Ford Marshall Plant to Resume, But Be Scaled Back

[GearheadGrrrl]

In some ways Ford has the same problem as HOG(NYSE)- Build a modern product and not only will your loyal customers not buy it, they'll bad mouth it so nobody else will! Maybe it's a good thing a lot of customers don't know about all the great modern tech underneath their boxy F series...

[DeluxeStang]

18 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Best guess at the moment, none of those are planned to arrive before 2028,

Ford has heavily prioritised next Gen BEV F150 that it’s dominating everything

but given the collapse in interest, maybe Ford has to rethink the balance of its plan.

 

The reason that Ford is slowing its battery plant by 43% is due to several reasons but the

main one is the sleek aero 3- row Utilities  planned for Oakville have been poorly received

in research clinics. Ford is ignoring that and intends to just lower expected sales projections

instead of selling a boxy three row that buyers want- they actually redesigned away from that.

So if T3 flops, Ford is basically screwed? With how T3 has been described by Farley "It's gonna be radical, and some people may have a hard time accepting it" 

"Some people in the company were questioning it"

"It may not look like a truck, but it will be".

 

All those comments make me think Ford is making the t3 something like the cybertruck, and that concerns me. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Much of the buyers of T3 and other 21st century cars are "future shocked", clinging to the past and unwilling to give up the icons of their youth decades ago. They're a cult that seriously believes that the fastest cars ever were built in the 1960s and they bid up the prices of 1st gen GT350s into six figures... Despite the fact that the cheapest new 4 cylinder Mustang will blow the doors off that old GT350 on the straightaway, then disappear out of sight after a couple curves. For legacy manufacturers like Ford, these cult followers are both a long term curse and a short term blessing...

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

So if T3 flops, Ford is basically screwed? With how T3 has been described by Farley "It's gonna be radical, and some people may have a hard time accepting it" 

"Some people in the company were questioning it"

"It may not look like a truck, but it will be".

 

All those comments make me think Ford is making the t3 something like the cybertruck, and that concerns me. 

No the Aero three row utilities going into Oakville are GE2 based.

 

T3 F150 is nothing like Cybertruck, the nose is a little shorter like BEV Silverado

but apart from that is very recognisable as an F150

Edited November 26, 2023 by jpd80

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

In some ways Ford has the same problem as HOG(NYSE)- Build a modern product and not only will your loyal customers not buy it, they'll bad mouth it so nobody else will! Maybe it's a good thing a lot of customers don't know about all the great modern tech underneath their boxy F series...

This is not a bad mouth situation, the bulk of Lightning buyers are new to Ford conquest buyers,

the regular ICE F150 buyers are happy with the current product and that’s probably a big issue

signalling a much slower transition than Ford was anticipating.

 

See, Ford set out to add Lightning and increase overall sales without much internal conquesting. The ramp up on BOC in a couple of years time is all about selling massive amounts for BEV F150s all while current sales are around 3,000 a month. Now either there’s going to be a huge ramp up or a lot of the sales projections were wrong. I think it’s wise that Ford is taking a breath while it works out what’s happening next year and the year after that.

Edited November 26, 2023 by jpd80

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Much of the buyers of T3 and other 21st century cars are "future shocked", clinging to the past and unwilling to give up the icons of their youth decades ago. They're a cult that seriously believes that the fastest cars ever were built in the 1960s and they bid up the prices of 1st gen GT350s into six figures... Despite the fact that the cheapest new 4 cylinder Mustang will blow the doors off that old GT350 on the straightaway, then disappear out of sight after a couple curves. For legacy manufacturers like Ford, these cult followers are both a long term curse and a short term blessing...

Generations - today’s F150 buyers are different to the buyers twenty or thirty years ago so it’s a moving target.

The trick is to recognise changes in buying patterns like crew cabs and exploit them. Many F150 owners are

still to see the benefits of electrification even in th most basic, hybrid form because let’s face it, a v6 hybrid

doesn’t really grab buyers attention but change that to a V6 EB HEV/PHEV and flexibility of range, power and fuel efficiency becomes a choice for buyers, it think that flexibility is important.

Edited November 26, 2023 by jpd80

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

Maybe they think the aero 3-row will be the next Gen 1 Taurus. A front wheel drive, with no grille, and rounded corners. Back in '85, "Frumpy Angular" was the trend. Cars like the Plymouth Caravelle, Chevrolet Celebrity, and Ford's own LTD ('83-'86 midsize). That car turned out pretty well, but I think I'm not alone in growing tired of steeply raked windshields and 3-acre heatsink dashboards. 

The rework of the GE2s was done mainly to increase range, I think Farley looked at Tesla X and thought do similar. It’s also like Ford is trying to avoid internal competition with Explorer/Aviator and wants to grow sales, not replace them…

Edited November 26, 2023 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Many F150 owners are

still to see the benefits of electrification even in th most basic, hybrid form because let’s face it, a v6 hybrid

doesn’t really grab buyers attention but change that to a V6 EB HEV/PHEV and flexibility of range, power and fuel efficiency becomes a choice for buyers, it think that flexibility is important.

The problem with the F-150 hybrid is actually Range believe it or not. The power and towing numbers are great, bordering on the base SD numbers even but if you’re looking for better mileage I’m willing to bet there’s a majority of buyers who are bound to be disappointed. 

[Oac98]

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Because all your going on is people’s options…I’m sure the same was said about the 1986 Taurus too. 

You’re correct, I know nothing about how these vehicles look other than what is being said in this forum. 

[Oac98]

8 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

Maybe they think the aero 3-row will be the next Gen 1 Taurus. A front wheel drive, with no grille, and rounded corners. Back in '85, "Frumpy Angular" was the trend. Cars like the Plymouth Caravelle, Chevrolet Celebrity, and Ford's own LTD ('83-'86 midsize). That car turned out pretty well, but I think I'm not alone in growing tired of steeply raked windshields and 3-acre heatsink dashboards. 

Honestly I just hope the public likes them, I know that our launch at OAC will be a long low volume situation. 

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

No the Aero three row utilities going into Oakville are GE2 based.

 

T3 F150 is nothing like Cybertruck, the nose is a little shorter like BEV Silverado

but apart from that is very recognisable as an F150

I've heard people describe t3 as being very areo focused and futuristic looking. It seems like that could appeal to some people, but also turn a lot of people off. I just hope they didn't create something horrendous looking in the pursuit of areodynamic efficiency. 

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I've heard people describe t3 as being very areo focused and futuristic looking. It seems like that could appeal to some people, but also turn a lot of people off. I just hope they didn't create something horrendous looking in the pursuit of areodynamic efficiency. 

Once again, compare gas Silverado to BEV Silverado and note the changes,

 

[silvrsvt]

20 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

So if T3 flops, Ford is basically screwed? With how T3 has been described by Farley "It's gonna be radical, and some people may have a hard time accepting it" 

"Some people in the company were questioning it"

"It may not look like a truck, but it will be".

 

All those comments make me think Ford is making the t3 something like the cybertruck, and that concerns me. 

 

The T3 isn't a replacement (yet) for the F-150-they'll both co-exist for a while, allowing for changes that may or may not be needed. 

 

The T3 and GE2 are just additional products at this point, and not wholesale replacements (well maybe for the Edge) for any ICE products. That won't happen till the Escape/Corsair are replaced towards the end of the decade. 

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Once again, compare gas Silverado to BEV Silverado and note the changes,

 

Electrek article claims Silverado EV has much lower Cd than Lightning.  That will help significantly in normal driving, but when towing a large boxy trailer like most typical campers, the aerodynamics of the trailer will overshadow the trucks Cd, making improvement (difference) essentially unimportant.

 

When Rivian first came out with EV pickup, there was huge interest in “real world” towing capability.  First test I read was towing heavy sports-car/flat-bed-trailer combination which was relatively aero, and results were disappointing to many but not horrible.  However, when subsequent tests towing lighter but larger campers started to come out, range was reduced to as little as 1/3 of normal EPA city rating.  That was unexpected shock to many though I don’t know what they expected.

 

In most tests towing a boxy trailer will reduce range to less than 1 mile per kWh of battery capacity.  One tester reported as low as 0.65 miles per kWh driving into strong headwind, though he didn’t quantify wind speed.
 

https://electrek.co/2023/09/25/chevy-silverado-ev-impresses-towing-vs-gas-ford-f-150-video/

 

“As such, the Silverado has much better aerodynamics, with a .331 drag coefficient compared to over .5 for the electric Hummer. The Silverado EV is more in line with the Rivian R1T at around .3 and Ford’s F-150 Lightning at about .40 to .45.“

[rperez817]

On 11/25/2023 at 12:01 PM, akirby said:

 

Ford Motor Company executives who made the decision to scale back BlueOval Battery Park Michigan and those who continue to dilly dally on BEV/Lightning versions of Ford's entire pickup truck lineup (2028 at the earliest per jpd80's note?!!) are indeed "Clueless". 

[GearheadGrrrl]

The truly clueless are the auto executives who keep pushing these "barn door" trucks- When almost every new car has a CD in the .3s  or better there's no reason to make pickups and BOF SUVs "fashion victims" with .4+ CDs just so hey'll look "tough"!

[rperez817]

27 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The truly clueless are the auto executives who keep pushing these "barn door" trucks- When almost every new car has a CD in the .3s  or better there's no reason to make pickups and BOF SUVs "fashion victims" with .4+ CDs just so hey'll look "tough"!

 

Actually, the auto industry executives who push their company's designers and engineers to make their pickup trucks (and to a lesser extent, BOF SUV) look "tough" have a good business rationale given the fact that those products are status symbols purchased by wealthy people. Quotes from J.D. Power, 3MPH Planning and Consulting, and Center for Automotive Research in a Consumer Reports article a couple years ago are below. As the auto industry transitions to 100% electric vehicles, including pickup trucks, automakers will have to figure out a way to balance "tough" looks, efficiency, and ease of manufacturing. 

Quote

"Trucks could look less tough, but you don't want to be the one to make your truck look soft," says Tyson Jominy, vice president for data and analytics at J.D. Power. He estimates that an automaker might make four to five times more money on a pickup than a sedan, partly because manufacturing a truck is simpler and because buyers will pay more for a pickup. "You can charge a lot for the capability, for the image."

Automakers are also selling a lifestyle, says Angie Schmitt, founder and principal at 3MPH Planning and Consulting, a firm focused on pedestrian safety. She points to ads with trucks at construction sites, hauling massive trailers, and racing over sand dunes. "They're not hiding the fact that they're marketing these trucks as being really macho and a display of masculinity or prowess," she says. "That's a big part of the marketing, and I think that it works."

Trucks with luxurious amenities and prices north of $60,000 can also be status symbols. "They're absolutely not typically a choice for the average American car buyer," says Bernard Swiecki, director of research at the Center for Automotive Research. He estimates that the typical pickup buyer's median household income is $60,000 a year higher than the average American household's income.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by rperez817

[GearheadGrrrl]

But several automakers are doing quite well in the North American market without big pickups... Are Ford, GM, and Stelantis incapable of profitably making anything else?

[Rick73]

31 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The truly clueless are the auto executives who keep pushing these "barn door" trucks- When almost every new car has a CD in the .3s  or better there's no reason to make pickups and BOF SUVs "fashion victims" with .4+ CDs just so hey'll look "tough"!

Agree that a tough look doesn’t necessarily require a high Cd.  Stealth fighter, though not a pickup, is an example of tough-looking appearance with low Cd (by auto standards anyway).  Not suggesting it was intentional because I doubt engineers cared about appearance — just commenting on results.  Given time and evolution tastes will change anyway, and present “tough” look may no longer be as desirable.  We can see a change in what’s considered acceptable/desirable in sedans already.  Most have similar fastback shape due to aero goals, and that doesn’t seem to hurt sales (relative to each other).  I think a non-aero sedan would look antiquated and out of place today.

[rperez817]

58 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

But several automakers are doing quite well in the North American market without big pickups... Are Ford, GM, and Stelantis incapable of profitably making anything else?

 

Among the 3 automakers you mentioned by name, none are incapable of profitably making vehicles that aren't pickup trucks (particularly the big ones). But Ford is the most dependent of those 3 on that vehicle type. That's why it's imperative that Ford "dramatically expand F-150 Lightning production and also bring BEV/Lightning versions of Maverick, Ranger, and Super Duty to market ASAP" as I mentioned earlier in this thread, implement totally different strategies and approaches for design, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing of BEV overall (both pickup trucks and other vehicle types), and pick up the pace for both. 

[DeluxeStang]

20 hours ago, jpd80 said:

No the Aero three row utilities going into Oakville are GE2 based.

 

T3 F150 is nothing like Cybertruck, the nose is a little shorter like BEV Silverado

but apart from that is very recognisable as an F150

So a bit like this student designer's project, but add in some c-clamp headlights?

469057_1_800.webp

469057_3_800.webp

[ice-capades]

43 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

Among the 3 automakers you mentioned by name, none are incapable of profitably making vehicles that aren't pickup trucks (particularly the big ones). But Ford is the most dependent of those 3 on that vehicle type. That's why it's imperative that Ford "dramatically expand F-150 Lightning production and also bring BEV/Lightning versions of Maverick, Ranger, and Super Duty to market ASAP" as I mentioned earlier in this thread, implement totally different strategies and approaches for design, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing of BEV overall (both pickup trucks and other vehicle types), and pick up the pace for both. 

 

How many times do we have to read your rants about Ford needing to convert more vehicles to BEV production ASAP? Again and again and again. Enough already!

[akirby]

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

But several automakers are doing quite well in the North American market without big pickups... Are Ford, GM, and Stelantis incapable of profitably making anything else?

Profit margins on full size pickups is double digit and maybe even above 20%.  Other ICE vehicles are lucky to hit 8%.  The biggest reason is having so many options from drivetrains to appearance packages and high performance engine options and having passionate buyers.   You don’t see that on cars and only a few utilities like Bronco/Bronco Sport.  Ford would be stupid to divert resources from such a cash cow just to make less profit.  They’ll change as the market changes.

[.I.]

On 11/26/2023 at 6:04 PM, DeluxeStang said:

So if T3 flops, Ford is basically screwed? With how T3 has been described by Farley "It's gonna be radical, and some people may have a hard time accepting it" 

"Some people in the company were questioning it"

"It may not look like a truck, but it will be".

 

All those comments make me think Ford is making the t3 something like the cybertruck, and that concerns me. 

The 1986 Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable had a revolutionary design that shocked everybody. 3 or 4 years later , when the Taurus where the bestselling car , every automaker copied the “aero” design for their sedans.   
 

the same will occur with the T3 and the Explorer EV for NorthAmerica 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Among the 3 automakers you mentioned by name, none are incapable of profitably making vehicles that aren't pickup trucks (particularly the big ones). But Ford is the most dependent of those 3 on that vehicle type. That's why it's imperative that Ford "dramatically expand F-150 Lightning production and also bring BEV/Lightning versions of Maverick, Ranger, and Super Duty to market ASAP" as I mentioned earlier in this thread, implement totally different strategies and approaches for design, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing of BEV overall (both pickup trucks and other vehicle types), and pick up the pace for both. 

If all three are capable of making smaller electric vehicles profitably, why are they not?  I understand what akirby and others say about Ford making more profit on trucks, but isn’t that based on making more profit on ICE trucks?  Electric trucks are not profitable as far as I know, so why focus on them versus sedans solely based on profitability of ICE vehicles?  The same profitability model may not apply between ICE and BEV when comparing sedans and trucks.

 

Who says Ford can’t make as much or more profit on electric Fiesta-size cars than on Lightning-size trucks?  If they are losing money on Lightning, it’s hardly the example to follow.  I guess I’m saying I don’t follow logic of extrapolating truck success from ICE to BEV.  Is a 20% margin on electric trucks a reality?