2005Explorer Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You might see some of it's styling cues end up on the next generation Explorer, but my guess is the Explorer will continue to be based on a FWD passenger car platform. I love this vehicle and would buy one in a second, but I just don't see Ford bringing it to North America. With that said, I like my Explorer and it does fine with light duty off-road stuff, but the Everest is a true SUV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) The only way this is viable is if they find other products to share the platform and a NA plant to build it in. You can't just import it because of the chicken tax and other certification issues. Everest is a passenger vehicle. Not subject to chicken tax. Only 2 door utilities are considered to be trucks by US Customs and subject to chicken tax. This is why 4Runner and Pathfinder became 4 doors. But you are right about the other certification issues. They are costly and the possible sales volume of this vehicle is likely too low to justify the investment. There is also an issue with lack of suitable engine choice for the US market. Aside from the chicken tax and crash standard certification, how much would it run to convert the Everest to LHD? The new Everest will be sold in China and South America so it is already designed for LHD. Also, it is based on T6 Ranger, which is already LHD. How did Ford get around the chicken tax on the Transit? And don't they already sell the Everest in some LHD countries? You mean Transit Connect? Transit will be made in the US so no chicken tax. Transit Connect is imported as passenger vehicle and converted back to a utility vehicle once it clears custom so that's how Ford skirts the tax. And yes, the current Everest is available in LHD: http://www.ford.com.ph/suvs/everest/gallery/interior Edited March 28, 2014 by bzcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Direct Comparison: 2013 Toyota 4Runner Toyota Highlander Ford Explorer US Sales 51,625 127,572 178,311 Questions: If Ford had Everest in US along side Explorer, how many Everest you think Ford would sell, and the total of Explorer + Everest? (i.e. taking away Explorer sales or adding to it) Not taking sides, just It's of course not that simple. 4Runner shares its platform with Lexus GX, FJ Cruiser, and Tacoma. So you are talking about close to 300,000 units for Toyota to justify continuing selling the 4Runner here with its siblings. If it was just 4Runner by itself, it would be cancelled long ago. 4Runner also shares engine and drivetrain with other Toyota models so it's not an "one-off" model like the Everest if it is sold in the US. The question for Ford is not whether it will hurt Explorer sales. The question is whether the Federalization costs is worth the incremental increase in sales. The only engine offered on the Everest that is certified for the US is 3.2 I5 diesel. That's not something SUV buyers in the US are particularly interested in so Ford will need to invest more money in an US market exclusive drivetrain package (e.g a gasoline V6 engine)... something that is probably too cost prohibitive for such a small potential market. The only hope Everest comes to the US market is if T6 Ranger comes with it so they can share the engine/drivetrain emission program costs and other related Federalization expenses. And we all know how unlikely the T6 Ranger business case will pencil out given various challenge associate with it for the US market. Edited March 28, 2014 by bzcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The question for Ford is not whether it will hurt Explorer sales. The question is whether the Federalization costs is worth the incremental increase in sales. But it's part of the same question. If it takes too many Explorer sales then that lowers the incremental sales increase for Ford and that kills the business case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Aside from the chicken tax and crash standard certification, how much would it run to convert the Everest to LHD? Already into LHD markets, while not certified for US crash tests, I'm pretty sure that all fo Ford's global vehicles are now built with the capacity to be sold in the USA if required, With Pacific Rim Agreement, a lot of chicken tax goes away... The question is as always, does the cost of selling Ranger and Everest in the USA add more complexity than profit, or does investing that funding elsewhere give Ford NA a better return.....Opportunity cost is the key here. Edited March 28, 2014 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 As an example - which of these projects is more important? New Mustang New aluminum F150 Reinventing Lincoln Next Gen Taurus/Edge/Explorer New Transit New Bronco Ford doesn't have the resources to work on every project at the same time, so work has to be prioritized. In that priority the Bronco is way at the bottom due to limited sales potential and large investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Direct Comparison: 2013 Toyota 4Runner Toyota Highlander Ford Explorer US Sales 51,625 127,572 178,311 Questions: If Ford had Everest in US along side Explorer, how many Everest you think Ford would sell, and the total of Explorer + Everest? (i.e. taking away Explorer sales or adding to it) Not taking sides, just Ford's pie is larger in the CUV/SUV segment. I think the Everest would complement not compete with the Explorer The only way this is viable is if they find other products to share the platform and a NA plant to build it in. You can't just import it because of the chicken tax and other certification issues. What chicken tax???? Chicken tax doesn't apply to SUVs, this is why Toyota imports the 4 runner. Edited March 28, 2014 by Biker16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Ford's pie is larger in the CUV/SUV segment. I think the Everest would complement not compete with the Explorer What chicken tax???? Chicken tax doesn't apply to SUVs, this is what Toyota imports the 4 runner. I stand corrected on the Chicken Tax. But if you don't think Everest would compete with Explorer for Ford sales you're dreaming. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Is there really a market for a SUV in the US anymore? Given the fact that CUV's cover the Mini,small,medium and large markets in NA, why would you want to divide your marketshare up even more? Full sized SUV's have a niche they fill since they are basically 4+ seat pickup trucks. The Everest might be able to tow more then an Explorer, but given the fact that since SUV's became the rage 20 years ago so, they've been more or less Staton Wagons on stilts and car based CUV normally offer a much more refined experence then a truck based one. If Ford can make a 2 door verison and sell it here as a Bronco at 50K units a year or so, it might worth it, but I don't see how it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I think it really comes down to most consumers really not caring if you call their vehicle a CUV or an SUV. I'm guessing the Grand Cherokee and Explorer are cross-shopped quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I think it really comes down to most consumers really not caring if you call their vehicle a CUV or an SUV. I'm guessing the Grand Cherokee and Explorer are cross-shopped quite a bit. Explorer and Grand Cherokee grew up together, so to speak, so comparisons are inevitable. Ford even still markets the Explorer as an SUV despite the change in platforms. By contrast, Nissan flat-out declares that the new Pathfinder is a CUV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I stand corrected on the Chicken Tax. But if you don't think Everest would compete with Explorer for Ford sales you're dreaming. Again. Why do you think they wouldn't complement each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Why do you think they wouldn't complement each other? Oh its just one of those age old conventional wisdom things you see on these car forums. The world is full of people who are always ready to tell you what can't be done or what you can't do. If a customer goes to a Ford dealership and buys an Everest instead of an Explorer guess who still gets the money? That's right Ford motor company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Why do you think they wouldn't complement each other? Because the number of people who want an Everest type truck but would not buy an Explorer are too few to result in significant sales increase. If a customer goes to a Ford dealership and buys an Everest instead of an Explorer guess who still gets the money? That's right Ford motor company. Wow. So uninformed. Let's assume the sales price and profit per vehicle is the same. Which one costs Ford more to make? The one that shares a platform with 6 other vehicles and is built in a domestic plant running efficiently? Or the one that's built overseas and only shares a platform with one vehicle? You can't ignore platform sharing and investment costs and fixed overhead if you expect to be taken seriously. If you want a car company that doesn't pay attention to any of that, see GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 Because the number of people who want an Everest type truck but would not buy an Explorer are too few to result in significant sales increase. Wow. So uninformed. Let's assume the sales price and profit per vehicle is the same. Which one costs Ford more to make? The one that shares a platform with 6 other vehicles and is built in a domestic plant running efficiently? Or the one that's built overseas and only shares a platform with one vehicle? You can't ignore platform sharing and investment costs and fixed overhead if you expect to be taken seriously. If you want a car company that doesn't pay attention to any of that, see GM. lol Speaking of ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamamultitasker Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 LOL! If the sales price and the profit are the same then the cost is the same. Akirby, you've made some dumb remarks before, but this is the dumbest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 LOL! If the sales price and the profit are the same then the cost is the same. Akirby, you've made some dumb remarks before, but this is the dumbest! I was talking about the difference between the manufacturing cost and the sale price. It doesn't include the cost of developing the platform, opening a plant, research and development, certifications - all overhead that goes to the bottom line. To put it in simpler terms - if a hamburger costs $1.50 for the bun, condiments, meat and packaging and you sell it for $3.00 you've made $1.50 profit. And if you sell 100 per day you made $150. But now you have to pay rent. And the workers. And utilities. And franchise fees. If we both sell the same amount of burgers, but my rent is half what your rent is - who makes more money? LOL indeed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 LOL! If the sales price and the profit are the same then the cost is the same. Akirby, you've made some dumb remarks before, but this is the dumbest! -gross- profit. Net is a whole other animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 LOL! If the sales price and the profit are the same then the cost is the same. Akirby, you've made some dumb remarks before, but this is the dumbest! Speaking of dumb comments... You do understand the difference between gross and net revenue correct? If not, the night time junior college might be of service to you. Just because the in plant costs and sale price gives you an equal gross profit does NOT mean you make the same net profit. Economy of scale works in product development as well. One platform, one electrical harness design and one power train will earn you far more money than selling two vehicles that share little underneath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) Would investing money to add T6 Ranger and Everest to Ford's US showrooms give a better return than not bringing them and simply continuing to invest that cash in existing products? It's like achieving more by doing less... Do you hurt current vehicles by taking funds from them in order to bring two more? It's not a case of can't do, more a case of why should we bother... Edited March 29, 2014 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 This probably has as much chance of coming here as a snowstorm on the sun, but... Toyota does bring over the Land Cruiser despite having a full plate of SUV/CUV models. The Land Cruiser does not sell many units. Perhaps if Everest is sold here as a butch boulder buster go anywhere model, it may have a small market. But cost uber dollars like Toyota's model. In this case it would just be exported from Thailand if there is capacity to build this. If they do, It should be just called Everest. The Explorer is now a CUV. It sells well, and it's what the market wants. Soon the Flex will be gone and the Explorer will likely grow a little to match some of the Flex's space. One less SUV/CUV means there could be room for another. I wouldn't dedicate North American plant space for this as I just don't see a tidal wave of buyers for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 It's not a case of can't do, more a case of why should we bother... Especially when it clutters up management's "laser focus" on the new product appearing over the next 24 months. That's new platforms, engines, and transmissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted March 29, 2014 Share Posted March 29, 2014 This probably has as much chance of coming here as a snowstorm on the sun, but... Toyota does bring over the Land Cruiser despite having a full plate of SUV/CUV models. The Land Cruiser does not sell many units. Perhaps if Everest is sold here as a butch boulder buster go anywhere model, it may have a small market. But cost uber dollars like Toyota's model. In this case it would just be exported from Thailand if there is capacity to build this. If they do, It should be just called Everest. The Explorer is now a CUV. It sells well, and it's what the market wants. Soon the Flex will be gone and the Explorer will likely grow a little to match some of the Flex's space. One less SUV/CUV means there could be room for another. I wouldn't dedicate North American plant space for this as I just don't see a tidal wave of buyers for this. Is the Everest luxurious enough? The Land Cruiser is pitched as a super luxurious off road machine and has the features to back up both claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 Speaking of dumb comments... You do understand the difference between gross and net revenue correct? If not, the night time junior college might be of service to you. Just because the in plant costs and sale price gives you an equal gross profit does NOT mean you make the same net profit. Economy of scale works in product development as well. One platform, one electrical harness design and one power train will earn you far more money than selling two vehicles that share little underneath. The reality is that we are speaking hypothetically here given that no one on this forum has any clue what the actual per unit profit margin is on either the Explorer or the Everest. Additionally we have no idea what the per unit cost would be to bring the Everest to the US market. We also have no idea what the per unit profit margin would be if Ford opted to build and sell the Everest here in the US. All of this is complete conjecture and that is why akirbys comment was ridiculous and that is why he went on the ignore list. He was just trolling me for another argument and trying to sound like he's got this all worked out when the truth of the matter is there is no way he possibly could. Does anyone here really think that if Ford Motor Company decided they wanted to sell the Everest in the US that they couldn't figure out a way to make it happen and make it profitable? Whether or not they do is of no concern to me. We are not having a serious conversation here, it is all theory and conjecture. Would I like to see the Everest in the US? Sure. Do I think its going to happen? Probably not and I couldn't care less either way. It's just fun to talk about an it's not worth arguing about with some guy on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 All of this is complete conjecture and that is why akirbys comment was ridiculous You know, for someone who 'couldn't care less' and thinks 'it's not worth arguing about', you sure have been posting a lot and making a lot of judgmental comments about others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts