It still seems like getting rid of the Fusion was a mistake.

[zipnzap]

Strong Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry Sales Show Sedans Aren't Dead: These two sedans account for nearly a quarter-million sales through 2023

 

https://www.motor1.com/news/675819/chevy-malibu-toyota-camry-sales-sedans-not-dead/

 

Chevy Malibu Sales Place Third In Segment, Outpacing Nissan Altima, Kia K5 In Q2 2023

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/09/chevrolet-malibu-sales-numbers-figures-results-second-quarter-2023-q2/

 

I dunno....

 

I still think getting rid of the Fusion is a mistake...

 

Seems like the segment is a pretty sizable pie to not be getting a slice of.

 

And it's not like GM, Toyota and the like have stopped selling trucks, crossovers and SUVs.
 

[Oac98]

1 hour ago, zipnzap said:

Strong Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry Sales Show Sedans Aren't Dead: These two sedans account for nearly a quarter-million sales through 2023

 

https://www.motor1.com/news/675819/chevy-malibu-toyota-camry-sales-sedans-not-dead/

 

Chevy Malibu Sales Place Third In Segment, Outpacing Nissan Altima, Kia K5 In Q2 2023

 

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2023/09/chevrolet-malibu-sales-numbers-figures-results-second-quarter-2023-q2/

 

I dunno....

 

I still think getting rid of the Fusion is a mistake...

 

Seems like the segment is a pretty sizable pie to not be getting a slice of.

 

And it's not like GM, Toyota and the like have stopped selling trucks, crossovers and SUVs.
 

Well with all of this inflation going on and the fact that these SUVS and trucks are extremely expensive it’s no surprise some people are gravitating towards cars. I sure as hell don’t want a 1000 a month payment. I’m still driving my old 14 year old ford sedan proudly. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Oacjay98

[fuzzymoomoo]

38 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

Well with all of this inflation going on and the fact that these SUVS and trucks are extremely expensive it’s no surprise some people are gravitating towards cars. I sure as hell don’t want a 1000 a month payment. I’m still driving my old 14 year old ford sedan proudly. 

I’ll more than likely be holding onto my Fusion when my lease is up. As much as I could really use a truck, I can’t justify the price right now even after the pay raise from the new contract kicks in. 

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, zipnzap said:

I dunno....

 

I still think getting rid of the Fusion is a mistake...

 

Seems like the segment is a pretty sizable pie to not be getting a slice of.

 

And it's not like GM, Toyota and the like have stopped selling trucks, crossovers and SUVs.
 

 

All good points zipnzap. Ultimately, it comes down to the substantial costs to Ford associated with redesigning Fusion so that it's competitive in its segment. Ford wisely decided that those costs weren't worth it, and pursued alternatives.

 

Ford could hypothetically import the current Changan Ford Mondeo from China and relabel it as Fusion for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico markets, but it's unlikely that product would have much appeal.

 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Ford's "small car problem" was that they tooled up three of them and Fiesta and Focus with the exception of the STs and RS sold on (unprofitable) price alone.  Ford's "solution" was to kill off all three in the U.S. despite the Fusion selling at higher and profitable prices. GM was wiser and kept the Malibu around, what the heck the engineering and tooling was paid for so why not? So now GM is selling over 100K Malibus a year without even trying, while Ford is throwing their pet two row SUVs into a not real profitable commodity market...  

[rperez817]

6 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

despite the Fusion selling at higher and profitable prices. 

 

Only Ford executives know for sure, but automotive industry analysts indicated for years that Fusion was a low or no profit product in the U.S. market.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Assuming the execs even had honest numbers to tell what vehicle was or was not turning a profit. I used to work for old Hostess that closed any bakery that lost money for month, but their accounting system was so simplistic they really had no idea what bakeries or products were making or losing money. Amtrak has a similar dysfunctional accounting system that piles overhead costs from facilities on the east coast on trains that run no further east than Chicago. Thus trains like the Empire Builder that have low overhead costs due to using older equipment and freight railroads track end up subsidizing the Northeast Corridor's Amtrak owned tracks and new trains like the Accela.

[akirby]

15 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Assuming the execs even had honest numbers to tell what vehicle was or was not turning a profit. I used to work for old Hostess that closed any bakery that lost money for month, but their accounting system was so simplistic they really had no idea what bakeries or products were making or losing money. Amtrak has a similar dysfunctional accounting system that piles overhead costs from facilities on the east coast on trains that run no further east than Chicago. Thus trains like the Empire Builder that have low overhead costs due to using older equipment and freight railroads track end up subsidizing the Northeast Corridor's Amtrak owned tracks and new trains like the Accela.

Ford knows exactly how much they were making or losing on Fusion and all reports from insiders agreed it was little to no profit.  And back of the envelope math makes it easy to confirm.  And it’s not gross profit - of course they made a gross profit but that’s not the tru number.  We know Ford back then was in the 4% profit margin ballpark overall and we know F series was way higher than that, but let’s assume For was targeting 4% net profit on Fusion.  On a $25k vehicle that’s only $1000.  8% would only be $2000.  If you have to put $3K incentives to match prices with the Koreans and Nissan there goes your profit.  And far more SEs were sold on price than Titaniums.

 

If GM had a Maverick or Bronco Sport competitor they would replace Malibu in an instant.  They’re only keeping it because they don’t have a better product to replace it.  They are not making much profit. 
 

Toyota and Honda have global volume including Europe and Asia and have mastered cost cutting on those platforms for decades so it’s easier for them to keep them.

[silvrsvt]

18 minutes ago, akirby said:

Toyota and Honda have global volume including Europe and Asia and have mastered cost cutting on those platforms for decades so it’s easier for them to keep them.

 

The Camry is getting killed off in Japan

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43417153/toyota-camry-japan-killed/

 

[rperez817]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

mastered cost cutting

 

The Ford+ plan for its Blue division should finally address Ford's woeful situation with out-of-control costs, complexity, and inefficiency in product development and engineering in that division. The removal of sedans from its North American and European product lineups will make it easier for Ford to implement this plan.

[Oac98]

2 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I’ll more than likely be holding onto my Fusion when my lease is up. As much as I could really use a truck, I can’t justify the price right now even after the pay raise from the new contract kicks in. 

I think that’s a smart move, I would like a bigger vehicle too but my reasons are the same as yours. I still feel like flat rock could’ve been used to produce the next gen fusion that’s in China and the new zephyr along with Mustang but Ford will never do that. If sedans somehow were to become more popular again they would just import them from China like the 2024 Nautilus.

[Oac98]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

All good points zipnzap. Ultimately, it comes down to the substantial costs to Ford associated with redesigning Fusion so that it's competitive in its segment. Ford wisely decided that those costs weren't worth it, and pursued alternatives.

 

Ford could hypothetically import the current Changan Ford Mondeo from China and relabel it as Fusion for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico markets, but it's unlikely that product would have much appeal.

 

That and the zephyr are nice products but I know that margins are low on sedans. 

[DeluxeStang]

I agree with Ford that the market for sedans and hatchbacks wasn't substantial enough for 6 individual sedan and hatchback models for Ford and Lincoln. But I believe it would have been smart to have at least 1 or 2. 

 

The challenge, as akirby pointed out, is to find a way to introduce a new product without taking away plant capacity and valuable resources from more profitable SUVs and trucks. This is why I proposed building the new c2 based Mondeo in Flat rock. That plant has a ton of unused capacity, it can only produce lower vehicles in its current form, and bringing the existing c2 based Mondeo here means most, if not all of the engineering and design work is already done. So beyond tooling up Flat Rock, you wouldn't have a ton of expenses associated with the program. Meaning you'd have a product with much better profit margins than the previous fusion. 

[ice-capades]

52 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I agree with Ford that the market for sedans and hatchbacks wasn't substantial enough for 6 individual sedan and hatchback models for Ford and Lincoln. But I believe it would have been smart to have at least 1 or 2. 

 

The challenge, as akirby pointed out, is to find a way to introduce a new product without taking away plant capacity and valuable resources from more profitable SUVs and trucks. This is why I proposed building the new c2 based Mondeo in Flat rock. That plant has a ton of unused capacity, it can only produce lower vehicles in its current form, and bringing the existing c2 based Mondeo here means most, if not all of the engineering and design work is already done. So beyond tooling up Flat Rock, you wouldn't have a ton of expenses associated with the program. Meaning you'd have a product with much better profit margins than the previous fusion. 

 

No one knows what Ford plant production commitments are included in the next UAW contract and we won't know until Ford discloses that information after the UAW contract terms are ratified. There's been a lot of speculation, including past unfilled promises, about Flat Rock's future. The plant has been a valuable resource for Ford over the years in addressing quality and other issues for vehicles that were shipped to Flat Rock to resolve those issues utilizing Flat Rock workers. Only time will tell what plans Ford has for the Flat Rock plant. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

I agree with Ford that the market for sedans and hatchbacks wasn't substantial enough for 6 individual sedan and hatchback models for Ford and Lincoln. But I believe it would have been smart to have at least 1 or 2. 

 

The challenge, as akirby pointed out, is to find a way to introduce a new product without taking away plant capacity and valuable resources from more profitable SUVs and trucks. This is why I proposed building the new c2 based Mondeo in Flat rock. That plant has a ton of unused capacity, it can only produce lower vehicles in its current form, and bringing the existing c2 based Mondeo here means most, if not all of the engineering and design work is already done. So beyond tooling up Flat Rock, you wouldn't have a ton of expenses associated with the program. Meaning you'd have a product with much better profit margins than the previous fusion. 

On the surface it seems FR could easily build Mondeo and/or Zephyr sedans with minimal additional fixed costs.  But you still need marketing, crash testing, EPA certification and parts supply including engines, refresh designs, etc.  I’m guessing those resources are better used on other things right now.

[rmc523]

11 minutes ago, akirby said:

On the surface it seems FR could easily build Mondeo and/or Zephyr sedans with minimal additional fixed costs.  But you still need marketing, crash testing, EPA certification and parts supply including engines, refresh designs, etc.  I’m guessing those resources are better used on other things right now.

 

I think they ought to import the Mondeo (as Fusion) and Zephyr here from China - they're doing it with Nautilus, why not them?

 

And, limit it to mid-range and up, limit build combos, to keep ability to make money up by not going after the bottom end of the market.

[ice-capades]

15 minutes ago, akirby said:

On the surface it seems FR could easily build Mondeo and/or Zephyr sedans with minimal additional fixed costs.  But you still need marketing, crash testing, EPA certification and parts supply including engines, refresh designs, etc.  I’m guessing those resources are better used on other things right now.

 

The unkown factor is what Ford has planned for the Flat Rock plant.  

[T-dubz]

GM has 8 SUVs that start under 30k

Chevy has 5

Buick has 2

GMC has 1

 

Ford has 1 under 30k and it comes in at $29.5k. Why can GM make so many inexpensive SUVs  and ford can’t? Ford’s problem is they can’t seem to design a vehicle that’s affordable. If ford had some cheap SUVs, no one would be asking about sedans. 

[DeluxeStang]

39 minutes ago, akirby said:

On the surface it seems FR could easily build Mondeo and/or Zephyr sedans with minimal additional fixed costs.  But you still need marketing, crash testing, EPA certification and parts supply including engines, refresh designs, etc.  I’m guessing those resources are better used on other things right now.

True, and those things are expensive for sure. But since the Chinese mondeo is based on the c2 architecture, and uses powertrains that are already offered in some N. American models, it should be able to meet U.S. emissions requirements with relative ease, and crash testing shouldn't be an issue. 

 

If we look at the only model being manufactured in Flat Rock, the s650, that entire program apparently had a budget of about 300 million for redesigning the car's exterior and interior, making quite a few engineering tweaks, emissions testing, crash testing, and retooling flat rock. So with all of that in mind, it's not a stretch to assume Ford could bring a new fusion here for maybe 150-200 million, if they're essentially taking an existing design, making some small tweaks, certifying it, and tooling up Flat Rock.

 

Let's assume a budget of 200 million and an average transaction price of $35,000. Ford would only have to sell 5,714 fusions to break even on their initial investment, they'd probably clear that in the first month. Then they'd have something to hedge their bets, if the buying public started to shift back towards sedans, and it would increase their conquest sales, a lot of those sedan of life buyers who traded their fusions in for Altima and accords would just back into Ford's, not all of course, but some. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by DeluxeStang

[akirby]

46 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

GM has 8 SUVs that start under 30k

Chevy has 5

Buick has 2

GMC has 1

 

Ford has 1 under 30k and it comes in at $29.5k. Why can GM make so many inexpensive SUVs  and ford can’t? Ford’s problem is they can’t seem to design a vehicle that’s affordable. If ford had some cheap SUVs, no one would be asking about sedans. 

If those were profitable Ford wouldn’t have killed Ecosport.  Conversely why can’t GM build Raptors, Broncos or Mavericks?  Why are they killing Camaro?

 

Different situations different priorities.

[92merc]

If Ford has room for more C2 production, I'd say keep Escape going.  I'd much rather have an Escape than the Chinese Modeo, even if it was built in North America.  I'd wager Escape would be more profitable.

 

That being said, I'll bet Ford has other plans for the Flat Rock facility.  They're just waiting on UAW negotiations to complete before announcing it.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, T-dubz said:

Ford has 1 under 30k and it comes in at $29.5k. Why can GM make so many inexpensive SUVs  and ford can’t? Ford’s problem is they can’t seem to design a vehicle that’s affordable. If ford had some cheap SUVs, no one would be asking about sedans. 

 

Because they are being built in South Korea or China

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Because they are being built in South Korea or China

Ford is about to start importing Nautilus from China. Why can’t they throw a few thousand Taurus in those containers with them? 

[Andrew L]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think they ought to import the Mondeo (as Fusion) and Zephyr here from China - they're doing it with Nautilus, why not them?

 

And, limit it to mid-range and up, limit build combos, to keep ability to make money up by not going after the bottom end of the market.

 

The only way for Zephyr to work in the US is it would need the 3.0T added back to it (if it will fit), the 2.0 isn't enough for the US market.  And they would need a hybrid model preferably a plugin option.

 

But with that I am not crazy about Ford importing a Fusion and Zephyr from China, I know currently that would probably be the only way for them to get them here but if they were to re-introduce them to the lineup I would prefer them being built in North America at least.

[rmc523]

45 minutes ago, Andrew L said:

 

The only way for Zephyr to work in the US is it would need the 3.0T added back to it (if it will fit), the 2.0 isn't enough for the US market.  And they would need a hybrid model preferably a plugin option.

 

But with that I am not crazy about Ford importing a Fusion and Zephyr from China, I know currently that would probably be the only way for them to get them here but if they were to re-introduce them to the lineup I would prefer them being built in North America at least.

 

You mean the 2.0 that it had standard before?