Jump to content

Mustang Mach E tearing into Tesla sales volume.


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Ice-Capades,

     Thank you for the response. I hope that the Moderators also take the time for some self-reflection, in this particular thread, the word "haters" was first mentioned by a Mod.  There are those that insist on imposing their opinion on others, sometimes making it sound like they are "in the room" with the rest of the Corporate decision-makers.

 

Like you said, we are all entitled to an opinion, but just because a Moderator may post it, doesn't make it FACT.

 

HRG

 

Thanks. I think my reply above a minute ago applies. 

 

The moderators have a job to do but everyone that contributes and makes posts has a responsibility regarding behavior, being civil, etc. I'm just trying to help put some things in perspective to make a positive contribution.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 02MustangGT said:

I like the Mach-E design in person, but man, you need to open your mind and understand that a differing opinion doesn’t require a label.  Of course this is a Ford focused forum, but the “hater” or “purist” label is growing tiresome.  I get it, you love Ford (as do I), but not everyone has to agree.   


Fair point but it goes both ways with the “fanboi” and “kool aid” comments.

 

I wasn’t really talking about people who just don’t like it - there are people out there who literally hate this vehicle (not here necessarily - mostly on social media) and I just don’t understand that.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, akirby said:


Fair point but it goes both ways with the “fanboi” and “kool aid” comments.

 

I wasn’t really talking about people who just don’t like it - there are people out there who literally hate this vehicle (not here necessarily - mostly on social media) and I just don’t understand that.  

Makes sense.  In this case, expanding your comments to include “mostly on social media” would be helpful in understanding context.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 02MustangGT said:

Hopefully that sentiment is shared with the other moderators.  Moderators bashing members, opinions, perceived public perception, etc is common behavior around here.  Cleaning up that behavior is step 1.  Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response.    


Point taken but we also need to be aware of the behavior that incites these kinds of responses which ice-capades also referenced.  That should also be step 1.  
 

Keeping topics on topic will help a lot and we started that yesterday but be aware it will result in comments being removed and topics locked from time to time.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2021 at 11:21 AM, ice-capades said:

 

Mark Fields... One of the few Ford CEO's that many are trying to forget and someone that so quickly forgot everything that Alan Mulally tried to teach! 

Oh really? Seems like revisionist history anytime his name comes up, yet a lot of today's products and architectures were initiated under him...

 

Hackett doesn't deserve all the credit for everything great and Alan left 7 years ago, meaning a lot of what was planned for C2, CD6, T3, and T6 goes to Mr. Fields.

 

Just because the Mach-E was just going to be a compliance EV and that the mediocre Ecosport was federalized, doesn't meant it was entirely doom and gloom under him from 2014 to 2017. (And yes I know of other weaknesses)

 

A lot of good stuff he tried to do, somehow gets conveniently brushed over for some reason on here (like a CJ) and I guess automatically attributed to Hackett.

 

It has yet to be seen, what becomes of the S650 Mustang for 2023 (which is echoing the Fox-4), as the original plan under Fields was going to be fully redesigned inside-out by last month for 2021MY. How compromised will it be riding on a dated offshoot of a late 90s luxury platform?

 

Not to mention, how CD6 got dumbed down to no longer supporting cars after he left, in favor of resources being reallocated to C2 offshoots and EVs. Fields had his issues, but a throwaway CEO he was not.

 

Mazda was such a bland disaster in the late 90s, that he gave them back their pizzazz by the early 2000s as a Dearborn appointee to Hiroshima (Zoom-Zoom).

 

His corporate culture was probably controversial, but everything he initiated into development before he left Dearborn, is generally paying off. No CEO was ever able to get a Bronco program going until he was in charge, let alone bringing back the Ranger into the fold after Alan jettisoned the previous aging plant and refused to invest in another for either P525 or T6 P375 (hoping buyers would go after V6 P415 trucks instead).

 

A 28 year veteran of the company, he had his bad qualities, but shoulders way too much blame on here for reasons unbeknownst to me. How much of Hackett's cost-cutting tricks have paid off ultimately?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JX1 said:

His corporate culture was probably controversial, but everything he initiated into development before he left Dearborn, is generally paying off. No CEO was ever able to get a Bronco program going until he was in charge, let alone bringing back the Ranger into the fold after Alan jettisoned the previous aging plant and refused to invest in another for either P525 or T6 P375 (hoping buyers would go after V6 P415 trucks instead).

 

Approving an existing platform (Ranger) to be built in the US isn't anything special and was a reaction to GM doing well with its mid sized pickups...not to mention the pricing of full sized pickups skyrocketing allowed room for it. Gas prices where $4 a gallon back in 2013/14 time frame and no was expecting them to drop as low as they did for the past 5 years or so. They also had no place to build it til they freed up MAP after getting rid of the Focus. 
 

The only reason the Bronco is coming back is because Ford decided bring in the Ranger and invest heavily into the next gen to make more appealing to US customers. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Gas prices where $4 a gallon back in 2013/14 time frame and no was expecting them to drop as low as they did for the past 5 years or so.

I get your point, but gas prices were not averaging $4/gallon back in 2013/2014.  In fact, average gas prices were higher in 2011/2012.  
https://money.cnn.com/2013/12/31/news/economy/gas-prices/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fields seemed to be an all or nothing ceo.  There were some great niche products (GT). And many forgettable also rans (500/Montego, focus, fusion,crown Vic,escape, explorer, expedition).  Without the specialty performance models, the lineup was forgettable and relied on the dealers to push the product.  Technology followed what others cashed in on.  Ford exclusive features were dropped (keyless entry keypad) thinking it didn’t matter to customers.  Warranty claims were up.

 

Big Al changed that.  Vehicles needed to be desirable, lead in technology and have best in class attributes.  That thinking brought us the 3.5L EB, 5.0 coyote, 2010 fusion hybrid, aluminum F150, etc.

 

when Fields got back to the corner office it was more of the same from 2001-2005.  Rely on past success to hide the cost cutting on a bunch of mediocre products.  As long as it wasn’t dead last, it was considered good enough.

 

Hacket went back to the formula of creating desirable products.  Unfortunately it was a rushed effort with many bumps along the way.  Explorer launch among the worst.  Hopefully Farley will build upon the success and smooth out the bumps.  Ford isn’t a low cost producer.  They need to deliver top notch products to maintain a volume premium status to remain profitable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JX1 said:

Oh really? Seems like revisionist history anytime his name comes up, yet a lot of today's products and architectures were initiated under him...

 

Hackett doesn't deserve all the credit for everything great and Alan left 7 years ago, meaning a lot of what was planned for C2, CD6, T3, and T6 goes to Mr. Fields.

 

Just because the Mach-E was just going to be a compliance EV and that the mediocre Ecosport was federalized, doesn't meant it was entirely doom and gloom under him from 2014 to 2017. (And yes I know of other weaknesses)

 

A lot of good stuff he tried to do, somehow gets conveniently brushed over for some reason on here (like a CJ) and I guess automatically attributed to Hackett.

 

It has yet to be seen, what becomes of the S650 Mustang for 2023 (which is echoing the Fox-4), as the original plan under Fields was going to be fully redesigned inside-out by last month for 2021MY. How compromised will it be riding on a dated offshoot of a late 90s luxury platform?

 

Not to mention, how CD6 got dumbed down to no longer supporting cars after he left, in favor of resources being reallocated to C2 offshoots and EVs. Fields had his issues, but a throwaway CEO he was not.

 

Mazda was such a bland disaster in the late 90s, that he gave them back their pizzazz by the early 2000s as a Dearborn appointee to Hiroshima (Zoom-Zoom).

 

His corporate culture was probably controversial, but everything he initiated into development before he left Dearborn, is generally paying off. No CEO was ever able to get a Bronco program going until he was in charge, let alone bringing back the Ranger into the fold after Alan jettisoned the previous aging plant and refused to invest in another for either P525 or T6 P375 (hoping buyers would go after V6 P415 trucks instead).

 

A 28 year veteran of the company, he had his bad qualities, but shoulders way too much blame on here for reasons unbeknownst to me. How much of Hackett's cost-cutting tricks have paid off ultimately?

 

Fields also paused several programs in anticipation of a downturn that never happened, leaving several critical products withering on the vine.  Explorer was lucky to not have declined with how long it was on the market.

 

3 hours ago, slemke said:

Fields seemed to be an all or nothing ceo.  There were some great niche products (GT). And many forgettable also rans (500/Montego, focus, fusion,crown Vic,escape, explorer, expedition).  Without the specialty performance models, the lineup was forgettable and relied on the dealers to push the product.  Technology followed what others cashed in on.  Ford exclusive features were dropped (keyless entry keypad) thinking it didn’t matter to customers.  Warranty claims were up.

 

Big Al changed that.  Vehicles needed to be desirable, lead in technology and have best in class attributes.  That thinking brought us the 3.5L EB, 5.0 coyote, 2010 fusion hybrid, aluminum F150, etc.

 

when Fields got back to the corner office it was more of the same from 2001-2005.  Rely on past success to hide the cost cutting on a bunch of mediocre products.  As long as it wasn’t dead last, it was considered good enough.

 

Hacket went back to the formula of creating desirable products.  Unfortunately it was a rushed effort with many bumps along the way.  Explorer launch among the worst.  Hopefully Farley will build upon the success and smooth out the bumps.  Ford isn’t a low cost producer.  They need to deliver top notch products to maintain a volume premium status to remain profitable.

 

Fields wasn't CEO until after Mulally, so not sure why you're bringing up things that pre-date Mulally as Fields' doings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:


There was a next-gen Fusion in the works under Fields. It was Hackett that killed it. 

And Fields had CD6 sedan on hold, choosing  to do Explorer first. 2016 was Field's final year, the wheels fell off

Ford's future product plans and Ford began questioning the business cases of many vehicles especially cars.

It was heartbreaking to see such a modest makeover for Fusion in 2015, it deserved one nice big final push 

with a change of sheet metal to keep it strong and fresh against Camry and Accord, those final five years 

could have been really something 

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

And Fields had CD6 sedan on hold, choosing  to do Explorer first


Ah but it was also Fields that delayed CD6 Explorer (and CD6 in general really) by years until Hackett came in and pulled that program back and accelerated it (albeit a little too aggressively it turned out). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

until Hackett came in and pulled that program back and accelerated it (albeit a little too aggressively it turned out). 


I have a feeling the Fields route would have been vastly better and a lot less problematic.  I don’t see how the rush to get the current Explorer out and on sale was needed. Was the last generation Explorer that deficient?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, FR739 said:


I have a feeling the Fields route would have been vastly better and a lot less problematic.  I don’t see how the rush to get the current Explorer out and on sale was needed. Was the last generation Explorer that deficient?  


CD6 added electrification which will be important but more important than that was Aviator.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FR739 said:


I have a feeling the Fields route would have been vastly better and a lot less problematic.  I don’t see how the rush to get the current Explorer out and on sale was needed. Was the last generation Explorer that deficient?  

 

In terms of sales, last generation Explorer sold well. CAP on overtime. So the choice becomes wait for sales to falter or interrupt production, losing opportunity for sales. So once the decision is made, pressure is to minimize downtime for changeover and ramp up production of the new version. Not many vehicles merit two assembly plants today. Apparently swapping assembly plants was not a viable option. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, paintguy said:

Have you priced an Aviator? Big potential.


Every Aviator sold represents a net profit increase for Ford.  Even if it replaces an Explorer sale.  It also keeps Lincoln buyers in the fold instead of losing them to a competitor.  Very important.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FR739 said:


I have a feeling the Fields route would have been vastly better and a lot less problematic.  I don’t see how the rush to get the current Explorer out and on sale was needed. Was the last generation Explorer that deficient?  

 

It was already 8 years old at that point.  Which is ancient in automotive terms.  That's why I was saying they're lucky sales held up as well as they did with how old it was in the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, akirby said:


CD6 added electrification which will be important but more important than that was Aviator.

Exactly, D3 Explorer had no provisioning for hybrid and PHEV.

 

The reason why the other CD6s were put on hold in 2016  was waning interest in cars,

there was real concern about putting sedans and Mustang on a new expensive platform

when the CD6 Edge became a bridge too far and was cancelled. If the Edge couldn't be 

justified, then vehicles like Continental, MKZ, Fusion and Mustang would have been even 

harder to justify.

 

  • Like 2
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...