Edge gets comparo'd at MT...

[RichardJensen]

A hit could be the effort from any automaker that's making everyone pay attention.

Okay, so everyone in Nepal, right? Or just a few people?

 

Or is your definition of 'everyone' as diaphanous as your definition of 'hit'?

 

From now on, I'll apply the Humpty Dumpty rule to your posts:

 

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

 

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

[pcsario]

I'll see what I want to see like I always do.

Fixed.

[RichardJensen]

Yeah. Gee, what with my continual reference to published articles, verifiable facts, and figures, I'm OBVIOUSLY the one who's deluded.

Edited February 28, 2007 by RichardJensen

[pcsario]

Remember a little over a year ago that you couldn't find a Mustang GT on a Ford lot.....anywhere? And if you did, there was a market adjustment added to the sticker that most people were happy to pay, just to drive away in it? That is a hit.

Yeah I know, in RJ's world where selling 10k a month is a "success", then a true success is something like this...

 

 

...multiplied by infinity, and taken into the depths of forever.

[pcsario]

Yeah. Gee, what with my continual reference to published articles, verifiable facts, and figures, I'm OBVIOUSLY the one who's deluded.

Yeah, lets completely forget your defacto attitude to anything that doesn't help your case. Just ask evok.

 

 

Trying to stress a point through yet another article stating something similar?

 

 

 

Just ask evok and others.

Edited February 28, 2007 by pcsario

[RichardJensen]

A product that strains the capacity of the plant building it.

So, Ford needs to sell over 240k Edges for it to meet your definition of a 'hit'?

[jpd80]

I had a guy trying to tell me the other day that Fusion was a flop because it only sold 142,000 in 2006.

By that logic the Mustang at 166,000 is not much better.

Shouldn't profitability, acheiving factory targets and consumer response all be taken into account when talking about a hit?

[pcsario]

There's a difference.

 

The Mustang is a coupe with useless rear seats.

 

The Fusion is a mainstream family sedan from a company with a dealer at every corner.

[Deanh]

The Mustang at 160k proves our point. A specialty sports car is selling better than Ford's mainstream bread and butter sedan. Doesn't anybody else see the problem here? :shrug:

with the fusion now in Nascar....its all about to change...LOL!

[Deanh]

With the uproar from some fans of an import (Camry) being in NASCAR now, wanna bet they change back to the Taurus next year?

Hmmm, Toyotas and Fusions and 500's...sorry Taurus's, with rear wheel drive and huge V8's under the hoods...just like the production cars as well......I smell a rat....next up Scion Nascar's?....

[jpd80]

The Mustang at 160k proves our point. A specialty sports car is selling better than Ford's mainstream bread and butter sedan. Doesn't anybody else see the problem here? :shrug:

 

The majority of those "sports cars" are low priced V6 copies, not the GTs everyone is quick to reach for. I made the comparison with respect to judging performance meerly off sales and not profit per car. Profit for the manufacturer - that's the only true reflector of a cars success.

[jpd80]

Hmmm, Toyotas and Fusions and 500's...sorry Taurus's, with rear wheel drive and huge V8's under the hoods...just like the production cars as well......I smell a rat....next up Scion Nascar's?....

And the Aussie Falcon is not welcome in North America. Go Figure.

I bet Pontiac will use the G8 when available.

Edited February 28, 2007 by jpd80

[pcsario]

The majority of those "sports cars" are low priced V6 copies, not the GTs everyone is quick to reach for. I made the comparison with respect to judging performance meerly off sales and not profit per car. Profit for the manufacturer - that's the only true reflector of a cars success.

Again you're just proving our point. A company like Toyota could afford something as slow selling like the triplets. Ford's cashcows are dying and they need replacements, soon. Fusion was meant to be a big seller, not a niche car. Ford should be selling at least 200k Fusions per year. 11k a month for a dealer network that big is laughable. I know RJ's excuses of "They met their sales goals so it's a success" are false because the Fusion was never supposed to be exported to SA. Failed sales targets in the US is what allowed the "additional" capacity be allocated somewhere else.

Edited February 28, 2007 by pcsario

[Bluecon]

I had a guy trying to tell me the other day that Fusion was a flop because it only sold 142,000 in 2006.

By that logic the Mustang at 166,000 is not much better.

Shouldn't profitability, acheiving factory targets and consumer response all be taken into account when talking about a hit?

He is right.

[TomServo92]

And the Aussie Falcon is not welcome in North America. Go Figure.

I bet Pontiac will use the G8 when available.

 

Except that GM doesn't campaign Pontiacs in NASCAR anymore. My guess is that the upcoming RWD Impala will be GMs entry.

[jpd80]

Again you're just proving our point. A company like Toyota could afford something as slow selling like the triplets. Ford's cashcows are dying and they need replacements, soon. Fusion was meant to be a big seller, not a niche car. Ford should be selling at least 200k Fusions per year. 11k a month for a dealer network that big is laughable. I know RJ's excuses of "They met their sales goals so it's a success" are false because the Fusion was never supposed to be exported to SA. Failed sales targets in the US is what allowed the "additional" capacity be allocated somewhere else.

 

The Mexican CD3 Triplets sold over 211,000 last year, each one a profitable sale. I bet they made as much if not more profit out of those 211,000 CD3 than low profit retail queen Toyota Camry's 440,000 odd sales. Success is always determined by the company, except Chrysler who obviously love to stockpile cars.

The last thing Ford needs to do is chase losses by going to fleet sales. Keep the sales purity.

That old GM model of 300K units doing it for motor companies is no more in todays fragmented market.

That's why manufacturere are going to flex plants, more production in less plants.

Edited February 28, 2007 by jpd80

[CurtisH]

The majority of those "sports cars" are low priced V6 copies, not the GTs everyone is quick to reach for. I made the comparison with respect to judging performance meerly off sales and not profit per car. Profit for the manufacturer - that's the only true reflector of a cars success.

Slightly off topic, but there were probably more GTs produced than you realize. These numbers came from

The Mustang Source.

165,762 2006 mustangs produced

52.67% were V6s

47.33% were V8s (10 percentage points higher than in 2005)

 

Back on topic: We bought a CX-7 last September. My wife liked it better than the pictures she saw of the Edge. After seeing the real thing, she still liked the CX-7 better. The only other CUV she was interested in was the Murano. None of the other CUVs in MT's comparo were even considered.

[jpd80]

I agree. If Ford would produce more competitive products, they would generate more sales without having to do the fleet thing.

Funny how Ford has many new FLEX plants, but has yet to utilise any of them.

 

Is there anyone left to man the plants? LOL!

 

You're right, it's painful to watch every month as sales get less.

They tell us it's OK so long a the sales surrendered are low profit.

Sure hope this plan rescues Ford before the money goes away.

[Michael Reynolds]

I agree. If Ford would produce more competitive products, they would generate more sales without having to do the fleet thing.

Funny how Ford has many new FLEX plants, but has yet to utilise any of them.

 

Ford could make every viable plant FLEX, but until an agreement is reached with the UAW/CAW there is still going to be excess capacity and under utilization. So again who's fault is it that Ford hasn't been able to utilize FLEX plants more effectively.

 

Most consumers don't even know what the hell a Fusion is. 8 times out of 10 I have to explain what the hell it is, and even then most are left scratching their heads. For those that see it in person, almost never associate it with a Ford until they see the Blue Oval and then the shock settles in.

 

As far as I'm concerned for a car most don't know anything about, it is getting a fair amount of volume. You can not rebuild your car business overnight, especially in a market that is highly competitive. Yes, alot of it is Ford's fault that they are in the mess and virtually unkown in the midsize market. Yes, the car needs advertising. Yes, there are a few small little nit picks that would go a long way to make the car stand out a bit more..........

 

What is a dud, and what makes everyone on here the 'market experts'. Sure the car isn't a run-a-way hit, but it sure in the hell isn't something worth the ridcule and nonsense that most of you ramble on and on about around here. I own one, and I drive it well enough to know that I made a sound purchase. Am I a Ford loyalist, nope because if Ford was still producing the slop known as the previous Taurus I would have looked elsewhere for a midsize car. I also don't have a garage full of Ford products either.

 

Bottom line as long as those 'piddly' 160K odd units or so contributed to Ford's bottom line.......

[Bagrah01]

Do I really need to explain what a hit is?

 

Here, might not be the best definition but it's a quick one.

 

A hit could be the effort from any automaker that's making everyone pay attention.

 

They "hit" the nail on the head. They surpassed everyone else and/or delivered something special that's garnering lots of talk/$$$.

 

A game changer, etc. The fruits/rewards from going beyond the "bububu good enough" mentality.

 

Again, Explorer, Mustang, Taurus, etc. I'm even providing Ford examples to make things easier.

 

Forget it, this is like trying to explain a joke.

 

If you didn't get it in the first place, chances are you either never will, or are just playing mind games.

 

BTW, all the proof you need are FOE financial reports, every car they sell outside the wealthy european countries is sold at a loss according to your logic, because they're also cheaper. Lets recall your side was saying not too long ago (before the Saturn announcement) a car like the Astra would've to cost more than 20k if sold in the US because a calculator told them so. Don't even try to pretend you didn't saw anything like that because I recall you even posted in those threads.

 

 

You, I, and a few others on the board get it. People just don't see the big picture. RJ and company, can't seem to figure out you must spend money to make money. Until Ford offers a phenomenal ground breaking product, I will use Ford examples as well (GT, Mustang,1990 Explorer, 1986 Taurus) their going to get limited return on investment. You can spin it all you want. Ford's in a tailspin and doing very little product wise to pull out of it. All other companies are stepping there game up in large leaps and Ford is still taking baby steps. The only measure of the Edge/MKX market performance will be sales, heres to June, when we can revisit the arguement.

[silvrsvt]

Again you're just proving our point. A company like Toyota could afford something as slow selling like the triplets. Ford's cashcows are dying and they need replacements, soon. Fusion was meant to be a big seller, not a niche car. Ford should be selling at least 200k Fusions per year. 11k a month for a dealer network that big is laughable. I know RJ's excuses of "They met their sales goals so it's a success" are false because the Fusion was never supposed to be exported to SA. Failed sales targets in the US is what allowed the "additional" capacity be allocated somewhere else.

 

 

Where are you basing this magical 200K sales on? Using that as a guide line, What is GM's excuse then for all their midsized products, all of them should be selling 200K or more? I'm not expecting the Fusion to sell 200K units right out the gate, but they should be able to grow the car to that level. As for Ford and profitability on it...the planned for a minimum number of selling them and basing a profit on that. Its like the Mustang...Ford based the whole program on sales roughly 130K a year (which has been the avg for past couple years) and they are selling more...great, but they aren't going to lose their shirt if they didn't sell that many. Whats so hard to understand about this?

 

As for the Fusion and SA, I find that to be BS since the Taurus was sold in South America along side the Monedo for years

[bec5150]

Ok, let me rehash what I said.

 

I said that an an SUV in the Edge's price and size class needs to either be seven passenger replacement for a minivan, a 7 passenger "truck based" trailer puller", or if it lacks a third row, it had damn well be a high performance crossover with near best in class acceleration, braking, handling, and equipment OR an off road tour de force.

 

The Edge is none of those things AND is overpriced for what you get.

 

The Fusion is competitive. The 500/Taurus is competitive with the new 3.5. I state that with the Edge, lacking a third row seat, manumatic, horrid brakes, and lacking features such as a manumatic and such, will fail in the marketplace. I stated in my original post that even Ford, with the Escape, Freestyle/Taurus X, and Explorer, has better options in their own product range. I give it another year and Ford will be putting money on the Edge's hood. I predicted it would be a failure. I am sticking by that prediction.

 

Of course, I though the 500 had a chance and look what happened. But the new Taurus looks good, so there's hope.

[silvrsvt]

Ok, let me rehash what I said.

 

I said that an an SUV in the Edge's price and size class needs to either be seven passenger replacement for a minivan, a 7 passenger "truck based" trailer puller", or if it lacks a third row, it had damn well be a high performance crossover with near best in class acceleration, braking, handling, and equipment OR an off road tour de force.

 

The Edge is none of those things AND is overpriced for what you get.

 

The only problem is that its not a SUV...its a crossover (semantics yes, but thats how its advertised)...as for overprice..how much do you think it should go for? From what I've seen it options out nicely with other CUV's and is cheaper.

 

I think the biggest problem with CUV market in general is that there is alot of product in it that isn't clearly defined as to what segment it belongs in...I see the Edge as a 2 row of seating sporty type vechile that's directed at smaller families/couples/singles who don't need or want an Explorer or Taurus X. The biggest obisitical for the Edge is what else Ford offers in its own product range, but I rather see Ford take away customers from its own products to put them into another. Its a niche product for Ford if you really want to boil it down to that, but it seems like everyone wants it to compete with everything from the Equinox to the Outlook in size and price, when thats impossible.

[mtl1977]

I just had an Edge rental while my Fusion is getting the trans replaced. The sixth gear is perfect. The engine is pulled 1750 rpm at 77 mph. Can't imagine it being any lower.

 

Nice car, even with FWD it ripped through snow well - 12" of untouched snow with the front fascia acting as a plow.

 

It can do stand-still dry road smokey burnouts, pretty entertaining. If Ford drops the 3.5L/6F in the 800-1000# lighter Escape...

 

 

Edited February 28, 2007 by mtl1977

[05fordgt]

The grouches were right once again.

 

Better PRAY the next Murano doesn't have a third row guys.

 

Nissan has already said that the next gen Murano WILL NOT have a 3rd row seat. It was listed in Automotive News, and other places online. Just wanted to let you know.