Stray Kat Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Two words "ALUMINUM MUSTANG!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailhiker Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Mercury sold 140K Sables in 96', Taurus 403K. 25% chose Sable over Taurus. That is quite a bit more than "some"! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Mercury sold 140K Sables in 96', Taurus 403K. 25% chose Sable over Taurus. That is quite a bit more than "some"! And when they killed Mercury those buyers bought Fords instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailhiker Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 No, they went elsewhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 No, they went elsewhere. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailhiker Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Citation need on your post! Find where Ford sold 540K mid sized sedans after Mercury! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 2010 Sales Fusion 219K Milan 29K Combined 248K 2011 Sales Fusion 248K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Citation need on your post! Find where Ford sold 540K mid sized sedans after Mercury! They didn't kill Mercury until 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailhiker Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 By then, Mercury was already mishadled so badly that they announced they were closing the brand. Go back a 3 more years 2007, Milan still accounted for 20% of Fusion/Milan sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailhiker Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Anyway, the point of my post was that Ford Motor Company offered more choices for the customer in all vehicles. This is something they still do for the F-Series, and as sales reflect, it is something that is valued by the customer. If Ford differentiated othe models by trim levels (not just paint on the grill), then the customer would not feel like they are given a 'take it or leave it' attitude. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/ford-to-invest-million-hire-more-at-chicago-plant/article_20ac0e97-4667-5b14-a416-464ea00b66a4.html Illinois was facing some major issues with the budget and increase in taxes as well as expiration of tax credits and such for investment.There is a bill to revive them that has passed the IL House and Senate but has not been signed into law by the Governor. Ford will not make an announcement in investment without that bill approved, and if the roomers are true the Explorer is all new next year Ford might be at the press conference with him signing it touting the billion dollar investment in the state. The state of Illinois is a joke. I have never seen such incompetent people in control. If I didn't have to live here, I wouldn't. Don't be surprised if Illinois is the first state to take bankruptcy. I'm not sure why Ford want to do business in this state. Edited September 6, 2017 by tbone 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailhiker Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Good paying jobs are so critical to states. They increase demand for service jobs, and support small buisnesses. Keeping people employed needs to be their priority, or they will have to continue to raise taxes to support the unemployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Anyway, the point of my post was that Ford Motor Company offered more choices for the customer in all vehicles. This is something they still do for the F-Series, and as sales reflect, it is something that is valued by the customer. If Ford differentiated othe models by trim levels (not just paint on the grill), then the customer would not feel like they are given a 'take it or leave it' attitude. I understand your point. People will always choose other flavors if they're available. But that doesn't mean that they'll go elsewhere if they don't have all those choices. The question is how much does it cost to have separate brands/models versus how much additional profit it generates. E.g. let's say Ford sold 250K and Mercury sold 50K. Kill Mercury and 30K of those Mercury buyers will buy a new Ford and 20K go elsewhere. Is the cost to keep Mercury worth the profit generated by 20K additional sales? Probably not which is exactly why Mercury was killed. GM is the poster child for multiple brands and cloned vehicles. Ford comes very close to (and in some years outperforms) GM with half the brands and far fewer nameplates, factories and employees. I agree with having more styling options within a model which is the F150 example. They do this to some degree with some Sport models now and I would expect more of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 I would think if Ford slots things right, they can price a low end Lincoln model to leave off where the high end Ford ended. Between the 2 brands, you can get some differentiation without jumping ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKX1960 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) I think we all agree that the F150 product is Ford's crown jewel. Because Ford has (rightly so) recognized the F150's importance, we can all see the confidence built into the product because Ford will spare no effort to make the F150 the best product in its category. Those efforts affect all areas of the product in a positive way. I don't think anyone here disputes that. What if Ford applied the same approach, the same... heart - to other products in the product line? What would Ford do differently for each product? For example, Explorer. Would the next gen lose 3-400 pounds? Would it get PIH or hybrid capability? What kind of "surprise and delight" features might Ford add? A couple of things that would really improve the Explorer would be more room for the drivers left foot and 2nd row seats that work like the new Expedition. Edited September 6, 2017 by akirby moved response out of quote for clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 A couple of things that would really improve the Explorer would be more room for the drivers left foot and 2nd row seats that work like the new Expedition. CD6 should fix all that and more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 (edited) Mercury sold 140K Sables in 96', Taurus 403K. 25% chose Sable over Taurus. That is quite a bit more than "some"! That is an extremely illogical statement. For them to chose the Sable "over" the Taurus, they would have had to consider the Taurus in the first place. Do you really think each and every person who bought a Sable looked a a Taurus first and said "Nah, I'd rather get the Sable..." To buy something "over" another item insinuates that you made a distinct choice between the two items. If I had no knowledge or consideration of one item in the first place, I didn't make a choice. Edited September 6, 2017 by Anthony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 The state of Illinois is a joke. I have never seen such incompetent people in control. If I didn't have to live here, I wouldn't. Don't be surprised if Illinois is the first state to take bankruptcy. I'm not sure why Ford want to do business in this state. They have a plant there and ground up for a full new plant is very expensive and dealing with the UAW is difficult to close then open a new plant. I think if Ford has a perfect world Chicago and Oakville would end up as a single huge plant in Indiana or Ohio. However that is what states and UAW know make it just difficult enough they won't leave but no so difficult they just walk. That being said with some of the polices that are being discussed north of the border (or south for a few) the automotive manufacturing still there will be a thing of the past in short order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddysystem Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 If they ever release the Bronco (or Ranger for that matter) I hope they treat it like Jeep treats the Wrangler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 If they ever release the Bronco (or Ranger for that matter) I hope they treat it like Jeep treats the Wrangler. Agreed, like they treat the F150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan1 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 What if Edge and Escape buyers treated their vehicles like the F-150 buyers treat F-150? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 The state of Illinois is a joke. I have never seen such incompetent people in control. If I didn't have to live here, I wouldn't. Don't be surprised if Illinois is the first state to take bankruptcy. I'm not sure why Ford want to do business in this state. The Chicago area must have something going for it to attract new and expanded business operations such as Ford's assembly plant. Last year the area even beat the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and greater Houston for the total number of such projects. Maybe Texas can send its legislators up to Illinois to get things shaped up though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 The Chicago area must have something going for it to attract new and expanded business operations such as Ford's assembly plant. Last year the area even beat the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and greater Houston for the total number of such projects. Maybe Texas can send its legislators up to Illinois to get things shaped up though. This chart is completely useless -- there is no context as to what the numbers represent, how many projects are new jobs vs saved jobs vs planned job projects. What constitutes a project, are the projects self reported? etc. It is an internet chart -- look random numbers in an easy to read format and that is about its worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 (edited) The Chicago area must have something going for it to attract new and expanded business operations such as Ford's assembly plant. Last year the area even beat the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and greater Houston for the total number of such projects. Maybe Texas can send its legislators up to Illinois to get things shaped up though. To counter that read this article: job losses... https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-last-in-jobs-growth-first-in-manufacturing-losses-in-2016/ Which leads to this: population loss... https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story,amp.html Which then leads to this: tax hikes... https://news.illinoisstate.edu/2017/07/state-illinois-income-tax-rate-increased-4-9-percent/ No cuts to the budget, no reforms, no seeking efficiencies. Just raise taxes. You need to provide a lot more details related the chart you provided. Don't mistake a project like Cat moving their headquarters to Chicago, just because their executives like Chicago better than Peoria. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are few logical financial reasons to do business in Illinois, unless they get a sweetheart deal from the tax payer. Edited September 7, 2017 by tbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted September 7, 2017 Share Posted September 7, 2017 This chart is completely useless -- there is no context as to what the numbers represent, how many projects are new jobs vs saved jobs vs planned job projects. What constitutes a project, are the projects self reported? etc. It is an internet chart -- look random numbers in an easy to read format and that is about its worth. You need to provide a lot more details related the chart you provided. Don't mistake a project like Cat moving their headquarters to Chicago, just because their executives like Chicago better than Peoria. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul. There are few logical financial reasons to do business in Illinois, unless they get a sweetheart deal from the tax payer. Sorry about that sir. Here in Texas, economic development boards often cite the Conway projects database. I remember when the latest Site Selection Magazine rankings came out, Dallas/Ft. Worth newspapers mentioned the region came in second to Chicago for new and expanded business facilities. I found it surprising Chicago beat us because the Metroplex is known for its strong and growing economy. That's what prompted me to find that Site Selction chart. Anyway, I searched for the criteria used by Conway projects database and found this. http://siteselection.com/conway_analytics_report/Conway_Projects_Guidelines.pdf To be counted, a project must involve new construction and also must meet one or more of the following. 20 or more new jobs created 20,000 or more sq. ft. of additional building space Investment = $1,000,000 or more (construction cost, land, and building). Renovations to buildings qualify based on investment ($1 million or more) or new employees (20 or more). Renovations do NOT qualify based on square footage alone. Facilities that do not qualify and are not counted: restaurants, bank branches, retail locations including shopping malls, museums, non-commercial schools or educational facilities including university research facilities, government facilities, self-storage facilities, airports, sports arenas, business parks and spec buildings, hotels, casinos, resorts, theme parks, highway projects, hospitals, power plants, rapid transit systems, waste and wastewater treatment facilities. Sounds like Ford's proposed expansion of Chicago Assembly Plant meets all the criteria. I think the new Caterpillar HQ facility in Chicago also qualifies. Is Caterpillar moving only the HQ to Chicago, and keeping engineering, design, etc. in Peoria? The old Caterpillar Logistics Services company now called Neovia moved its HQ from the Chicago area to Irving, Texas in 2012. https://www.neovialogistics.com/about-us/. Still, the Chicago area must be doing something right to get so many new and expanded facilities that meet Conway's criteria. Are there lots of sweetheart deals with big tax breaks up there? 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.