What Customers Really Want

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Biggest difference — government did not mandate switch to digital.  Buyer demand through free markets took care of transition.  BEVs versus ICE transition seems completely different to me.

 

A consumer item is different then a vehicle that has mandated safety and emissions requirements from the government. 

 

The government is going to force CAFE requirements that cannot be met by hybrids or other ICE tech as time goes on...that's why you saw the introduction of EFI in the 1980s, aerodynamics, etc when CAFE was slowly raised over the past 40 years or so. 

 

The ICE vs BEV debate is being politized and fed by misinformation/misunderstanding and whatever else you can think of. People are trying sell it as the government taking your rights away from you, when they fail to realize that pretty much any car made in the past 24-36 months has tech that can be remote killed by an auto manufacturer if they wanted to. 

 

The other thing is the complete misunderstanding of the transition period-yeah the US Government would like to have 50% EV sales by 2030-which is 6+ years away. A lot can and will change between now and then. The elimination dates are 12+ years from now. You'll still be able to buy an ICE product till 2035 if you really wanted to, but you might have to make compromises in what you want. 

Just using this as an example for pricing:

 

An IBM PC XT cost roughly $4,995 ($14,252.74 in today dollars) bucks in 1985...in 1995, a rough equivalent would be about $1500-2000 ($3-4K in todays dollars)

 

 

[rperez817]

11 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

A consumer item is different then a vehicle that has mandated safety and emissions requirements from the government. 

 

Good point silvrsvt. New automobiles sold to retail customers could be considered a consumer item, but to your point they are also heavily regulated by governments (as they should be). Fortunately, consumers, automakers, and governments all acknowledge the importance of rapidly transitioning the new car market to BEV rapidly. And each party should be aware of the risks associated with the failure to do so.

 

Back to the title of this thread. "What Customers Really Want" is a consideration for Ford and other automakers, but certainly not the only or even the most important one. 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

A consumer item is different then a vehicle that has mandated safety and emissions requirements from the government. 

 

The government is going to force CAFE requirements that cannot be met by hybrids or other ICE tech as time goes on...that's why you saw the introduction of EFI in the 1980s, aerodynamics, etc when CAFE was slowly raised over the past 40 years or so. 

 

The ICE vs BEV debate is being politized and fed by misinformation/misunderstanding and whatever else you can think of. People are trying sell it as the government taking your rights away from you, when they fail to realize that pretty much any car made in the past 24-36 months has tech that can be remote killed by an auto manufacturer if they wanted to. 

 

The other thing is the complete misunderstanding of the transition period-yeah the US Government would like to have 50% EV sales by 2030-which is 6+ years away. A lot can and will change between now and then. The elimination dates are 12+ years from now. You'll still be able to buy an ICE product till 2035 if you really wanted to, but you might have to make compromises in what you want. 

Just using this as an example for pricing:

 

An IBM PC XT cost roughly $4,995 ($14,252.74 in today dollars) bucks in 1985...in 1995, a rough equivalent would be about $1500-2000 ($3-4K in todays dollars)

 

 

 

Sure, but to your point, 6-12 years is 2 full product cycles, so don't dump the ICE now just because of a date that far away.

 

If you swap just about everything ICE to hybrid, you're bridging the gap between ICE and BEV for those on the fence, which would encourage them to get into BEV.

[mackinaw]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

....Kodak, on the other hand, was primarily a film manufacturer which was obsoleted by digital.  Granted, they had some disposable cameras towards the end if I recall correctly, but that wasn’t their core business.  Regardless, even if they had gone into digital cameras, the iPhone would have still put them out of business because very few people buy digital cameras today.

 

Off topic, but interesting.  Digital camera sales peaked worldwide in 2010 with 122 million cameras sold.  In 2022 only 8 million digital cameras were sold.  Cellphones. are the new cameras.  

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Sure, but to your point, 6-12 years is 2 full product cycles, so don't dump the ICE now just because of a date that far away.

 

If you swap just about everything ICE to hybrid, you're bridging the gap between ICE and BEV for those on the fence, which would encourage them to get into BEV.

 

The only thing (so far) being dumped ICE wise is the Edge.

 

Almost all of current ICE products are slated to be in production till at least 2032. The Escape/Corsair will be replaced in 2026-2027 (find out more after the Strike I'm assuming) with a BEV

 

Not sure what Ford is exactly doing wrong here-The Ranger/Bronco/Bronco Sport/Transit are the outliers that don't have hybrids, but the option to get them is fairly easy and I'd expect the Bronco Sport to get a hybrid at the next refresh. Not sure if the Mustang will or will not get a hybrid. 

 

We will see a new pickup and 3 row EV in the next 24-36 months. 

[rmc523]

29 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The only thing (so far) being dumped ICE wise is the Edge.

 

Almost all of current ICE products are slated to be in production till at least 2032. The Escape/Corsair will be replaced in 2026-2027 (find out more after the Strike I'm assuming) with a BEV

 

Not sure what Ford is exactly doing wrong here-The Ranger/Bronco/Bronco Sport/Transit are the outliers that don't have hybrids, but the option to get them is fairly easy and I'd expect the Bronco Sport to get a hybrid at the next refresh. Not sure if the Mustang will or will not get a hybrid. 

 

We will see a new pickup and 3 row EV in the next 24-36 months. 

 

I think the point is that with the timelines as they are, don't let the ICE side completely languish because of the "BEV=FUTUREEE" mantra until full replacements are ready for all segments, AND customer demand is there.

[tbone]

10 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

Off topic, but interesting.  Digital camera sales peaked worldwide in 2010 with 122 million cameras sold.  In 2022 only 8 million digital cameras were sold.  Cellphones. are the new cameras.  

An interesting note regarding digital cameras.  My 18 year old daughter recently wanted a digital camera for some unknown reason.  I don’t know if this is a new trend among young people or not though, as I really haven’t dug into it.  Fortunately we had an old one laying around to satisfy her request, which she seemed elated with.  

[tbone]

9 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The Escape/Corsair will be replaced in 2026-2027 (find out more after the Strike I'm assuming) with a BEV

 

I am highly skeptical of this plan based on my personal experience with my BEV in a low charging option area.  The Escape is basically their only entry level vehicle now, aside from Maverick, and a lot of entry level drivers likely live in multi-unit buildings that are likely not going to have many charging options.  I don’t foresee them seeking to purchase BEVs due to the limitations that will likely continue to exist for the foreseeable future.  

[silvrsvt]

16 minutes ago, tbone said:

I am highly skeptical of this plan based on my personal experience with my BEV in a low charging option area.  The Escape is basically their only entry level vehicle now, aside from Maverick, and a lot of entry level drivers likely live in multi-unit buildings that are likely not going to have many charging options.  I don’t foresee them seeking to purchase BEVs due to the limitations that will likely continue to exist for the foreseeable future.  

 

We are in that chicken or egg situation right now with charging-I know there are plans to build out charging stations, but to what extent outside of the highway, remains to be seen. There won't be demand for charging if there aren't EVs to use them, but if there is no EVs, it won't get built out either. 

 

I forget if the 2020 Escape was all new or just another reskin of the 2010 one. Not sure what Ford would use since developing another ICE gen product wouldn't be exactly the smartest thing to do, due to limited ability to recoup costs on it. But If they are planning on using what is basically a modified S197 platform from 2005 till 2030 in the Mustang, I guess the C2 can carry on that long also with updates. 

[Rick73]

12 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

A consumer item is different then a vehicle that has mandated safety and emissions requirements from the government. 

My reference to mandates was not in a political context at all, though I suppose you can spin it that way as a distraction.  My point was that Kodak  became irrelevant because buyers in free markets preferred digital over film.  This was driven by technology, not mandates.  People gladly chose digital because they perceived it as a better product.  Adoption rate was therefore fast.  The same thing can be said for transition from tube TVs to LCD and plasma flat screen TVs.  Initially it was very expensive, but the wealthy got market going by creating demand.  This also happened under free markets, and there was no need to mandate the transition because it happened by choice.

 

BEVs versus ICE transition, by comparison, is not similar because it is not occurring by free market choices.  Again, I’m referring to human behavior and choices they make as it relates to transitioning from ICE to BEVs.  Basically, if buyers thought BEVs were a better product offering greater value, like they thought digital cameras or flat screen TVs were better, we wouldn’t need mandates.

[AM222]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 Basically, if buyers thought BEVs were a better product offering greater value, like they thought digital cameras or flat screen TVs were better, we wouldn’t need mandates.

Unlike switching to a flat screen TV or digital camera, switching to BEVs only makes sense if you had access to a home charger or lived close to a charging station.
Apparently, there are neighborhoods that still don't have apartment (EV) charging hubs.

[silvrsvt]

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:

BEVs versus ICE transition, by comparison, is not similar because it is not occurring by free market choices.  Again, I’m referring to human behavior and choices they make as it relates to transitioning from ICE to BEVs.  Basically, if buyers thought BEVs were a better product offering greater value, like they thought digital cameras or flat screen TVs were better, we wouldn’t need mandates.

 

In the grand scheme of things, what improvement was truly forced by consumer choice in the automotive field? Comparing electronic devices (disposable devices) to cars isn't the same thing. Also electronic devices get considerably cheaper as newer tech becomes available (higher yields due to new manufacturing techniques etc), helping the spread of it. Cars don't have that. 

 

Lets put it this way-why was there a push for higher efficiency/low water use washers and dryers? There wasn't a customer "demand" for it and arguably low water use washers don't clothes as clean as regular washers. It was done because of regulations from the EPA. The save some money to the customer, but not enough up front to really show a huge savings. 

[silvrsvt]

6 minutes ago, AM222 said:

Unlike switching to a flat screen TV or digital camera, switching to BEVs only makes sense if you had access to a home charger or lived close to a charging station.
Apparently, there are neighborhoods that still don't have apartment (EV) charging hubs.

 

its the chicken or the egg situation-no EVs, no need for charging stations. Can't have one without the other. 

[akirby]

8 hours ago, tbone said:

I am highly skeptical of this plan based on my personal experience with my BEV in a low charging option area.  The Escape is basically their only entry level vehicle now, aside from Maverick, and a lot of entry level drivers likely live in multi-unit buildings that are likely not going to have many charging options.  I don’t foresee them seeking to purchase BEVs due to the limitations that will likely continue to exist for the foreseeable future.  

You can’t think of it in terms of replacing one vehicle with another vehicle for the same consumer.  In this case you’re replacing one consumer with a different consumer (most likely).  Just like Bronco and Ranger replaced Focus and Maverick/Bronco Sport replaced Fusion.  

[Rick73]

24 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

In the grand scheme of things, what improvement was truly forced by consumer choice in the automotive field?

 

Air conditioning?  Power steering?  Automatic transmission?  Radial tires?  Disc brakes?  Independent suspension?  Any radio beyond AM?  Corrosion resistant body?
 

People like change just fine when perceived as an improvement, particularly when it adds value relative to its cost.  I’m not anti BEV, just stating that for far too many buyers TODAY (not in future which most people don’t care about) BEV choices are likely seen as too much of a compromise that adds costs without significant improvement to the quality of their lives.

 

I’m quite aware some here argue BEVs are already better, and maybe cheaper to own overall due to lower energy costs, but presently most buyers don’t agree.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, tbone said:

I am highly skeptical of this plan based on my personal experience with my BEV in a low charging option area.  The Escape is basically their only entry level vehicle now, aside from Maverick, and a lot of entry level drivers likely live in multi-unit buildings that are likely not going to have many charging options.  I don’t foresee them seeking to purchase BEVs due to the limitations that will likely continue to exist for the foreseeable future.  

You can’t think of it in terms of replacing one vehicle with another vehicle for the same consumer.  In this case you’re replacing one consumer with a different consumer (most likely).  Just like Bronco and Ranger replaced Focus and Maverick/Bronco Sport replaced Fusion.  

[silvrsvt]

22 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Air conditioning?  Power steering?  Automatic transmission?  Radial tires?  Disc brakes?  Independent suspension?  Any radio beyond AM?  Corrosion resistant body?

 

My option on that-they where just improvements that allowed manufacturers to charge more money without fundamentally changing the vehicle, unlike emissions/gas mileage did (performance/size of vehicle)

[Rangers09]

39 minutes ago, akirby said:

You can’t think of it in terms of replacing one vehicle with another vehicle for the same consumer.  In this case you’re replacing one consumer with a different consumer (most likely).  Just like Bronco and Ranger replaced Focus and Maverick/Bronco Sport replaced Fusion.  

 

If that is Ford's thinking, it isn't a great business model, as it is usually easier to retain a customer than find new ones.

 

With respect to the Escape, if the next one is a BEV, with no PHEV option, Ford just lost a long term customer who has purchased 3 new Escapes since 2018. We would probably replace the current MY 23 in 2026 with another Escape PHEV, but if a BEV is the only Escape option, we will retain the current vehicle and use our money elsewhere. Ford just lost a customer. Not interested in a Ranger or Maverick, as I already have a F-450 and also not interested in a Bronco Sport with trims levels such as badlands, big bend, etc. Those may appeal to younger folks, but not me.

 

Based on recent sales figures and dealer lots, I'll suggest they don't currently have an abundant supply of new consumers queuing up to purchase BEV's, so a smart business would be more careful in retaining the existing customer base, providing the products they prefer and/or meets their needs.

 

Yes, the industry will eventually transition to alternative propulsion methods, which may be electric, or it may be another alternative. However, during the transition, if Ford want to survive, they better continue providing the products the existing customer base want, as they are the ones generating the profits to pay for the capital expansion in new technologies. Pissing off existing customers like us, by forcing us to consider products that don't meet our needs isn't smart business sense.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rangers09 said:

 

If that is Ford's thinking, it isn't a great business model, as it is usually easier to retain a customer than find new ones.

 

With respect to the Escape, if the next one is a BEV, with no PHEV option, Ford just lost a long term customer who has purchased 3 new Escapes since 2018. We would probably replace the current MY 23 in 2026 with another Escape PHEV, but if a BEV is the only Escape option, we will retain the current vehicle and use our money elsewhere. Ford just lost a customer. Not interested in a Ranger or Maverick, as I already have a F-450 and also not interested in a Bronco Sport with trims levels such as badlands, big bend, etc. Those may appeal to younger folks, but not me.

 

Based on recent sales figures and dealer lots, I'll suggest they don't currently have an abundant supply of new consumers queuing up to purchase BEV's, so a smart business would be more careful in retaining the existing customer base, providing the products they prefer and/or meets their needs.

 

Yes, the industry will eventually transition to alternative propulsion methods, which may be electric, or it may be another alternative. However, during the transition, if Ford want to survive, they better continue providing the products the existing customer base want, as they are the ones generating the profits to pay for the capital expansion in new technologies. Pissing off existing customers like us, by forcing us to consider products that don't meet our needs isn't smart business sense.

I’m not saying that replacing Escape with a BEV is a good move, and Ford hasn’t even confirmed that yet.  However not all customers are the same.  
 

Let’s take Focus as an example.  It’s not a stretch to think it was barely breaking even.  In the Mulally days they were losing $3K on each one.  So customers liked them (I owned 3) but they weren’t contributing much, if any, profit.  And a large percentage of those buyers only bought them because they were cheap and those buyers have zero brand loyalty.  
 

Enter Ranger and Bronco.  Different customers.  Significantly higher prices and profit margins and those buyers are far more loyal to Ford than a focus owner because they are more emotional purchases and not just the cheapest option.

 

In some cases it’s not about profit but strategic importance.  If Ford believes it needs a BEV to stay competitive and Escape is the low man on the totem pole with regard to profitability then it has to go.  May or may not end up being a great decision depending on how the new product performs but if that’s what the data shows then it’s a sound business decision.  It sure worked out for Ranger, Bronco, Bronco Sport and Maverick.

[Rangers09]

24 minutes ago, akirby said:

I’m not saying that replacing Escape with a BEV is a good move, and Ford hasn’t even confirmed that yet.  However not all customers are the same.  
 

Let’s take Focus as an example.  It’s not a stretch to think it was barely breaking even.  In the Mulally days they were losing $3K on each one.  So customers liked them (I owned 3) but they weren’t contributing much, if any, profit.  And a large percentage of those buyers only bought them because they were cheap and those buyers have zero brand loyalty.  
 

Enter Ranger and Bronco.  Different customers.  Significantly higher prices and profit margins and those buyers are far more loyal to Ford than a focus owner because they are more emotional purchases and not just the cheapest option.

 

In some cases it’s not about profit but strategic importance.  If Ford believes it needs a BEV to stay competitive and Escape is the low man on the totem pole with regard to profitability then it has to go.  May or may not end up being a great decision depending on how the new product performs but if that’s what the data shows then it’s a sound business decision.  It sure worked out for Ranger, Bronco, Bronco Sport and Maverick.

 

In our younger days we also purchased a Focus, 3 Escorts and even a Festiva, because they were cheap and we didn't have much disposable income at that time. Prior to the demise of the Focus, we had already migrated to the Escape/Edge/Mustang/F-350, so had no interest in the mini-trucks or Broncos, when they were introduced.

 

When Ford killed the Focus, I'll suggest the North American market had a bias towards SUV's, so while they may have lost some customers, lots of potential new customers were available for the existing models and new one coming online. While exiting a market segment is a risk for losing customers, I'll suggest the risk was minimal, as the existing models and new models were being sought by many consumers, so they gained more customers than they lost.

 

In the current transition to BEV's, unlike the transition from sedans, I don't see a huge base of new customers lining up to purchase BEV's. The early adopters have already jumped on the BEV bandwagon, but I'll suggest many of us are waiting until they address the limited range, charging time, charging station network and cost (both capital and depreciation) before considering one. Without a huge base of potential new customers, Ford better be very careful in how they manage the transition.

 

 

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

13 hours ago, tbone said:

I am highly skeptical of this plan based on my personal experience with my BEV in a low charging option area.  The Escape is basically their only entry level vehicle now, aside from Maverick, and a lot of entry level drivers likely live in multi-unit buildings that are likely not going to have many charging options.  I don’t foresee them seeking to purchase BEVs due to the limitations that will likely continue to exist for the foreseeable future.  

When it comes to cheaper options, the maverick has it covered pretty well. Charging infrastructure is an issue, but we're 3-5 years away from an escape EV. By the time it arrives, there will be way more options to charge your EV in public. 

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I’m quite aware some here argue BEVs are already better, and maybe cheaper to own overall due to lower energy costs, but presently most buyers don’t agree.

 

J.D. Power's U.S. Electric Vehicle Experience Ownership Study found that once buyers move forward with buying or leasing a BEV ("making the initial leap of faith" as the study put it), they're very satisfied and appreciate the benefits that BEV provide. The positive experience these customers have with BEV results in a virtuous cycle where they are compelled to consider another BEV for future car purchases and to recommend BEV to others. This is one reason why the BEV market is growing exponentially nowadays.

 

“Making the initial leap of faith into owning a BEV is proving to be very satisfying,” said Brent Gruber, senior director of global automotive at J.D. Power. “We know from our research that many consumers have concerns during the purchase consideration process with aspects like battery range and vehicle charging. However, once someone has purchased a BEV, they’re pretty much hooked. What will keep first-time owners coming back to buy another BEV is the compelling experience with the safety and technology features, lower service and maintenance costs, and pure driving enjoyment. The new BEVs from traditional brands are helping to attract even more first-time buyers.”

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Let’s take Focus as an example.  It’s not a stretch to think it was barely breaking even.  In the Mulally days they were losing $3K on each one.  So customers liked them (I owned 3) but they weren’t contributing much, if any, profit.  And a large percentage of those buyers only bought them because they were cheap and those buyers have zero brand loyalty.  

 

Enter Ranger and Bronco.  Different customers.  Significantly higher prices and profit margins

See, this is the tricky part about the auto industry. Profit margins are obviously important, but if all of your products command a premium over your rivals, then you aren't gonna appeal as much to the younger buyers out there. 

 

One of the things that scares me the most, is the fact that when I see a younger person, late teens or 20s driving, it's almost always in a Honda or Toyota. You almost never see young people driving Ford's. That's largely due to the fact that many of the younger people want sedans, hatchbacks, and coupes for a variety of reasons. Style, better fuel economy, typically lower prices, etc. 

 

Ideally, Ford's cooking up something for these people, either using the c2 platform, or its flexible EV platforms. If Ford can make a sustainable business case for a 19k hybrid truck on the c2 platform, then a hatchback/sedan in the low to mid 20s should be feasible as well. Especially now that c2 components have all made their money back and then some. Build it at flat rock so it doesn't take away any plant capacity from other plants that are building high volume CUVS and trucks. 

 

Imagine something like a new escort, a practical, enticing, sporty, yet sensible vehicle. Something like that wouldn't sell in massive numbers, but if it was developed on the cheap using mostly off the shelf components, it wouldn't have to in order to turn a profit, and it wouldn't have a ton of competition. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

rperez817, you are correct that BEV adoption will only require a couple decades for the people who BEVs will work for, who can deal with a BEVs limitations, and can afford them. That BEV demographic is a shrinking slice of the American populace, for a start we've got a couple hundred million drivers but new car sales tend to average only about 15 million a year, so we can't even electrify 10% of the fleet per year. BEVs tend to be expensive which means they're out of consideration for a few million buyers a year and aren't available in several market segments which knocks a couple million more buyers out of the potential BEV market every year. Throw in the sizable chunk of apartment dwellers who may not even have off street parking or the drivers who need to travel in rural areas and the BEV market shrinks even more. So we're down to a maximum BEV conversion of maybe 5 million vehicles a year, and probably another 5 million drivers who will never be able to make the transition to BEVs.

 

And what the heck was this great transition to BEVs going to accomplish- Reducing Green House Gasses and climate change?

 

Best we can hope for is maybe 5% of the fleet switched from internal combustion to EVs per year, and with typical grid mix of renewables only running 20% to 40% at best and considering that most of the replaced ICs are Priu and such instead of the big belcher ICs, were talking maybe a 1%  reduction in GHGs per year... Which will be overwhelmed by economic growth.

 

So what the heck are all these BEVs accomplishing?

 

 

[silvrsvt]

58 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Best we can hope for is maybe 5% of the fleet switched from internal combustion to EVs per year, and with typical grid mix of renewables only running 20% to 40% at best and considering that most of the replaced ICs are Priu and such instead of the big belcher ICs, were talking maybe a 1%  reduction in GHGs per year... Which will be overwhelmed by economic growth.

 

So what the heck are all these BEVs accomplishing?

 

Maybe instead of doing napkin math and completing failing at it, try this:

https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/how-clean-are-electric-cars/#:~:text=Tonnes of CO2 emitted over the lifetime&text=In the worst case scenario,emit 83% less than petrol.

 

In the worst case scenario, an electric car with a battery produced in China and driven in Poland still emits 37% less CO2 than petrol. And in the best case scenario, an electric car with a battery produced in Sweden and driven in Sweden can emit 83% less than petrol.

 

Also don't discount the fact that the energy industry is also trying to decarbonize also...so percentages should be higher.