Ford Motor Company: September 2007 Sales

[Anthony]

Quite simply, the 300 brought people in Chrysler dealers who would not have normally ever stepped foot in one. EOS.

 

Ford sold 160,975 Mustangs in the 2005 calendar year.

 

Does anyone have the Chrysler 300 numbers for the same period? I'm betting they aren't too much different.

 

In 2005 the LX's were a quarter million in sales. 300's accounted for about 144K of them.

 

Last year that number jumped to 300K.

 

Same with Mustangs though. I'm sure plenty of people who would never buy a Ford bought Mustangs.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Intrepidatious

[suv_guy_19]

Quite simply, the 300 brought people in Chrysler dealers who would not have normally ever stepped foot in one. EOS.

 

But if they didn't buy a 300 there, would they buy anything else?

[TomServo92]

Not exactly. Look, I know this is a foreign concept to you, but there are some people that buy Mustangs that would not buy any other Ford. I know to people in Michigan and Ohio this is a shock. But in Europe people want the Mustang that would not take a Taurus.

 

Honestly, if you can't see the difference between the 300 and the Mustang I'm done with this argument. This thread is now about clouds.

 

OK, this is the first time I've posted in regard to this 300 vs Mustang argument so I don't understand all the venom directed at me. Honestly, I really don't care which penis is larger between the 300 or Mustang. That's between you and Nick. I just found it amazing that you actually believe the Mustang doesn't halo the Ford brand. In my opinion, that's complete and utter nonsense.

[NickF1011]

Quite simply, the 300 brought people in Chrysler dealers who would not have normally ever stepped foot in one. EOS.

 

In 2005 the LX's were a quarter million in sales. 300's accounted for about 144K of them.

 

And as ShockFX pointed out, a lot of people who bought Mustangs would not have ordinarily bought other Fords, so is it not the exact same thing?

 

So there you go. The Mustang contributed more to the Ford brand than the 300 contributed to the Chrysler brand in terms of sales. The only thing Chrysler did better in this situation was actually build the 300 on a more flexible platform that allowed other variants....a problem to be cured with the next generation Mustang. (I wonder where the 300 will be by then.....)

[NickF1011]

But if they didn't buy a 300 there, would they buy anything else?

 

Judging by the sales of the rest of Chrysler's lineup lately? Nope.

[Anthony]

And as ShockFX pointed out, a lot of people who bought Mustangs would not have ordinarily bought other Fords, so is it not the exact same thing?

 

So there you go. The Mustang contributed more to the Ford brand than the 300 contributed to the Chrysler brand in terms of sales. The only thing Chrysler did better in this situation was actually build the 300 on a more flexible platform that allowed other variants....a problem to be cured with the next generation Mustang. (I wonder where the 300 will be by then.....)

 

There's obviously a bit more involved then that. For instance, which made the company more money on those sales. The 300 had a 50% take-rate on HEMI models which started over $33K in 2005. Platform amortization between models, etc etc...

 

Quiet simply its a silly argument that only the bean counters could answer. Trying to compare a sports coupe and a fullsize car that have completely different price points sales to sales is fruitless at best.

[ShockFX]

OK, this is the first time I've posted in regard to this 300 vs Mustang argument so I don't understand all the venom directed at me. Honestly, I really don't care which penis is larger between the 300 or Mustang. That's between you and Nick. I just found it amazing that you actually believe the Mustang doesn't halo the Ford brand. In my opinion, that's complete and utter nonsense.

 

I didn't mean you in particular. I meant you as Nick. Sorry if I read your post and just lumped it in with his.

 

I honestly don't believe the Mustang is that big of a Halo for Ford. One can accept all the logical thinking about Ford one wants, but logical thinking is probably what go them into this mess. To me the Mustang really fits into the Corvette mold. It's a favorite of yore. Toyota/Nissa/Honda don't have this type of halo car and they do pretty well. Ford also didn't build off the Mustang at all, because it shares NOTHING with the rest of their vehicles. They didn't even bring over the changing lights thing, and the base Mustang has that POS v6. It's great people think that a oldschool sports car is something Ford should halo the brand with, I fail to find any logic in that though.

[ShockFX]

And as ShockFX pointed out, a lot of people who bought Mustangs would not have ordinarily bought other Fords, so is it not the exact same thing?

 

So there you go. The Mustang contributed more to the Ford brand than the 300 contributed to the Chrysler brand in terms of sales. The only thing Chrysler did better in this situation was actually build the 300 on a more flexible platform that allowed other variants....a problem to be cured with the next generation Mustang. (I wonder where the 300 will be by then.....)

 

If you walked into a Ford dealership for a Mustang I doubt you are walking out with something else. I'd be willing to be a lot of people that walked into a Chrysler dealership for a 300 did walk out with something else if they didn't like the 300. The 300 also set the tone and style for future Chrysler vehicles. Sadly, all those vehicles were trucks and SUVs into a down market.

[Pioneer]

If you walked into a Ford dealership for a Mustang I doubt you are walking out with something else.

 

 

In 1995, I walked into the dealership to purchase a new Mustang GT. It was parked inside. It was forest green with a tan interior, and a tan convertible top.

 

I walked out with a '95 loaded SHO. Faster car for less money considering the rebates.

 

Ooops. bad example. That was when Ford had good performance models other than the Mustang.

 

Sorry.

[TomServo92]

I didn't mean you in particular. I meant you as Nick. Sorry if I read your post and just lumped it in with his.

 

I honestly don't believe the Mustang is that big of a Halo for Ford. One can accept all the logical thinking about Ford one wants, but logical thinking is probably what go them into this mess. To me the Mustang really fits into the Corvette mold. It's a favorite of yore. Toyota/Nissa/Honda don't have this type of halo car and they do pretty well. Ford also didn't build off the Mustang at all, because it shares NOTHING with the rest of their vehicles. They didn't even bring over the changing lights thing, and the base Mustang has that POS v6. It's great people think that a oldschool sports car is something Ford should halo the brand with, I fail to find any logic in that though.

 

Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean the halo effect is non-existent.

[NickF1011]

I didn't mean you in particular. I meant you as Nick. Sorry if I read your post and just lumped it in with his.

 

I honestly don't believe the Mustang is that big of a Halo for Ford. One can accept all the logical thinking about Ford one wants, but logical thinking is probably what go them into this mess. To me the Mustang really fits into the Corvette mold. It's a favorite of yore. Toyota/Nissa/Honda don't have this type of halo car and they do pretty well. Ford also didn't build off the Mustang at all, because it shares NOTHING with the rest of their vehicles. They didn't even bring over the changing lights thing, and the base Mustang has that POS v6. It's great people think that a oldschool sports car is something Ford should halo the brand with, I fail to find any logic in that though.

 

So a fullsize RWD sedan with limited draw is a better halo than a RWD sport coupe with limited draw? Mmmmkay.

 

Again I assert the entire theory behind "halo" vehicles is ludicrous to begin with. If you entire lineup isn't one cohesive brand image, you have problems. At least Chrysler has figured that much out. Of course, the cohesive thing they decided on just happened to be "hard plastic interiors". Seriously though, at least Chrysler has a design strategy across the board.

[ShockFX]

So a fullsize RWD sedan with limited draw is a better halo than a RWD sport coupe with limited draw? Mmmmkay.

That limited draw RWD sedan outsold the Mustang.

Again I assert the entire theory behind "halo" vehicles is ludicrous to begin with. If you entire lineup isn't one cohesive brand image, you have problems. At least Chrysler has figured that much out. Of course, the cohesive thing they decided on just happened to be "hard plastic interiors". Seriously though, at least Chrysler has a design strategy across the board.

You're agreeing with me and you don't even know it.

[96 Pony]

This is by far the STUPIDEST comparison and argument that I have seen on BON in a long time. Comparing a 4 door, full sized 300, which has competition from just about every car company out there to a Mustang, the last of the 2 door Pony Cars that has essentially no competition?

 

Wow - some have gotton desperate!

 

Until the Challenger and Crapmaro comes out there is nothing to compare Mustang to.

 

Why not instead concentrate on what the real comparison is - the LX's to the dismal Ford full car line?

 

Which to date - The 3 LX cars 2007 sales = 202,083

The 4 Full Sized Fords - CrownVic/Marquis, Taurus/500, Sable/Montego and Town Car 2007 Sales = 179,227

 

As for this "halo car" thingy, Mustang is not a halo car - nor is the 300. They are produced in too large numbers, even with their top-of-the-line models to be considered as such. The Charger Daytona is no more a halo car either than the Mustang GT 500.

 

The GT, Thunderbird, Prowler, Viper and the 'Vette were/are halo cars.

Edited October 3, 2007 by 96 Pony

[silvrsvt]

Interesting note on F-150 sales...I was reading in the local paper that full-sized pickups had fairly substantial rebates on them around 5K mark and Ford wasn't matching what Toyota, GM and Dodge where doing with their trucks when it came to rebates. I can't find the article online, but I found that surprising and a good thing for Ford.

[TomServo92]

As for this "halo car" thingy, Mustang is not a halo car - nor is the 300. They are produced in too large numbers, even with their top-of-the-line models to be considered as such. The Charger Daytona is no more a halo car either than the Mustang GT 500.

 

Is the Mustang a "halo car" by the strictest definition? No.

 

Did the 2005 redesign have a "halo effect" on the Ford brand due to the name recognition? IMO, yes.

[TStag]

Who cares if they have 1000 advanced sales if they only sell 4000 of them a year? It is a dying brand, at least a dying brand for Ford to pour money into. Even if Ford sold 50,000 Jaguars a year for $10,000 profit each that is only $500 million in profit. Considering that they sell less than 50k Jags and likely don't make $10k profit per, Ford would be much better off using the Jaguar development money to make better Fords. Using that money to make a better F-150 and needing one less $1,000 rebate for each F-150 sold would increase profit by $800 million. See why Jaguar is a bad fit for Ford?

 

Lol Porsche only makes sportscars ( that SUV doesn't count, it's only in America). There is no way Jaguar could survive like Porsche.

 

JAGUAR HAS NEVER BEEN PROFITABLE! It wasn't before Ford bought it, it hasn't been since they bought it. Just...let...it...die. And since Ford tied LR into Jag, LR has to go as well, the downside outweighs the upside.

 

Jag has been very profitable in the past, back in the early 80's Jag sold just the big XJ and XJS, but they still outsold Jaguar of today. Jag have been lumbered with totally the wrong model lines since Ford introduced the Mondeo X type and the old farts S type (because Ford said a US focus group thought retro would sell). In fact I think I'm right in saying that Jag was more sucessfull before Ford took over in terms of like for like sales, the XJ was the best selling car in it's class! Jag is doing the right thing in trying to move into Porsche territory. It's high margin and high profit for sod all work.

 

Ford are in danger of becoming obsessed with the sale of Jaguar at the expense of loosing Land Rover and Range Rover IMHO.

[xr7g428]

Since this is a sales thread, here are a couple of sales numbers to consider:

 

Annual Sales per employee: Ford $565,806 at a loss of $44,569 per employee...

 

For comparison, Toyota $735,734.

 

Any one got a feel for the total average cost per employee?

[DCK]

I was arguing Ford isn't giving away vehicles anymore. Plus everytime you say to copy anything from Toyota on these boards you get bitched out.

I wasn't pointing to anyone specifically..

[DCK]

Escape is selling about as well as the Rav4.

Not recently, it had the bump when the 2008 launched as Ford liquidated the 07's but now once those are gone the escape is just holding steady at last years levels while the Rav4 and CR-v eclipsed it in the rapidly growing market.

[Pioneer]

Since this is a sales thread, here are a couple of sales numbers to consider:

 

Annual Sales per employee: Ford $565,806 at a loss of $44,569 per employee...

 

For comparison, Toyota $735,734.

 

Any one got a feel for the total average cost per employee?

 

 

Did you count all the employees in Japan, since that is where more than 50% of their cars come from?

 

Didn't think so.

[RichardJensen]

I think I'm right

Obviously.

 

 

But that doesn't make it so.

 

The Ford supervised XJ8 and XK8 were better than their Jag engineered predecessors not by small measures, but by whole orders of magnitude.

 

 

 

 

 

Do not be in a hurry to forget that the 1993 Jaguar XJ6 used a 4 speed GM transmission based on the 1965 'Turbo-hydramatic'.

[SVT_MAN]

Obviously.

But that doesn't make it so.

 

The Ford supervised XJ8 and XK8 were better than their Jag engineered predecessors not by small measures, but by whole orders of magnitude.

Do not be in a hurry to forget that the 1993 Jaguar XJ6 used a 4 speed GM transmission based on the 1965 'Turbo-hydramatic'.

 

Old doesn't necessarily make something bad. GM's smallblock V8 uses "old" technology in that it uses pushrods, but it's still one of the best V8 engines out there. I'm not sure what transmission our 1996 XJ6 has, but it shifts smooth and nicely.

[RichardJensen]

Old doesn't necessarily make something bad. GM's smallblock V8 uses "old" technology in that it uses pushrods, but it's still one of the best V8 engines out there. I'm not sure what transmission our 1996 XJ6 has, but it shifts smooth and nicely.

I think the 6 cylinder models kept the GM 4-speed. It shifts smoothly, to be sure, but it's got parasitic drag issues, and is not adaptable or programmable (IIRC). And in any event, no Jaguar should have the same transmission as a Chevy Silverado.

 

Without Ford, if Jaguar were still independent, who's to say they wouldn't be buying whole powertrains from the General? Or Ford.

[Edstock]

Old doesn't necessarily make something bad. GM's smallblock V8 uses "old" technology in that it uses pushrods, but it's still one of the best V8 engines out there. I'm not sure what transmission our 1996 XJ6 has, but it shifts smooth and nicely.

 

Can you say "Lucas"? It took Ford something like 3 years after buying Jag to get rid of the Lucas electrical components and replace with Motorcraft. For the first time, a Jaguar that would start in the wet and cold.

 

Alexander Graham Bell invented the Telephone.Thomas Edison invented the Light Bulb. Joseph Lucas invented the Short Circuit.

 

Back in the 70's, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered which did not suck.

 

http://www.mez.co.uk/lucas.html

[whereswaldo]

Yeah that Taurus is just smokin' hot. I bet at that pace it must be selling at full MSRP. What was that ?? 400 and something changes. What a flop.