Ford To Cops: CV is Out

[Mark B. Morrow]

You guys are forgetting something:

 

Somewhere earlier in this thread it was mentioned that since the panther's investment was paid off a long time ago, the current panthers are pretty much "free money" or something like that.

 

Ford COULD do that again.... Except this time make a tough RWD car more mechanically interchangeable with other Ford products to further increase profit. Of course the safety profile must be improved too. I'm thinking a RWD only variant of the Taurus that is somewhat unique (different front/rear & the proposed dash-ectomy) but could be parallel evolved.

 

The sheetmetal would be unique & "fleet friendly" i.e. easier to repair/ replace. The overall design would last 10+ yrs and the console and mounting points would be as close as possible to the current panther for easier integration to municipal fleets.

 

After a certain time, the investment could be paid for and the line would again be profitable.

 

One problem would be the initial cost would steal away from other resources. I think Ford would need to have multi-year purchase agreements with a large percentage of NA municipalities in order to do this though.

 

The main question for the "Special Taurus" proposal is what is it worth for 75-100k annual sales?

 

If you start investing money in the Panthers then the "It's all paid for" argument fails. The Panther might make some profit now, but the question is how much more profit could be made by utilizing the plant to make something with increasing sales potential? If the 5.0 and 6 speed were just a drop in swap it might be worth doing. I suspect that a lot of engineering and testing would be required taking money away from other potentially more profitable future products. As much as I hate to see the full size RWD go, I think it is a done deal. It would have been great if Ford had the money 5 years ago to develop a new body for the old frame. I would have loved to see a TC styled along the lines of the '61-'64 Lincolns and a new Galaxie/Interceptor. Even a true Marauder successor would have been great. That time has passed.

 

The Taurus is still head and shoulders above the Impala and Charger. The cops will adapt to what's available. I don't think Ford will lose the whole LEO market. Even if they do that doesn't bode in favor of keeping the CV forever or plowing $$$ into keeping it around for 4-5 more years.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[lfeg]

You guys are forgetting something:

 

Somewhere earlier in this thread it was mentioned that since the panther's investment was paid off a long time ago, the current panthers are pretty much "free money" or something like that.

 

I wish I could find out who printed that statement long ago. Anyone who has spent any time in manufacturing knows such a statement is a myth or urban legend. This might be true if the CV was exactly the same as it was in 92 and sales were about 250k or more per year. Sure, the initial investment in dies and tooling for the currently used parts is paid off (I hope, as many components have been changed and updated over the years), but there is still wear and tear that must be repaired or replaced. And the production equipment requires routine maintenance and repairs, with some production equipment being out of date - making it very expensive to repair. And all of that tooling and equipment ties up working capital. And you need facilities to house all of that stuff. And you end up with a fairly large fixed cost to spread over units sold. Even with low sales, the fixed cost stays the same. And you have resources tied up that could be used more productively for other purposes.

 

Free money? No, costly money.

[matthewq4b]

You guys are forgetting something:

 

Somewhere earlier in this thread it was mentioned that since the panther's investment was paid off a long time ago, the current panthers are pretty much "free money" or something like that.

 

Ford COULD do that again.... Except this time make a tough RWD car more mechanically interchangeable with other Ford products to further increase profit. Of course the safety profile must be improved too. I'm thinking a RWD only variant of the Taurus that is somewhat unique (different front/rear & the proposed dash-ectomy) but could be parallel evolved.

 

The sheetmetal would be unique & "fleet friendly" i.e. easier to repair/ replace. The overall design would last 10+ yrs and the console and mounting points would be as close as possible to the current panther for easier integration to municipal fleets.

 

After a certain time, the investment could be paid for and the line would again be profitable.

 

One problem would be the initial cost would steal away from other resources. I think Ford would need to have multi-year purchase agreements with a large percentage of NA municipalities in order to do this though.

 

This is where GRWD comes in to play no point in even messing with the D3 for that. A GRWD can underpin a pile of stuff and get rid of a mess of now orphaned platforms and replace the aging D3 chassis.

 

For now Ford just needs to bite the bullet and run the Panthers as is till 2011 and the Taurus till 2013-14 and then look at a versatile AWD capable GRWD for 2014-2015. There is no point in investing any more money on updates not already in the pipeline for any of them.

 

Ford has 3 orphaned and one aging Platform that could be consoldated with an AWD capable GRWD chassis, the D3 sedan , Panther, DC2 & EA169 (i belive that is the falcons chassis ID) there is also the possibilty of lending some of the basics to the CUV's.

 

If the Panthers removable front subframe suspention concept is carried over to the GRWD converting from AWD to RWD or even a tranverse mounted FWD application is not out of the question.

 

So really down the road once the company is stabilized a little better a GRWD platform is a no brainer.

 

 

Matthew

Edited September 1, 2009 by matthewq4b

[lfeg]

This is where GRWD comes in to play no point in even messing with the D3 for that. A GRWD can underpin a pile of stuff and get rid of a mess of now orphaned platforms and replace the aging D3 chassis.

 

For now Ford just needs to bite the bullet and run the Panthers as is till 2011 and the Taurus till 2013-14 and then look at a versatile AWD capable GRWD for 2014-2015. There is no point in investing any more money on updates not already in the pipeline for any of them.

 

Ford has 3 orphaned and one aging Platform that could be consoldated with an AWD capable GRWD chassis, the D3 sedan , Panther, DC2 & EA169 (i belive that is the falcons chassis ID) there is also the possibilty of lending some of the basics to the CUV's.

 

If the Panthers removable front subframe suspention concept is carried over to the GRWD converting from AWD to RWD or even a tranverse mounted FWD application is not out of the question.

 

So really down the road once the company is stabilized a little better a GRWD platform is a no brainer.

 

 

Matthew

 

Very true. Leverage common structures, combine that with flex plants that can produce variants of a platform concurrently, and you can have a range of distinctive vehicles for different markets and purposes with the profit building factors of high facility utilization rates, coordinated sourcing, and flexible product mix.

[RichardJensen]

This is where GRWD comes in to play no point in even messing with the D3 for that. A GRWD can underpin a pile of stuff and get rid of a mess of now orphaned platforms and replace the aging D3 chassis.

 

For now Ford just needs to bite the bullet and run the Panthers as is till 2011 and the Taurus till 2013-14 and then look at a versatile AWD capable GRWD for 2014-2015. There is no point in investing any more money on updates not already in the pipeline for any of them.

 

Ford has 3 orphaned and one aging Platform that could be consoldated with an AWD capable GRWD chassis, the D3 sedan , Panther, DC2 & EA169 (i belive that is the falcons chassis ID) there is also the possibilty of lending some of the basics to the CUV's.

 

If the Panthers removable front subframe suspention concept is carried over to the GRWD converting from AWD to RWD or even a tranverse mounted FWD application is not out of the question.

 

So really down the road once the company is stabilized a little better a GRWD platform is a no brainer.

 

 

Matthew

D3 will turn into CD4 variant--volume & ATP will be high enough to justify the extra width/length.

 

I doubt Ford will invest much in an AWD sedan/coupe variant of the GRWD--assuming such a platform ever appears. AWD is a bear for RWD cars.

 

And given the Camaro & Challenger's struggles vs. the Mustang, there shouldn't be much support in the Glass House for a GRWD derived 'Stang.

 

---

 

In short, I consider GRWD to be an example of old-Detroit thinking: It's not based on a rational analysis of market desires, achievable volumes, or realizable economies of scale.

 

It has the earmarks, IMO, of something an executive wants, an a priori conclusion around which data will be cruelly abused, bent, twisted, and forced to fit.

[630land]

Some claim Ford needs RWD to compete with Luxo makes. But, Audi is gaining sales, while big Beemers and Benzes are tanking. Guess what? Audi's are unibody FWD/AWD cars! Also, Acura is not bothering with a RWD tank. And GM is replacing the STS and DTS with one car, based on unibody FWD/AWD.

 

So bye bye lounge lizards.

Edited September 1, 2009 by 630land

[joihan777]

Sorry to ask such a basic question but what does GRWD stand for? The "G" anyway?

[Harley Lover]

Global Rear Wheel Drive.

[J-150]

The daily rental market is a bit of different animal traditionally Rental fleet are not kept long and then end up in the used market after just a year or 2 killing resale values plus they are no different than the consumer vehicles, Most PD's keep their units till 100K and then the bulk of them end up as Cabs and they are stripper specials buckets no console and vinyl rear seats.

 

There is nothing wrong with gov't or non rental fleet sales as long as your not dumping them at a loss. And unfortunately that is the practice that the manufacturer's have done in the past. The sales in to that market is not the issue it is the way the manufacturer's handled it. Fleet sales at loss are no better than consumer sales at a loss and just as stupid.

 

Non rental fleet sales are a good way to lower production costs. Like any manufactured good the closer you are to the maximum capacity of the facility the lower the production costs are per unit. Even if the fleet sales are a break even proposition they still increase the margins on consumer destined units by getting the production facility closer to maximum capacity/efficiency.

 

 

Matthew

 

 

 

2 things:

1) fewer platforms plus flex manufacturing is bringing up plant volumes. Shuttering single model plants makes the most sense.

 

2) LE and cab market had a large part in killing the Panther. It isn`t any different than daily rentals. Who wants to be seen driving around in a cop car

[armadamaster]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Panther chassis will never see 2016. Ford might have a new RWD full sized car by then, but it won't be an old BOF Panther.

 

There will be no RWD sedans beyond 2016. The largest sedan available will be the equivalent of a Fusion, if not smaller.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

There will be no HIGH VOLUME RWD sedans beyond 2016. The largest sedan available will be the equivalent of a Fusion, if not smaller.

 

There, fixed that for you. There will always be the exotics and near exotics, and I don't see the S-class, 7 Series, or any of the bentlys/rolls royces going away either. Aston Martin and Jag likely will still be producing RWD vehicles (granted, Jag is up in the air). I also don't see Lexus stopping production of the LS or the IS any time soon either. The Nissan/Infiniti M class will likely still be here, as will their G class. I also don't see Cadillac dropping the CTS between now and then, nor do I see it going FWD either.

 

So, no, I don't see there beign a world without RWD sedans. I just see them as maybe going more niche and higher in price.

[taxman100]

There, fixed that for you. There will always be the exotics and near exotics, and I don't see the S-class, 7 Series, or any of the bentlys/rolls royces going away either. Aston Martin and Jag likely will still be producing RWD vehicles (granted, Jag is up in the air). I also don't see Lexus stopping production of the LS or the IS any time soon either. The Nissan/Infiniti M class will likely still be here, as will their G class. I also don't see Cadillac dropping the CTS between now and then, nor do I see it going FWD either.

 

So, no, I don't see there beign a world without RWD sedans. I just see them as maybe going more niche and higher in price.

 

With the coming government mandates that will lead to only little cars being available for the unwashed masses, I think your prognostication sounds reasonable.

 

All the more reason to buy what you want very soon, as they will be going away - replaced by more expensive, less capable products.

[Deanh]

With the coming government mandates that will lead to only little cars being available for the unwashed masses, I think your prognostication sounds reasonable.

 

All the more reason to buy what you want very soon, as they will be going away - replaced by more expensive, less capable products.

dont think so, although costs will continue to escalate due to pursuit of lighter curb weights and exotic drivetrains in attempts to meet set ( govt ) goals....

[matthewq4b]

2 things:

1) fewer platforms plus flex manufacturing is bringing up plant volumes. Shuttering single model plants makes the most sense.

 

Hence the need for a GRWD

 

 

2) LE and cab market had a large part in killing the Panther. It isn`t any different than daily rentals. Who wants to be seen driving around in a cop car

 

What killed the Panthers was decades of neglect nothing more.

In this industry styling sells.

 

When the Taurus ws being sold in SS service, it did not affect it' sales at all (best selling vehicle in NA at the time)

 

You can not sell a vehicle that looks like ass no matter how good it is the last iterations of the D3 sedans proved that. You can move hundreds of thousands of vehicle if they look good even if they are crap until the lack of quality/ durability catches up to them just like the LX cars.

 

Ford is releasing new vehicles and every one is excited when they sell 4 or 5 k a month they are a success.

If Ford now released a new platform covering 3 vehicles that seen over 8K sales a month it would unilaterally be called a success

 

Just last month the panthers sold over 8k units. With 2 of of the vehicles literally badge engineered.

the CV GM which basically are the exact same car combined sold over 6400 units in sheet metal that was penned over 20 years ago.

 

There is a real double standard when it comes to the Panthers. If it was any other vehicle especially a new one they would be hailed as a success, but because it is the panthers they need axed.

 

But there are some that blind to the facts about the segment. This is not a segment that will not turn a profit it most certainly will and if sat on GRWD platform it will with out a doubt. Make is AWD capable and it is guaranteed. Hell if Chrysler can make the LX cars AWD I'm sure Ford can do it in more reliable durable package.

 

The Panthers need to go they are decade past being replaced. But to not fill the gap with anything is huge mistake. The Taurus and the MKS is not it. If the D3 sedans could have done it we would still not be seeing 8K plus a month of panther sales and sales would have gone right down crapper years ago.

 

 

What every one seems to miss is that a GRWD vehicles in the segment can do what Taurus is and fill the hole that will be left by the Panthers.

 

Ya every one says let some one else sell to that segment but how many times can you do that and how many customers are you willing to give up to the competition ? Ford did the same thing with the original Taurus carried that chassis for years longer than they should have and the only winner in that screw up was Toyota.

 

Ford had the whole low end and midrange Full size RWD segment to it's self with NO competition from any one. But due to the neglect of the Panthers Chryco seen a need and jumped in and was rewarded with multiple hundreds of thousands of sales for several years. If Ford had kept the Panthers up to date or replaced them when they should have done so Ford could have just as easily had those sales to themselves.

 

The only winner here with the axing of panthers with no replacement looks like is going to be GMC. Every single former panther owner I know (expect me I have an Excursion) now drives a Tahoe or GMC equivalent.

 

Yes the Taurus and it's predecessor the 500 and siblings (that have now been axed) were a good idea on paper but failed miserably in the execution. We better hope we are going to be seeing 8k plus a month of sales of the Taurus and MKS. When and if that happens then I will say Ford made the right move not replacing Panthers with an equivalent.

 

If that never happens Ford needs to seriously reexamine it's strategy in the Full size segment.

[RichardJensen]

Ford is releasing new vehicles and every one is excited when they sell 4 or 5 k a month they are a success.

If Ford now released a new platform covering 3 vehicles that seen over 8K sales a month it would unilaterally be called a success

ATP. 4k Flexes at c. $38k ATP > 6400 CV/GM @ $28k ATP.

if Chrysler can make the LX cars AWD I'm sure Ford can do it in more reliable durable package.

The question isn't -whether- Ford can make an RWD/AWD powerpack, it's -why-. Why would Ford invest in making an AWD capable long. powerpack when they've got transverse powerpacks available at a better cost.

If the D3 sedans could have done it we would still not be seeing 8K plus a month of panther sales and sales would have gone right down crapper years ago.

If Ford were willing to sell Tauruses @ $20k with LEO kit, and MKSes @ $30k for black car service, you better believe they'd be outselling the panthers.

Every single former panther owner I know (expect me I have an Excursion) now drives a Tahoe or GMC equivalent.

You mention the genius of Chrysler & the benefits to GM from Ford's neglect. Yet I can't help but think that both companies would trade balance sheets with Ford.

We better hope we are going to be seeing 8k plus a month of sales of the Taurus and MKS.

Again, transaction prices! If these cars (Taurus & MKS) bring better margins than the panthers, then mission accomplished.

[joihan777]

Actually speaking, what current RWD cars does Ford make? (Excluding the Mustang)

 

1. Crown Victoria Taxi

2. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor

3. Crown Victoria Other Fleet Use (Government, FBI, etc.)

3. Grand Marquis

4. Lincoln Town Car

5. Lincoln Town Car Other Fleet (Long Wheelbase, Limo prep etc.)

6. ?

 

Any other Ford RWD cars available on the planet?

[matthewq4b]

ATP. 4k Flexes at c. $38k ATP > 6400 CV/GM @ $28k ATP.

 

 

Come on Richard your talking tranaction pricing not net profits. Selling price means squat if you not ruring a profit. And obviusly Ford is still selling vehicles at a loss or they would be turning a profit. So ask yourself what is the more likly one to not be rurning a profit ? And the Flex is not a full size Sedan either. apples to apples.

 

 

 

The question isn't -whether- Ford can make an RWD/AWD powerpack, it's -why-. Why would Ford invest in making an AWD capable long. powerpack when they've got transverse powerpacks available at a better cost.

 

Larger avalible market the D3 sedans are basically a NA vehicle only and do not fully cover needs of the segment. Hence the Global in GRWD.

The D3 sedans replaced nothing and tried to carve out niche in the segment . An up hill battle at the best of times

 

 

If Ford were willing to sell Tauruses @ $20k with LEO kit, and MKSes @ $30k for black car service, you better believe they'd be outselling the panthers.

 

Yes Ford can sell the CV that cheap as the development costs are long paid for. They can not sell the Taurus at that price and Taurus is not that much better than the CV in that application to justfy the exra cost. And yes LEO's they will end up paying more they have no option but too. when the CV is gone. So the LEO's will be shopping around for alternatives that can do the job the CV did. But they will not be spending those dollars on the Taurus. A lose lose for every one. The Leo's have to pay more and Ford does not get those sales.

 

You mention the genius of Chrysler & the benefits to GM from Ford's neglect. Yet I can't help but think that both companies would trade balance sheets with Ford.

 

Bet ya Ford would have traded balance sheets with Chryco for the Full size car segment. Proboly that segment and the trucks are the only things that kept them alive.

 

Again, transaction prices! If these cars (Taurus & MKS) bring better margins than the panthers, then mission accomplished.

 

It is only mission accomplished if you end up with same profits at the end of the day. You can have margins twice as high but if you only a sell 1/4 of the vehicles then it is far from a sucsess.

 

Ford is still selling vehicles at a loss. Take a look at the sales figures and recent investmets/ development costs and tell me who you think the most likly candidates are.

 

We pretty much know who they are not.

 

Matthew

Edited September 2, 2009 by matthewq4b

[joihan777]

ANother question: How does maintenance/ repair differ from CV/GM/TC & Taurus/MKS?

 

Will fleet managers see a similar cost or will there be a significant difference?

 

I'm thinking a banged up Taurus (as in Law Enforcement duty) will cost significantly more than an older CV.

Edited September 2, 2009 by joihan777

[matthewq4b]

Actually speaking, what current RWD cars does Ford make? (Excluding the Mustang)

 

1. Crown Victoria Taxi

2. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor

3. Crown Victoria Other Fleet Use (Government, FBI, etc.)

3. Grand Marquis

4. Lincoln Town Car

5. Lincoln Town Car Other Fleet (Long Wheelbase, Limo prep etc.)

6. ?

 

Any other Ford RWD cars available on the planet?

 

Falcon

Falcon Wagon

Falcon Ute

Falcon PI units

Territory ( CUV Falcon based AWD avalible)

 

Also the Panthers are the ONLY NA Ford cars exported over seas.

 

 

Matthew

Edited September 2, 2009 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

To Matthew's reply:

 

1) higher ATP needs to be looked at two ways:

 

- how much of the higher price is due to adding of profitable optional equipment

- assuming a consistent profit margin, a higher ATP means more profits (10% of $40k > 10% of $30k).

 

2) D3 is merging with CD4: large sedan/CUV volume*margin will be sufficient to cover the cost of differentiating it--not to mention the shared powertrain development costs. CD4 will dwarf any projected GRWD volume. The Taurus will continue to be longer/wider than the Fusion (as will the MKS/MKZ, Flex/Edge, MKT/MKX), but the number of shared components/engineering will be substantially increased.

 

3) Let's look at GRWD for a moment:

 

You assert (absent any proof) that GRWD will be a better option than the Taurus, and you assume that GRWD will be optimized for severe service/panther replacement.

 

Consider, however:

 

- front suspension: the Falcon & Mustang use struts, not control arms. It seems unlikely that the Falcon & Mustang will be given the bulky and more complex panther suspension in order to support severe service

 

- length/width: The idea that a common platform will support things the size of the Crown Vic and Mustang stretches credulity. You will end up with a bloated and bulky Camaro/Challenger-esque Mustang, you will end up with a willowy and insubstantial PI, or you will end up with so few parts shared that you will lose any significant cost savings.

 

4) You can't talk about present margins on, say, the Flex vs. margins on the panthers ten/fifteen years ago.

 

- The Flex is built alongside the Edge, MKX, and MKT in a plant running on two shifts. OAC is running at c. 2x the volume of STAP, with higher transaction prices on the assembled vehicles.

 

- Further, parts sharing on the OAC vehicles is -significantly- higher than the STAP vehicles, which reduces the amortization cost per vehicle.

 

I would bet that the gross margins (factoring out amortization) are higher on the OAC vehicles than on the STAP vehicles--and, moreover, I'd bet that the amortization costs are substantially lower than amortization costs on any GRWD vehicle would be--due to the higher volume of shared parts among Ford's CD3/D3 family.

Edited September 2, 2009 by RichardJensen

[peterstern]

My thoughts are that a Ford Flex would be a good replacement for the Crown Vic in theory.

 

Sure some pieces might need to beefed up... and another difference is that a barrier would have to be added behind the 2nd row seats in addition to behind the front seats. And that 2nd row seat would just be a 3 person bench. And the rear seats would be deleted.

 

But from a body style, performance, handling and interior space perspective, it looks feasible to me.

[joihan777]

My thoughts are that a Ford Flex would be a good replacement for the Crown Vic in theory.

 

Sure some pieces might need to beefed up... and another difference is that a barrier would have to be added behind the 2nd row seats in addition to behind the front seats. And that 2nd row seat would just be a 3 person bench. And the rear seats would be deleted.

 

But from a body style, performance, handling and interior space perspective, it looks feasible to me.

 

The only Flex I can see police officers in are the anti-Drugs visit-the-schools ones.... I cannot envision it in any other way.

[rmc523]

The only Flex I can see police officers in are the anti-Drugs visit-the-schools ones.... I cannot envision it in any other way.

 

I've seen an undercover Flex near me, in fact I parked next to it in mine. I don't know what it was used for, though.