Ford files to trademark Excursion name

[SoonerLS]

On 5/2/2020 at 6:13 PM, jpd80 said:

I wonder if a return to a Super Duty based Excursion  is as easy as using the Expedition Max body on the Super Duty chassis.

If that's the case, then maybe the Expedition Max gives way to a new Excursion, something beyond CAFE's GWR.

Give buyers a 6.7 Powerstroke diesel or 7.3 Godzilla, charge plenty for it and not look back

 

If it were that simple, maybe they could build it at Avon Lake, which already handles the cab-chassis Super Duties, or maybe shift some more Super Duty work up there.

[jpd80]

24 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

If it were that simple, maybe they could build it at Avon Lake, which already handles the cab-chassis Super Duties, or maybe shift some more Super Duty work up there.

Or maybe it's easier to just do it at KTP.

[bzcat]

If Ford really thinks they can make money on a new Excursion, they will do it.

 

While Ford may be able to churn a marginal profit on a per vehicle basis, the volume is likely small so it may not actually return a profit after initial engineering and certification costs. There is also opportunity costs... Excursion will reduce capacity on Superduty which is very profitable business. So Excursion will have to generate more profit on aggregate basis thru the product life cycle than the volume of Superduty it displaces. That's hard to justify... the math doesn't work.

 

This is how the decision has to be made:

 

1. Ford think it can sell 10,000 units of Excursion during the program lifetime (I made up the 10,000 unit) @ $5,000 marginal profit each so total marginal profit is $50 million.

 

2. Engineering and certification/compliance costs is let say $5 million each. So fixed cost is $10 million.

 

3. #1 - #2 = $40 million program profit

 

4. Superduty marginal profit is $4,000. Building 10,000 Excursion will eat into 12,000 units of production capacity for Superduty. The opportunity cost of not building the 12,000 Superduty is $48 million.

 

#4 < #3 by $8 million - Excursion is not a positive addition to Ford's bottom line. 

 

This is completely hypothetical but it illustrates why Ford hasn't done it. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by bzcat

[akirby]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

If Ford really thinks they can make money on a new Excursion, they will do it.

 

While Ford may be able to churn a marginal profit on a per vehicle basis, the volume is likely small so it may not actually return a profit after initial engineering and certification costs. There is also opportunity costs... Excursion will reduce capacity on Superduty which is very profitable business. So Excursion will have to generate more profit on aggregate basis thru the product life cycle than the volume of Superduty it displaces. That's hard to justify... the math doesn't work.

 

This is how the decision has to be made:

 

1. Ford think it can sell 10,000 units of Excursion during the program lifetime (I made up the 10,000 unit) @ $5,000 marginal profit each so total marginal profit is $50 million.

 

2. Engineering and certification/compliance costs is let say $5 million each. So fixed cost is $10 million.

 

3. #1 - #2 = $40 million program profit

 

4. Superduty marginal profit is $4,000. Building 10,000 Excursion will eat into 12,000 units of production capacity for Superduty. The opportunity cost of not building the 12,000 Superduty is $48 million.

 

#4 < #3 by $8 million - Excursion is not a positive addition to Ford's bottom line. 

 

This is completely hypothetical but it illustrates why Ford hasn't done it. 

 

This is the type of business case analysis that most don't understand.   And to take it back to vehicle R&D you do the same thing - I have two projects each of which is profitable but only enough resources to execute on one.  Which one will provide the best ROI?

 

Being able to build it on an existing line without adding another shift and without sacrificing so many Super Duties makes a much better business case.   Hard to justify without excess capacity.

 

 

[PREMiERdrum]

It's been studied and sketched, but as of now it's decidedly not happening.

 

They'll do what they need to do to protect the trademark.

[rmc523]

On 5/2/2020 at 7:13 PM, jpd80 said:

I wonder if a return to a Super Duty based Excursion  is as easy as using the Expedition Max body on the Super Duty chassis.

If that's the case, then maybe the Expedition Max gives way to a new Excursion, something beyond CAFE's GWR.

Give buyers a 6.7 Powerstroke diesel or 7.3 Godzilla, charge plenty for it and not look back

 

 

They could give it unique front and rear clips and leave the middle (and interior) the same.

[probowler]

8 hours ago, PREMiERdrum said:

It's been studied and sketched, but as of now it's decidedly not happening.

 

They'll do what they need to do to protect the trademark.

Well it's cool knowing they're at least thinking about it. Maybe in a few years things will turn around and Ford will finally be in a position to increase production capacity and more new vehicles with it.

[bzcat]

I figured the only way Excursion comes back is if Superduty sales go thru the roof and Ford has to move Expedition/Navigator somewhere else to make room for more Superduty. That will open up enough capacity at Kentucky for Ford to consider alternative bodystyles of Superduty (which is what Excursion was/is/could be again).

 

But that's a complicated series of production plant changes... it could only happen if Ford decided to add a 3rd assembly line for F-150 (so Expy/Nav can move there too).  Too much capital investments required to make it happen.

 

 

[jpd80]

On 5/5/2020 at 1:16 AM, bzcat said:

If Ford really thinks they can make money on a new Excursion, they will do it.

 

While Ford may be able to churn a marginal profit on a per vehicle basis, the volume is likely small so it may not actually return a profit after initial engineering and certification costs. There is also opportunity costs... Excursion will reduce capacity on Superduty which is very profitable business. So Excursion will have to generate more profit on aggregate basis thru the product life cycle than the volume of Superduty it displaces. That's hard to justify... the math doesn't work.

 

This is how the decision has to be made:

 

1. Ford think it can sell 10,000 units of Excursion during the program lifetime (I made up the 10,000 unit) @ $5,000 marginal profit each so total marginal profit is $50 million.

 

2. Engineering and certification/compliance costs is let say $5 million each. So fixed cost is $10 million.

 

3. #1 - #2 = $40 million program profit

 

4. Superduty marginal profit is $4,000. Building 10,000 Excursion will eat into 12,000 units of production capacity for Superduty. The opportunity cost of not building the 12,000 Superduty is $48 million.

 

#4 < #3 by $8 million - Excursion is not a positive addition to Ford's bottom line. 

 

This is completely hypothetical but it illustrates why Ford hasn't done it. 

KTP production is no longer maxed out, hasn't been for the first three months, there's a lot more capacity

that can be filled now that combined production can exceed 43K in a good month. I don't think that the

Expedition Max is selling too well and this could be giving Ford reason to consider a name change.

 

Of course, it may just be Ford protecting the Excursion name......

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by jpd80

[probowler]

On 5/2/2020 at 5:49 PM, ZanatWork said:

I'm all for another Excursion, people still look for the 7.3 models regularly.

The resale value on those things is ridiculous. So expensive.

[jpd80]

On 5/3/2020 at 10:16 AM, AGR said:

Chevy hasn't had a Suburban 3/4 ton since 2013. I don't think that there's enough of a market for heavy duty full-size SUVs to have a separate model or even just a variant of the Expedition. I think that Ford is either just protecting the trademark or is going to use it on a EV SUV.

You’re probably right on all counts, launching a larger BEV SUV with an easily recognised name puts it a long way ahead. Maybe get more sales than the original ever could.