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

[akirby]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Seems like the Bronco Sport is getting rebates-the dealership I got my Bronco from was sending me stuff with $3-5K off, but I didn't look into it super close to see if they where clustering things together to get that amount that 99% of the car buying public wouldn't be able to get. 

I see a couple of $4K discounts but most are $2000-$2500 dealer discounts and little to no incentives.  So lower than before but that’s after raising prices the last couple of years, so as long as they’re not throwing big cash on the hood the margins should still be really good.  Especially with $40k+ models.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

Failure to make a class leading model is the reason they lag behind (not profitable).  The CR-V,  Rav4, and Tucson for example sell well and are global models. They are more successful and most likely more profitable than the current gen Escape (something Ford sees as an unimportant commodity model). 

Fusion was absolutely class leading in 2013 but the platform was far more expensive than Camry or Accord.  Escape sales suffered big because they couldn’t build enough hybrids while the imports had plenty.  Escape isn’t best in class but at least the platform itself is more cost effective than previous platforms.

 

There is a huge difference between just dropping vehicles and replacing them with different vehicles.

[2005Explorer]

13 hours ago, sullynd said:

You wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t?

Sorry I accidentally used a double negative and that messed it up. What I meant is I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford pull the plug on all affordable ICE or Hybrid vehicles soon and just focus on the high end. The profit margin is much better on the $60-70k+ large trucks and SUVs than stuff selling in the high $20k to mid $30k.

 

When you can sell loaded F-150s at $70k with no discounts (or very limited) why mess with low profit margin vehicles like Escape, Bronco Sport and Maverick.

 

Now I don't agree with that and I'd personally like to see more affordable vehicles offered, but with Ford down to such few affordable options it's almost pointless for them to keep competing in those markets. We bought my elderly father a new Maverick XLT Ecoboost with AWD and I think it's a great little pickup, but you have to sell a lot of them at MSRP compared to what you make on loaded F-150s and Expeditions.

 

We might see some new affordable BEVs because that's the only way that market is ever going to take off, but I'd bet Ford is completely out of affordable ICE vehicles in the next 3-4 years. The Koreans and Japanese will fill the void for those vehicles at that point. They already have to a point.

[akirby]

49 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said:

Sorry I accidentally used a double negative and that messed it up. What I meant is I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford pull the plug on all affordable ICE or Hybrid vehicles soon and just focus on the high end. The profit margin is much better on the $60-70k+ large trucks and SUVs than stuff selling in the high $20k to mid $30k.

 

When you can sell loaded F-150s at $70k with no discounts (or very limited) why mess with low profit margin vehicles like Escape, Bronco Sport and Maverick.

 

Now I don't agree with that and I'd personally like to see more affordable vehicles offered, but with Ford down to such few affordable options it's almost pointless for them to keep competing in those markets. We bought my elderly father a new Maverick XLT Ecoboost with AWD and I think it's a great little pickup, but you have to sell a lot of them at MSRP compared to what you make on loaded F-150s and Expeditions.

 

We might see some new affordable BEVs because that's the only way that market is ever going to take off, but I'd bet Ford is completely out of affordable ICE vehicles in the next 3-4 years. The Koreans and Japanese will fill the void for those vehicles at that point. They already have to a point.

It’s not quite that simple.  You have existing factories and workers and suppliers and you need to amortize shared components like powertrains.  So you need volume.  You just have to prioritize resources so when you have a new product like Bronco, Bronco Sport, Maverick or BEVs you either have to build a new factory or two and hire a bunch of people or you kill your lower profit vehicles.  And I’m not sure why you think Maverick and Bronco Sport are low profit.  They have very little direct competition and they’re built in Mexico.  8% profit on a $30K vehicle is only $2400 which should t be hard at all given the lack of price wars and huge discounts.

[2005Explorer]

11 minutes ago, akirby said:

It’s not quite that simple.  You have existing factories and workers and suppliers and you need to amortize shared components like powertrains.  So you need volume.  You just have to prioritize resources so when you have a new product like Bronco, Bronco Sport, Maverick or BEVs you either have to build a new factory or two and hire a bunch of people or you kill your lower profit vehicles.  And I’m not sure why you think Maverick and Bronco Sport are low profit.  They have very little direct competition and they’re built in Mexico.  8% profit on a $30K vehicle is only $2400 which should t be hard at all given the lack of price wars and huge discounts.

Compared to a higher trim level F-150 they are low profit. Now generally speaking lower profit margin vehicles can be very profitable, but you need volume. Interestingly it does appear from November sales data the more affordable vehicle lines are seeing better sales increases vs the expensive ones. 2024 might be an interesting year for auto sales.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Compared to a higher trim level F-150 they are low profit. Now generally speaking lower profit margin vehicles can be very profitable, but you need volume. Interestingly it does appear from November sales data the more affordable vehicle lines are seeing better sales increases vs the expensive ones. 2024 might be an interesting year for auto sales.

The three most profitable vehicle groups in Ford Globally are F Series, T6 (Ranger/Bronco/Everest)

and  then Transit in third place.

North America is F Series, Europe it’s Transit and in Asia Pacific it’s T6 (Ranger/Everest).

 

Whenever those vehicle sales are reduced for whatever reason, profit drops significantly. 

All the other vehicles that Ford tries to sell add little to their bottom line - Europe previously had high volume sales of Focus and Fiesta but those were barely break even. The hard part is changing to higher profit vehicles, there’s a lot less interest form buyers so sales data takes a big hit and profits are still small, change looks ineffective.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by jpd80

[2005Explorer]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The three most profitable vehicle groups in Ford Globally are F Series, T6 (Ranger/Bronco/Everest)

and  then Transit in third place.

North America is F Series, Europe it’s Transit and in Asia Pacific it’s T6 (Ranger/Everest).

 

Whenever those vehicle sales are reduced for whatever reason, profit drops significantly. 

All the other vehicles that Ford tries to sell add little to their bottom line - Europe previously had high volume sales of Focus and Fiesta but those were barely break even. The hard part is changing to higher profit vehicles, there’s a lot less interest form buyers so sales data takes a big hit and profits are still small, change looks ineffective.

 

 

 

Ford claims supplier issues for deleting the standard hybrid in the Maverick, but it was probably most likely done to make the line more profitable. The hybrid powertrain most certainly costs Ford more than the Ecoboost.

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Ford claims supplier issues for deleting the standard hybrid in the Maverick, but it was probably most likely done to make the line more profitable. The hybrid powertrain most certainly costs Ford more than the Ecoboost.

Yeah, the base Maverick hybrid was a deliberate and provocative $23k price point to really catch buyers attention

but once Ford had the ‘fish on the line’ the loss leader becomes less available until supplies stabilised with higher price. People will still buy the Maverick hybrid because it’s still well below $30k, way below ICE  Bronco Sport & Escape entry point. Maverick’s pricing absolutely screams at the other two….

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by jpd80

[2005Explorer]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Yeah, the base Maverick hybrid was a deliberate and provocative $23k price point to really catch buyers attention

but once Ford had the ‘fish on the line’ the loss leader becomes less available until supplies stabilised with higher price. People will still buy the Maverick hybrid because it’s still well below $30k, way below ICE  Bronco Sport & Escape entry point. Maverick’s pricing absolutely screams at the other two….

 

The fact that the Escape and Bronco Sport are priced higher than the Maverick sort of takes you back to the early 90s when the Bronco was always more expensive than an F-150 or an Explorer was always more expensive than a Ranger. The lines have blurred today, but traditionally pickups were the cheapest entry compared to the SUV based on them.

[DeluxeStang]

On 12/15/2023 at 11:06 PM, akirby said:

Fusion was absolutely class leading in 2013 but the platform was far more expensive than Camry or Accord.  Escape sales suffered big because they couldn’t build enough hybrids while the imports had plenty.  Escape isn’t best in class but at least the platform itself is more cost effective than previous platforms.

 

There is a huge difference between just dropping vehicles and replacing them with different vehicles.

The issue with the escape is it's just a vehicle without a mission. The bronco sport is a more expensive, but better compact crossover, I'd also argue the maverick is a better vehicle, and it obviously appeals to people who want something far more affordable. The escape is the medicore meat sandwiched by bread excellence when it comes to other c2 products. It's just there, a shoulder shrug of a vehicle in a very competitive segment. They either need to ditch it, or radically redesign the escape to make it more of a product that sells on emotion, preferably the later. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

. It's just there, a shoulder shrug of a vehicle in a very competitive segment. They either need to ditch it, or radically redesign the escape to make it more of a product that sells on emotion, preferably the later. 

You could say the same about RAV4 and CRV and Tucson.  Bronco Sport is great but not everybody wants that style.  I still think a longer version of Bronco Sport with 2wd, hybrid and less aggressive styling is the answer.

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's just there, a shoulder shrug of a vehicle in a very competitive segment.

Car and Driver ranked 20 well known competitors in the segment, so you’re right that it’s very competitive.  Ranking is somewhat subjective as demonstrated by popular Toyota RAV4 coming in 10th, so I wouldn’t read too much into placement.  There are a lot of players though.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/rankings/best-suvs/compact

 

 

 

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

You could say the same about RAV4 and CRV and Tucson.  Bronco Sport is great but not everybody wants that style.  I still think a longer version of Bronco Sport with 2wd, hybrid and less aggressive styling is the answer.

 

Uh Isn't that what the Escape is? Its longer, has a hybrid and comes in FWD only. A LWB BS like you described is an answer to a question not being asked. 

 

The 2024 Escape is being slated as a sporty crossover vs the tough and rumble looking Bronco Sport. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Uh Isn't that what the Escape is? Its longer, has a hybrid and comes in FWD only. A LWB BS like you described is an answer to a question not being asked. 

 

The 2024 Escape is being slated as a sporty crossover vs the tough and rumble looking Bronco Sport. 

Uh no I’m saying keep the Bronco styling just drop the off-road stuff.  

[HotRunrGuy]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

  I still think a longer version of Bronco Sport with 2wd, hybrid and less aggressive styling is the answer.

 

Interesting that you mention a longer BS. Last week, while taking delivery of my '24 Maverick, I asked my wife to look at the BS they had in the showroom, as a possible replacement for our Daughters '18 Escape.  The only thing she mentioned was the lack of legroom in the back seat, that putting a car seat in would be a problem.

 

HRG

[MKX1960]

On 10/5/2023 at 2:13 PM, 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.  

 

 

They're trying to make the 2.0 work in the Nautilus. I would have preferred they kept the 2.7 or go with the 3.0. That's the main reason I bought a 23 instead of a 24.

[2005Explorer]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Uh no I’m saying keep the Bronco styling just drop the off-road stuff.  

Wouldn’t that technically be a Maverick with the rear end enclosed? I’d like to see Ford explore these affordable markets more. Really the only affordable vehicles they have right now is the Maverick, Escape and Bronco Sport. There is room for another one.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, MKX1960 said:

They're trying to make the 2.0 work in the Nautilus. I would have preferred they kept the 2.7 or go with the 3.0. That's the main reason I bought a 23 instead of a 24.

I expect Ford will market the 2024 hybrid option as being comparable to the 2023 V6 option, so power is only down from 335 to ~310 HP (Ford target for 2024 hybrid with 2.0L EcoBoost).  With electric motor providing additional 100 kW (134 HP) and significant torque, performance may not be that different.  Obviously hybrid should be much more fuel efficient, particularly in city driving.

[jpd80]

16 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

The fact that the Escape and Bronco Sport are priced higher than the Maverick sort of takes you back to the early 90s when the Bronco was always more expensive than an F-150 or an Explorer was always more expensive than a Ranger. The lines have blurred today, but traditionally pickups were the cheapest entry compared to the SUV based on them.

The only exception I can think of was Explorer Sport Trac which even today has a high price compared to dual cab Ranger..

 

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The issue with the escape is it's just a vehicle without a mission. The bronco sport is a more expensive, but better compact crossover, I'd also argue the maverick is a better vehicle, and it obviously appeals to people who want something far more affordable. The escape is the medicore meat sandwiched by bread excellence when it comes to other c2 products. It's just there, a shoulder shrug of a vehicle in a very competitive segment. They either need to ditch it, or radically redesign the escape to make it more of a product that sells on emotion, preferably the later. 

If you compare Gen 1 Escape with Bronco Sport, it’s eerily similar and I suspect that was a deliberate reset

to a squarer, more Ofer road SUV while letting the rounded Escape become the dispensable commodity “car”.

To me, it’s an example of Ford reinventing the segment but it could have made escape wider as an Edge replacement…

 

Maverick SUV was interesting before cancelled, a LWB compact SUV that could easily hold its own in price and space

against the more expensive Escape….maybe that was part of the problem back when it was cancelled.

 

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I expect Ford will market the 2024 hybrid option as being comparable to the 2023 V6 option, so power is only down from 335 to ~310 HP (Ford target for 2024 hybrid with 2.0L EcoBoost).  With electric motor providing additional 100 kW (134 HP) and significant torque, performance may not be that different.  Obviously hybrid should be much more fuel efficient, particularly in city driving.

For a luxury Lincoln, the 2.3 Ecoboost would have been the perfect gotta have engine that would have set it apart

from the likes of Escape and Bronco Sport or even Maverick….but that’s just me.

[DeluxeStang]

9 hours ago, akirby said:

You could say the same about RAV4 and CRV and Tucson.  Bronco Sport is great but not everybody wants that style.  I still think a longer version of Bronco Sport with 2wd, hybrid and less aggressive styling is the answer.

The thing with the RAV4 and the crv is they may be boring commodity products, but they also have the reputation of being the reliable, basic A to B crossovers that pack a decent about of utility into a vehicle at a low price. That appeals to the millions of buyers who just want reliable and practical cars, excitement be damned. 

 

I've heard very mixed things about the quality/reliability of escapes, which is odd considering the bronco sport and maverick which share a lot of the same components with the escape seem to fair a lot better in terms of quality.

 

The escape isn't an exciting crossover, it's not a very reliable crossover, and it's not super affordable. So it doesn't really bring anything to the table. The Tuscon has a sharp design, and a good warranty. The Toyota and Honda's can trade on their reputation. The only way the escape can succeed in the future is if they go back to the table, and redesign it from the ground up to give it some much needed wow factor. 

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Wouldn’t that technically be a Maverick with the rear end enclosed? I’d like to see Ford explore these affordable markets more. Really the only affordable vehicles they have right now is the Maverick, Escape and Bronco Sport. There is room for another one.

Pretty much anything affordable would have to be c2 based at this moment in time. I just don't see the demand for a second small, unibody pickup, or a third c2 based crossover. At that point, you have so much in fighting between similar models that you're just cannibalizing your own products. 

 

Personally, I would want to see the return of a c2 based car form, but it would seem the market isn't interested in that currently. 

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 

 

If you compare Gen 1 Escape with Bronco Sport, it’s eerily similar and I suspect that was a deliberate reset

to a squarer, more Ofer road SUV

 

Maverick SUV was interesting before cancelled, a LWB compact SUV that could easily hold its own in price and space

against the more expensive Escape….maybe that was part of the problem back when it was cancelled.

Interesting, I've heard of a maverick based SUV, but I always assumed it was just a thought exercise, and not an actual vehicle proposal. But if it was essentially just a maverick body with an enclosed rear end, I can see why they would cancel that. 

 

My issue with Ford is they're leaning into lifestyle brands, but they're leaning far more towards the rugged, offroader image, and not the street performance side of things as of late. They already have the raptors, the broncos, and bronco sports. They have the rugged and boxy market taken care of, on the street performance side of things, they have the mach-e, and if I'm feeling generous, the explorer st. There's a sizable portion of buyers who want those sleek, swoopy performance SUVs, and Ford doesn't seem as concerned with them as they do with the off-road market. 

[jpd80]

23 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Interesting, I've heard of a maverick based SUV, but I always assumed it was just a thought exercise, and not an actual vehicle proposal. But if it was essentially just a maverick body with an enclosed rear end, I can see why they would cancel that. 

At first, that would make perfect sense but the issue is tha Ford used the shorter wheelbase to basically replicate 

the other shorter wheelbase compact utilities. Now if Ford used the Maverick pickup’s 120” wheelbase,

just think for a moment how that extra 14” of wheelbase changes second and third row seating plus

a usable storage area inside the rear hatch.

 

 

 

Quote

My issue with Ford is they're leaning into lifestyle brands, but they're leaning far more towards the rugged, offroader image, and not the street performance side of things as of late. They already have the raptors, the broncos, and bronco sports. They have the rugged and boxy market taken care of, on the street performance side of things, they have the mach-e, and if I'm feeling generous, the explorer st. There's a sizable portion of buyers who want those sleek, swoopy performance SUVs, and Ford doesn't seem as concerned with them as they do with the off-road market. 

My issue with Ford is the lateness they get trends, those Boxy SUVs would have been just the thing

if delivered in 2016 or 2017. Ford is not balancing rugged with sleek swoopy styling, it seems like

they swing from one to the othe for the wrong reasons..

Edited December 18, 2023 by jpd80

[akirby]

10 hours ago, MKX1960 said:

They're trying to make the 2.0 work in the Nautilus. I would have preferred they kept the 2.7 or go with the 3.0. That's the main reason I bought a 23 instead of a 24.

The 2.0 works great in the Nautilus.  It’s not underpowered at all.  I understand folks like the extra power but from a sales standpoint it’s just not that important.  Didn’t seem to help Edge or Fusion to offer it.

[akirby]

8 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

Wouldn’t that technically be a Maverick with the rear end enclosed? I’d like to see Ford explore these affordable markets more. Really the only affordable vehicles they have right now is the Maverick, Escape and Bronco Sport. There is room for another one.

Maverick chassis yes.  You could go Maverick and make it a cheaper version but I think people would pay more for Bronco sport styling in a 2wd street version.  Just my opinion.

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

For a luxury Lincoln, the 2.3 Ecoboost would have been the perfect gotta have engine that would have set it apart

from the likes of Escape and Bronco Sport or even Maverick….but that’s just me.

Not sure I follow completely.  Are you referring to 2.3L EcoBoost instead of 2.0L EB as base engine, or in optional hybrid variant?

 

I’m sure Ford had a good reason, though I don’t know what made them go with smaller engine.  Since Ford redesigned 2.3L EB for Mustang, maybe they will do the same for FWD applications and it’s not ready yet?  Power and torque ratings in Mustang application are closer to the 2023 Nautilus 2.7L V6 EB so would have made sense from that perspective.

 

Another possible issue, if referring to Nautilus hybrid option, could be that eCVT transmission may not have the torque rating to handle a turbo 2.3L.  Most Ford FWD-based hybrids I’m aware of use a naturally-aspirated 2.5L engine with much lower torque, so 2.3L EB torque may be pushing design limit.  Actually, based on 2024 Nautilus hybrid being rated at only ~310 HP, it’s possible Ford is limiting 2.0L EB power and torque.  In similar applications, the 2.5L Atkinson is rated 266 HP, and I’m fairly certain a 2.0L EB can exceed its power by far more than the 44 HP difference.  Obviously it’s not that simple because hybrid combined HP ratings are not simply added peak engine and motor power.