Jump to content

Ford Sells Canvas Car Subscription Services to Fair


Recommended Posts

  • akirby changed the title to Ford Sells Canvas Car Subscription Services to Fair
23 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Wasn't Lincoln doing this with CPO vehicles, and not new ones?  Would someone really want to subscribe to a used model?

 

I thought they were current model year vehicles, but you can't give customers a brand new vehicle each time - they may only keep it a month or less.   I believe they just had a fleet of current model year vehicles that you could choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

 

I thought they were current model year vehicles, but you can't give customers a brand new vehicle each time - they may only keep it a month or less.   I believe they just had a fleet of current model year vehicles that you could choose from.

 

Lincoln's Cavnas site is still working, and points out "Choose from our selection of luxurious pre-owned Lincolns, all less than 3 years old."

 

image.thumb.png.a1f09647f7dd3aa8f35a72c35470bc89.png

 

I guess my confusion with it is - are they just taking CPO models people have traded in, or are they "pre-owned" because they've been part of this program since day 1 of their service life, and therefore have only been used in this service (not by someone that's OWNED the car and then it's thrown into this off a dealer lot).

Edited by rmc523
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Lincoln's Cavnas site is still working, and points out "Choose from our selection of luxurious pre-owned Lincolns, all less than 3 years old."

 

image.thumb.png.a1f09647f7dd3aa8f35a72c35470bc89.png

 

I guess my confusion with it is - are they just taking CPO models people have traded in, or are they "pre-owned" because they've been part of this program since day 1 of their service life, and therefore have only been used in this service (not by someone that's OWNED the car and then it's thrown into this off a dealer lot).

 

In that case my guess would be lease returns - regular CPO models.   That would be the cheapest option for Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dequindre said:

This whole "ride-sharing/mobility" thing was a flop for both GM and Ford. Hopefully they don't keep making these "trendy" acquisitions with no return. 

 

Mobility services and subscription based vehicle acquisition programs are pillars of the automotive industry's future. Both companies have gained valuable data from initiatives like Canvas, Cadillac BOOK, etc.

 

As the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. It's a good thing that Ford Credit got involved with Canvas. As long as Ford applies the lessons learned from that experience to make future vehicle subscription offerings for Ford and Lincoln customers better, it's not a flop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Mobility services and subscription based vehicle acquisition programs are pillars of the automotive industry's future. Both companies have gained valuable data from initiatives like Canvas, Cadillac BOOK, etc.

 

As the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. It's a good thing that Ford Credit got involved with Canvas. As long as Ford applies the lessons learned from that experience to make future vehicle subscription offerings for Ford and Lincoln customers better, it's not a flop.

 

This is a little off-topic (to subscription services, but not to "mobility" and autonomous driving). A year ago today I received an interesting follow-up email (the first one asked for reader views on fully-autonomous automobiles) from a representative of "Backfires", the service that manages reader comments for Car & Driver magazine. I'm sharing here the follow-up email:

-------------------

All,

Thanks so much for letting me into your inboxes last time, and thanks for the many thoughtful responses. Had another thought (rare, I know) that I'd like to share.

I think the reason we're starting to read about the strong headwinds pushing back the start date of Level 5 autonomy is that the Waymos of the world are finally considering the psychology of the driverless car. We're hearing about solving for "infinite edge cases" and the impossibility of anticipating every road situation. Why do they need to solve for every case? Weren't we told that halving highway fatalities would be enough for mass acceptance of the AV? Well, as noble and important as that goal may be, making an AV feel safe is more complicated than that. And putting them in traffic is more complicated still. Here's the logic tree in my head:

If you are taking the controls out of a driver's hands, then you are asking that driver to exchange a voluntary risk ("I'm driving, we'll be safe"), for an involuntary risk, akin to getting on an airplane.

If you're exchanging voluntary risk for involuntary risk, the threshold of acceptable fatalities is much, much lower. It turns out that it does matter who's doing the crashing: We give ourselves tons of leeway for mishaps, but we don't do the same for machines. Machine trust is much harder to come by. The acceptable level for Level 5 fatalities is therefore similar to commercial aviation's. The fatalities have to trend to zero, not merely half of what we have now.

If the fatality rate has to near zero, then all cars in a given system have to have multiple safety redundancies, which really means that all cars in that system have to be talking not just to each other, but to the stoplights, the pedestrians, the dogs, even the soccer balls that roll into the street.

If that kind of matrix is necessary for the kind of safety that will assure Level 5 acceptance, then human-driven car and driverless cars can't coexist on the same roads.

To me, this argues for two parallel paths: Increasingly better ADAS (driver assist) tech, and full Level 5 autonomy. The SAE levels for autonomy appear to be linear, but they aren't.

Thanks for reading.

Eddie Alterman

-------------------

EDIT: and let me add that another difference is liability. With a person driving the car liability typically goes to the driver. With the car driving the car I think we'll find that liability will typically go to the car(maker).

Edited by Gurgeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

 

As the saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. 

 

Including shots fired on the wrong net.

 

Great quote but not what Wayne Gretzky was talking about.

 

Example, Ford has a small diesel suitable for a half ton. There is market demand. Ram is doing it and GM will be offering one shortly. Do you take THAT shot?

Edited by J-150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dequindre said:

This whole "ride-sharing/mobility" thing was a flop for both GM and Ford. Hopefully they don't keep making these "trendy" acquisitions with no return. 

 

How is Volvo’s subscription working? I think they treat there’s just like a lease but bundle insurance and maintenance in. I like that model better because I get a new car and not a used one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

 

How is Volvo’s subscription working? I think they treat there’s just like a lease but bundle insurance and maintenance in. I like that model better because I get a new car and not a used one.

 

It's a 2 year all inclusive lease with the option to upgrade to a new Volvo after 12 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J-150 said:

 

Including shots fired on the wrong net.

 

Great quote but not what Wayne Gretzky was talking about.

 

Example, Ford has a small diesel suitable for a half ton. There is market demand. Ram is doing it and GM will be offering one shortly. Do you take THAT shot?

 

Good points J-150 sir. For clarification about that Wayne Gretzky saying, the shots taken should be according to the rules of the game, with the goal of winning. Oh yes, the game should be active, no sense in taking shots when the game is over. ?

 

Ford's participation in the vehicle subscription & mobility services "game" is important because it keeps getting more and more active and important. Ford can't win if it doesn't play.

 

Regarding diesel half ton, isn't Ford already in that market with the 3.0L V6 diesel for F-150? I think Ford did the right thing to take that shot. But that game will come to an end soon, and BEV pickup trucks will be the game where the truck makers will have to take their shots. Ford has made it clear that it's playing to win there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...