No Unit Sales Uptick in 12 Months

[NickF1011]

The segment is booming, and Ford's market share in the segment is falling, the Escape used to be the number one seller, and it got eclipsed by the Japanese, then Ford puts out the laughable "NEW 2008" Escape.

 

If you some how think, that the effort of the 2008 Escape and Fcus, are the correct way to handle product, then you lose all credibility. The Escape and The Focus are prime examples of why ford is in their current predicament, and prime examples on why Ford has to bargain bin price their product to move it. How many people you think chose the Escape because they didn't have the credit and funds for much hotter Rav4 and CR-V? Ford's pathetic effort that they showed with significant players such as the Escape and Focus, prove how absolutely pathetic they were. It is funny how Fields was even disgusted at the Escape, The new management wouldn't have let those fly, but there are a bunch of people here with the blindfolds on that will defend the Ford Product that will lead them to bankruptcy. I just fail to see how anyone could possibly defend the Escape or Focus and not be considered mentally retarded, because if you care about Ford, you know the treating product like how Ford treated the Escape and Focus is going to put them out of business, you may want that, but I don't.

 

I'm in no way saying they are the best they could have been, but both the Escape and Focus are riding on orphaned platforms. To expect Ford to put more money into a mid-cycle refresh on a dead platform than they did would be ludicrous.

[DCK]

I'm in no way saying they are the best they could have been, but both the Escape and Focus are riding on orphaned platforms. To expect Ford to put more money into a mid-cycle refresh on a dead platform than they did would be ludicrous.

They don't need to chage the platform but ould of atleast spent the money on doing a completely new design for both of them, The focus is 8 years old, I mean WTF is up with these 11-12 year product cycles carrying the same damn sheetmetal? You don't see GM doing a pathetic job with the Malibu even the the epsillon platform is as good as gone with the Epsillon 2 platform just around the corner. Ford is in completely terrible state, and it would of been worth the money to invest more into the focus and Escape to keep them fresh in the market place.................but yet another two model names that will make the public cringe when they here them.

[ZanatWork]

They don't need to chage the platform but ould of atleast spent the money on doing a completely new design for both of them, The focus is 8 years old, I mean WTF is up with these 11-12 year product cycles carrying the same damn sheetmetal? You don't see GM doing a pathetic job with the Malibu even the the epsillon platform is as good as gone with the Epsillon 2 platform just around the corner. Ford is in completely terrible state, and it would of been worth the money to invest more into the focus and Escape to keep them fresh in the market place.................but yet another two model names that will make the public cringe when they here them.

 

If the Escape/Mariner weren't selling impressively, I'd agree. As they are, though, I'll just file this under "over-generalized negatardism" with the rest of the uninspired doom'n'gloom.

 

I don't know ANYONE that thinks the 2008 Focus is anyting but a band-aid job...but, as Jalopnik pointed out with a recent test of an '07 version, the chassis and the car itself are both still quite good despite their age. I'm not thrilled by it, but I'll guess that the refreshed variant will garner some uptick in sales...and maybe enough interest to keep it selling at least passably until the next global Focus hits in a couple years.

 

In any case, I think both vehicles will prove to have better results than expected (as the Escape already is), while certainly leaving much to be desired among the few, the proud, the auto info junkies.

[Edstock]

while certainly leaving much to be desired among the few, the proud, the auto info junkies.

 

[NickF1011]

They don't need to chage the platform but ould of atleast spent the money on doing a completely new design for both of them, The focus is 8 years old, I mean WTF is up with these 11-12 year product cycles carrying the same damn sheetmetal? You don't see GM doing a pathetic job with the Malibu even the the epsillon platform is as good as gone with the Epsillon 2 platform just around the corner. Ford is in completely terrible state, and it would of been worth the money to invest more into the focus and Escape to keep them fresh in the market place.................but yet another two model names that will make the public cringe when they here them.

 

What else could they have done to the Focus shy of building an all-new platform? The '08 has completely new sheet metalfrom top to bottom and an all-new interior. Just because you don't happen to like the way it looks doesn't really mean they spent any less effort designing the thing. The Escape was pretty much new also, but it was a bit more inflicted with Ford's past trend of new designs that really don't look that new -- sort of like the current Explorer.

[mettech]

Be careful of playing the numbers game like you are, an increase of 60% for the Tundra, would only be a 10-15% sales difference in the F-150 sales. The F-150 still sells 3-4 times the same amount trucks that Tundra does in a month, and Ford didn't meet the incentives on the hood of the other full-size truck manufactures out there last month either.

Unit sales can't be correctly judged till the old Taurus sales are finally out of the system, which should be by December of this year and Ford has stated many times over that they want to keep a 13% market share (which has kept), since thats their baseline to be profitable after the restructuring and will grow it once its done restructuring...

 

 

A guy in my unit went truck shopping last week.

 

Ford's F-150 incentives include:

$2500.00 customer

$1000.00 Bonus cash

$500.00 military

$ 500.00 Collage grad

$500.00 Dealership

 

Total Rebate = $5000.00

 

Plus they knocked off $2200. on the sticker. Grand Total $7200.00

 

Toyota had

$3000.00 on the Tundra and nothing off on the sticker.

 

Dodge had

$6000.00 customer

$1800.00 off on sticker

 

It appears that Ford is aggressive with the rebates and discounts around here.

[RichardJensen]

So Ford should drop the military and college grad discounts?

[silvrsvt]

A guy in my unit went truck shopping last week.

 

Ford's F-150 incentives include:

$2500.00 customer

$1000.00 Bonus cash

$500.00 military

$ 500.00 Collage grad

$500.00 Dealership

 

It appears that Ford is aggressive with the rebates and discounts around here.

 

How many people quaifiy for all those incentives? Most of the time its one or the other...I bet once he sat down and did the numbers he wouldn't get 2 out of the 3 $500 dollar bonuses..

 

Plus its on Average Not a one off deal like your example is

[RichardJensen]

And there's the question of APR as well. Toyota gives you $3k and 0%, while Ford gives you $5k and 3%, and you're looking at more money on the hood of the Tundra.

[DCK]

What else could they have done to the Focus shy of building an all-new platform? The '08 has completely new sheet metalfrom top to bottom and an all-new interior. Just because you don't happen to like the way it looks doesn't really mean they spent any less effort designing the thing. The Escape was pretty much new also, but it was a bit more inflicted with Ford's past trend of new designs that really don't look that new -- sort of like the current Explorer.

Uh the escape, focus, and explorer all have the same greenhouse and windows. With that constraint, it is impossible to produce a cohesive design.

[NickF1011]

Uh the escape, focus, and explorer all have the same greenhouse and windows. With that constraint, it is impossible to produce a cohesive design.

 

Escape has new windows - necessitated by the higher beltline. And obviously, the Focus coupe has new windows.

[TomServo92]

Uh the escape, focus, and explorer all have the same greenhouse and windows. With that constraint, it is impossible to produce a cohesive design.

 

I believe you're incorrect on the Escape. I was in traffic behind a 2008 and a pre-2008 and it was very obvious that while the windows had essentially the same overall shape, they aren't direct replacements for each other. The beltline on the '08 is higher but the roofline isn't.

[sranger]

There is nothing wrong with the look of the Escape/Mariner/Tribute in my opinion. Although I tought the 05-07 looked better than the 2008. It looks like an SUV should. If you want a different look get an Edge CR-V or som othe cross over....

 

The only thing the Trio really needs is another gear or two and maybe 25-50hp. A six speed and a 240hphp D3.0L would put the Escape in the 20city/28hwy mpg. It might even be a little better.

 

The suspension in the Escape is already 4 wheel independent. You really cannot get a much better desing in ANY SUV/Xover vehicle. All of the small SUV have nearly identical suspension. I found the Trio to be stiffer and handle better than the Rav4 ( horrable torque steer ) and the CR-V. The braking could be better in the trio, but that is a simple upgrade.

 

If ford puts the 3.5L V6 and a six speed in the trio, I have little doubt that it would quickly become the #1 selling small SUV in short order as it would be a blast to drive....

 

Also people forget that the Trio can tow 3500lb. The Honda cannot and the Rav4 is almost impossible to find with the Towing package, limited edition, leather seats and 4WD. Without the towing package the Rav4 can only tow 2000lb. You can simply add a hitch to any on the V6 trio and you get 3500lb capacity.... Also you can add a 2" reciever to get more funstionality out of the hitch, ( bike racks, ect... )

Edited October 8, 2007 by sranger

[Automotive Paint]

At the end of the day only 1 thing matters. Is Ford selling enough cars to stay in business? If they are then all the rest of this is semantic bullshit, isn't it.

 

You are correct but I think they should not satisfied with being profitable overall as a company but by product/vehicle.

 

Simply put loss leaders are for companies like Wal-Mart that sell thousands of relatively inexpensive (and mostly consumable in nature) products in a single retail store. For the sake of example lets say the Focus overall is sold at a loss of $1K per unit under the pretense of keeping Cafe averages up. A 'normal' or 'typical' business would chit can such a high priced dud in a second but not Ford or the Big 3.

 

If Ford eliminated a loss leader or two that were nothing more than a lower priced car with great MPG thereby raising its CAFE average do you honestly believe the state and federal politicians are going to allow them to be fined or would they be thrilled Ford was becoming lean in order to stay in business?

 

Granted, if Ford did away with say 2 vehicles which they were losing money on the employees in the plants that produced them could easily be out of a job unless they had another plant to work at. Which leads me to this: If Ford eliminated financial 'losers' from its lineup and concentrated on profitable units like the 150, 250, 350 and Expedition why couldn't these displaced employees work at a profitable truck plant as presumably a 2nd or 3rd shift that might not exist now to produce more trucks or SUV's?

 

Why would they need to produce more than the current production? Because Ford is no longer wasting money to run entire plants on vehicles that lost money and closing these plants will save a ton of money in overhead between upkeep, maintenance, design, tooling and adverting for the non-profitable vehicles, etc. Adding a shift here and a shift there to a plant currently running 1 or 2 shifts that are already building a very profitable vehicle with existing employees already on the corporate payroll will maximize the productivity of said plant because that additional new shift or two is producing that many more profitable vehicles.

 

Now what do you do with all these extra but profitable vehicles these plants are producing because they added a shift or 2? Cut that vehicles price several thousand to give your product a significant price advantage in the market place.

 

This should be easy to do because you have eliminated the operating costs of an entire plant or two that was building a vehicle that lost the company money, payroll hasn't change simply shifted to profitable plants that had capacity to another shift and by adding a shift or two to a plant that was already making money even thought it was only running 1 or 2 shifts you will make that plant much more efficient and that much more profitable. A company can be very competitive in its market IF its profitable on everything it makes and sells.

 

Does this make sense or am I over simplfying too much?

 

As a customer I'm only trying to invoke some thought.....