silvrsvt Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 http://jalopnik.com/why-the-all-new-2016-camaro-is-a-big-deal-for-general-m-1704689482 3rd Gear Story.....I thought this number was bullshit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 That number has to be bullshit. Too much time and effort has been spent on making the rest of the lineup profitable in the past 10 years for that to be true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 One MS analyst has been saying that for *years*. I doubted its validity then, and I doubt it even more so now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 According to some, all Ford has to do is offer manual trans station wagons, and enthusiasts all over will line up and pay full MSRP or more! And they can rely on this market for years to come!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 If true, this explains a lot of Ford's product decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 15, 2015 Author Share Posted May 15, 2015 If true, this explains a lot of Ford's product decisions. I'm sure the F-series accounts for a lot of Ford's profit but at the same time I don't think its 800 gorilla in the room when it comes to Product decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 If true, this explains a lot of Ford's product decisions. Such as what? Not dropping the Edge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 No, Ford missed the car profitability boat when they didn't offer a 4 cylinder turbo diesel Crown Vic.. I know I would have bought one! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 No, Ford missed the car profitability boat when they didn't offer a 4 cylinder turbo diesel Crown Vic.. I know I would have bought one! Hmmm, my sarcasm detector must be broken cause that's rather laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 He forgot about the manual transmission option in the Crown Vic that was to go with the turbo diesel. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) I meant Ford's decision to cancel anything that could possibly compete with F150. Ranger, Panthers, BOF Explorer, etc. (note implied sarcasm) Edited May 15, 2015 by Sevensecondsuv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 (edited) It's kind of like how a few years back, every story by Business week made mention of Ford's $23 billion debt. The MS assertion has its roots in history, when Jac Nasser became CEO, the bulk of profit earned in Nth America came from F Series and Explorers, so the natural assumption was that as Explorer sales waned, F Series became it and for a short few years between 2002 and 2006, that may have been true. One of Mulally's direction was that all products that were continuing in North Anerica had to make a profit. So while F Series is a key profit earner, you can bet that all the Utes, cars and Transit all play their part. MS continued assertions do Ford under Mulally a great discredit and completely ignores the massive restructuring and refocusing of company goals and efficiencies achieved. Edited May 15, 2015 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Maybe 70% of ford profits. This is why Lincoln is so important and why Nasser wasn't 100% wrong for pursuing PAG. What is see now is that Ford isn't an efficient producer/developer of low to medium volume products. Their organizational structure is too centralized and unwieldy to keep development costs low for low and medium based products. look at jaguar land rover today vs when ford owned them. Compare the ford xtype and XJ to the Tata XJ and XE Feel free to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 He forgot about the manual transmission option in the Crown Vic that was to go with the turbo diesel. Wagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Maybe 70% of ford profits. This is why Lincoln is so important and why Nasser wasn't 100% wrong for pursuing PAG. What is see now is that Ford isn't an efficient producer/developer of low to medium volume products. Their organizational structure is too centralized and unwieldy to keep development costs low for low and medium based products. look at jaguar land rover today vs when ford owned them. Compare the ford xtype and XJ to the Tata XJ and XE Feel free to disagree. I'll agree that Ford can barely look after itself, let alone other brands and that having PAG almost killed the company. Nasser's big failing was not understanding the developmental costs associated with Ford's assembled PAG brands. That is something that goes hand in glove with low to medium production volume of luxury brands, Edited May 16, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Maybe 70% of ford profits. This is why Lincoln is so important and why Nasser wasn't 100% wrong for pursuing PAG. What is see now is that Ford isn't an efficient producer/developer of low to medium volume products. Their organizational structure is too centralized and unwieldy to keep development costs low for low and medium based products. look at jaguar land rover today vs when ford owned them. Compare the ford xtype and XJ to the Tata XJ and XE Feel free to disagree. I think even 70% is too high. Remember, it's not 2005 anymore and now every car in the lineup is profitable, not just trucks and bug SUVs. ( the ford lineup at least. I'm not sure about Lincoln). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Maybe 70% of ford profits. This is why Lincoln is so important and why Nasser wasn't 100% wrong for pursuing PAG. What is see now is that Ford isn't an efficient producer/developer of low to medium volume products. Their organizational structure is too centralized and unwieldy to keep development costs low for low and medium based products. look at jaguar land rover today vs when ford owned them. Compare the ford xtype and XJ to the Tata XJ and XE Feel free to disagree. You do realize that many of the vehicles you now praise from LR/Jag would've been started under Ford's ownership, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) 70% of 2014 profit would be reasonable, if only because of significant losses in South America and Europe. 70% of 2014 global profit would be $3.14B, which would be 45% of NA profit. I could see up to 50% of NA profit coming from the F-Series (it represents fully 30% of US volume). However, it is difficult to get behind Biker's thinking about the value of pursuing niche products. The idea that Ford is suddenly too centralized to design niche products is, frankly, difficult to comprehend. Suggesting that Ford emulate Daimler or BMW without the gigantic advantage those manufacturers have within their home markets is as bad as suggesting that Ford emulate VW which is on shaky ground financially. Suggesting that Ford emulate a brand (Jaguar/Land Rover) that is even less successful than Lincoln is incomprehensible. Edited May 16, 2015 by RichardJensen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBirdStangSkyliner Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) I'll agree that Ford can barely look after itself, let alone other brands and that having PAG almost killed the company. Nasser's big failing was not understanding the developmental costs associated with Ford's assembled PAG brands. That is something that goes hand in glove with low to medium production volume of luxury brands, Nasser had many big failings, but I think his biggest one related to PAG was that Ford bought into "has failed every time in history" socialism with each purchase. All of those brands, in a paraphrase of the great Boris Karloff, have continually "sinked, sanked, and sunk" as a direct result of their government/labor conglomerated liabilities. This has consistently occurred since WWII, regardless of management, ownership and level of investments. A few acquisitions of the super high-end makers appear to be working now as the expansion of the super-rich globally has allowed for enormously inflated prices. This has allowed BMW to keep Rolls Royce afloat, for example. They tried doing the same with Husqvarna under their Motorrad division. Italian labor rules forced such an over-production, at such high prices, that they all but gave the division away to escape. The buyer took little but the name to prevent the same fate. Then there is Fiat..... Merging with the liabilities of socialism, unless it features iron-fist control, just brings unwieldly debt. Rebranding socialists to "progressives" won't change any future outcomes. Nasser wasn't good enough managing a car company to have any chance at succeeding in a larger mixture of geo-politics and socio-economics. Edited May 16, 2015 by TBirdStangSkyliner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 "I'll agree that Ford can barely look after itself," — you're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that since 2006, Ford has been looking after itself just fine, thank-you. A lot of the problem is etch-a-sketch memory, plus drive-thru impatience: so why isn't Lincoln as successful as the Germans, already? It will take another 10 years folks, meanwhile I trust Ford will continue too look after itself very well indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 You do realize that many of the vehicles you now praise from LR/Jag would've been started under Ford's ownership, right? Would have been started? Source? If they would have been started for jaguar how come they have not been started for Lincoln? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 It's simple product cycle. They start projects years before we see the vehicles on the road. The XF and XJ you're praising were done under Ford - while we didn't see them until after they were sold, it's not as if Tata pulled them out of nowhere. The new RR/RRS I'd imagine more of the work was done under Tata, but I'd imagine work was started under Ford ownership same goes for the Evoque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Would have been started? Source? If they would have been started for jaguar how come they have not been started for Lincoln? No, the deal was that Tata would fund the next product cycle as developed by JLR and proposed by Ford as part of sale conditions All praise has to go to Tata fro funding J/LR upwards of $11 Billion to get the post Ford product cycles here. What Tata is learning is that J/LR needs all profits recycled into future developments and that not doing so causes great harm to the brand. So that perceived income stream from J/LR is a fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 If they would have been started for jaguar how come they have not been started for Lincoln? Because Lincoln is not Jaguar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Selling J/LR allowed Ford to pay for the 2015 F150 project as well as avoiding $8 Billion or more in long tern investments. That to me is more than reasonable. If it came to a choice between expanding Lincoln's portfolio and increasing Ford's truck and SUV portfolio, then I'd choose the latter, I think htere's great opportunity for Ford to do more with taking both the Explorer and Expedition further as well as reintroducing a SD diesel Excursion the latter vehicles could become a global Uber chariot that other manufacturers would struggle to emulate. Edited May 16, 2015 by jpd80 1 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.