GearheadGrrrl

JD Power is mostly measuring different stuff, more short term customer impressions of newly delivered vehicles.

I'm a CR member and have been asked. This is the largest survey of auto reliability available to the general public with a huge sample. CR's statisticians know their stuff and if a sample is too small or the data is unreliable they won't report it. So unless you've got big $$$ to pay for other data which may be no better, this is the most reliable data in the business, even if the data tells us that Ford and especially Lincoln have real reliability problems.

Sounds like it's at Humboldt Yard, a Canadian Pacific (CP) yard on the north side of Minneapolis. "BNS Rail" sounds like Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). If it was built in Louisville, A shortline may have railed it to Chicago where it was transferred to CP and now it may be being transferred to BNSF- or -BNSF may be transferring it to CP being it's going to Canada, though BNSF serves some western Canada destinations too.

And while some short sighted dealers welcome the profits low production numbers are giving them, the auto industry is a huge part of the economy and shrinking it shrinks the economy. That isn't good for anybody.

I was throwing out round numbers, I hope we stay above 10M and I'd like to see 20M. Unfortunately some of the dealers have other agendas...

While those high profit sales sound good, they come at a price- Lost volume. If the industry wants to shrink U.S. sales from the usual 15 million units/year to 10 million with higher per unit profits, the lost volume will shrink the whole auto and related industries. That means lost middle class jobs and an even smaller pool of middle class customers to buy those cars. Would make more sense to expand the market to 20 million or so units a year, which if you look at how population has increased over the years and the increase in multi commuter families is what the volume should be. As long as nobody's losing money on any of those 20 million units, it's all good... For the economy.

Ford knows better than any of us the profit or loss on any sale, and as a rule they don't sell at a loss. When I look at the GSA Schedules, state bids, and other buying pools it tells me that the average retail buyer is paying too much, rather than fleet buyers paying too little. And when I'm shopping I use these bids as a target price, when I'm getting close I know I'm getting a good deal.

Looks like they're just submitting a price for the "GSA Schedule", from which all kinds of government agencies can purchase if they wish.

Wouldn't be that hard because big truck chassis dimensions are pretty much standardized across the industry, with the exception of Volvo and their Mack brand, for example the standard width across the frame is 34". Looking at what's already offered as a starting point, there's stout enough frames and inserts to not only handle a tandem but probably up to around a 55k GVW which is enough for 90+% of vocational applications. As far as the PowerStroke surviving at those GVWs, that's mostly the job of the engine control software to protect the engine and powertrain from the more abusive drivers. If more power is needed, just call Cummins and they'll engineer the whole installation. If a longer hood is needed, there's nothing sacred about that F650/750 hood and fiberglass is cheap to tool up- Look at how many different hoods International uses with their cab. And if Ford doesn't think they're up to this (they are), just ship the cabs over to Detroit Chassis and I'm sure they can quite well handle the rest.

So then how does little Autocar trucks whose annual revenue would be a rounding error at Ford manage to develop and bring to market an all new Class 8 truck?

Same here- I'm walking now but I won't even consider an F series, Ranger, Bronco, Excursion, or Transit because they just sit too high and the Super Duties and Transit won't even clear my 7 foot tall garage door. Haven't sampled the Bronco Sport or Maverick yet, but I suspect they're too tall too- Ford built them tall to boost sales even though there's no functional reason to jack them up. Ford has built most of their vehicles too tall to appeal to a significant market segment. The wheelchair lifts and seats that rotate and drop are just expensive bandaids- The seats cost $10k + installation, and a lot of insurance plans don't cover them. Ford will kick back up to $1k for mobility adaptations, that will cover hand controls or a manual ramp but not the more expensive modifications to bandaid Ford's styling mistakes.

That's a market sector Ford and much of the auto industry has ignored. Having become a gimp thanks to MS three decades ago and now an elder too, how the heck I'm going to get in and out of a vehicle is pretty important to me. My 7 years younger brother just lost a leg to post-COVID complications and now covets a Ford much lower than an F series or Ranger. For the average elder, pickups and body on frame SUVs are too tall and a unit body crossover or SUV like the Escape or Edge is about the tallest thing they can handle. For wheelchair users who can transfer from wheelchair to car seat, most wheelchairs have a seat height of 20-24 inches and anything higher than that means having to lift their body weight with arms and shoulders alone. Then there's the problem of stowing the wheelchair, which explains why wheelchair users like 2 door coupes and bought a lot of compact pickups with suicide back doors like the original S10- GM even featured a wheelchair using employee demonstrating the ease of use in an ad as he slid off the wheelchair, folded it, and eased it into the cab behind him. Nowadays with the all Ford's sedans gone and the pickups too tall, about the only thing Ford has to serve this market is the FWD/AWD crossovers which are still too tall and the Transit Connect. Ford could serve this market better- They lowered the last generation Escape by a couple inches and called it the C-Max, even marketed it as a car in some markets. A lowered Escape with AWD would appeal to the GTI market too- VW dealers have a couple years worth of customers lined up to buy their GTIs and Golf Rs. The Transit Connect checks a bunch of boxes for physically challenged drivers- low seats for easy transfer, sliding 2nd row doors for easy wheelchair stowing, and plenty of space for mobility scooters... But Ford doesn't know this market exists and ignores it so the customers don't know the Transit Connect exists.

Ford could go up to about 50k GVW with the existing F750 frame, 1/4" rails 10" tall are the standard in Class 8 for both single and tandem chassis- Just change the crossmembers around for the tandem assembly. The PowerStroke is already rated for 50K GCW, it doesn't know if it's pulling a trailer or 30k of dirt in a dump box on it's back. If more power is desired than a PowerStroke can provide, truck makers simply raise cabs and build longer hoods to cover the engines.

What amazes me is that Ford can't see that adding some simple low investment options to the heavier F series would bring in a lot of new customers. For example, a DOT legal sleeper bunk in the extended and crew cab trucks would win over a lot of the hotshot operators, same thing in the Transit for the expeditors. And if the F650/750 are capable of 50,000 GCW, adding lift axle and full screw tandems to the lineup should be easy and would bring in a bunch of new customers.

Joe, I totally agree. We've got a contractor in town now rebuilding our water system and they were a loyal Ford fleet with must be a dozen or so F250s up to 450s and 550s. But when they needed a dual drive tandem to carry water tanks, etc. and a horizontal drill on a tag trailer they had to go to International and Paccar. When they're shopping for another Class 8 truck, any sharp salesperson is going to offer to include some class 4-7 trucks in the deal too, and Ford can say goodbye to their business. And if they go to Daimler, they'll probably offer some Sprinters to replace the Super Duties and a Mercedes for the boss too...

The Jeep Cherokee, Explorer, etc. were around and selling in volume 20-30 years ago, As were Suburu's and a bunch of other crossovers. Trucks are still too tall and tippy, cost too much to run and now buy too, and for the price they don't even give you a trunk lid. 20 years ago Kia/Hyundai already had pretty good market share and have only gone up since. And somebody needs to expose both the Bronco and Wrangler- Grossly obese useless "Utes" that aren't even rated for snow plowing- A job the old traditional Jeep and Bronco excelled at!

Pardon me while I get emotional here, but I grew up in the age of "Total Performance" a half century ago. Back when Ford raced everything they made everywhere, and won everywhere. I religiously followed Ford racing around the world, from LeMans to the Monte Carlo win that was denied Ford by the "Index of Performance". Those were heady days when Ford established it's leadership and buried the image of Henry's stodgy old car company. So having seen Ford at their best, the Ford of today leaves me seriously disappointed- A "truck" company with no cabovers or tandems whose biggest offering is a pickup on steroids. Legends like the Focus RS are dead and buried, along with the Taurus including the SHO. In half of Ford's market you can't even get a V6 AWD Fusion. The Mustang is hanging on by a thread while the legendary GT is being end of lifed, and if Ford survives to return to LeMans after a century I won't be here to see it. And what has Ford given us the replace it? The world's best pickups, but they're still pickups and I'm not about to spend the price of a decent performance car to herd an F series or Ranger through the corners. The "need them for work" excuse doesn't work- The long cabs, short boxes, low payloads, and high center of gravity pretty much explain the market they cater too. And the Bronco- Nice job matching the devolution of the Jeep, but I have yet to see why anyone is waiting months for one when a sawzalled Ranger crew cab will give the same effect. Then there's Ford's unit body SUVs that had the potential for greatness and failed- Lower the AWD Escape or Edge V6, tweak the engine, and Ford could be stealing sales from Suburu and the hot hatches... But ain't gonna happen. Same with the AWD Mach-E, and if Suburu can built a profitable company on an AWD crossover/sedan platform, why can't Ford? So the only vehicle that's kept me in the Ford family is the Transit Connect, a truly brilliant small van that puts the competition to shame. I've got one on order, will probably never be built, and I suspect they're going to screw up the replacement. When that happens, I'm outa here...

Rumored to be a 7.3... Like the GT40 Mark 4, too much engine for the car.

The Ford GT is now a couple years old and the competitors have caught up, and the new Corvette Z07 will probably eclipse the Ford GT's performance at a fraction of the cost. Ford's only chances to stay competitive are to "productionize" the GT and match the Z07 on price or develop a probably hybrid new GT that will justify it's price multiple over the Corvette. The odds of either happening are slim to none... Ford is now a "truck" company.

Take a look at a tractor-trailer rig- There's a reason why there's 6-8 inches between the frame and tires and the bottom of the trailer.

I'm sorta in the same situation- I and the dealer never signed the order, so they're free to mark it up and sell it to the highest bidder if they want. But I put down no deposit so I can walk away from the deal if they try to mark it up. It's an oddball spec Transit Connect XL wagon, so I doubt anyone will be lined up to pay over X Plan price for it in this rural area where Transit Connects normally sit on dealer lots for months. That assumes it even gets built- Ford confirmed the order was placed, but after 6 weeks the order has yet to be scheduled and they're scheduling in January now. So I'm looking at alternatives, and none of them are Ford products...

Should match the GTs performance for way less $$$...

One of the problems in marketing to environmentalists is that they tend to iconify products and want to punish companies that supposedly harmed the environment years ago. Thus they'll spend a six figure sum to very visibly cover their roof with solar panels when wind energy is a better investment. And despite Tesla's history of broken promises and poor after sales back up, they'll pay more for a Tesla instead of a Bolt because they want to punish GM for scrapping their experimental electric cars decades ago.

I noticed Schwab moved Ford from a D to a C rating on their A through F scale. I agree- Ford still has massive problems with huge capital needs to retool and parts shortages, but by taking a lead on electric cars and actually delivering them Ford may have a bright future.

What amazes me is that Ford can't see that adding some simple low investment options to the heavier F series would bring in a lot of new customers. For example, a DOT legal sleeper bunk in the extended and crew cab trucks would win over a lot of the hotshot operators, same thing in the Transit for the expeditors. And if the F650/750 are capable of 50,000 GCW, adding lift axle and full screw tandems to the lineup should be easy and would bring in a bunch of new customers.