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

[rperez817]

59 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

  I guess I’m thinking if someone made a better sedan, something appealing, buyers would bite.

 

That someone won't be Ford Blue division. As mentioned earlier, costs associated with designing, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing "a better sedan, something appealing" at Ford are excessive would not meet the company's hurdle rate criteria.

[silvrsvt]

19 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

A lot of those vehicles you see on the road including sedans, SUV's, CUV's and trucks are a reflection of the increased vehicle quality which has lengthened the average ownership time and other factors including the increasingly higher costs related to purchasing or leasing new vehicles.  

 

Average age of car on the road today is 12.5 years old, so seeing a 2011 Fusion shouldn't come as a surprise, I see a ton of them on the road still.  

[Andrew L]

57 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Average age of car on the road today is 12.5 years old, so seeing a 2011 Fusion shouldn't come as a surprise, I see a ton of them on the road still.  

 

When I was in Poland last month there were a ton of Mondeo Wagons and Hatch models all over Warsaw and Krakow.  I even saw a few sedans too but most were wagons or hatch. 

[zipnzap]

Malibu made the top 25 best-selling vehicles of 2023 list:

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43553191/bestselling-cars-2023/

 

https://blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/75551-the-25-bestselling-cars-trucks-and-suvs-of-2023-so-far/

 

[Rick73]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

Why are you so obsessed with efficiency?  You keep harping on it incessantly.

Bluntly put, I believe efficiency (lower vehicle costs overall) is the best answer long-term, not manufacturer’s short-term higher profitability.  I believe the US economy is on an unsustainable trajectory, and that a correction is inevitable.  I may be wrong, but expect the standard of living will go down enough for so many Americans over the next decade or so that manufacturers who cater mostly to higher-cost vehicles will find much less demand (business) than those building lower-cost vehicles.  I can’t explain the “why” any better without getting into restricted subject matter.  I hope I’m wrong, because what I see coming is worrisome.

 

And to save you time, I already know your position that Ford has to pursue higher profitability in order to stay in business and avoid bankruptcy. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

"Sucking money out of your customers until they go bankrupt is not a sustainable business plan"

 

The math is pretty simple- Ford has a relatively fixed number of employees and factories to keep busy and layoffs and plant closings don't cut those expenses much. So Ford needs enough volume and revenue to keep them working, raise prices too much and volume falls below a profitable point, price too low and Ford loses money too. Mercedes can get away with selling cars with six figure prices but not Ford, and both need to attract customers who aren't buying their last vehicle.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

"Sucking money out of your customers until they go bankrupt is not a sustainable business plan"

 

The math is pretty simple- Ford has a relatively fixed number of employees and factories to keep busy and layoffs and plant closings don't cut those expenses much. So Ford needs enough volume and revenue to keep them working, raise prices too much and volume falls below a profitable point, price too low and Ford loses money too. Mercedes can get away with selling cars with six figure prices but not Ford, and both need to attract customers who aren't buying their last vehicle.

Considering other “impediments”, sales are still pretty strong with 160,000 last month

[Gurgeh]

10 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

...Mercedes can get away with selling cars with six figure prices but not Ford, and both need to attract customers who aren't buying their last vehicle.

Do a build and price on the Navigator. It is pretty much impossible to build one below $100,000, unless you go with a base model with no-to-few options. The Reserve and Reserve L start just under (and any options at all plus tax will push you over), and the two Black Label versions both start above that level. One of them well above.

[bzcat]

Why are we discussing this again?

 

The choice for Ford was really simple: Sell 100k Fusion at low or almost no profit, or sell 100k Maverick or Bronco Sport at decent profit. They are literally made in the same place by the same people so the implication is really obvious on the opportunity costs.

 

If Ford had another plant sitting idle, then maybe they would have considered making another Fusion. And if there was no 25% tariff on Chinese cars, maybe Ford would have imported it. Who knows. But those things wouldn't have changed the fact that gross margin on Fusion was likely lower than any truck or SUV alternatives that Ford could be building at the same plant. 

 

Nissan sold loads of Altima and it's giving up. There is also no planned replacement for Hyundai Sonata or Kia K5 twin. This segment is headed where the Minivan is right now... niche segment dominated by the last 2 or 3 survivors. GM being opportunistic and keeping the existing Malibu around because it has a UAW contract that locks it into making it doesn't mean there is a good business case for a new generation. The new one supposedly under development is probably going to be imported from Korea... Ford doesn't have the luxury of such overseas manufacturing base. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by bzcat

[GearheadGrrrl]

Maverick has about the same price as the Fusion and more content in the case of the hybrid, so it's probably less profitable than the Fusion. 

 

Flat Rock has plenty of unused capacity.

 

More likely manufacturers are simply choosing to specialize in market segments they're successful in.

[akirby]

26 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Maverick has about the same price as the Fusion and more content in the case of the hybrid, so it's probably less profitable than the Fusion. 

 

Maverick is far cheaper to build and it sells at MSRP with no incentives.  Why people can’t understand this is mind boggling.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Base model has similar powertrain to the Fusion Hybrid which wasn't a loss leader, about the same number of body parts but Maverick doesn't come with a trunk lid. If anything, adding for inflation, the Fusion would probably be more profitable.

[AGR]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Maverick is far cheaper to build and it sells at MSRP with no incentives.  Why people can’t understand this is mind boggling.

 

When real competitors inevitably enter the segment and Maverick is no longer selling 'at MSRP with no incentives', Ford will need a diverse product portfolio in the >30K price range. Why is that so hard to understand?

[silvrsvt]

29 minutes ago, AGR said:

 

When real competitors inevitably enter the segment and Maverick is no longer selling 'at MSRP with no incentives', Ford will need a diverse product portfolio in the >30K price range. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

Given what inflation has been doing, the 30K price point is the new 20K price point. The incentive market we had pre covid is no way related to what is going on post covid either. I don't see 10K incentives on F-150 like we had years back either. 

 

And don't disregard the fact that Fusion wasn't profitable at its lower price point, where as the Maverick was designed to be profitable at its low end. 

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Maverick has about the same price as the Fusion and more content in the case of the hybrid, so it's probably less profitable than the Fusion. 

 

Flat Rock has plenty of unused capacity.

 

More likely manufacturers are simply choosing to specialize in market segments they're successful in.

The c2 platform is a home run for Ford's affordable offerings. Having a solid shared platform and a bunch of shared components is a fantastic way of dropping the price of making a new vehicle without killing quality. The maverick doesn't cost a ton to make because it rides on Ford's most widespread vehicle architecture.

 

I'd love for a c2 fusion to come here, but I guess it's up to Ford. Ford is generally pretty good at predicting economic trends, they know an economic crisis is likely on the horizon. So they probably have quite a few c2 based products in development. I doubt I can track it down, but Ford said they were planning at least 12 c2 based models a few years ago. 

[akirby]

12 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Base model has similar powertrain to the Fusion Hybrid which wasn't a loss leader, about the same number of body parts but Maverick doesn't come with a trunk lid. If anything, adding for inflation, the Fusion would probably be more profitable.

The Fusion cd4 platform itself was far more expensive.  It was a modified Volvo/Ford Europe Mondeo platform and was geared towards higher priced models. It was designed for v6 engines and was also limited to just 2 models (edge and fusion).  C2 is lighter, cheaper and much better amortized over more vehicles.  A C2 Fusion would be cheaper but if you’re still competing with Nissan and Kia and Hyundai it will forever be a price war and profits will be scarce.  Maybe if they leave the market it won’t be so bad but then you have to ask whether those resources are better spent on other products.  For Ford the answer is yes (and most other mfrs it seems).

[akirby]

10 hours ago, AGR said:

 

When real competitors inevitably enter the segment and Maverick is no longer selling 'at MSRP with no incentives', Ford will need a diverse product portfolio in the >30K price range. Why is that so hard to understand?

They don’t have to sell at MSRP - just without incentives.  A lot of Maverick buyers aren’t buying on price - they’re doing a lot of customizations and are emotionally invested.  Most Fusion buyers were just buying a cheap roomy appliance.

 

They only need a diverse portfolio < $30k if there is more profitability there than the other segments they’re competing in.

 

 

[AM222]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

A C2 Fusion would be cheaper but if you’re still competing with Nissan and Kia and Hyundai it will forever be a price war and profits will be scarce.  Maybe if they leave the market it won’t be so bad but then you have to ask whether those resources are better spent on other products.  For Ford the answer is yes (and most other mfrs it seems).

The closest thing to a C2 Fusion, the new gen C2-based Mondeo (aka Taurus in the Middle East)

Edited October 9, 2023 by AM222

[fuzzymoomoo]

11 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

I don't see 10K incentives on F-150 like we had years back either. 

The most I’ve seen was $8k right around Labor Day. 

[bzcat]

15 hours ago, AGR said:

 

When real competitors inevitably enter the segment and Maverick is no longer selling 'at MSRP with no incentives', Ford will need a diverse product portfolio in the >30K price range. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

Diverse portfolio just for the sake or what customer wants to buy? Take out daily rental sales from Altima or Malibu and you probably lop 30% of the volume. 

 

Retail customers want utility vehicles and that's what Ford is giving it to them in the form of Maverick and Bronco Sport. Maverick was a brilliant replacement for Fusion and the market reception for it tells the whole story. 

 

A diverse portfolio of products under $30k for Ford will mean more SUVs and trucks in different price points. The obsession with the sedan form factor is ignoring the fundamental market shift away from cars. I love wagons - I've owned a few and currently has one, but it's not coming back anytime soon in the mass market for the same reason sedan is basically done. Sedan is on its way to that niche place where 2 door coupe, hatchback, wagon and minivans have gone.  The thing is that car companies are not stupid... they can make a sedan or a wagon with 1.5" suspension lift and call it SUV. One will need $5000 rebate to sell and the other one not only has higher MSRP and will require little to no incentive to sell. So why insist on Ford (or any other company) making a product that is shun by the market and has lower margin. Cars with 1" suspension lift is the new normal. Get used to it. 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by bzcat

[GearheadGrrrl]

So Ford, how about skipping the lift on an Escape so I can autocross it and tweak the Ecobeast 4. to more than 250 horses while your at it?

[T-dubz]

Let’s not forget the cost saving measures are pretty easy to spot on the maverick too. Black plastic body panels, exposed metal behind the seats, not getting the “real” version of sync, just to name a few. It’s easier to get away with this on a truck.

[fuzzymoomoo]

26 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

Let’s not forget the cost saving measures are pretty easy to spot on the maverick too. Black plastic body panels, exposed metal behind the seats, not getting the “real” version of sync, just to name a few. It’s easier to get away with this on a truck.

They’ve been doing a little bit of that here and there for a few years now. I had to replace the left rear door on my friend’s 2020 Explorer and noticed you can see the bolts and bolsters for the third row seats. Meanwhile in my Flex all of that stuff is covered up. It’s not a huge deal but something I immediately noticed. 

[Deanh]

On 10/8/2023 at 1:49 PM, akirby said:

Maverick is far cheaper to build and it sells at MSRP with no incentives.  Why people can’t understand this is mind boggling.

not hard to sell at MSRP when theres basically $300 markup from invoice on the base models....AND theres a waiting list AND severe supply issues...very annoying...but a home run for Ford if in fact its profitable for them...

[silvrsvt]

20 hours ago, bzcat said:

A diverse portfolio of products under $30k for Ford will mean more SUVs and trucks in different price points. The obsession with the sedan form factor is ignoring the fundamental market shift away from cars. I love wagons - I've owned a few and currently has one, but it's not coming back anytime soon in the mass market for the same reason sedan is basically done. Sedan is on its way to that niche place where 2 door coupe, hatchback, wagon and minivans have gone.  The thing is that car companies are not stupid... they can make a sedan or a wagon with 1.5" suspension lift and call it SUV. One will need $5000 rebate to sell and the other one not only has higher MSRP and will require little to no incentive to sell. So why insist on Ford (or any other company) making a product that is shun by the market and has lower margin. Cars with 1" suspension lift is the new normal. Get used to it. 

 

The issue with the CUV/lifted sedan formfactor is that its not the best for an EV powertrain-larger frontal area impacts range...so I wonder how that will factor into things.