Ford Expedition & Navigator

[ZanatWork]

As an Expedition owner, I'd really like Ford to get the powertrains updated, at the very least. Mine's chugging along fine for now, but I'll likely want another down the road. For a family of tall people that haul stuff around regularly, it's a great truck to have.

 

Particularly the "TRUCK" part. Some of us like a vehicle can can haul people and stuff plus tow a generous amount. Let the others have the ****ing crossovers.

[2005Explorer]

Ford's margin is considerably higher than GM's.

 

On what? GMT900's especially when you get into the Denali and Escalade models make all sorts of money... No? Besides how do you know that Ford is making a lot more money on Expedition and Navigator compared to the GMT900's? Don't they use a lot of special parts and orphaned designs? I would think all the platform sharing on the GM models would help. Even if the GM models have a little more cash on the hood it's a stretch to say Ford's margin is considerably higher.

 

How about this question... would you make more money selling 22,000 compact sedans compared to 22,000 full sized SUVs? I think we all know that answer. I can't blame GM for sticking with this segment when they have a good chance of being the only company providing a vehicle like this in the near future. I only quoted the 22,000 figure because it proves that people still want these vehicles, but they just don't seem to want what Ford is offering in this class right now.

Edited December 19, 2011 by 2005Explorer

[Boss444]

With new CAFE rules not far away now, and more and more plug-ins, full hybrids, E-Assists, EV's, and what not on the way, what makes you see a healthy market for big RWD SUVs down the road? Is GM being smart worrying about keeping Surburban/Tahoe/Avalanche current when its pickups are looking a bit tired and dated? Big SUV market is not a healthy market now, and in few years will be very sick with volatile gas prices probably being more volatile and exurbia lifestyle further eroded. Future trends are not pointing to more big McMansions with no sidewalks out further and further with two big SUV's sitting in driveway. The talk is more now about transit systems and how to pay for them and will gas get close to $5 this summer. I can see why Ford has put any talk and development dollars for Expedition/Navigator on back burner. Getting Expedition fuel mileage from 17mpg highway to 20mpg highway is not a high priority right now. Ford is going to have to spend billions to meet new CAFE rules, and spending big bucks on vehicle size of Expedition will just be a distraction. Ford is a smaller company and will not be in every market segment anymore. And if the construction industry ever comes back, Ford will need KTP capacity to build more Super Duties.

 

CAFE will result in -LARGER- vehicles.

 

My link

 

And word on the street is that the Avalanche is not long for this world.

 

On what? GMT900's especially when you get into the Denali and Escalade models make all sorts of money... No? Besides how do you know that Ford is making a more money on Expedition and Navigator compared to the GMT900's? Don't they use a lot of special parts and orphaned designs? I would think all the platform sharing on the GM models would help.

 

A link to substantiate the claim would have been nice too.

 

And you're right. The Expedition/Navigator (man it's nice to have at least one Lincoln with a real name...) share nothing with the new Fords. Not the interior, platform, engines, etc.

 

I think the 'considerably higher margins' is wishful thinking. But I'll wait for the cost breakdown from Ford and GM.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Boss444

[RichardJensen]

GMNA YTD:

 

$4.9B profit on $61.B revenue.

 

FNA YTD:

 

$5.3B on $55.4B revenue

 

Ford's margin on North American sales is almost 20% higher than GM's.

[RichardJensen]

Did you guys really think I'd make up something like that?

[RichardJensen]

If the goal of a company is to maximize profit in a sustainable model, which company is doing better? Ford with its Expedition and Navigator, or GM and its Suburban, Tahoe and Escalade?

[2005Explorer]

If the goal of a company is to maximize profit in a sustainable model, which company is doing better? Ford with its Expedition and Navigator, or GM and its Suburban, Tahoe and Escalade?

 

I'd say GM is when it comes to full sized SUVs. There is a lot more platform and power train sharing going on then what Ford is doing with the Expedition and Navigator. If volume helps drive down costs then being able to use many of the same components across the whole GM truck line has to be a better choice. Not to mention that GM is selling 5x to 6x more full sized SUVs then Ford is.

 

Richard you might be very correct in saying that overall Ford is doing better then GM when it comes to this, however I don't believe it holds true throughout the line. It certainly can't be true when it comes to full sized SUVs. GM has the market on these and for people to say they are stupid for wasting money on upgrading them doesn't make any sense. Now if you said Ford might be better off not to update and just cancel it would make more sense.

Edited December 20, 2011 by 2005Explorer

[Boss444]

GMNA YTD:

 

$4.9B profit on $61.B revenue.

 

FNA YTD:

 

$5.3B on $55.4B revenue

 

Ford's margin on North American sales is almost 20% higher than GM's.

 

And?

 

You still haven't proven the claim that the Expy/Navi have 'considerably higher margins' than the GMT900s.

 

In fact, aren't you the one always talking about amortization of costs?

 

Well:

 

GMT900:

 

Silverado

Sierra

Tahoe

Suburban

Avalanche

Yukon

Yukon XL

Escalade

Escalade ESV

Escalade EXT

 

Ford T1 platform:

 

Expedition

Navigator

[FordBuyer]

And?

 

You still haven't proven the claim that the Expy/Navi have 'considerably higher margins' than the GMT900s.

 

In fact, aren't you the one always talking about amortization of costs?

 

Well:

 

GMT900:

 

Silverado

Sierra

Tahoe

Suburban

Avalanche

Yukon

Yukon XL

Escalade

Escalade ESV

Escalade EXT

 

Ford T1 platform:

 

Expedition

Navigator

 

 

So where the hell is GM going to get all the money to update all those big trucks and at same time keep the rest of their giant lineup current? Let's see now....last month GM with all its 4 divisions, car and assorted two division truck lineup, sold about 180,000 vehicles and Ford with its 1.5 divisions sold about 166,000 vehicles. Looks to me like GM needs to start pruning lots of deadwood starting with truck lineup. The more Ford prunes, the closer to GM they get in sales. Ford is adding one new vehicle though to lineup in C-Max and a couple new models to Lincoln. So it's not like Ford is only cutting.

[stpatrick90]

And?

 

You still haven't proven the claim that the Expy/Navi have 'considerably higher margins' than the GMT900s.

 

In fact, aren't you the one always talking about amortization of costs?

 

Well:

 

GMT900:

 

Silverado

Sierra

Tahoe

Suburban

Avalanche

Yukon

Yukon XL

Escalade

Escalade ESV

Escalade EXT

 

Ford T1 platform:

 

Expedition

Navigator

 

I believe that the T1 platform is related/based in some part upon the P platform that underpins the F150. I don't recall to what extent they share but if it is anything measurable then there probably is some level amortization to be had. The only viable option Ford has for the Expedition/Navigator is to increase the parts they share with the F150 and from what I understand that is what the plan is.

[PREMiERdrum]

I believe that the T1 platform is related/based in some part upon the P platform that underpins the F150. I don't recall to what extent they share but if it is anything measurable then there probably is some level amortization to be had. The only viable option Ford has for the Expedition/Navigator is to increase the parts they share with the F150 and from what I understand that is what the plan is.

 

Also, how much of GM's volume benefit is negated by the cost to differentiate, market, and support distinct offerings for 3 different brands?

 

This is one of my big GM concerns: They're paying to support and supply 4 different brands and aren't selling many more cars than Ford's 2 brands. Add in the fact that Lincoln sales are negligible at this point and matters get worse for GM. Further, GM doesn't have much in the way of upcoming total volume growth products: ATS and XTS will simply replace STS and DTS sales, Sonic replaces Aveo sales, and I don't expect Verano to sell much better than Regal, and the Lucerne disappears from the lineup. The new Impala may see a significant drop in volume with a more competitive model and fewer fleet sales.

Edited December 20, 2011 by PREMiERdrum

[RichardJensen]

You still haven't proven the claim that the Expy/Navi have 'considerably higher margins' than the GMT900s.

I never claimed that. I said that Ford has considerably higher margins than GM. QED.

 

Ford has invested elsewhere, and it has proved to be more profitable for them.

[stpatrick90]

Also, how much of GM's volume benefit is negated by the cost to differentiate, market, and support distinct offerings for 3 different brands?

 

This is one of my big GM concerns: They're paying to support support and supply 4 different brands and aren't selling many more cars than Ford's 2 brands. Add in the fact that Lincoln sales are negligible at this point and matters get worse for GM. Further, GM doesn't have much in the way of total volume growth products: ATS and XTS will simply replace STS and DTS sales, Sonic replaces Aveo sales, and I don't expect Verano to sell much better than Regal, and the Lucerne disappears from the lineup. The new Impala may see a significant drop in volume with a more competitive model and fewer fleet sales.

 

I certainly agree. The redundancy of the brands is excessive. GMC is nothing more than a Silverado, Equinox, Tahoe/Suburban, Colorado, Express, and Traverse with a few altercations; what purpose can this serve? Buick at least is a bit more justifiable given its huge success in markets like China. Also Buick at least has some unique cars in its portfolio that aren't blatant badge engineered cars.

[RichardJensen]

to say they are stupid for wasting money on upgrading them doesn't make any sense

Their priorities are misplaced, as evidenced by worse margins, despite getting a gigantic handout from Uncle Sam.

[jpd80]

With CAFE tightening Ford should certainly look at discontinuing the F-150 as well. Wouldn't you agree?

Ford is still remaking their product line with a keen eye towards tightening CAFE limits, it's fine for GM

to continue with big, heavy full sized SUVs so long as their combined truck and SUV lines keeps meeting

those limits, then all will be well. I think Ford has an eye on the future and is quietly making changes to stay

in front of the curve, I have no idea whether that includes Expedition or some other replacement vehicle but

selling much lower numbers of older less efficient engine combinations has to help CAFE in the short term..

[jpd80]

With CAFE tightening Ford should certainly look at discontinuing the F-150 as well. Wouldn't you agree?

Without significant reduction in weight,, larger vehicles will become a liability to Ford GM and Chrysler,

an interesting, challenging and painful growth spurt where embracing new technology to achieve goals.

So long as Ford's combined truck and SUV lines keeps meeting those limits, then all will be well.

 

IMO, GM is over committed to large trucks and SUVs with insufficient offset through smaller utilities,

and with all the vehicles they are producing, they will have a CAFE problem.

Edited December 20, 2011 by jpd80

[Kris Kolman]

I think people need to understand that CAFE decisions aren't as black or white as some would make it seem... First off you have to understand that CAFE is an amogolmation of the entire number of vehilces sold per year. Secondly CAFE has a size to effeciency calculation that makes the impact hard to understand. The Expy sales of 3-6k are a tiny fraction of the number of Fords sold per year, as such the CAFE impact is minimal when balanced against many more 4-cylinder only Escapes. Also ironically the size to effeciency calculation could actually play in the Expy's favor if Ford preferentially prices the EBV6 to get more of those out the door.

[jpd80]

I think people need to understand that CAFE decisions aren't as black or white as some would make it seem... First off you have to understand that CAFE is an amogolmation of the entire number of vehilces sold per year. Secondly CAFE has a size to effeciency calculation that makes the impact hard to understand. The Expy sales of 3-6k are a tiny fraction of the number of Fords sold per year, as such the CAFE impact is minimal when balanced against many more 4-cylinder only Escapes. Also ironically the size to effeciency calculation could actually play in the Expy's favor if Ford preferentially prices the EBV6 to get more of those out the door.

CAFE is calculated using harmonic mean not arithmetic mean which means that

you don't get the direct improvement in fuel using smaller cars, this was done to stop

auto companies trying to use economical vehicles to offset vehicles with poor economy.

[Boss444]

Also, how much of GM's volume benefit is negated by the cost to differentiate, market, and support distinct offerings for 3 different brands?

 

I bet the marketing of the Caddys and GMCs is more expensive than the costs to differentiate them from the Chevys. Chevy is the volume brand so it makes sense that a lot of the development costs are absorbed there. GM probably spends a very small amount on a Tahoe to make it a Yukon yet they sell that Yukon at a higher price than the Tahoe.

 

Same thing with the Navigator/MKZ/MKX/MKS

 

I certainly agree. The redundancy of the brands is excessive. GMC is nothing more than a Silverado, Equinox, Tahoe/Suburban, Colorado, Express, and Traverse with a few altercations; what purpose can this serve?

 

Because with those "minor altercations" (read: inexpensive), they have another vehicle they can sell for a higher price than the Chevy.

 

Think about it this way. Let's say that ABC Computer Monitor company wants to introduce a premium line of monitors. What do they do? They take a monitor they already sell for $250, make the base more movable, change the surround to gloss black, and add a HDMI port to the back. Now they have a monitor they can sell for $300. All for a relatively small investment.

 

I know that's oversimplifying it, but the idea is there.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Boss444

[PREMiERdrum]

I bet the marketing of the Caddys and GMCs is more expensive than the costs to differentiate them from the Chevys. Chevy is the volume brand so it makes sense that a lot of the development costs are absorbed there. GM probably spends a very small amount on a Tahoe to make it a Yukon yet they sell that Yukon at a higher price than the Tahoe.

 

Same thing with the Navigator/MKZ/MKX/MKS

 

But here's the rub: Why won't Yukon buyers purchase a Tahoe or Suburban? Why not reallocate the money spent for the Yukon's headlights, grille, support and marketing towards an even better Tahoe? Why not address the Chevrolet image problem head on, instead of "capping" the brand to leave room for 3 other brands above it?

 

Ford finally made what I believe to be the "right" choice with Mercury, and I wish GM would see the light with GMC. If a badge job suddenly makes your product appealing to people, you have a brand image problem. Not a product problem.

[twintornados]

The only way Expedition can survive is to share the F150 platform. The current one-off platform is too expensive for projected volumes. And since we haven't seen the new F150 yet it's premature to speculate whether it will spawn a new Expy or not. I think it will but again it's a matter of timing where the new platform isn't ready yet so why spend big bucks on the current platform just to throw it all away in 2 years?

I would be willing to bet that the next generation Expedition and Navigator will share chassis development with Transit Full Size in rear wheel drive orientation and rear wheel drive-centric AWD mode. But I do see them moving to a unitized chassis similar to Transit for significant weight savings....throw in an open bed variant and call it "Sport Trac" and viola....job done and market owned.

Edited December 21, 2011 by twintornados

[akirby]

GM probably spends a very small amount on a Tahoe to make it a Yukon yet they sell that Yukon at a higher price than the Tahoe.

 

Because with those "minor altercations" (read: inexpensive), they have another vehicle they can sell for a higher price th

 

Ford accomplishes the same thing with Platinum F150s. Either make higher trim level Chevys or make it a Caddy. The ONLY reason GMC exists is to keep the stand alone GMC/Buick dealers in business.

 

As long as GMC exists it proves to me that GM doesn't get it yet.

[akirby]

I would be willing to bet that the next generation Expedition and Navigator will share chassis development with Transit Full Size in rear wheel drive orientation and rear wheel drive-centric AWD mode. But I do see them moving to a unitized chassis similar to Transit for significant weight savings....throw in an open bed variant and call it "Sport Trac" and viola....job done and market owned.

 

Hadn't thought of that - it would be a possibility.

[papilgee4evaeva]

A Ford competitor to the Avalanche? :huh:

[Boss444]

A Ford competitor to the Avalanche? :huh:

 

Word on the street is that the Avalanche will not return after the GMT900 platform.