atomcat68 Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The idea that you can abandon a product/market segment and move all the buyers into another product only works completely if all the competitors also abandon the same product/market segment. This worked for Ford with Crown Vic but the competition has not abandoned the small/midsize truck market. ...but everyone already abandoned the crown vic segment. Everyone can't be the last so they can say they were right. Sometimes you just have to see which market you have less a chance of competing and focus on the ones you are better with. Ford was better off with vans and GM with the mid size pickup so each in my opinion was correct in letting go of the segment they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 GM may have been right to kill their van but that doesn't mean they were right about Canyorado (yet). They may have been better off killing the van and just keeping the full sized trucks. Although given the way GM thinks about volume, it sounds like they just wanted a product for that plant and Canyorado seemed to fit the bill without much regard for overall profitability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) GM may have been right to kill their van but that doesn't mean they were right about Canyorado (yet). They may have been better off killing the van and just keeping the full sized trucks. Although given the way GM thinks about volume, it sounds like they just wanted a product for that plant and Canyorado seemed to fit the bill without much regard for overall profitability. That's how I see it too. Although one could argue that Canyorado is GM's insurance against 2017 CAFE because they really believed Ford's F-150 aluminum pursuit was going to fail - and/or they can see that they cannot keep up the investment race to light-weight their fullsize truck in a reasonable timeframe to meet 2017 CAFE. Edited June 1, 2015 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well, and even if they can lightweight the GMTs, do they have an engine that can be both the FE leader and the volume leader? I mean, that's the real genius of the 2.7 vs. the EcoDiesel, etc., it's not a niche engine, it's going to be the 'default' engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Even I'll admit that the 2.7 in the F150 was a brilliant move by Ford. Now let's just hope they did their homework and it's not plagued by ejecting spark plugs or some similar stupid issue. Edited June 2, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well, and even if they can lightweight the GMTs, do they have an engine that can be both the FE leader and the volume leader? I mean, that's the real genius of the 2.7 vs. the EcoDiesel, etc., it's not a niche engine, it's going to be the 'default' engine. This, we haven't seen the best from 2.7 EB just yet, once Ford renews the 3.5 EB with big increase in power and torque, The 2.7 will become that default F150 engine and also the prime replacement for the existing FWD/AWD 3.5 EB engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.