'21 May Sales

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

I agree 100% Ford has different investment strategy. I was the one that first mentioned in the sales thread last year that Toyota would kill to have Ford's volume in trucks and vans so I fully understand the point you are making. But that doesn't excuse Ford from not being able to compete effectively in the biggest and fastest growing segment. Also, we don't know if Ford is making more profit on the new Escape. I highly doubt it because Ford has the same fixed cost as before but only 1/2 the volume... that doesn't suggest better profit margin to me.

 

I think Escape really shows a lot of the problem Ford had under Fields... the inability to really execute simple vehicle design and updates. The myopic development process that seems to ignore market trends. etc. Hopefully, Farley will fix Escape soon. It's not just the US mind you... Escape/Kuga also saw sales plunge in China and Europe - not as much as US but both Europe and China made last minute styling changes before production started in a last ditch attempt to reverse course. So something is really wrong with this Escape/Kuga despite the cheerleaders here ignoring clear evidence that all 3 key Ford markets have rejected the redesign.

 

Bronco Sport give me a lot of hope that Farley lead Ford has finally figured out how to design and market/sell a small vehicle. It is selling well despite not having entry level model in its segment. It is literally missing 1/3 of the range but the product appeal is so strong, it probably won't matter. 

 

I don't think anyone has ever said the Escape is perfect - I think it could use help for sure, but I also don't think it's anywhere near as bad as initial reviews made it out to be, which likely has affected sales as well.

 

I agree with you about the updates - that seems to be something Ford struggles with.  They didn't under Mulally, but since it's been a struggle to keep most products (outside of the trucks, really) fresh and relevant.  They've been left on the vine until sales drop off, and then Ford uses that drop off to justify dropping the model completely.  Edge is the latest model to suffer from that.

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, CKNSLS said:

 

I would agree here. I don't think under one can put any reasoning to any sales numbers-by any vehicle manufacturer under theses market conditions. Once things normalize-some sales numbers will not be good for some that look good now. The Escape particularly comes to mind.

At the moment, dealers are selling whatever they can or have on site and buyers are grabbing whatever

comes close to meeting their needs. So these are really odd times where trending is useless information.

This is a get by situation until chip and other suppliers are able to normalise supplies.

Edited June 5, 2021 by jpd80

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

I don't think anyone has ever said the Escape is perfect - I think it could use help for sure, but I also don't think it's anywhere near as bad as initial reviews made it out to be, which likely has affected sales as well.

 

I agree with you about the updates - that seems to be something Ford struggles with.  They didn't under Mulally, but since it's been a struggle to keep most products (outside of the trucks, really) fresh and relevant.  They've been left on the vine until sales drop off, and then Ford uses that drop off to justify dropping the model completely.  Edge is the latest model to suffer from that.

I think that delayed updates also indicate just how expensive MCEs have become and while closer,

more comprehensive updates keep the vehicles fresh in the eyes of buyers, it’s not clear if the ROI

is ever fully captured, jumps in sales of mid and high trim versions bringing increased profit but if

that doesn’t happen, maybe it’s time to fully evaluate the vehicle’s  viability /invest in other products.

Edited June 5, 2021 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

19 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Going forward into 2022, Ford should only offer that 3 cyl. on S and SE models only. SEL and Titanium models should come standard with hybrid and 2.0L only. And I know the Titanium does come standard with hybrid. No way would I pay over $30,000 for that 3 cyl. engine. Keep the 3 cyl. low rent. It's fine on an Ecosport or Escape S for $22,000. And stop start works great on my Escape hybrid and CVT is much smoother than my Crosstrek was that was jerky when engine was cold. 

But yet that “low rent” 3 cyc 1.5L is standard on most of the Bronco Sport models, with the 2L only being on the top end model. 

[FordBuyer]

47 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

But yet that “low rent” 3 cyc 1.5L is standard on most of the Bronco Sport models, with the 2L only being on the top end model. 

 

Isn't that interesting that the 3 cyl. is being overlooked in the BS, but is skewered in the Escape. Shows how good looks hides flaws. IMO, the BS needs more engine choices soon. If the Maverick is coming with a hybrid, I would think BS would get that option too. 

[akirby]

10 hours ago, bzcat said:

Also, we don't know if Ford is making more profit on the new Escape. I highly doubt it because Ford has the same fixed cost as before but only 1/2 the volume... that doesn't suggest better profit margin to me.

Everyone was complaining that Escape pricing was too high.  I don’t know if they increased rebates to compensate or not.  But with higher pricing and more expensive hybrid and PHEV models the ATPs have to be a lot higher than the previous Gen which seemed to sell only cheap SE models.

 

I think they went too far trying to position Escape to replace Focus buyers.  It would have been a good strategy if it had worked but that doesn’t seem to be the case.  And a big part of the problem was the same as Fusion - not updating the previous Gen and keeping it competitive.   But I think that still goes back to investment priority.

 

Small CUVs might be growing fast but it can’t be a huge profit center.  And to increase volume significantly would require another plant.  
 

I suspect a Ford decided a few years ago to go after BEVs in that space rather than ICE but we’ll have to wait and see.

[akirby]

10 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Isn't that interesting that the 3 cyl. is being overlooked in the BS, but is skewered in the Escape. Shows how good looks hides flaws. IMO, the BS needs more engine choices soon. If the Maverick is coming with a hybrid, I would think BS would get that option too. 

Or it shows that the 1.5L is a perfectly fine engine once you get past the press bias.

 

Wouldn’t surprise me to see the hybrid replace the 1.5L as the base engine for BS too.

[ice-capades]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

I think they went too far trying to position Escape to replace Focus buyers.  It would have been a good strategy if it had worked but that doesn’t seem to be the case.  And a big part of the problem was the same as Fusion - not updating the previous Gen and keeping it competitive.   But I think that still goes back to investment priority.

 

Ford's been making the same mistake over and over again in not updating product. Then it goes stale, not competitive any longer, sales drop and they wonder what happened. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

Or it shows that the 1.5L is a perfectly fine engine once you get past the press bias.

 

Wouldn’t surprise me to see the hybrid replace the 1.5L as the base engine for BS too.

BS seems to have better NVH in general than Escape based on reviews. 

[akirby]

30 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

BS seems to have better NVH in general than Escape based on reviews. 

And Maverick has a better interior.  Maybe Escape gets both upgrades soon.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

Ford's been making the same mistake over and over again in not updating product. Then it goes stale, not competitive any longer, sales drop and they wonder what happened. 

It goes back to that old system that took about seven years for vehicles to go from market research to fully developed. By the time the vehicle arrives, the market and competitors are already two or three years in front, so Ford was basically two to three years behind and that’s the real reason their vehicles don’t hold up to eight year product cycles.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

And Maverick has a better interior.  Maybe Escape gets both upgrades soon.

And this is the key, Ford needs to standardise those upgrades across all three vehicles.

Ford is offering Escape buyers two other choices  that may work better for them, so it

needs to ensure that Escape is not forgotten and allowed to drift and lose too many

 buyers because simple improvements weren’t done in a timely fashion.

[T-dubz]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

And this is the key, Ford needs to standardise those upgrades across all three vehicles.

Ford is offering Escape buyers two other choices  that may work better for them, so it

needs to ensure that Escape is not forgotten and allowed to drift and lose too many

 buyers because simple improvements weren’t done in a timely fashion.

 If ford ever gives the escape the new Chinese corporate face (like the evos)  and the large digital dash, I feel the escape would immediately be more competitive with the crv and rav4. The escape has had huge discounts pretty much since the beginning of this generation. I believe making only those two changes would instantly let them get ATP’s much closer to the MSRP.

 

8 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

BS seems to have better NVH in general than Escape based on reviews. 

it also could be that people are more accepting of an “off road” vehicle having a little NVH than a regular vehicle.

[jpd80]

44 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

 If ford ever gives the escape the new Chinese corporate face (like the evos)  and the large digital dash, I feel the escape would immediately be more competitive with the crv and rav4. The escape has had huge discounts pretty much since the beginning of this generation. I believe making only those two changes would instantly let them get ATP’s much closer to the MSRP.

 

it also could be that people are more accepting of an “off road” vehicle having a little NVH than a regular vehicle.

Agree with both.

 

There’s a theory that Ford was toying with splitting a chunkier Escape away from the softer styled Kuga

but instead chose to call it Bronco Sport and leave Escape/Kuga.  Even if that’s not true, Ford now has

four Compact vehicles for buyers to choose from: Bronco Sport, Escape, Maverick and Lincoln Corsair.

Its now up to Ford to push all these vehicles as much as it can....

Edited June 5, 2021 by jpd80

[rperez817]

On 6/5/2021 at 6:10 PM, T-dubz said:

it also could be that people are more accepting of an “off road” vehicle having a little NVH than a regular vehicle.

 

Yes sir T-Dubz, the "rough and tumble" image of Bronco Sport aligns with the 1.5L 3-cylinder engine's high level of noise and vibration. Car and Driver said in its review of Bronco Sport Outer Banks, "the grizzly and gristly engine note sounds right at home in something this butch."

[FordBuyer]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir T-Dubz, the "rough and tumble" image of Bronco Sport aligns with the 1.5L 3-cylinder engine's high level of noise and vibration. Car and Driver said in its review of Bronco Sport Outer Banks, "the grizzly and gristly engine note sounds right at home in something this butch."

 

Fortunately, the 4 cyl. in the RAV and new Rogue suck too. Unfortunately, the new Rogue has a great interior. Kia/Hyundai have really ramped up their efforts too inside and out. Engines so so.

 

A decent Escape refresh could produce some positive results. Maybe do a revamped interior one year and exterior another year like with Edge/Nautilus. 

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

the 4 cyl. in the RAV and new Rogue suck too.

 

Most non-hybrid engines in compact crossovers nowadays are not that great when it comes to power and NVH. The 2.5L turbo Mazda offers on CX-5 (Carbon Edition Turbo, Grand Touring Reserve, and Signature) and the 2.0L turbo Ford offers on Escape (SEL and Titanium) and Bronco Sport (Badlands) are easily the best.

Edited June 7, 2021 by rperez817

[mackinaw]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Yes sir T-Dubz, the "rough and tumble" image of Bronco Sport aligns with the 1.5L 3-cylinder engine's high level of noise and vibration. Car and Driver said in its review of Bronco Sport Outer Banks, "the grizzly and gristly engine note sounds right at home in something this butch."

 

Nonsense.  We've owned a Bronco Sport for about two months now. Outer Banks, with the 1.5L 3-cylinder.  My two biggest surprises upon taking delivery were the amount of interior room (it easily accommodates my 6'4" frame) and how civilized the engine is.  Quick too, that turbo really adds meaningful low-end torque.  I don't rev it to its 6500 RPM redline, the engine sits most of its time running between 1500-2000 RPM, on the highway, one steady speed (remember, rural driving).  The balance shaft works.  Cylinder deactivation is seamless and works.  I'm thoroughly impressed by this engine.  The only negative is that horrid "stop-start."  i hate it.  Luckily you just have to press one button to disable.  

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Yes sir T-Dubz, the "rough and tumble" image of Bronco Sport aligns with the 1.5L 3-cylinder engine's high level of noise and vibration. Car and Driver said in its review of Bronco Sport Outer Banks, "the grizzly and gristly engine note sounds right at home in something this butch."

Now that’s obviously a subjective opinion to the three cylinder’s note, some like it

while others like C&D keep the criticism bubbling along. It’s not that bad in Focus.

You get this when objectors have a louder voice than folks that are ok with things….

[rperez817]

4 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

You get this when objectors have a louder voice than folks that are ok with things….

 

I think almost everyone who buys a Bronco Sport with 1.5L engine will be ok with the level of engine noise and vibration. As T-dubz and Car and Driver said, these customers figure that it goes with the overall theme of the vehicle. 

 

There have been some comments on this forum and others that Ford should offer the 2.0L engine on trims other than Badlands. But for Bronco Sport it seems that those people are more interested in the increased power from that engine than the improvement in NVH.

[FordBuyer]

28 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

 

Nonsense.  We've owned a Bronco Sport for about two months now. Outer Banks, with the 1.5L 3-cylinder.  My two biggest surprises upon taking delivery were the amount of interior room (it easily accommodates my 6'4" frame) and how civilized the engine is.  Quick too, that turbo really adds meaningful low-end torque.  I don't rev it to its 6500 RPM redline, the engine sits most of its time running between 1500-2000 RPM, on the highway, one steady speed (remember, rural driving).  The balance shaft works.  Cylinder deactivation is seamless and works.  I'm thoroughly impressed by this engine.  The only negative is that horrid "stop-start."  i hate it.  Luckily you just have to press one button to disable.  

 

I apologize for saying the Escspe 3 cyl. sucks. I have no experience with one and most reviews don't seem to have any problem with it, and fuel mileage is very competitive with no CTV.

[mackinaw]

44 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

I apologize for saying the Escspe 3 cyl. sucks. I have no experience with one and most reviews don't seem to have any problem with it, and fuel mileage is very competitive with no CTV.

 

Fuel mileage is another pleasant surprise.  On about 900 mile trip through Michigan's Upper Peninsula, I averaged 34 MPG.  Of course all highway driving at mostly 60-65 MPH.  With cylinder-deactivation, I suspect I was running on two-cylinders most of the time.  

 

Not one of my friends knew our Bronco Sport had a three-cylinder engine until I told them.  In real world driving conditions, you simply can't tell.

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

You get this when objectors have a louder voice than folks that are ok with things….

Thats pretty much the case with everything 

[slemke]

On 6/5/2021 at 9:02 AM, akirby said:

Or it shows that the 1.5L is a perfectly fine engine once you get past the press bias.

 

Wouldn’t surprise me to see the hybrid replace the 1.5L as the base engine for BS too.

If the Maverick base powertrain being a hybrid is true, I would expect the hybrid to eventually be the case across the 3 amigos….never mind escape is made in KY.

[FordBuyer]

13 hours ago, slemke said:

If the Maverick base powertrain being a hybrid is true, I would expect the hybrid to eventually be the case across the 3 amigos….never mind escape is made in KY.

 

Yep, reported today that 2.5 L hybrid is BASE engine for Maverick and 2.0 only option. 40 mpg city. With my experience with my hybrid, getting 50+ mpg is easy and no hypermiling needed. Just drive normally. Ford has another homerun here with $3 gas and only problem will be meeting demand, especially now.