Ford Motor Company February 2007 Sales

[RichardJensen]

Do you have me confused with someone else?

 

I have gave my negative opinion about Chrysler plenty of times. I have said numerous times they are in the worst shape, I don't see needed change happening and they lack the ability to produce anything decent in small and mid-size cars. I have stated those things numerous times in numerous threads and have stated my disgust with the designs after the 300.

 

So get your facts straight, I may have said positive things about chrysler but don't ignore the many criticisms I have stated against them.

 

REGARDLESS OF THE FACT CHRYSLER DOESN"T RELY ON ONE VEHICLE AS MUCH AS FORD RELYS ON THE F-150!

1) You had almost nothing bad to say about Chrysler all last summer. You didn't start ragging on Chrysler, for their DESIGN problems, until the ugly beasts that they launched last fall came out. And regardless of what you said about design, you never once mentioned overreliance on minivans.

 

2) The fact is that F150 sales are about 450k-500k units in any given year, and SD units are about 350k-400k.

 

These vehicles are on totally different platforms, and they sell to generally different people.

 

F150 volume as a percentage of overall Ford volume is in the 15% range.

 

Now with Chrysler you have two models built on the same architecture, the precise opposite of the SD/F150, where you have two architectures under a single model designation ("F-Series").

 

Chrysler's historic dependency on minivans has been in the 25%-30% range.

 

That's 25% of sales coming from a single architecture--two very similar vehicles.

 

So, again, in all your criticisms of Chrysler, I recall seeing nothing about overreliance on minivans.

 

And yet you pointedly single out the F150, and say that Ford depends on it too much.

 

In reality the F150 represents a percentage of Ford's volume not dissimilar to Toyota and the Camry.

 

Do you say that Toyota depends too much on the Camry?

[silvrsvt]

What would winter have anything to do with it? The sales are compared to year ago sales and it was winter in February 2006 also.

 

I think the cut in rental sales plus the fact that it is aging and talk of the new mustang coming next year are starting to pick up, are the reasons for the decline.

 

 

Keep in mind that the Mustang was in tight supply (and in demand) from fall of 2004 till Spring of 2006 (took 3 months for my Mustang to be built, ordered in December 05) is part of the reason why it was selling so well. I'm sure demand has tapered off due to demand being satisfied.

[DCK]

1) You had almost nothing bad to say about Chrysler all last summer. You didn't start ragging on Chrysler, for their DESIGN problems, until the ugly beasts that they launched last fall came out. And regardless of what you said about design, you never once mentioned overreliance on minivans.

 

2) The fact is that F150 sales are about 450k-500k units in any given year, and SD units are about 350k-400k.

 

These vehicles are on totally different platforms, and they sell to generally different people.

 

F150 volume as a percentage of overall Ford volume is in the 15% range.

 

Now with Chrysler you have two models built on the same architecture, the precise opposite of the SD/F150, where you have two architectures under a single model designation ("F-Series").

 

Chrysler's historic dependency on minivans has been in the 25%-30% range.

 

That's 25% of sales coming from a single architecture--two very similar vehicles.

 

So, again, in all your criticisms of Chrysler, I recall seeing nothing about overreliance on minivans.

 

And yet you pointedly single out the F150, and say that Ford depends on it too much.

 

In reality the F150 represents a percentage of Ford's volume not dissimilar to Toyota and the Camry.

 

Do you say that Toyota depends too much on the Camry?

1) Something you need to realize quickly Richard is that this is a Ford board. As much as you like people to bitch and complain about everyother auto company doesn't change the fact. I give my opinion, I have criticized Chrysler plenty about their decisions, I don't think you should complain about how one sided my criticisms are because ultimately even if you are 100% right it means absolutely nothing to my point. I don't care, this is Blueovalnews not Allpar. Get it through your head. You act like whether I criticized Chrysler back in July when I joined this board has any merit on this issue. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FORD NOT CHRYSLER, I find it funny how people like you have to resort to "he does it to" to defend Fords mistakes and act like they are great business descisions. It is what it is and I have pointed it out numerous times that you mind as well concede when you have to resort to the "they did it to" argument that your so fond of Richard. BECAUSE IT MEANS NOTHING. THIS IS BON NOT ALLPAR AND NOT TOYOTANATION .Is that fair? Not Allpar, not Toyotanation and not GMI so think about that. And the "he did too" argument doesn't fly.

 

2) FORD LET VEHICLES DIE TO PRETECT THE F-150. Plain and simple they'd rather have the company go bankrupt and out of business before they put out a great mid-size truck that competes. HAVING THE F-150 ACCOUNT FOR 28% OF SALES IS BAD. Plain and simple. Argue that they are on multiple platforms. Point is mute, As long as they are under the same name. They let vehicle rot and die and it is not good to have so much rely on one vehicle. Plain and simple, your BS argument about chrysler and toyota mean absolutely nothing. If John and Billy murder someone and doesn't mean Jim should. Not to mention I don't see toyota crumbling like Ford has been doing, you find it so easy to ignore the big picture. And that is Ford has hurt themselves with reallyt only caring about the F-150 and a company shouldn't rely so much on one vehicle, plain and simple.

 

 

Caravan + Town & Country = 17.2% of Chrysler sales for 2006

 

F-Series = 27.2% of Ford sales for 2006

Edited March 4, 2007 by DCK

[630land]

Well, Dodge's "great mid sized truck" is filling up empty lots all over Michigan. It's sold so poorly, Daimler is kicking 'Ma Mopar' to the curb.

[RichardJensen]

2) FORD LET VEHICLES DIE TO PRETECT THE F-150.

You can't prove a word of that allegation.

 

Much less defend your ongoing failure to distinguish between the F150 and the SD in your rants.

[2005Explorer]

Well, Dodge's "great mid sized truck" is filling up empty lots all over Michigan. It's sold so poorly, Daimler is kicking 'Ma Mopar' to the curb.

 

Dodge Dakota Feb. sales 5,172 YTD 8,988

Ford Ranger Feb. sales 5,850 YTD 10,502

 

The Dakota is doing extremely poor when you consider the fact the antique Ranger is outselling it!

Edited March 5, 2007 by 2005Explorer

[Sizzler]

why don't car sales get the old 'bad weather' is responsible for the lower sales?

 

it has been bad car shopping (usually done outdoors on streets that may very well be snow-covered) winter.

 

I mean, Wal-Mart and others can whine about the weather keeping customers away

Bad Weather

 

but car dealers can't?

 

Bad weather, LOTS of snow across much of the upper US, could also explain why people slowed down buying RWD Mustangs in the past month too.

[Edstock]

"2) FORD LET VEHICLES DIE TO PRETECT(sic) THE F-150"

 

Please state what vehicles, and how their failure "protected" the F-150.

 

Otherwise, we have an especially moronic brain-fart.

[NickF1011]

"2) FORD LET VEHICLES DIE TO PRETECT(sic) THE F-150"

 

Please state what vehicles, and how their failure "protected" the F-150.

 

Otherwise, we have an especially moronic brain-fart.

 

Well, certainly the Ranger for one. A lot of people who may only need a light duty small pickup are pretty much forced to look at the F-150 instead due to the Ranger's woefully inadequate updates over the past decade.

[bb62]

"2) FORD LET VEHICLES DIE TO PRETECT(sic) THE F-150"

 

Please state what vehicles, and how their failure "protected" the F-150.

 

Otherwise, we have an especially moronic brain-fart.

 

This statement that you object to, while seemingly absurd, was actual Ford policy. Senior management about 5-7 years ago had an explicit policy of letting poor performing vehicles (from a profitability standpoint) die. The Contour was one such vehicle, the DEW98s were another, the old T'Birds were yet another. The lack of investment into the Taurus was still another. In fact, cars on an overall basis were neglected because of this policy because it was felt that "cars" could never bring profits the way that "trucks" would. And since the profits were in trucks, that is where the investment went. Furthermore, since the F150 was specifically highlighted as "the" most imporatant truck brand, it got most of the additional investment. So in a very real way, investment that went to the F150 has caused many vehicles to otherwise lanquish and die.

[Sizzler]

from today's WSJ:

Toyota Motor Corp. says some of its dealers are offering as much as a $1,500 discount on the basic work truck version of Toyota's newly redesigned Tundra truck, just barely one month after it went on sale. The discount for the Texas-built large truck reflects the intense competition in this lucrative segment, and the challenge Toyota faces in its effort to substantially expand its sales in a segment long dominated by Detroit brands.

 

The discount is a one-month, nationwide program that began this month and is described by Toyota as "another tool," to spur sales, in addition to relatively low ...

the F-150 gravy train is being sloshed from side to side by oncoming competition and high fuel costs. can ford keep it on track? should they?

while seemingly absurd, (this) was actual Ford policy. Senior management about 5-7 years ago had an explicit policy of letting poor performing vehicles (from a profitability standpoint) die.

 

should the F-150 be switched off the mainline and run off the trestle?

[Deanh]

You always have an excuse.

I agree with richard..sorry...Ford HALTED production of 2007 Superduties in EARLY march...we ran out of inventory completely early October...you don't think that affected the figurs at all?

[RichardJensen]

I agree with richard..sorry...Ford HALTED production of 2007 Superduties in EARLY march...we ran out of inventory completely early October...you don't think that affected the figurs at all?

No, no, Dean, don't you get it?

 

I don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about.

 

You work in a car dealership, and you haven't had Super Duties for the last four months, and you don't know what you're talking about either.

 

See Bluecon knows people that REALLY know what's going on. These people tell him things that we don't hear. Things like how there are all kinds of Super Duties everywhere, and that stuff in the press release about 6 days to turn on SDs was all a bunch of lies.

 

You and me, we're in the same boat. We're both idiots.

 

We should be grateful that there are people here that are kind enough to devote a substantial chunk of their free time to telling us we're wrong.

[Deanh]

we are all ignorant to a certain extent...thank god, makes life interesting...don't profess to be an expert on anything, but pretty well versed at the dealership level and what our hurdles are...

[Bluecon]

No, no, Dean, don't you get it?

 

I don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about.

 

Maybe you're on to something.

 

You work in a car dealership, and you haven't had Super Duties for the last four months, and you don't know what you're talking about either.

 

See Bluecon knows people that REALLY know what's going on. These people tell him things that we don't hear. Things like how there are all kinds of Super Duties everywhere, and that stuff in the press release about 6 days to turn on SDs was all a bunch of lies.

 

You and me, we're in the same boat. We're both idiots.

 

We should be grateful that there are people here that are kind enough to devote a substantial chunk of their free time to telling us we're wrong.

 

Yes I am a kind soul.

Now this is a really crazy idea but others have thought of it before. (all of Fords competition)

When you are going to have a model changeover you plan ahead and ensure there will be product available for sale. GM just launched their brand new pickup and I don't see them having a shortage at any point of the launch. It is a sorry excuse to say we have no product for sale for months on what is one of the two main Ford products. The fact that he works in a car dealership and does not have product for sale underlines the poor management at FMC under the Bill jr. regime. I still think Mulally is the right guy to straighten out Bill jrs. sad track record.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Bluecon

[RichardJensen]

Of course, GM also just recalled all their Lambda CUVs.

[Bluecon]

Of course, GM also just recalled all their Lambda CUVs.

And what exactly does that have to do with this discussion?

 

Is the Lambda CUV a pickup truck?

Edited March 10, 2007 by Bluecon

[Bluecon]

we are all ignorant to a certain extent...thank god, makes life interesting...don't profess to be an expert on anything, but pretty well versed at the dealership level and what our hurdles are...

And why do you not have Surer Duties to sell?

For sure I had nothing to do with that.

Maybe RJ knows?

[RichardJensen]

And what exactly does that have to do with this discussion?

 

Is the Lambda CUV a pickup truck?

No, but it is a recent launch of a GM product that has had a recall within months of job 1.

 

Ford's batch and hold launch strategy is, by its very nature, going to cause a supply disruption during launch. The decision to have such a shortfall was a conscious tradeoff made by Ford execs, in exchange for what has proved to be superb launch quality.

[RichardJensen]

Do not expect Mulally to change what Jim Padilla instituted (not Bill Jr.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it doesn't matter that Jim Padilla worked his way up from the assembly line to COO, that he's the son of poor Hispanic immigrants, etc. What matters is that Bill Ford, Jr. was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and is an idiot.

 

All things that Bluecon doesn't agree with are directly attributable to Bill Ford, Jr., who destroyed Ford Motor.

[Bluecon]

Do not expect Mulally to change what Jim Padilla instituted (not Bill Jr.)

Of course it doesn't matter that Jim Padilla worked his way up from the assembly line to COO, that he's the son of poor Hispanic immigrants, etc. What matters is that Bill Ford, Jr. was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and is an idiot.

 

All things that Bluecon doesn't agree with are directly attributable to Bill Ford, Jr., who destroyed Ford Motor.

I have absolutely no respect for Bill jr. The man was busy growing grass on the roof of the Dearborn assembly plant while the company was disintegrating. The result is a company in shambles and millions of people and whole communities affected.

 

You cannot continue to have these bad product launches and stay in business.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Bluecon

[bb62]

I have absolutely no respect for Bill jr. The man was busy growing grass on the roof of the Dearborn assembly plant while the company was disintegrating. The result is a company in shambles and millions of people and whole communities affected.

 

You cannot continue to have these bad product launches and stay in business.

Billy was a contributing factor in Ford's potential impending demise. But there were many other players that are as responsible.

[Bluecon]

Billy was a contributing factor in Ford's potential impending demise. But there were many other players that are as responsible.

Of course that is true. However he was the man in charge and basically did nothing. In his position it was within his control to correct the problems. This was well beyond his capability.

[RichardJensen]

"Bad launches" as opposed to the 2000 Focus, or 2001 Escape?

[Bluecon]

"Bad launches" as opposed to the 2000 Focus, or 2001 Escape?

That is like comparing one Detroit Lions team to another. All have been failures in this century.

Note: there is a connection