02MustangGT Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 akirby, I didn't ask for sales numbers but thanks for proving my point. You say it's not about the sales crown but rather who owns the market from a profit perspective. I suppose you have inside information regarding Ford's profit margin on SUV's over the past 20 years. Not saying you are incorrect, just looking for numbers to back up your claim... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Aw what the hell. Expedition 1997 214,524[84] 1998 225,703 1999[85] 233,125 2000 213,483 2001[86] 178,045 2002[87] 163,454 2003 181,547 2004[88] 159,846 2005 114,137 2006[89] 87,203 2007 90,287 2008[90] 55,123 2009[91] 31,655 2010[92] 37,336 2011[93] 40,499 2012 38,062 2013 38,350[94] 2014 44,632[95] 2015 41,443[96] Tahoe/Yukon 1998[41] 133,235 49,355 182,590 1999 122,213 53,280 175,493 2000[42] 149,834 56,297 206,131 2001 202,319 77,254 279,573 2002[43] 209,767 76,488 286,255 2003 199,065 86,238 285,303 2004[44] 186,161 86,571 272,732 2005 152,307 73,458 225,765 2006[45] 161,491 71,476 232,967 2007 146,259 63,428 209,687 2008[46] 91,578 39,064 130,642 2009[47] 73,254 29,411 102,665 2010[48] 75,675 28,781 104,456 2011[49] 80,527 34,250 114,777 2012 68,904 27,818 96,722 2013[50] 83,502 28,302 111,804 2014 97,726 41,569 139,295 2015[51] 88,342 42,732 131,074 And that's only Tahoe/Yukon - it doesn't include Suburban/Yukon XL which is another 82k the last 3 years and as high as 225K in 2001. That made my brain hurt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 akirby, I didn't ask for sales numbers but thanks for proving my point. You say it's not about the sales crown but rather who owns the market from a profit perspective. I suppose you have inside information regarding Ford's profit margin on SUV's over the past 20 years. Not saying you are incorrect, just looking for numbers to back up your claim... Full size SUVs are cash cows just like full sized trucks. There is no reason to believe GM is making less profit on them than Ford. Therefore if GM is selling twice as many it stands to reason they're making twice as much profit. I think we got off base somewhere. Someone said that Ford ceded the market to GM and all I did was point out that GM has always had a bigger market share than Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 akirby, I didn't ask for sales numbers but thanks for proving my point. You say it's not about the sales crown but rather who owns the market from a profit perspective. I suppose you have inside information regarding Ford's profit margin on SUV's over the past 20 years. Not saying you are incorrect, just looking for numbers to back up your claim... You don't need "inside information" to determine that if Ford is profitable with its SUVs, that GM would be just as profitable, and much more profitable given the overall much higher sales levels they have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 Full size SUVs are cash cows just like full sized trucks. There is no reason to believe GM is making less profit on them than Ford. Therefore if GM is selling twice as many it stands to reason they're making twice as much profit. I think we got off base somewhere. Someone said that Ford ceded the market to GM and all I did was point out that GM has always had a bigger market share than Ford. Besides, even if GM were making less profit per unit (heck with the Expy/Navi's bodies dating back to 2003, it may not be inaccurate to assume that per unit, Ford makes more), the sheer volume they have and have had over Ford means they'll make far more overall than Ford does. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 On Topic, Figures tabled using True Car data - LINKAverage Transaction Price (ATP) - Sept 2016 (Sept 2015)FCA (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat)......$33,174 ($32,606)Ford (Ford, Lincoln)........................................$35,053 ($35,059)GM (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC)..........$36,284 ($35,296)Incentive per Unit Spending - Sept 2016 (Sept 2015)FCA (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat)........$4,302 ($3,504)Ford (Ford, Lincoln)..........................................$4,092 ($3,671)GM (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC)............$4,101($4,016)Incentive Spending as a Percentage of ATP - Sept 2016 (Sept 2015)FCA (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat)..........13.0% (10.7%)Ford (Ford, Lincoln).............................................11. 7% (10.5%)GM (Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC)...............11.3% (11.4%) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 29, 2016 Share Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) Full size SUVs are cash cows just like full sized trucks. There is no reason to believe GM is making less profit on them than Ford. Therefore if GM is selling twice as many it stands to reason they're making twice as much profit. I think we got off base somewhere. Someone said that Ford ceded the market to GM and all I did was point out that GM has always had a bigger market share than Ford. Correct. GM has a larger production base and higher sales output, it stands to reason that a larger company selling more large SUVs through multiple chanels will make more profit in the good times. What is not clear is how that sales model will perform when the market levels off, goes into decline or retail buyers go off the bite for a number of reasons, we've only ever seen new GM in an up market. So much production capacity is a great multiplier in good times but can be one heck of a mill stone in bad times, that's why Ford eliminated it excess production capacity and runs the minimum number of plants so hard. You and I both know that, I'm hoping that by spelling it out, others may understand the difference in strategies. Edited October 29, 2016 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Older doesn't mean it's cheaper, especially since the Expedition is riding on its own orphaned platform unrelated to other products. That's not the case for GM which also rolled development in with the trucks. Expedition also has a much smaller customer base so volume and scale further reduce profits and Ford has only a fraction of the sales potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) Older doesn't mean it's cheaper, especially since the Expedition is riding on its own orphaned platform unrelated to other products. That's not the case for GM which also rolled development in with the trucks. You're taking a bit of license with the Expedition platform, it had its roots with the pre-2010 F150 platform but was given IRS to improve ride quality. That platform while now a dead end is also heavily amortized so the development costs, even with the Ecoboost update done a while back, turn a non- performer back into a reasonable get through until the new Expedition arrives. Last month saw 6,033 sales, a 72% increase and 65,749 year-to-date, a 49.2% improvement YTD Edited October 31, 2016 by jpd80 2 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.