wouldn't be surprised to see numbers of 7k units pretty quickly, production allowing. Anecdotally there seems to be a lot of knowledge of and loyalty to the F series here (even though it hasn't been sold here for years), and with the dealer base, 7k/yr is only 3 units per month per dealer. 2 units per dealer or month puts it at over 4k annually. I think they'll walk that in.

I think that will be grossly limited by production capacity. In 2020, RAM sold ~50 vehicles per dealer (based on current dealer number of 63) FoA has 180 dealers, so I think demand could (and probably will) easily outstrip supply.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/its-official-ford-f-150-coming-to-ford-australia-showrooms-2023/ Thai company are setting up remanufacturing facility in Melbourne to perform RHD conversion, to be overseen by Ford Oz and US engineers. Will be sold and supported through entire FoA dealer network. This will give FoA a major competitive advantage over RAM and Chevy (GMSV).

"I love it. Build it" "We can't" "Why not?" "Because the last guy tore up all our RWD platforms" "So why build this?" "To show the last guy what we could have done with a RWD platform" ?

So this guy purchased a perfectly functional, safe car, and now has one with no driver airbag, a semi functional instrument cluster that throws multiple errors, cruise control that only turns on when you're stopped, no drive modes and 1200 more miles on the clock than he's actually done. Yeah. Winner ?

But the question then is "to what?". Lightning and cybertruck will attract different buyers IMO, so no real alternative ATM. Bronco buyers know it's truckloads better than Wrangler, so no real alternative. Mach E does have a few genuine alternatives, thus production increases coming. Bronco sport has that segment of the small / medium CUV market all to itself. Maverick likewise, all on its own. Add in higher ATPs, and Ford board meetings must be a pretty good time right now.

I think Ford are starting to create a very positive brand image for themselves at the moment. Lightning? Orders closed. Maverick? Orders closed. Mach E? Long waits. Bronco? Long waits. When was the last time Ford had FOUR absolute, undeniable home runs in the range?

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Someone at Ford has no sense of proportion or stance, and it's whoever has designed this and the last generation of Mondeo / Fusion. The rear wheel arches look awful. Far too small. The rear of the car looks like it's permanently sagging. The space between the top of the arch and the window line is far too great, and it's emphasized by the crease line and the kick up of the third window.

You only have to look at VW group to see the potential in the PAG plan. It was poorly executed, and the potential synergies never realised, but it wasn't a bad plan.

Electric Viking did a video about his thoughts on this .. F to sell their Rivian stock as soon as they can, and use the $$ to pay for new plants for their own EVs.

No way everyone gets to keep their job in the transition to EV. No way the unions will get to stay happy here. And that will cost all legacy auto makers big time.

I think having warthog and Raptor names could have been confused in the marketplace, especially if consumers see it as performing the same role as F150 or Ranger Raptor. Imagine the bar conversations... I bought a Bronco Warthog. A what? Oh, it's the Raptor version of the Bronco. Ooooh... That would completely defeat the purpose.

I think I remember reading that swinging wanted to charge a subscription for heated seats ? I think Ford are looking more at GPS tracking, telematics, fuel economy, servicing, that kind of thing for their Pro services.

I think the part that's really getting forgotten in a lot of these discussions is the software services that Ford are planning to bring to their Pro division. Think about what happens when you choose to buy either an iPhone or an Android... Once you're in an ecosystem, you're in, and it's so hard to leave. If you have a fleet of vehicles - eTransits and Lightning Pros, all signed up to Ford's software services, all paying monthly subscriptions, then you're in. Changing vehicles, and having to use 2 software services, pay for them etc. Just isn't worth it. Ford have you locked in. And it doesn't really matter what GM or Rivian come out with, you're not going to change. Year after year, model after model, and as your fleet grows and more vehicles go on Ford's services, your even more tied to them. That will be gold for Ford if they get it right. A money printing machine.

This. If they're pushing production out, I'd also be thinking it's a bigger push to phase out ICE Av/Ex sooner. Again, production capacity will determine that. But I can see a world where Av / Ex production is 50 / 50 ICE / EV of they can get production ramped up.

I still stand by my comments that the wheel arches (especially the rear ones) look too small. Every Ford model that has had that 6th window design has suffered from the same affliction. 2 generations of Mondeo, Fusion, MKZ, and now this - they've all suffered from far too much distance between the top of the wheel arch and the window line. It looks weak... droopy...

I love how these industrial strength velcro strips all of a sudden start "failing" progressively leading up to the launch of a new vehicle. I bet 3M are scratching their heads wondering what the hell happens.

Combine this with the Purdue / Ford charging technology, and I think Ford are looking strong, if only from a talk perspective right now. I really hope they end up walking the walk.

@jpd80Is this another product of Ford's Oz design studio?

The arches themselves are too small to make any size wheel look good. And the front overhang is Audi-esque.

Front and rear overhangs in patent drawing are awful compared to concept, and the wheels look tiny. Why does Ford insist on putting tiny wheels on their mid size vehicles? The last Fusion / Mondeo suffered the same affliction.