TomServo92 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 People who actually buy cars. POTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 kind of like the Mustang II looked like a sporty / performance car but wasnt Say, how many of those things did Ford sell? Or is this all about failing but looking good while you're doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Ok, I get it kind of like the Mustang II looked like a sporty / performance car but wasnt. What was, in that era? 150hp Corvettes? Big-block Firebirds with what, 200 hp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Say, how many of those things did Ford sell? Or is this all about failing but looking good while you're doing it? A bunch! The only year the Mustang did not have a V8 option was 1974 the first year of the Mustang II. It was designed for max fuel economy at the expense of performance (sound familiar) The 1974 Mustang II racked up 385,993 sales that year and it was built on the Pinto platform. Compare to the performance high water year 1969 total of 299.824. Plus a few Shelbys and Boss 429 / 302s But guess which year brings the big bucks today! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 What was, in that era? 150hp Corvettes? Big-block Firebirds with what, 200 hp? Well the Mustang IIs top engine in '74 made a whopping 105 HP. The standard engine wheezed out 88 HP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 People who actually buy cars. Do you think Explorer outsells Grand Cherokee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 But guess which year brings the big bucks today! And how much of that money does Ford see? Do you think Explorer outsells Grand Cherokee? To the tune of about 12k units, YTD. Of course, the GC is more directly comparable to the Edge, which has outsold it by about 6k units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 And how much of that money does Ford see? To the tune of about 12k units, YTD. Of course, the GC is more directly comparable to the Edge, which has outsold it by about 6k units. The edge comparable to the Grand Cherokee! Ok thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) The edge comparable to the Grand Cherokee! Ok thanks. GC: 5 seater, price range: $30k-$42k Edge: 5 seater, price range: $28k-$38k Yeah, I'd say they're comparable. Unless you're talking about the Grand Cherokee's offroad chops, which the previous Explorer couldn't match either. Edited August 17, 2011 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Ok, ok. So IF the greatest measure of a vehicle is simply how many are sold, if that's what makes it better, Then for SUVs the Escape racked up 24,411 sales last month vs only 9,897 Explorers. And is ahead 72,000 YTD so the old Escape wins as the best SUV. Since you missed the point Richard I try again. Given a choice, which classic Mustang would you personally rather have in your garage. A 1969 Mustang Mach-1 or an 88 HP 1974 Mustang II? Ford made a lot more money on the Pinto / Mustang II.so its the better car...right? Hint: When Ford shows classic Mustangs in their own advertisements they dont use Mustang IIs even though they made a lot of money on them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Given a choice, which classic Mustang would you personally rather have in your garage. How about this? Who really cares? The game is profit, and Ford is making one...Chrysler, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Ford made a lot more money on the Pinto / Mustang II.so its the better car...right? Did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 How about this? Who really cares? The game is profit, and Ford is making one...Chrysler, not so much. The pursuit of pure profit to the exclusion of all else is short sighted. Henry Ford built the company on the idea of building the best quality vehicle and selling at the lowest price possible. The profit would come if you focus on the product not money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 And if we're talking classics, I'm sorry, I don't want either. If it has to be a Mustang, I want a first year SVO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) The pursuit of pure profit to the exclusion of all else is short sighted. And who is advocating that? D4 volume is a fair bit higher than Grand Cherokee/Durango volume; thus platform amortization costs are spread farther afield at Ford. Powertrains? Please. Volume for the Explorer's transmission and both engines dwarf volume at Chrysler. Furthermore, Daimler basically funded this GC & Durango. Now, you tell me how Chrysler will be able to invest in the GC/Durango on par with Ford's investment in the Explorer. Edited August 17, 2011 by RichardJensen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Did they? Briefly. It was a 1 year wonder. Sales tanked to just 188,575 the following year. Even during the 70's gas crisis. It wasn't what a Mustang was supposed to be, Fords performance car. Hell, the lighter Pinto and grannys V8 LTD Brogham would out run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Briefly. What 'briefly'? The '74 Mustang was 'briefly' more profitable than any Mustang before it? Because that's not the case. And it wasn't the best selling Mustang either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) And who is advocating that? Consider that the Explorer sits on a platform that shares its major components with up to half a million units of annual volume. It shares its V6 engine with about a quarter million other units, its transmission with another half million, and its 4 cylinder with well over a million. Ford will be able to continue investing in this product. Compare that with Chrysler, which is tooling along with roughly a quarter million units per year in volume for its two products (Grand Cherokee & Durango) with about another quarter million units in support of its powertrain. The platform was substantially paid for by Daimler. Now, you tell me how Chrysler will be able to invest in the GC/Durango on par with Ford's investment in the Explorer. Chrysler's situation of course is completely different from Ford's. In the 90's Chrysler was doing very well but was sold out (that short term profit thing) and destroyed by Daimler, then Cerbus. They have a long road to go, but given their current resources they are making good progress. Their Pentastar V6 is excellent, credit where its due. If you know Ford's own history you have seen they make their best progress when the situation is desperate...then often squander fortunes in the good times. Edited August 17, 2011 by F250 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 What 'briefly'? The '74 Mustang was 'briefly' more profitable than any Mustang before it? Because that's not the case. And it wasn't the best selling Mustang either. Never said it was more profitable than any Mustang before it. It did outsell the previous 6 model years going back to 1968. And it was built off the existing cheaper Pinto platform so they should have made damn good profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 And who is advocating that? D4 volume is a fair bit higher than Grand Cherokee/Durango volume; thus platform amortization costs are spread farther afield at Ford. Powertrains? Please. Volume for the Explorer's transmission and both engines dwarf volume at Chrysler. . Chrysler has a purpose built modern SUV platform and Ford is using a modified FWD car plartform. Ford is making more profit and Chrysler has a better SUV...in my opinion. For many years Toyota was the most profitable car company on the planet, did that make me want to buy one? No. Did that make the Tundra better than the F-Series? Hell no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 IMHO, where they really screwed up was by not putting the new Explorer on a SERIOUS diet ! By Ford's own admission (via a YouTube video) the new Explorer is only 100 lbs lighter ! Ford management (who sets design goals and is responsible for them being met) must fallen asleep when the price of gas dropped a few years ago. Yeah, it's lighter while adding a ton of technology, safety equipment, quality enhancements (sound deadening, etc), and optional features (Vista roof, etc) - I'd say they did pretty well - is it where it could/should be? No, but improvements will come over time. Oh, and show us a more efficient SUV in it's class?? The pursuit of pure profit to the exclusion of all else is short sighted. Henry Ford built the company on the idea of building the best quality vehicle and selling at the lowest price possible. The profit would come if you focus on the product not money. Are you saying Ford is not focusing on its product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Never said it was more profitable than any Mustang before it. Actually, you did, here: Ford made a lot more money on the Pinto / Mustang II.so its the better car...right? Chrysler has a purpose built modern SUV platform and Ford is using a modified FWD car plartform. Ford is making more profit and Chrysler has a better SUV...in my opinion. For many years Toyota was the most profitable car company on the planet, did that make me want to buy one? No. Did that make the Tundra better than the F-Series? Hell no. Chrysler's SUV platform is just like that nifty new aluminum chassis that Ford bought Jaguar. It's going to take a big bite out of profitability to keep it up to date. Sure it's neat now, but wait until it starts to suffer from deferred maintenance. And that brings us round to the Tundra. It's more like the Chrysler SUV platform than you'd like. It too is comparatively lower volume, with comparatively higher costs per unit to keep it competitive. Basically, this SUV is nice now, but it won't be in a few years, because Chrysler can't keep pace with the rest of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) The number of D3 vehicles built in the first half of 2011 is quite staggering, it's up around 200,000. So Ford has excellent scales of economy going on there and well, who cares about Durango.... It looks like Ford D3s are in that groove with buyers who are looking at vehicles above $28K, no wonder Ford is crying all the way to the bank.... Edited August 17, 2011 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I saw this in the issue of PM that my parents gave me this past weekend. Anyways...the whole Explorer thing is warped from the get-go..back in the late 1980's Ford wanted a 4 door wagon pickup (before the term SUV was born) to compete with the Cherokee, which was in production in 1984. The Explorer finally came out in 1990 (and based on the Ranger Platform) and was an instant hit....with people who never took their cars off road. The Explorer was used as an off roader because of its roots with the Ranger, but its more or less a fringe group of people who did that to their Explorers long after they where out of warranty and paid off. 2002 marked the break with the dated Ranger platform and making the Explorer more car-like (before CUV term came popular) and it finally evolved into what its always been with buyers...a Soft-roader SUV/CUV. Also the D3/4 was NEVER a car based platform...its always been a CUV platform, which was the major reason Ford bought Volvo back in the day. If you look at the Sedan based D3, they have many compromises in design that doesn't make them a good fit as a sedan. I'd expect that a CD4 modified paltform will prob replace the D3/4 platform in about 5 years..and have sigifinant weight savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTwannabe Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Actually, you did, here: Chrysler's SUV platform is just like that nifty new aluminum chassis that Ford bought Jaguar. It's going to take a big bite out of profitability to keep it up to date. Sure it's neat now, but wait until it starts to suffer from deferred maintenance. And that brings us round to the Tundra. It's more like the Chrysler SUV platform than you'd like. It too is comparatively lower volume, with comparatively higher costs per unit to keep it competitive. Basically, this SUV is nice now, but it won't be in a few years, because Chrysler can't keep pace with the rest of the market. Haha... love how Toyota cheaped out with a rear C-channel frame on the Tundra and gave it a fancy name (TripleTech). Then they claimed it was superior to the fully boxed frames everyone else now uses "because it flexes and improves ride quality with stiff springs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts