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

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Why do they need to win back those buyers who only buy on price if they can replace them with buyers willing to pay full price or close to it on other products?  If they were losing market share and profits were falling then that might make sense but that’s clearly not the case.

 

But here’s the problem a lot of people don’t seem to grasp.  People buying mavericks are customizing them like they customize civics.  Lowered suspensions, custom wheels and tires and active lifestyle accessories and custom interiors.

 

Bronco Sport buyers are buying off-road models with bigger wheels, tires plus off-road/adventure accessories and customizations.

 

Those are emotional purchases without much cross shopping.

 

What can you do to Escape to make it an emotional purchase?  Great styling can increase sales but doesn’t allow charging a premium over rav4 or CRV or Tucson.  Nobody is customizing them or buying expensive appearance packages or accessories.  It’s still just basic transportation.  Which is ok if there is no readily available alternative.  But this is where I think a longer BS and a Maverick SUV would do better from a profit standpoint.

 

There's no question about Ford's success with the Maverick, Bronco and Bronco Sport appealing to customers attracted to the either the Maverick's price point, size, hybrid mileage, etc. or the Bronco/Bronco Sport rugged off-road exterior design. For all of their success with the off-road and customization options, they serve a niche market looking for those capabilities. Those capabilities are fine and generate profits but don't serve the general market that isn't interested or willing to pay for off-road or performance capabilities. 

[Captainp4]

22 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

See, I don't believe in pushing it this far. 300 hp or so out of electric motors would be plenty. I'll share a mach-e scrapped proposal below, that's the sort of design I have in mind. Something sleek, almost impossibly good looking for the segment, that's just fast enough to be interesting. Exotic, unique, and wildly different to the bronco sport to avoid any in-fighting. Something like this would make the escape a passion product imo. If a new escape came out a year from now, and actually looked like this, we'd actually care about it, and so would buyers. 

No qualms about making it look a little sleeker to further differentiate from BS, just not buying anyone looking at an escape caring about how fast it is or anything performance related. I think the target audience for that vehicle cares about mpg, reliability, and cost. If Ford could build anything that is reliable anymore I think they'd have much more success than trying to target niche ideas. Just make it work right. -owner of many Fords/lincolns ranging from 64-17 with a reservation for my first non ford product because I haven't had any luck with a superduty since the last 7.3 diesel - had two mazda 3s in there but that's because they were cheap and worked and were Ford at the time.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

That's the thing, the escape may be a commodity bland blob today, but that doesn't mean it has to be once it goes EV. We've mentioned how Ford's been thinking of making a smaller crossover with the flair of a mach-e.

 

Let's say Ford comes out with an electric escape, and they pull styling inspiration from the escort or something that makes it sportier. A change that turns the escape from some generic lump of rental car blandness, into something more desirable. That opens the door for aftermarket accessories. Just like Ford sells flood lights and bash bars for the bronco, they could sell aftermarket spoilers and stripe packages for the mach-e and escape EV. 

 

I want to be clear, the escape, as it is today, is done. If it wasn't for the massive sales potential inherent to the compact crossover segment, I would suggest for Ford to just kill the escape outright and leave the bronco sport as the lone offering in the segment. But there's real potential here for Ford to reinvent one of its icons and to turn it into something that no other vehicle in the segment offers. Everyone in that space is either making generic blobs, or squared off rugged designs. There's nothing in the compact space that focuses on being sleek and sporty. 

Been there done that with Focus RS.  At peak they only sold 500/month.  The market just isn’t that big.

[GearheadGrrrl]

12 minutes ago, akirby said:

Been there done that with Focus RS.  At peak they only sold 500/month.  The market just isn’t that big.

Because Ford couldn't build them any faster!

Like every hot hatch today, demand far exceeds supply and they're often sold before they're built... Would be nice to see Ford get some of this profitable business again!

[akirby]

1 hour ago, ice-capades said:

 

There's no question about Ford's success with the Maverick, Bronco and Bronco Sport appealing to customers attracted to the either the Maverick's price point, size, hybrid mileage, etc. or the Bronco/Bronco Sport rugged off-road exterior design. For all of their success with the off-road and customization options, they serve a niche market looking for those capabilities. Those capabilities are fine and generate profits but don't serve the general market that isn't interested or willing to pay for off-road or performance capabilities. 

100k - 125k each isn’t a niche market.  If they added a hybrid to BS and could build more Mavericks they could easily fill up Hermosillo with 3 shifts.

[Rick73]

53 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

If Ford could build anything that is reliable anymore I think they'd have much more success than trying to target niche ideas.

Not only reliable but also make them simpler and more functional.  As example, the full-size Transit should have been an obvious choice to replace my E-350 but some of the design choices were deal breakers, and apparently also for many RV manufacturers for similar reasons.  Granted, Transit sells well overall, but could it have done even better from start?  With a few changes/improvements I’d bet so.  It took almost 10 years, but Ford finally removed parking brake from between front seats; which should have never been there in the first place.  Not only did it make it hard to stand and get to back of van, but also prevented driver’s seat from swiveling.  While it may not affect all markets, why reduce  RV market share with those kinds of decisions?  I expect it didn’t help with delivery vans like Amazon either.

[ice-capades]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

100k - 125k each isn’t a niche market.  If they added a hybrid to BS and could build more Mavericks they could easily fill up Hermosillo with 3 shifts.

 

I understand your point and actually agree but Ford seems hell bent on promoting sales for off-road capable vehicles which is of limited interest for the average consumer that has little or no interest in taking their vehicle off road. I agree fully about the potential to add a 3rd shift with the potential sales by adding hybrid models to the Bronco Sport.  

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Been there done that with Focus RS.  At peak they only sold 500/month.  The market just isn’t that big.

To be fair, when the focus rs came out, the hatchback segment, particularly the performance hatchback segment, was pretty minuscule. Not to mention the focus RS was one of the more compromised offerings. The additional utility of a crossover body would appeal to a wider array of people.Who knows, maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing. Maybe buyers are just done with the escape, and there really isn't anything Ford can do to save it. It just bothers me when a company seems a product struggling, and they decide to just keep doing what they're doing in the hope the ship rights itself, rather than taking a different approach.

 

On the plus side, if Ford cancels the escape with no replacement, the escape plant could be tapped to boost BS production, assuming it hasn't already been modified to produce EVs. Boosting production output of the BS, and ideally letting the plant in Mexico focus more on churning out mavericks. 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Because Ford couldn't build them any faster!

Like every hot hatch today, demand far exceeds supply and they're often sold before they're built... Would be nice to see Ford get some of this profitable business again!

In the grand scheme of things they aren’t as popular as you think. 
 

 

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

 I think the target audience for that vehicle cares about mpg, reliability, and cost. If Ford could build anything that is reliable anymore I think they'd have much more success than trying to target niche ideas. Just make it work right. -owner of many Fords/lincolns ranging from 64-17 with a reservation for my first non ford product because I haven't had any luck with a superduty since the last 7.3 diesel - had two mazda 3s in there but that's because they were cheap and worked and were Ford at the time.

Yeah, that's unfortunate to hear about your experience. Have you had any luck with the 6.7s? I've heard they're pretty reliable, as are the 7.3 gasser engines aside from some early defects.

 

Ford reliability and quality is all over the place. I've only heard the best things about newer Ford trucks, and the broncos. Most c2 products seem to have strong quality. But you have the CD6 fiasco where I'm almost certain some of the engineers who worked on that program had to have been laid off due to how many issues those vehicles have had. Lincoln also seems to be struggling. But you gotta take the good with the bad I suppose. It would appear whatever quality improvements they've implemented are actually working in reality, so that's a huge win, it just takes time. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

In the grand scheme of things they aren’t as popular as you think. 
 

 

No problem... For those that can't handle 500HP and AWD we can always fill out production capacity with Ecoboost threes and delete the hybrid feature so they can fit two Costco carts of groceries!

[Rick73]

Seems everyone is having recall issues.

 

“Honda and Toyota recall nearly 4 million vehicles combined“

 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/honda-toyota-recall-nearly-4-181915652.html

[ice-capades]

16 hours ago, akirby said:

100k - 125k each isn’t a niche market.  If they added a hybrid to BS and could build more Mavericks they could easily fill up Hermosillo with 3 shifts.

 

I agree with what you're saying. Perhaps I should have stated my post differently as it wasn't my intention to use the term "niche" to describe sales volume but only in the sense that the "off road" market is specific to particular customers. No question that adding a Bronco Sport hybrid model, along with expanded Maverick production capability, the plant could easily support 3 shifts.   

[akirby]

24 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

I agree with what you're saying. Perhaps I should have stated my post differently as it wasn't my intention to use the term "niche" to describe sales volume but only in the sense that the "off road" market is specific to particular customers. No question that adding a Bronco Sport hybrid model, along with expanded Maverick production capability, the plant could easily support 3 shifts.   

 
Understood and when I said offroad I really meant the look.  I’m sure most Bronco Sports never leave the pavement just like a lot of Broncos but buyers love the styling.
 

It’s the same conundrum we’ve been discussing.  You have regular crossovers with a huge market but tons of competition and not much difference between the various models.  Some buyers are brand loyal, some prefer one style vs the others but they’re all just basic transportation.  Nobody sees a RAV4 and says I gotta have one.  A few have some more aggressive packages but nothing like Bronco Sport.  This leads to commodity pricing and lower profit margins but higher volume.  If you can keep costs low there are decent profits.

 

Then you have Bronco and Bronco Sport and Maverick.  Very unique vehicles that support more modifications both factory and aftermarket.  Buyers are excited to buy them.  Lots of accessories and lots of factory options.  Higher pricing with no incentives required but volume is lower   Not everyone can pull this off - Ford is in a somewhat unique position.   So its makes sense for Ford to pursue those opportunities instead of commodity products when they have limited resources.  If they weren’t putting so many resources into BEVs (which is necessary for future viability) then we’d still have edge and nautilus and Escape wouldn’t be on the chopping block.  But businesses have to make choices.

[silvrsvt]

18 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

There's no question about Ford's success with the Maverick, Bronco and Bronco Sport appealing to customers attracted to the either the Maverick's price point, size, hybrid mileage, etc. or the Bronco/Bronco Sport rugged off-road exterior design. For all of their success with the off-road and customization options, they serve a niche market looking for those capabilities. Those capabilities are fine and generate profits but don't serve the general market that isn't interested or willing to pay for off-road or performance capabilities. 

 

I just checked the 24 Escape vs the Bronco Sport pricing-if you select the Active model and add AWD, it actually costs more than the BS Big Bend does. Not sure how different the options are between the two, but that was the biggest difference between them. 

[silvrsvt]

Another thing to consider is sales number don't tell the whole story-the market is far more competitive then it ever was. I was checking out the sales for this past year and there are 5 products outside of the F-series that sell over 200K units a year. So selling in the 100-130K range is "good" for a product.

 

The days of the Explorer selling 445K units are long gone. 

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Another thing to consider is sales number don't tell the whole story-the market is far more competitive then it ever was. I was checking out the sales for this past year and there are 5 products outside of the F-series that sell over 200K units a year. So selling in the 100-130K range is "good" for a product.

 

The days of the Explorer selling 445K units are long gone. 

Even Ranger used to sell over 400k.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Much of that low volume problem is due to too many similar products canabalizing each other- After killing off the Fusion that sold itself to the tune of 200K a year, Ford has a half dozen SUVs competing with each other and Ranger is being squeezed between Maverick and F150. Kinda hard to blame "market shifts", the EV market cooling, and unions when Ford does this to themselves!

[ice-capades]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

 
Understood and when I said offroad I really meant the look.  I’m sure most Bronco Sports never leave the pavement just like a lot of Broncos but buyers love the styling.
 

It’s the same conundrum we’ve been discussing.  You have regular crossovers with a huge market but tons of competition and not much difference between the various models.  Some buyers are brand loyal, some prefer one style vs the others but they’re all just basic transportation.  Nobody sees a RAV4 and says I gotta have one.  A few have some more aggressive packages but nothing like Bronco Sport.  This leads to commodity pricing and lower profit margins but higher volume.  If you can keep costs low there are decent profits.

 

Then you have Bronco and Bronco Sport and Maverick.  Very unique vehicles that support more modifications both factory and aftermarket.  Buyers are excited to buy them.  Lots of accessories and lots of factory options.  Higher pricing with no incentives required but volume is lower   Not everyone can pull this off - Ford is in a somewhat unique position.   So its makes sense for Ford to pursue those opportunities instead of commodity products when they have limited resources.  If they weren’t putting so many resources into BEVs (which is necessary for future viability) then we’d still have edge and nautilus and Escape wouldn’t be on the chopping block.  But businesses have to make choices.

 

Well said... thanks!

[rmc523]

23 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Much of that low volume problem is due to too many similar products canabalizing each other- After killing off the Fusion that sold itself to the tune of 200K a year, Ford has a half dozen SUVs competing with each other and Ranger is being squeezed between Maverick and F150. Kinda hard to blame "market shifts", the EV market cooling, and unions when Ford does this to themselves!

 

In theory I agree, but other brands have multiple entries in various segments and have no problem selling a ton of units.  Ford does not have 6 models in the same segment.

 

Ranger was also hurt by being a relatively ancient product surrounded by 2 new products.  Couple that with production capacity heavily favoring Bronco, and we end up with purposely low Ranger sales.

Hopefully they'll be able to produce the '24 in normal volumes and let the chips fall.

[akirby]

43 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Much of that low volume problem is due to too many similar products canabalizing each other- After killing off the Fusion that sold itself to the tune of 200K a year, Ford has a half dozen SUVs competing with each other and Ranger is being squeezed between Maverick and F150. Kinda hard to blame "market shifts", the EV market cooling, and unions when Ford does this to themselves!

Explorer doesn’t compete with escape or Bronco sport. They aren’t even trying to sell Rangers yet  Maverick gives a cheaper alternative to Ranger and Ranger does the same with F150 so they do t need super cheap F150s or Rangers to fill the price point.

 

Just admit you hate trucks and SUVs.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Another thing to consider is sales number don't tell the whole story-the market is far more competitive then it ever was. I was checking out the sales for this past year and there are 5 products outside of the F-series that sell over 200K units a year. So selling in the 100-130K range is "good" for a product.

 

The days of the Explorer selling 445K units are long gone. 

A combination of cars being more expensive, but also far more reliable than they used to. Consumers just don't need to replace their cars as often as they used to. I wouldn't be surprised if we started to see brands offering services like retrofitting interiors with more modern components. Something that encouraged buyers to make repeat purchases with a brand, even if they weren't replacing their car. 

[paintguy]

As much as I liked Ford sedan products (own a Taurus SHO), have to admit business case for sedans is clouded. All product planning must come under much scrutiny. On one hand, there is some government insistence on BEVs. Yet the public has great reluctance to go full on BEV. And there is still uncertainty in which battery technology to pursue, all at relatively high cost. So the course includes several models with significant overlap with ICE, hybrid, PHEV and BEV competing for attention. Also distressing is design limitations make BEV and ICE almost exclusively on separate architecture. Very expensive proposition. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by paintguy
clarity

[GearheadGrrrl]

54 minutes ago, akirby said:

Explorer doesn’t compete with escape or Bronco sport. They aren’t even trying to sell Rangers yet  Maverick gives a cheaper alternative to Ranger and Ranger does the same with F150 so they do t need super cheap F150s or Rangers to fill the price point.

 

Just admit you hate trucks and SUVs.

So then why did I log most of my miles behind the wheel of trucks?

 

And with my own money buy an Econoline, Ranger, and Transit Connect?

 

And further, while my favorite trucks were the old Macks, I drove many a happy mile in F series, Econolines, C series, Cargos, W series, and the Louisvilles. Ford was the best of the moderate price trucks and easily bested GMC, IH, and White as well as Freightliner, KW, and Peterbuilt. 

 

Got nothing against trucks, but kinda ridiculous to waste a truck to drive oneself and maybe a lunch bucket to work. 

[Captainp4]

18 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Yeah, that's unfortunate to hear about your experience. Have you had any luck with the 6.7s? I've heard they're pretty reliable, as are the 7.3 gasser engines aside from some early defects.

 

Ford reliability and quality is all over the place. I've only heard the best things about newer Ford trucks, and the broncos. Most c2 products seem to have strong quality. But you have the CD6 fiasco where I'm almost certain some of the engineers who worked on that program had to have been laid off due to how many issues those vehicles have had. Lincoln also seems to be struggling. But you gotta take the good with the bad I suppose. It would appear whatever quality improvements they've implemented are actually working in reality, so that's a huge win, it just takes time. 

Guess I should have specified diesel superduty. The tritons were problems when we had the 7.3s, then when everything got replaced it was the opposite with the 6.4s being constant problems and the 6.2 gas engines being pretty dang good. I had a 6.0 diesel for personal use, but it was problem after problem as well.

I know facebook groups draw problems and people with problems so it's purely anecdotal but I'm seeing a lot of plug wire and lifter issues with the gas 7.3. Diesel 6.7 I have not tried, but I'm kind of over the diesel thing at this point and don't want to add DEF to my expenses or the HUGE repair costs with the 6.7 (I'm still dealing with it with a 6.4 and wanting out). I prefer a diesel for my use as it's 95% towing and honestly just don't like the way the 6.2s pull (even though I know they offer much lower operating costs and roughly the same mpg as my 6.4 diesel for how we use our trucks). I'm waiting on some real world reviews on the cybertruck, but have a reservation in. Lightning isn't quite enough truck for my use, and would be pushing the cybertruck ratings too, so just waiting it out right now and hoping the 6.4 doesn't cost me any more money. I may end up in a 7.3 gas truck in the end if cybertruck doesn't quite get there .. hoping for a viable BEV in my use case (kind of between needing a 150 and a 250 but have always gone 250 just because they're more robust and last longer/are more reliable when used for towing every day)

But anyway, getting way off topic. Hopefully the things they're working on for quality work this time and they can salvage something with the Escape, just seems like we've heard the improved quality is coming story over and over and it's never consistent.