Jump to content

Bronco and Bronco Sport World Premier July 13th!!


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir bzcat, 1.5L 3-cylinder in 2020 Escape performs adequately. Main issue with that engine is noise and vibration. Bronco Sport customers may not find that as bothersome as Escape customers though. Bronco has a more rough and tumble image.

But would you pay more money for a less refined engine?

A sport-tuned suspension is one thing, a rough and noisey engine is another.

Edited by probowler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Do you have actual evidence that Escape customers (as opposed to reviewers or online enthusiasts) find it bothersome?   I could be wrong but I believe most buyers of less expensive models care more about price/payments and looks than the smoothness of the engine.   Look how awful Corolla has been over the years yet it was at the top or close to the top in sales.

 

No sir, I don't personally know anyone who purchased a 2020 Escape. So I don't have any evidence of that kind to share. 

 

In any case, someone who cares more about price/payments and looks probably wouldn't consider new Escape. The model is rather pricey for what you get, and the styling inside and out is bland even for a crossover type vehicle. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

In any case, someone who cares more about price/payments and looks probably wouldn't consider new Escape. The model is rather pricey for what you get, and the styling inside and out is bland even for a crossover type vehicle. 


Yet they still sold 48k last quarter.  Probably closer to 55k if not for the virus.  Your predictions about Escape and Explorer don’t seem to match sales figures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

No sir, I don't personally know anyone who purchased a 2020 Escape. So I don't have any evidence of that kind to share. 

 

In any case, someone who cares more about price/payments and looks probably wouldn't consider new Escape. The model is rather pricey for what you get, and the styling inside and out is bland even for a crossover type vehicle. 

'817,

"Bland Styling"?  IMO If the new Escape is "bland", I look at it as tasteful.  Better yet something that was not designed by the same guys that designed the "transformer" toys of the seventies-yes I'm dating myself-my kids had those?.   I look at some of the new vehicles that have more sharp angles, creases,  edges etc.  Not "bland" for sure- ugly and in your face?  Yes.  

 

But again, different strokes for different folks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2020 at 4:32 PM, HotRunrGuy said:

 Our one complaint is some faint boominess inside the cabin when the cylinder-deactivation system occasionally kicks in and idles one of the cylinders.

 

HRG

 

So, the one complaint (that could more accurately be described as a "concern") is a "faint boominess when the cylinder-deactivation system occasionally kicks in" and you want to completely dismiss the engine altogether due to it? The target consumer isn't even going to notice and the ones that will, will likely buy the higher end model anyhoo so your "point" is moot.

Edited by twintornados
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

'817,

"Bland Styling"?  IMO If the new Escape is "bland", I look at it as tasteful.  Better yet something that was not designed by the same guys that designed the "transformer" toys of the seventies-yes I'm dating myself-my kids had those?.   I look at some of the new vehicles that have more sharp angles, creases,  edges etc.  Not "bland" for sure- ugly and in your face?  Yes.  

 

But again, different strokes for different folks.


It’s bland because it lacks character, not because it lacks angles or creases. There’s nothing special about it. It doesn’t stand out in any way. It’s just a cuv that blends in very well. Some people like that. Id say a lot of people don’t as shown by the sales figures where the rav4 outsold the escape more than 2 to 1. Honestly, I feel like the design language of the escape looks a bit old. It’s using styling cues from vehicles that came out in 2012 (on the front at least). If you were to change the front end of the escape to a more traditional suv look, I think it would make a world of difference.  Look at the Corsair for example. It looks 100x better then the escape (it also doesn’t have creases or angles). 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

So, the one complaint (that could more accurately be described as a "concern") is a "faint boominess when the cylinder-deactivation system occasionally kicks in" and you want to completely dismiss the engine altogether due to it? The target consumer isn't even going to notice and the ones that will, will likely buy the higher end model anyhoo so your "point" is moot.


it was very noticeable to me, and that was coming from a 2017 escape. Mine is a titanium 2.0 though and the 2020 I drove was a SE 1.5L. maybe my titanium had more sound dampening material? Unfortunately I haven’t had the opportunity to drive the  base engine in the older escape. Maybe the difference from the 1.5L 4 cyl to the 3 cyl isn’t as bad. I would say that if you are coming from a compact car, it probably wouldn’t be a big deal to you as those cars are generally pretty loud inside the cabin already. However compact cuvs cost more than compact cars so you kind of expect it to be a bit better too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

If you were to change the front end of the escape to a more traditional suv look, I think it would make a world of difference.  Look at the Corsair for example. It looks 100x better then the escape (it also doesn’t have creases or angles). 


Maybe they could put a more aggressive body on it, give it bigger tires and a more off-road capable suspension and some cool rugged features and call it something crazy like Bronco Sport?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, akirby said:


Yet they still sold 48k last quarter.  Probably closer to 55k if not for the virus.  Your predictions about Escape and Explorer don’t seem to match sales figures.

 

I didn't make any predictions for Escape and Explorer sales numbers. 48k Escape sales in the U.S. last quarter seems very reasonable. Escape has been a pretty popular vehicle in the U.S. since it came out 20 years ago, and there are a lot of Ford loyalists who should find the 2020 model adequate. Same deal with Explorer.

 

But as T-Dubz mentioned, Escape sales are well below the standard bearers in the compact crossover class, RAV4 and CR-V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also - if you assume a 12% decrease due to the virus, Escape sales would have been 55k vs 60k in 1Q.  Even with the supposed overpricing that everyone complained about.  I don’t see how you can call it a sales failure at this point if it’s bringing in more revenue than the old model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

But as T-Dubz mentioned, Escape sales are well below the standard bearers in the compact crossover class, RAV4 and CR-V.


But so was the previous gen which had more aggressive styling so you can’t blame it just on that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-dubz said:


It’s bland because it lacks character, not because it lacks angles or creases. There’s nothing special about it. It doesn’t stand out in any way. It’s just a cuv that blends in very well. Some people like that. Id say a lot of people don’t as shown by the sales figures where the rav4 outsold the escape more than 2 to 1. Honestly, I feel like the design language of the escape looks a bit old. It’s using styling cues from vehicles that came out in 2012 (on the front at least). If you were to change the front end of the escape to a more traditional suv look, I think it would make a world of difference.  Look at the Corsair for example. It looks 100x better then the escape (it also doesn’t have creases or angles). 

UH...this was my point.... I look at some of the new vehicles that have more sharp angles, creases,  edges etc.  Not "bland" for sure- ugly and in your face?  Yes.  

Agree, Corsair is a "looker".  I'm just saying I like the look of the new Escape.. 

 

As for Rav 4??  Its a 'yota!  let's face it .  You don't think they have a loyal following that is going to buy another one regardless of looks?

 

This is a Ford site.  Most of us are legitimate Ford people- a few GM fifth columnists too but they further good discussion.  In any case, growing up my circle of friends were typically in the Ford, GM or Mopar camp.  Today how many millenials grew up in a household that had one of those brands in it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford made the strategic decision to not compete with GM, Nissan, Toyota and Honda for market share in this segment many years ago when they decided not to invest in a 2nd production line for Escape. So they are reaping the fruit they sowed. 

 

I don't believe their strategy was to deliberately increase transaction price on the Escape. That's more of a tactical adjustment to the reality that they don't have enough supply to really compete with the big boys. Everyone decided to expand their production capacity for more compact CUV around 2016-17 or so because they saw where the market was headed. Ford didn't. That's pretty much the end of the story on why Escape went from top selling model in the segment to 4th or 5th place. 

 

Basically, Ford under Hackett made some good decisions but Mark Fields didn't pivot when the market changed. Instead of maintaining 2 production lines to build Fusion, they should have made more Escape (yes, I know supposedly Flat Rock couldn't build utilities due to paint shop but they could have setup Escape at Hermosillo instead... again just an example).

 

But credit where credit is due... with Bronco Sport, they are essentially doing what they should have done, which is to expand compact CUV capacity by adding a 2nd production line. Of course, they are also repeating this mistake on B and short C utilities area where they lag badly and have decided not to compete just when those segments are adding significant volume.

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bzcat said:

Ford made the strategic decision to not compete with GM, Nissan, Toyota and Honda for market share in this segment many years ago when they decided not to invest in a 2nd production line for Escape. So they are reaping the fruit they sowed. 

 

I don't believe their strategy was to deliberately increase transaction price on the Escape. That's more of a tactical adjustment to the reality that they don't have enough supply to really compete with the big boys. Everyone decided to expand their production capacity for more compact CUV around 2016-17 or so because they saw where the market was headed. Ford didn't. That's pretty much the end of the story on why Escape went from top selling model in the segment to 4th or 5th place. 

 

Basically, Ford under Hackett made some good decisions but Mark Fields didn't pivot when the market changed. Instead of maintaining 2 production lines to build Fusion, they should have made more Escape (yes, I know supposedly Flat Rock couldn't build utilities due to paint shop but they could have setup Escape at Hermosillo instead... again just an example).

 

But credit where credit is due... with Bronco Sport, they are essentially doing what they should have done, which is to expand compact CUV capacity by adding a 2nd production line.

 

Yes, Ford made a major mistake by not investing in additional production capacity for Escape. They totally ignored the market changes and their decision instead was to maximize profits per unit with increased prices and lower incentives on the volume they could produce. The problem is that they keep losing market share and customers to the competition which will only erode any future potential for growth, if any. The incompetence in Dearborn is beyond anything I've seen in 34 years, with few decisions based on any real knowledge of retail sales or operations at the dealership level. They do everything possible not to pay their dealers what's due to them and require dealers to commit to new, expensive programs created out of Dearborn because some executive decided they had a better idea. And their own dealers can't trust them. 

 

Now you have a furniture salesman attempting to turn things around after the disaster of Mark Fields gutting product development in an attempt to bolster the stock price. Mark Fields inherited a company that under CEO Alan Mulally was in the best shape it had been in decades. Now this furniture salesman is attempting to deal with an industry going through the transition to hybrid and electric vehicles. At the dealership level, reviews of Hackett's performance is mixed at best. 

 

Regarding Fusion, it was already in production at Flat Rock and was displaced by the Lincoln Continental. 

 

Regarding Bronco and Bronco Sport, Ford is already setting up dealership requirements, training requirements, etc. but dealers know nothing officially about either vehicle both of which will now probably go into production later than planned. Yes, both Bronco models will improve Ford's position in the market segment but historically a new model has to be in production and available for at least a year before results can be judged. 

 

Ford has a better idea! We'll see!   

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's good for dealers isn't always good for the mfr and vice versa.  A lot of recent product decisions were the result of decisions made years or decades ago - especially around factory capability and capacity.

 

If Escape went from 300K (one full factory) to 400K, then dealers get 100K more sales at close to the same profit per unit.   But if Ford had to open a second plant just to get that extra 100K and they had to put $3K cash on the hood then that overhead probably wiped out any additional profit from the extra 100K units.   So from Ford's standpoint why do twice the work and carry twice the overhead to make the same amount of profit?

 

Having Hermosillo building C2 utilities will allow Escape and/or Corsair to expand if needed without building a new factory.   They could also add another C2 vehicle if capacity allows.   Maybe the same with Cuatitlan beyone Mach-E.    Same with Oakville when Edge/Nautilus move to C2.   I think FRAP not being to build utilities could be a big issue going forward.   Maybe Oakville could do C2 and CD6 at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

The incompetence in Dearborn is beyond anything I've seen in 34 years, with few decisions based on any real knowledge of retail sales or operations at the dealership level. They do everything possible not to pay their dealers what's due to them and require dealers to commit to new, expensive programs created out of Dearborn because some executive decided they had a better idea. And their own dealers can't trust them. 

 

Thank you for sharing a dealership perspective ice-capades sir. Dealer relations is one area where Ford has a lot of room for improvement. 

In last summer's NADA Dealer Attitude Survey, these were the brands that scored highest.

1. Lexus
2. Toyota
3. Honda
4. Subaru
5. Porsche
6. Mercedes-Benz
7. Kia
8. Volvo
9. Hyundai
10. BMW

 

In this survey, franchised dealers rate their relationships with their automaker partners in areas like ability to make money, listening to dealers, and honoring promises made. https://www.autonews.com/dealers/dealers-still-lexus-toyota-most-survey-finds

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Ford is rated poorly.  From Fields slowing down or stopping new products and significant MCEs to reducing factory output to improve ATPs and profit margins to reductions in incentives and leases to announcing that cars were dead and finally killing them - not a great time to be a Ford dealer.

 

OTOH the new Lincolns look great and are selling well.  Bronco, Bronco Sport, Mach-E plus new BEVs and PHEVs should help a lot.  New Ranger with a full array of models and options.  Unibody trucklet and a new affordable vehicle.  We’ll see how it plays out.  Hopefully current product plans don’t get derailed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I think FRAP not being to build utilities could be a big issue going forward.


Ever since Mazda backed out and Ford bought it from them outright, that plant has kind of been a red-headed stepchild to me. I don't think they really know what they have in that plant or what to do with it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, akirby said:


Maybe they could put a more aggressive body on it, give it bigger tires and a more off-road capable suspension and some cool rugged features and call it something crazy like Bronco Sport?


I think ford just toned down the escape a little too much. People buys cuvs because they like the look of SUVs but want the ride of a car. They don’t buy cuvs because they like the looks of a car.

 

The escape should have been the sport and the sport should have been a raptor-ish version of the sport.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:

What's good for dealers isn't always good for the mfr and vice versa.  A lot of recent product decisions were the result of decisions made years or decades ago - especially around factory capability and capacity.

 

If Escape went from 300K (one full factory) to 400K, then dealers get 100K more sales at close to the same profit per unit.   But if Ford had to open a second plant just to get that extra 100K and they had to put $3K cash on the hood then that overhead probably wiped out any additional profit from the extra 100K units.   So from Ford's standpoint why do twice the work and carry twice the overhead to make the same amount of profit?

 

Having Hermosillo building C2 utilities will allow Escape and/or Corsair to expand if needed without building a new factory.   They could also add another C2 vehicle if capacity allows.   Maybe the same with Cuatitlan beyone Mach-E.    Same with Oakville when Edge/Nautilus move to C2.   I think FRAP not being to build utilities could be a big issue going forward.   Maybe Oakville could do C2 and CD6 at the same time.

 

That's a straw man argument. Ford wouldn't be opening a new factory to just build 100k Escape. They'd be adding 100k Escape to a plant that is making 200k other vehicles. And we know Ford had plenty of spare capacity because it turned out Cuatitian, Flat Rock, Hermosillo, Michigan, and Oakville were all capable of producing more vehicles without a lot of new overhead. It's one of the reason why the 3rd Mexican plant was cancelled. 

 

And if you look at what actually happened, the compact CUV segment grew a lot over the last 5 years or so. This is one of those times where you need to have the capacity... more Escape would have sold without huge amount of incentives. People were trading in cars for CUVs and Ford didn't have enough CUVs to sell. The next best thing to do was to raise prices... but in order to do that, you need to have fresh product, which Ford... didn't have. So basically, Ford had the worst of both worlds... not enough volume to compete in a growing market and can't sustain higher prices given the volume constrain.

 

I do agree with you that the new plan for Hermosillo makes sense - building Bronco Sport and Transit Connect there with potential for Escape overflow is smart planning. Something unfortunately Ford didn't do very well during the last cycle. But Cuatitlan and Oakville still have a lot of capacity there not being used. 

Edited by bzcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thank you for sharing a dealership perspective ice-capades sir. Dealer relations is one area where Ford has a lot of room for improvement. 

In last summer's NADA Dealer Attitude Survey, these were the brands that scored highest.

1. Lexus
2. Toyota
3. Honda
4. Subaru
5. Porsche
6. Mercedes-Benz
7. Kia
8. Volvo
9. Hyundai
10. BMW

 

In this survey, franchised dealers rate their relationships with their automaker partners in areas like ability to make money, listening to dealers, and honoring promises made. https://www.autonews.com/dealers/dealers-still-lexus-toyota-most-survey-finds

I think ice nailed it well......not a usa brand in that list.....koreans have displaced the usa brands...it seems ford has a trust issue amongst buyers and dealerships

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T-dubz said:


I think ford just toned down the escape a little too much. People buys cuvs because they like the look of SUVs but want the ride of a car. They don’t buy cuvs because they like the looks of a car.

 

The escape should have been the sport and the sport should have been a raptor-ish version of the sport.


But you still have Bronco Sport and whatever special versions either way.  What you’re proposing is they throw away Escapes 15k units per month (with good profit margins) just because you don’t like the styling.  I don’t understand the logic.    I mean I can’t stand Camry styling but they sell almost 400k/Yr.  Everybody’s tastes are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, T-dubz said:


I think ford just toned down the escape a little too much. People buys cuvs because they like the look of SUVs but want the ride of a car. They don’t buy cuvs because they like the looks of a car.

 

The escape should have been the sport and the sport should have been a raptor-ish version of the sport.


Style is very market dependent. Escape/Kuga was designed more the China/Euro market where soft lines and sporty looks are what the market demands; where N.A. expects a more brash design. The Kuga outsold the RAV4 by 60K units in Europe. The biggest disappointment in the Bronco Sport is that the hybrid isn't a powertrain option, that is the best powertrian in the Escape. 

The new Escape SE Hybrid is a good all around vehicle other than the interior.  They need better materials in the interior, its not that the layout is bad its just the materials used suck, another $500 would go a very long way. Also with the rebate you can get a 2020 hybrid AWD in the upper 20's now.  That's is where it should have been from the start but that should kick sales up a bit.  

  • Like 3
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...