December Sales

[Blueblood]

Rather than arguing Panther Vs D3, I'd say Ford is continuing to

ignore the RWD sedan segment even though it has several choices

of either upgrading panthers, releasing a new RWD platform or Importing Aussie Falcon.

 

So seemingly fumbling around doing nothing is the real crime.

 

As a stop gap, why not import some new Falcons for 2009 fitted with North American engines,

Australia could easily supply about 30,000/year to compete with Pontiac G8.

At least that would give the veneer of caring...

 

Exactly, we've been asking why for a long time, still no answer..

[2005Explorer]

The only comment I wish to make is the fact that the Edge is knocking on the door of 14,000 for a month. Not too shabby when some people around here tried to claim, "She's gonna bomb!"

[Noah Harbinger]

I believe the problem is the prices of todays cars. Back in '84 and '85 I bought new Mustangs a '84 Mustang GT Turbo for like $14K and then in '85 a Mustang GT 5.0 for like $15.4K. Today the price for a nice Mustang GT is close to $30K. My pay hasn't doubled since '85. I don't have the same buying power today that I had in '85. Today for $14K I get an entry level car a Focus.

 

According to your figures, the price of the mustang has increased by 3% annually -- inline with inflation and with average increases in pay.

[Noah Harbinger]

Rather than arguing Panther Vs D3, I'd say Ford is continuing to

ignore the RWD sedan segment even though it has several choices

of either upgrading panthers, releasing a new RWD platform or Importing Aussie Falcon.

 

So seemingly fumbling around doing nothing is the real crime.

 

As a stop gap, why not import some new Falcons for 2009 fitted with North American engines,

Australia could easily supply about 30,000/year to compete with Pontiac G8.

At least that would give the veneer of caring...

 

Yes! A RWD sedan would totally reinvigorate Ford's sales!

 

 

[bb62]

In all fairness, Ford had a pretty good December last year, ...

 

Huh? Ford volume in December 06 ( 190K units) compared with December 05 (223K units) doesn't look like a very good month to me.

[suv_guy_19]

Huh? Ford volume in December 06 ( 190K units) compared with December 05 (223K units) doesn't look like a very good month to me.

 

It had some very good numbers for a few models. Escape and Expedition for Example. No things aren't great, but people have to remember that sales are not as important as getting to profitability. The fact is that Ford could sell a hell of a lot more cars if they were running the incentives they used to. They are making more money for sale and that should be enough to offset most of the sales loss.

[630land]

"Rather than arguing Panther Vs D3, I'd say Ford is continuing to

ignore the RWD sedan segment even though it has several choices

of either upgrading panthers, releasing a new RWD platform or Importing Aussie Falcon.

So seemingly fumbling around doing nothing is the real crime."

 

GM just cancelled thier new V8 engine program for cars. Umm, I think it is time for some "car guys" to get real, and get over the whole "If Detroit simply made all RWD V8 cars again they'd prosper". Well, no, not according to the EPA, and working people who have better things to spend $$ on then gas for 17 mpg cars.

 

So, looks like Ford is better off not dumping money into gas hogs.

[P71_CrownVic]

"Rather than arguing Panther Vs D3, I'd say Ford is continuing to

ignore the RWD sedan segment even though it has several choices

of either upgrading panthers, releasing a new RWD platform or Importing Aussie Falcon.

So seemingly fumbling around doing nothing is the real crime."

 

GM just cancelled thier new V8 engine program for cars. Umm, I think it is time for some "car guys" to get real, and get over the whole "If Detroit simply made all RWD V8 cars again they'd prosper". Well, no, not according to the EPA, and working people who have better things to spend $$ on then gas for 17 mpg cars.

 

So, looks like Ford is better off not dumping money into gas hogs.

No one said it had to be an inefficient RWD, V8 car.

[Blueblood]

http://www.autosavant.net/2007/12/ford-tra...n-hold-for.html

 

Igor

 

Wow, another potential hit gets thrown away by Ford, my hopes for them staying in business went down about 3 notches today, they aren't even trying anymore, I wonder if the top level people are just attempting to make out with their cash before they sink the company??

[Blueblood]

Yes! A RWD sedan would totally reinvigorate Ford's sales!

 

 

 

10k a month sure would help, a lot more then the Taurus..

[Blueblood]

"Rather than arguing Panther Vs D3, I'd say Ford is continuing to

ignore the RWD sedan segment even though it has several choices

of either upgrading panthers, releasing a new RWD platform or Importing Aussie Falcon.

So seemingly fumbling around doing nothing is the real crime."

 

GM just cancelled thier new V8 engine program for cars. Umm, I think it is time for some "car guys" to get real, and get over the whole "If Detroit simply made all RWD V8 cars again they'd prosper". Well, no, not according to the EPA, and working people who have better things to spend $ on then gas for 17 mpg cars.

 

So, looks like Ford is better off not dumping money into gas hogs.

 

 

Yea, because AWD cars get such better mileage than RWD cars...

 

Go buy a Corolla

[jpd80]

GM just cancelled thier new V8 engine program for cars. Umm, I think it is time for some "car guys" to get real, and get over the whole "If Detroit simply made all RWD V8 cars again they'd prosper". Well, no, not according to the EPA, and working people who have better things to spend $$ on then gas for 17 mpg cars.

 

So, looks like Ford is better off not dumping money into gas hogs.

What makes you think a RWD based car is a gas hog?

Our Turbo 6 gets similar highway fuel economy as your Taurus.

 

A Turbo 6 is something we've had for 5 years, where's yours?

[Blueblood]

What makes you think a RWD based car is a gas hog?

Our Turbo 6 gets similar highway fuel economy as your Taurus.

 

A Turbo 6 is something we've had for 5 years, where's yours?

 

Don't you know, if the rear wheels are the only ones driven then the car must be a "gas hog".

 

It's also why my aerodynamic as a brick, modified 86 Mustang only got 30mpg on the highway with the hatch loaded to the roof with gear and 4 big heavy people...

Edited January 4, 2008 by Blueblood

[jpd80]

Don't you know, if the rear wheels are the only ones driven then the car must be a "gas hog".

 

It's also why my aerodynamic as a brick modified 86 Mustang only got 30mpg on the highway with the hatch loaded to the roof with gear and 4 big heavy people...

That's the beauty of a Falcon/Mustang sharing a platform, nothing has to be set in stone.

The engineering is there when Ford wants to change, our RWD cars won't be as heavy as Zeta.

 

630land,

New Falcons are to use Duratec 37 and TwinForce V6 and V8.

Edited January 4, 2008 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Once the Falcon loses the Inline 6 in 2010, the nose can be shortened

like this GM Zeta:

Edited January 4, 2008 by jpd80

[Blueblood]

That's the beauty of a Falcon/Mustang sharing a platform, nothing has to be set in stone.

The engineering is there when Ford wants to change, our RWD cars won't be as heavy as Zeta.

 

630land,

If it's any concellation, FoA will be building C2 Focus, Falcon and Territory in the one plant come 2011.

 

Yea, hopefully Ford takes advantage of this as Mulally has said he wants to have more platform sharing, let the market decide what people want to drive, not the bean counters..

[Blueblood]

Once the Falcon loses the Inline 6 in 2010, the nose can be shortened

like this GM Zeta:

 

This is one area where I disagree with you, Ford could have just moved the front wheels forward, BMW's have super short front overhang with their straight 6 engines. Moving the wheels forward offers all sorts of benefits.. BTW, where is the new Falcon? I thought it was going to be out for 2008?

[jpd80]

This is one area where I disagree with you, Ford could have just moved the front wheels forward, BMW's have super short front overhang with their straight 6 engines. Moving the wheels forward offers all sorts of benefits.. BTW, where is the new Falcon? I thought it was going to be out for 2008?

When we say 2008 we mean 2008.

Orion Release is somewhere between late February and April.

BTW, when is G8 on sale over there?

Edited January 4, 2008 by jpd80

[Blueblood]

When we say 2008 we mean 2008.

Orion Release is somewhere between late February and April.

BTW, when is G8 on sale over there?

 

So you guys don't speak in riddles like we do? :wacko:

 

I think the G8 just went on sale..

[jpd80]

So you guys don't speak in riddles like we do? :wacko:

 

I think the G8 just went on sale..

Worth a test drive, that one - tell me what you think if you do.

 

The new Press Line 21 at Geelong (AUS) can stamp right and left side panels of a car simultaneously.

The dies can be switched in 4 minutes to stamp, Falcon, Ute , Station Wagon, Territory and Focus (2011).

Now that's Flex manufacturing!

 

Really happy to see the CD3s putting in a good performance.

I do think the hybrid option along with some variations like a

2-door and sports wagon could add plenty to sales.

Edited January 4, 2008 by jpd80

[soupy]

How can Michigan Truck stay open building only115K Navs and Expeditions?

[bb62]

It had some very good numbers for a few models. Escape and Expedition for Example. No things aren't great, but people have to remember that sales are not as important as getting to profitability. The fact is that Ford could sell a hell of a lot more cars if they were running the incentives they used to. They are making more money for sale and that should be enough to offset most of the sales loss.

This is precisely the type of analysis that I was talking about earlier that is so faulty. It doesn't matter what any individual vehicle nameplate are doing. It does matter how Ford is doing in a particular segment. Consider your perception on how Ford is doing with the Escape by also adding in the reductions in volume for the Explorer. If the Escape goes up but the Explorer goes down by an even greater number of sales, clearly that is not good news to Ford and it therefore becomes useless to point to Escape sales as a barometer of success.

 

A second flaw in your post is not to directly relate sales performance to profitability. The two are inextricably linked. While it is true that you can change your mix to make higher profits with fewer vehicles (which is a good thing) and you can lower marketing programs (which hopefully are not offset by lost "economic" profits from extra sales not made), the truth is that until a sustainable level of volume is reached, there can be no viable planning process to aim for long term profits. There are further problems to profitability with the rush to all new produts as well. Ford has traditionally made much of its profits from those vehicles which have amortized their investment (or can amortize their investment quickly). Since the planning now is limited run vehicles and no large volume vehicles (except the F150 which is nonetheless also losing volume), the need to reach planning volumes becomes all the more important. Since these planning volumes are not being reached, that why Ford North America is doing so poorly. Every vehicle program, which was approved with a certain profitability projection, is based on meeting volume targets that cannot seem to be stabilized. while they may revamp the plan for lower volumes, it does nothing for the profitability of existing programs that are struggling in the market.

Edited January 4, 2008 by bb62

[silvrsvt]

Ford has traditionally made much of its profits from those vehicles which have amortized their investment (or can amortize their investment quickly). Since the planning now is limited run vehicles and no large volume vehicles (except the F150 which is nonetheless also losing volume), the need to reach planning volumes becomes all the more important. Since these planning volumes are not being reached, that why Ford North America is doing so poorly. Every vehicle program, which was approved with a certain profitability projection, is based on meeting volume targets that cannot seem to be stabilized. while they may revamp the plan for lower volumes, it does nothing for the profitability of existing programs that are struggling in the market.

 

 

Aren't you contaditcting yourself to an extent here?

 

For example, when the 1996 Taurus came out, Ford had expecatations of selling it at say 400K units a year. I'm not sure what the fleet sale break down was for the time, but it seemed like they pushed the car heavly into fleet sales to keep it at that mark, which directly impacted its profitiblity and to the consumer, its appeal and resale.

 

Fast Forward 10 years to the 2005 Fusion, Ford's expecations are half of that or so, yet they only sell 15-20% of them to fleet. Thats a cut back of 30-35% or better then the Taurus did with more profitible sales to retail. Further more the CD3 platform is being used in other programs with a much higher profit expecation then the Taurus alone could ever have with the Edge and MKX.

 

It seems to me that Ford is doing the smart thing by cutting expecations of sales it had and designing its products accordingly to make those profits with smaller unit sales. Another example of this is the Mustang...2005 had its own unqine platform ever in its history and that platform only does sales in the 100K-130K range and its Profitible.

 

I'd rather see a much smaller Ford thats profitible vs one that sells alot of cars and doesn't make much money doing it..like they've been doing for ages now.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Maybe Ford should launch into a bit of Elvis everytime they release sales figures, why is everybody so glum Ford still produce the best selling Vehicle and muscle car in the world. Maybe Ford should put all the negaturds on this aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJSey8HRUhU...feature=related

 

Sale figures theme tune

[bb62]

Aren't you contaditcting yourself to an extent here?

 

For example, when the 1996 Taurus came out, Ford had expecatations of selling it at say 400K units a year. I'm not sure what the fleet sale break down was for the time, but it seemed like they pushed the car heavly into fleet sales to keep it at that mark, which directly impacted its profitiblity and to the consumer, its appeal and resale.

 

Fast Forward 10 years to the 2005 Fusion, Ford's expecations are half of that or so, yet they only sell 15-20% of them to fleet. Thats a cut back of 30-35% or better then the Taurus did with more profitible sales to retail. Further more the CD3 platform is being used in other programs with a much higher profit expecation then the Taurus alone could ever have with the Edge and MKX.

 

It seems to me that Ford is doing the smart thing by cutting expecations of sales it had and designing its products accordingly to make those profits with smaller unit sales. Another example of this is the Mustang...2005 had its own unqine platform ever in its history and that platform only does sales in the 100K-130K range and its Profitible.

 

I'd rather see a much smaller Ford thats profitible vs one that sells alot of cars and doesn't make much money doing it..like they've been doing for ages now.

 

1. The 1996 program had lower expectations of fleet units. The Dick Landgraff team projected that the new Taurus (then) would be successful in head to head competition with both Camry and Accord. The realization that high fleet sales equated to low residuals (and thus low lease pricing) didn't come right away. There was early thought that fleet sales would actually draw in customers as they experienced the new Taurus.

 

2. You seem to be forgetting that the Taurus platform also supported the Continental and the Windstar (which nearly doubled Taurus volumes). Both of those vehicles had high profits for the company (at least initially) and were responsible for far more volume than the North American CD3 vehicles.

 

3. Historically another thing you are forgetting is that Ford made mountains of money over the years by selling high volume products. Just because the last 7 years have been problematic doesn't obviate the old strategies. Ford is unsuccessful today because their products cannot sell in the high volumes that achieved historically and they haven't figuered out how to make profitable low volume programs. Also keep in mind that for years the finence guidelines required much higher profits to approve programs than what is being experienced now. Also historically NA sales returns were significantly higher than anywhere else in the world at about 3-4% (compared with the 1% that European manufacturers have experienced).

 

4. As for smaller sales with profits versus greater sales with losses - duh! But consider the monumental errors made by management that allowed Ford to lose the capability of even larger profits with large sales volumes. Ford has created so much ill will with customers, workers, and suppliers in their downsizing that they will be lucky to find a profitable formula for low volume sales expectations.