September Sales?

[RichardJensen]

These vehicles should not be declining this much, especially considering that their sales weren't that strong in the first place.

Exclude comparisons with the "Employee Pricing" months of July and August, and Five Hundred/Montego sales are down about 5-10%, contrasting with a 5% decline for the Avalon. Large vehicle sales as a whole are down for the year. Oct-Dec sales should be on a par with, or higher than last year's totals which were consistently in the 6-8k range, which should flatten out the year over year decline into something more on a par with the Avalon.

 

Ford has said that they are going to focus more effort on marketing the Freestyle for MY '07. It remains to be seen if this will have any effect on Freestyle sales.

 

Ultimately, Ford is doing what Honda and Toyota do when they have a product that isn't selling to retail: They're curtailing production.

 

In the past, you would not have seen declines in 2nd year volume, because if retail demand slacked, Ford (or GM or DCX, take your pick) would shift to fleet volume. Ford is not doing that this year. Chrysler and GM happily shift to fleet sales, in order to keep their W and LX plants running. With the cancellation of the Taurus, this should be even more noticeable.

 

As far as the upcoming refresh is concerned, it's hard to see how a better interior, a more striking face, and a 260hp engine won't have a positive impact on sales.

 

At present, in the $22-24k price range, it's hard to make a case to buy the Five Hundred, instead of the Fusion, and I'm certain this has impacted sales somewhat.

 

But bring the Five Hundred up to date, with an interior as high quality as the Fusion's, and with a similarly striking exterior 'face', and, as I said, it's hard to see how this wouldn't provide a decent boost to sales.

[silvrsvt]

This reminds me of the sales performance the "new" AMC models (Concord, Spirit) in the late 1970s, which were heavily facelifted versions of the OLD models, as AMC was rapidly running out of money to spend on new sheetmetal. The facelifted model would score a modest sales increase during their first year, as the AMC loyalists scooped up the new version. Sales then tanked, as the vehicles weren't strong enough to conquest customers from other makes.

 

This isn't just a Ford problem. The same thing appears to be happening with the Buick LaCrosse and Pontiac Grand Prix, and I'll bet that it happens with the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS, too.

 

Sorry, but no matter how it is spun, the sales record of the Five Hundred and Freestyle is troubling.

 

Well They are also getting updated interiors and the 3.5L V6 in them, plus hopefully Ford won't abandon advertising on them either. Seriously, when is the last time you saw a 500 advertised?

 

I believe Ford never had really high expectations for the D3's..anywhere from 200-250K sales. They are under that but that is well in the realm of possibility of them selling that in the future.

 

But like you said, the sales haven't been exactly stellar either..but between the D3 and CD3, which both replace the Taraus, they are selling at combined rate that equals out to a good year for the Taraus, without fleet sales margins that it had in the past before becoming a fleet whore

[ZanatWork]

I think a better question would be:

 

"How many were around last month?".

[Michael Reynolds]

I think a better question would be:

 

"How many were around last month?".

 

Well that's what I've been saying all along, but instead I get sarastic responses in bold.

 

Oh and speaking of 'Yota, the all new Camry has been out for quite some time now but the nameplate is only up .9% year-over-year. As a matter of fact the Camry was down this month (very very slightly though). Judging from the sales figures 'Yota trucks and SUVs are doing well.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Michael Reynolds

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, given that I'm starting to see a few more 500s and fusions cropping up in fleets, I'd say that we're going to see at least 20% of the current Taurus sales move over to the 500 and fusion. Given that the Taurus has been moving in excess of 10K a month on average, that should add at least 1000 units a peice to both D3 and CD3 production per month. Why am I saying only 20%? I am expecting Ford to do the smart thing and not discount the d3 and CD3 vehicles so much when they do sell to fleets. That will drive many of their potential cut rate customers to their competitiors.

 

As for the Taurus, the last number that I heard anywhere on what Ford was loosing on them was in the order of $1000-$1500 per unit at the average production rate of the last year or so. They had chosen that rate due to it being the least painful rate (at dollars lost per vehicle) to finish out their most ornerous contracctural obligations. Now that they've finished those contracts, there is no sense on keeping up the pain.

 

So, I'm satisfied that this is a financially good time to end the Taurus. I realize that upcoming overall sales numbers will be negatively impacted because of this, but, this is expected. Some side effects of this may also include additional demand for the panthers as some Taurus sales will likely also transfer to them, though I expect this will be a smallish number. But fleet sales people have likely been instructed to push it hard.

[RichardJensen]

I'm sure, between the Fusion, Five Hundred, and Panthers, the fleet sales reps have been told to push the panthers. Operating costs vs. the Vulcan equipped Taurus are more than comparable. Difference in gas mileage is about a penny or two a mile.

[630land]

Taurus is 'dead man walking', and dropping the 500 would be foolish and wasteful. Some just don't like it since it is not BOF/RWD/V8.

 

How much would it cost to re-tool, yet again, for a pie in the sky Falcon?

 

Also, someone suggested that the Buick Lucerne is a flop, and it is not, not not. So, looks like when Ford beefs up the D3, they can make a go of it against Avalon and Buick.

[RichardJensen]

Also, someone suggested that the Buick Lucerne is a flop, and it is not, not not.

It's selling better to retail, but in about the same overall numbers as the LeSabre.

[MGallun]

bored last night visited 3 ford dealers..

 

dealer #1 on website had 18 fusions and 4 500s listed

 

visited them, 9 fusions and 1 500... asked about a certian color and lalala that i saw on website.. he said sold..

 

dealer #2 on website 8 fusions and 2 500

 

visited them, 2 fusion no 500, all sold.

 

dealer #2 on website 22 fusions and 9 500

 

visted them, 13 fusion and 5 500

 

sold...

 

so, i guess dont beleive website, actually to think about it, when i bought my car, they still had it on website for 1 week... slow updaters i guess.

 

It's selling better to retail, but in about the same overall numbers as the LeSabre.

 

 

friend of mine just got rid of his lucerne for lemon law... had to replace the ball joints 4 times in a year... yummy!

[Roadrunner]

But bring the Five Hundred up to date, with an interior as high quality as the Fusion's, and with a similarly striking exterior 'face', and, as I said, it's hard to see how this wouldn't provide a decent boost to sales.

 

What? The 2005 500 has a higher quality finish interior than the 2006 Fusion, I think. At least in amenities. As for boldness, no - the 500 has a sedate interior.

[evok]

Also, production estimates are just that, estimates.

 

Auto News production numbers are very accurate and are derived from production information published by the OEM on a routine basis. Just as AN compiles sales data published by the OEMs on a months basis. Instapundits should be well aware of that! Right!

[RichardJensen]

What? The 2005 500 has a higher quality finish interior than the 2006 Fusion, I think. At least in amenities. As for boldness, no - the 500 has a sedate interior.

panel gaps aren't as good, the fake wood isn't as good, and the color choices are fairly limited.

[Noah Harbinger]

panel gaps aren't as good, the fake wood isn't as good, and the color choices are fairly limited.

 

Personally I hope there's no fake wood at all in the revision...

 

(or at least a trim level without any "wood")

[Noah Harbinger]

And the "everyone is waiting for the mid-model-cycle enhancements" excuse won't wash, as 98.9 percent of the American buying public does not read this or other automotive websites, so they don't KNOW that there are facelifted versions in the works.

 

Certainly they aren't, but you don't have to do a ton of research to find out about it. (Though I suppose most people are too clueless to do even that)

[630land]

Fusion sells about 10K, so it is 'a flop'.

 

But in the same month, the "hot" Chrysler 300 sells the same amount. But isn't this supposed to be 'the car that all the US companies must be making" now? Isn't there supposed to be some 'resurgance of RWD' and all America would be driving these by now??

 

Where is the whining about the decline of the supposed 'savior of all car kingdomhood'?

Edited October 5, 2006 by 630land

[Michael Reynolds]

Auto News production numbers are very accurate and are derived from production information published by the OEM on a routine basis. Just as AN compiles sales data published by the OEMs on a months basis. Instapundits should be well aware of that! Right!

 

No one is discrediting Auto News, at least I'm not, I'm just stating that there are certain things called exceptions. Like cars being shifted to other parts of the country where demand is high, customer orders that have yet to be delivered or shipped, or vehicles that have yet to be shipped to their destination. That's what I'm saying.

[RichardJensen]

derived from production information published by the OEM

Okay.

 

You show me.

 

Unless those numbers come directly from the corporation, they're not 100% reliable, and they don't discuss production held ahead of shipment.

[ZanatWork]

Yet people on this board quote numbers about UAW compensation, and the impact of that on profits, and people quote it as gospel.

 

 

From experiences like extra engineers standing around the studio (mandatory per the union) getting paid for nothing and similar reports of moronic, greedy overstaffing from EVERY UNION I'VE EVER SEEN (crosswords, anyone?)...I don't need to read the reports, I've seen more than enough first hand.

 

I've said before that just lowering the work force to the people actually required would solve it...but no....

[RichardJensen]

Yet people on this board quote numbers about UAW compensation, and the impact of that on profits, and people quote it as gospel. :rolleyes:

I don't.

 

It's both pointless and irresponsible.

[hoss96racing]

From experiences like extra engineers standing around the studio (mandatory per the union) getting paid for nothing and similar reports of moronic, greedy overstaffing from EVERY UNION I'VE EVER SEEN (crosswords, anyone?)...I don't need to read the reports, I've seen more than enough first hand.

 

I've said before that just lowering the work force to the people actually required would solve it...but no....

 

 

So your saying its wrong to pay people to sit around and do nothing in the jobs bank.... actually I can't even blame that on the UAW cause I believe it was GM's idea to begin with.... what were they thinking....

[evok]

Okay.

 

You show me.

 

Unless those numbers come directly from the corporation, they're not 100% reliable, and they don't discuss production held ahead of shipment.

 

 

Besides the guidance given in the quarterly statements. GM for one issues the public monthly Make and Model production PR's available on their site, and some other manufacturers including Ford do not do as GM and release the monthly numbers only directly to industry associations/organizations including automotive news. Why some OEMs choose to not release the info on their corporate website I do not have an answer for that. But that is the way things work. If you want greater transparency contact Pipas.

 

I just looked at the actuals and AN estimates and the difference is not worth noteing except the MKZ was under reported by a significant margin. Surpise it is at full production.

Edited October 5, 2006 by evok

[matthewq4b]

And Ford is done propping up marketshare with crap fleet sales, like the Taurus. Hiking the price of the Taurus would kill sales, and would result in lower market share anyway. No win in that situation.

 

Besides, Ford already told the entire world that they are going to be shrinking market share. Actual loss of market share next year will be nothing more than what Ford has been predicting.

 

 

YesHking tthe price would kill sales but there cutting it anyway might as well milk it for all it's worth in the mean time. The price hike might move some of the reatail sales in to the Fusion. Currently the Fusions biggest competition on the show room floor In Canada.

 

Yes the sales will be lost any way but it will go over better to cut the Taurus when under a 100k sales after a gradual decline and possibly force some of the sales in to the fusion instead of just dropping it and loseing them in one big chunk. With out possibily moving as many customers in to the Fusion.

 

The 500 twins are here to stay that is a given (or is it? stranger things have happened) the poor sales of these cars is very troubleing. And I'm sure it played no small part in the decision to keep the TC. If the 500 and Monteago are so poorly received I,m sure the replacing the TC with Just a D3 would go over about as well. The D3 Linc has it's work cut out for it's self. This spot in Lincolin has never lived up to expectations

Not with the FWD Conti's or the LS. Hopefully the D3 in this spot can break that trend. But Ford figured better to hedge thier bets and keep the TC than jump in both feet and cut it. If there was ever any true intention to cut the TC in the first place.

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

YesHking tthe price would kill sales but there cutting it anyway might as well milk it for all it's worth in the mean time. The price hike might move some of the reatail sales in to the Fusion. Currently the Fusions biggest competition on the show room floor In Canada.

 

Yes the sales will be lost any way but it will go over better to cut the Taurus when under a 100k sales after a gradual decline and possibly force some of the sales in to the fusion instead of just dropping it and loseing them in one big chunk. With out possibily moving as many customers in to the Fusion.

 

The 500 twins are here to stay that is a given (or is it? stranger things have happened) the poor sales of these cars is very troubleing. And I'm sure it played no small part in the decision to keep the TC. If the 500 and Monteago are so poorly received I,m sure the replacing the TC with Just a D3 would go over about as well. The D3 Linc has it's work cut out for it's self. This spot in Lincolin has never lived up to expectations

Not with the FWD Conti's or the LS. Hopefully the D3 in this spot can break that trend. But Ford figured better to hedge thier bets and keep the TC than jump in both feet and cut it. If there was ever any true intention to cut the TC in the first place.

 

 

Matthew

The only problem with trickling down the Taurus is that 1) they're losing money on it as is, and 2) they can't run Atlanta on 100k a year. Kind of like pulling a tooth. Might as well get it out with just one tug.

 

I think the fence sitting on the Town car came down to the "This car is bad for the Lincoln image" crowd and the "This is a very profitable car" crowd.

 

Keeping the Town Car makes sense, but I would say its retail days are numbered. With steady improvements to the powertrain (290hp V8, 6-speed trans), chassis refinements (Mustang SRA), and more limousine type touches (rear seat climate control, heated/cooled rear seats, powerpoints, rear speaker-bluetooth, DVD, storage, etc), it should be this country's executive car of choice for another decade. It's just about the best vehicle to be driven in this side of a Rolls.

[RichardJensen]

I just looked at the actuals and AN estimates and the difference is not worth noteing except the MKZ was under reported by a significant margin. Surpise it is at full production.

The problem with those numbers, assuming they are accurate, is that they don't reflect where vehicles are.

 

Another poster on the board said that Ford held the new '07 F150s for a few weeks before releasing them, so it's entirely possible that Ford was supply constrained at the beginning of the month, and that they're still somewhat supply constrained--given the discrepancy between websites and lots.

 

If Ford held the '07 Fusions for 2-3 weeks while they shook down representative samples (SOP), then that would certainly affect supply at the beginning of the month. And then it would take a while for supply to catch up, as Ford can probably only move so many of those units at once.

 

--

 

Also, Ford can be sued if they make misleading statements in press releases, so if they say there was a supply shortage, you can bet compliance vetted the statement.

[evok]

The problem with those numbers, assuming they are accurate, is that they don't reflect where vehicles are.

 

Another poster on the board said that Ford held the new '07 F150s for a few weeks before releasing them, so it's entirely possible that Ford was supply constrained at the beginning of the month, and that they're still somewhat supply constrained--given the discrepancy between websites and lots.

 

If Ford held the '07 Fusions for 2-3 weeks while they shook down representative samples (SOP), then that would certainly affect supply at the beginning of the month. And then it would take a while for supply to catch up, as Ford can probably only move so many of those units at once.

 

--

 

Also, Ford can be sued if they make misleading statements in press releases, so if they say there was a supply shortage, you can bet compliance vetted the statement.

 

Fusion ytd sales - 111k

Fusion ytd production - 150k

 

I would say their is float.