Ford November 2023 Sales

[silvrsvt]

38 minutes ago, akirby said:

1 hour ago, akirby said:

No cost???

 

 

 

Previously, Ford’s cheapest F-150 with a hybrid option, the Lariat, started at $57,480 with a $3,300 add-on. Now Ford says the PowerBoost hybrid option it started offering with the 2021 model will “match the starting MSRP on the 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine,” without going into specifics about how that works. Just as importantly, you can now get the hybrid at the less expensive XLT trim level, as well as in the high-end Platinum Plus.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/12/23869818/ford-f-150-2024-powerboost-hybrid-5g-sync-4

 

 

[rmc523]

52 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I have a very hard time believing the f-150 power boost is an unreliable vehicle, let alone one of the most unreliable vehicles on their list. Ford has a stellar reputation for hybrid reliability, and truck reliability. The maverick hybrid is one of the most reliable trucks on sale. I've never encountered anyone with an f-150 power boost who's had issues. 

 

I think it's far more likely there's an issue with how consumer reports sorts and ranks data. I've heard they give all complaints equal weight when it comes to reliability score, which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of it's true. 100 people with a laggy infotainment system is world's apart from 100 people who've had to replace the engine on a brand new vehicle. I think consumer reports needs to assign higher weights to more critical issues, as well as create an index of problems reported based on total number of vehicles produced. That seems to be yet another area where they're lacking. 

 

If you receive 1,000 complaints for a Camry or f-150 across millions of units, that's drastically different than receiving 1,000 complaints on a car that sold 10,000 units. But it would seem consumer reports just says "Both products have 1,000 complaints, therefore, they're comparable in terms of reliability". I don't pay for their subscription, maybe it does discuss this for payed members. But if it doesn't, that just proves how incredibly dumb the people who run CR are. 

 

Yeah, I've had the same complaint for years.

 

As you say, "I don't like where this button is" is equally ranked with "car burst into flames exiting the dealer lot" - never has made sense to me.

[akirby]

38 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/12/23869818/ford-f-150-2024-powerboost-hybrid-5g-sync-4

 

Got it

[fuzzymoomoo]

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

the thing is that the powerboost option is a no cost one on the F-150 now..which should helps sales, but don't think it will do much to increase profits. 

Wait, what? Is that new for 24?

 

edit: skimmed through the article. You could always get a hybrid in XLT, I’ve been looking at them for months, Ford just prioritizes production of  Lariat and higher trims so xlt is not as common. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Do you know if that's something in-house at Ford? Didn't Ford Blue division give up on developing all new engines or transmissions (including hybrid)?

I do not.  However, if BEV sales remain soft and Farley indeed pushes hybrids over next 5 years, I believe Ford needs a new hybrid powertrain beyond the design presently used in PowerBoost.  That’s what I meant by Ford “should be working”, not that they are.  I hope they are because the level of electrification in the PowerBoost 10R modular hybrid transmission seems extremely low for a vehicle that heavy.  The original was listed at only 35 kW (47 HP) which is a small fraction of what much smaller and lighter 4-cylinder hybrids are using today for “electrification” assist.

 

My personal opinion is that electrification “boost” or contribution should be bumped to at least 200 HP which would allow the engine to be reduced in horsepower without adversely affecting performance.  It would also allow transmission to have enough electric power to operate as a PHEV.

 

As I mentioned before, I would have an 8-speed dual clutch designed with integral 200+ HP electric motor (or purchase it), and combine with Atkinson engine (3.4L inline 6 would be about perfect in my opinion).  Some here have stated that’s not viable at all, but keep in mind new RAM PHEV was announced with 3.6L Pentastar Atkinson as a range extender.  A direct transmission would be more efficient on the highway or when towing than RAM’s series hybrid, so Ford would not need as much engine size as RAM plans to use.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

I doubt an existing e-CVT could handle the torque and be durable enough for actual truck duty.  Not to mention packaging issues.  The beauty of Powerboost is it maintains all functionality because it uses the same 10R tranny and most powerful engine. 
 

Ranger would be much better suited to a high mpg hybrid using the Nautilus 2.0T setup.

I was not referring to existing FWD e-CVT for an F-150 or large RWD vehicles like Expedition, Transit, etc.  As mentioned above, I believe the right answer is a new dual clutch with built-in very-powerful electric motor, and with Atkinson engine, not EcoBoost.

[Deanh]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

No cost???

 

redundant...someone already posted the explanation...little bit of "shake and bake :" marketing by Ford....

Edited December 6, 2023 by Deanh

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

"I don't like where this button is" is equally ranked with "car burst into flames exiting the dealer lot" - never has made sense to me.

 

CR's reliability survey doesn't consider design concerns like "I don't like where this button is" at all, though that may impact CR's owner satisfaction score for a particular vehicle (which is based on a separate survey, not the reliability survey). Additionally, problem areas for the reliability are not equally ranked - they are weighted as indicated in the FAQ. Consumer Reports' Car Reliability FAQ - Consumer Reports

 

Are All Problems Considered Equally Serious?
Engine major, engine cooling, transmission major, drive system, electric motor and EV battery problems are more likely to take a car out of service and to be more expensive to repair than the other problem areas. Consequently, we weight these areas more heavily in our calculations of model year overall reliability verdict. Problems such as broken trim and in-car electronics have a much smaller weight. Problems in any area can be an expense and a bother, though, so we report them all in the reliability history charts.

 

Ford F-150 Hybrid got a much worse than average reliability rating due to a relatively high frequency of serious problems in areas that are weighted more heavily in the survey.

[Rangers09]

Their FAQ advises a typical model year has 200 - 300 reports. Hardly a reasonable sample size for F-150 and Super Duty, since they sell that many on average every 1 - 2 hours. I suspect, more replies can be expected from owners with issues than those with no issues. Personally, I've never paid attention to the CR reliability reports.

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

  

The real issue with a ranger hybrid is how to position it. It's never gonna be as cheap and efficient as the maverick, and it's not gonna match the towing capacity or "real" truck capability of the f-150 power boost. I personally think the ranger hybrid should focus on being the all around performance monster, something radical that helps the ranger actual stand out for the first time in years, and gives it a massive advantage over the Tacoma.

 

As long as the ranger continues to just copy the Tacoma, it'll never really succeed. But a ranger hybrid with very impressive specs would blow everyone away, and give people a real reason to consider buying it over other ford trucks and the competition. 

 

Imagine a ranger hybrid that didn't tap out at 300 or even 400 hp. But was throwing down 500 hp or more with over 600 lb ft of torque. That would really captivate the world of truck buyers by offering something that takes a massive leap forward, rather than playing it safe with 30 or 50 hp power bumps. Take that same powertrain, and throw it in a bronco raptor R to take on the wrangler 392 while you're at it. 

 

That way, you fill out your product range with multiple hybrid truck offerings, while minimizing cannibalization by making each truck unique. The sensible and reliable maverick, the balls to the wall nuts ranger, and the versatile and adaptable f-150 power boost. 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The real issue with a ranger hybrid is how to position it. It's never gonna be as cheap and efficient as the maverick, and it's not gonna match the towing capacity or "real" truck capability of the f-150 power boost. I personally think the ranger hybrid should focus on being the all around performance monster, something radical that helps the ranger actual stand out for the first time in years, and gives it a massive advantage over the Tacoma.

What would such a monster cost?  No doubt much more than a Maverick which shouldn’t be a problem, but how close would it be to F-150 PowerBoost?  And would there be a market for it if price ends up higher than some F-150 PowerBoost?  I expect demand would drop off quickly as price goes up.  If that happened, it would be a shame to lose Ranger Hybrid benefits over much greater volume. 

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The real issue with a ranger hybrid is how to position it. It's never gonna be as cheap and efficient as the maverick, and it's not gonna match the towing capacity or "real" truck capability of the f-150 power boost. I personally think the ranger hybrid should focus on being the all around performance monster, something radical that helps the ranger actual stand out for the first time in years, and gives it a massive advantage over the Tacoma.

The new Ranger hybrid will ultimately replace the V6 diesel in Row Markets, the prices that Ford is getting for Ranger and Everest in places like Australia make it a night profit vehicle, they’re asking similar to F150 4x4 crew cab prices.

 

 

Quote

 

As long as the ranger continues to just copy the Tacoma, it'll never really succeed. But a ranger hybrid with very impressive specs would blow everyone away, and give people a real reason to consider buying it over other ford trucks and the competition. 

In ROW markets, Toyota sells Hilux which is really showing its age against Ranger and I wonder if Toyota can afford to replace it with a global Tacoma, the new hybrid engine is interesting but I suspect it’s a no show until Toyota wants to leave Hilux behind…

 

 

Quote

 

Imagine a ranger hybrid that didn't tap out at 300 or even 400 hp. But was throwing down 500 hp or more with over 600 lb ft of torque. That would really captivate the world of truck buyers by offering something that takes a massive leap forward, rather than playing it safe with 30 or 50 hp power bumps. Take that same powertrain, and throw it in a bronco raptor R to take on the wrangler 392 while you're at it. 

Remembering that the real reason that Ford is trying to push affordable hybrids is to stay in front of CAFE so it can continue building whatever model range that buyers want. Something like the 2.3 EB hybrid while sounding like it’s all for the customer is more about offering a guilt free experience without having to put a coyote V8 in it, you get to have your cake and eat it too.

 

 

Quote

 

That way, you fill out your product range with multiple hybrid truck offerings, while minimizing cannibalization by making each truck unique. The sensible and reliable maverick, the balls to the wall nuts ranger, and the versatile and adaptable f-150 power boost. 

Yes, done properly, all of them can exist side by side on the showroom.
There’s a kind of new era cohesion in that plan…

Edited December 7, 2023 by jpd80

[AM222]

46 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The new Ranger hybrid will ultimately replace the V6 diesel in Row Markets, the prices that Ford is getting for Ranger and Everest in places like Australia make it a night profit vehicle, they’re asking similar to F150 4x4 crew cab prices.

Ford should make a more affordable non-plug-in version of their 2.3EB hybrid for the Ranger and Everest. If the non-plug-in hybrid system works for the Maverick and F150, it should work for the Ranger too.

Edited December 7, 2023 by AM222

[akirby]

12 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 I personally think the ranger hybrid should focus on being the all around performance monster, something radical that helps the ranger actual stand out for the first time in years, and gives it a massive advantage over the Tacoma.

 

Imagine a ranger hybrid that didn't tap out at 300 or even 400 hp. But was throwing down 500 hp or more with over 600 lb ft of torque. That would really captivate the world of truck buyers by offering something that takes a massive leap forward, rather than playing it safe with 30 or 50 hp power bumps. Take that same powertrain, and throw it in a bronco raptor R to take on the wrangler 392 while you're at it. 

 

But they already have Raptor to fill that role.  It’s hard to compete directly with Tacoma because it has so many brand and model loyal buyers.

 

I think there is a large group that wants something larger than a Maverick but smaller than a F150 with more rugged styling but doesn’t need to tow 7k lbs and would like slightly better mpgs.  It wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me personally with or without a hybrid but I think it would sell reasonably well.

[akirby]

3 hours ago, AM222 said:

Ford should make a more affordable non-plug-in version of their 2.3EB hybrid for the Ranger and Everest. If the non-plug-in hybrid system works for the Maverick and F150, it should work for the Ranger too.

Where do they use a 2.3EB hybrid?  Nautilus has a 2.0EB hybrid.  I think it would be perfect for Ranger but obviously needs a different tranny.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, AM222 said:

Ford should make a more affordable non-plug-in version of their 2.3EB hybrid for the Ranger and Everest. If the non-plug-in hybrid system works for the Maverick and F150, it should work for the Ranger too.

I agree because hybrids in general offer an inexpensive way to achieve much of electrification objectives at a faster rate, and with less initial pain.  The goal should be to gain as much market penetration as practical and allow BEV volume to grow as the grid improves in capacity while reducing GHGs.

 

In many cases where a vehicle is offered in both ICE and HEV side-by-side, like with Maverick, buyers are choosing HEV at least 50% of time.  When hybrid capability is comparable to ICE option (similar HP and acceleration), HEV acceptance is now very good and improving quickly.  For example, Honda claims that 56% of CR-V and Accord are now hybrid.

 

“Currently, over 56% of U.S. sales of the Honda CR-V and Accord are hybrid-electric trims. More than one-quarter of Honda’s total U.S. sales are electrified models, marking the most hybrids ever sold by the brand. Honda expects Civic hybrid sales to represent more than 40% of Civic sales.”

 

https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-corporate/releases/release-7b0d03d783f6d642dbbefc6b2a0f6695-honda-civic-hybrid-returns-next-year-with-production-in-canada-and-indiana
 

Toyota is also on same path of replacing pure ICE vehicles with affordable HEV.  For lighter vehicles, HEV could become the normal in a few years, buying time for BEV demand to grow without harsh mandates.

[rperez817]

27 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

For example, Honda claims that 56% of CR-V and Accord are now hybrid.

 

“Currently, over 56% of U.S. sales of the Honda CR-V and Accord are hybrid-electric trims. More than one-quarter of Honda’s total U.S. sales are electrified models, marking the most hybrids ever sold by the brand. Honda expects Civic hybrid sales to represent more than 40% of Civic sales.”

 

Toyota is also on same path of replacing pure ICE vehicles with affordable HEV. 

 

Both Honda and Toyota are well known for being laggards among legacy automakers in the ongoing transition to BEV. GM President Mark Reuss explained the dilemma with hybrids nowadays.

 

If I had a dollar more to invest, would I spend it on a hybrid? Or would I spend it on the answer that we all know is going to happen (BEV), and get there faster and better than anybody else?

 

GM, and Ford are much better off devoting their resources "on the answer that we all know is going to happen (BEV), and get there faster and better than anybody else". Or at least faster and better than legacy automakers from Japan, South Korea, and Europe.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

But they already have Raptor to fill that role.  It’s hard to compete directly with Tacoma because it has so many brand and model loyal buyers.

Exactly, that's my point. Toyota fans are very loyal, especially when it comes to the Tacoma. I often say the Tacoma and the wrangler are the best examples of someone buying the perception of something over the reality of the product. Both of those products are perceived as being great, in reality, not so much. 

 

The only way to shock people out of blind devotion is by doing something radical to lure them away. It's all about differentiation, not just being different, anyone can be different, but being different in a way that genuinely transforms a product for the better. As it stands, Tacoma fans look at the ranger and say "Not bad, but it's just like the tacoma, I prefer the Tacoma, so I'll stick with it". But if Ford invested more heavily into trims and options you couldn't get with a Tacoma, it would give some Tacoma fans a real reason to consider a ranger. If you play follow the leader, you'll never become the leader. 

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Exactly, that's my point. Toyota fans are very loyal, especially when it comes to the Tacoma. I often say the Tacoma and the wrangler are the best examples of someone buying the perception of something over the reality of the product. Both of those products are perceived as being great, in reality, not so much. 

 

The only way to shock people out of blind devotion is by doing something radical to lure them away. It's all about differentiation, not just being different, anyone can be different, but being different in a way that genuinely transforms a product for the better. As it stands, Tacoma fans look at the ranger and say "Not bad, but it's just like the tacoma, I prefer the Tacoma, so I'll stick with it". But if Ford invested more heavily into trims and options you couldn't get with a Tacoma, it would give some Tacoma fans a real reason to consider a ranger. If you play follow the leader, you'll never become the leader. 

I hear you but I don’t see people switching that easily.  I think Raptor has the best chance of doing that.  Price would be the other thing but only if Ranger was significantly cheaper and that kills profits.

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Remembering that the real reason that Ford is trying to push affordable hybrids is to stay in front of CAFE so it can continue building whatever model range that buyers want. Something like the 2.3 EB hybrid while sounding like it’s all for the customer is more about offering a guilt free experience without having to put a coyote V8 in it, you get to have your cake and eat it too.

A 2.3 hybrid could be a compelling base powertrain down the line. Perhaps Ford could justify a base hybrid, and a top trim performance hybrid if the demand is there. The issue is we're thinking about this logically, and truck buyers are becoming increasingly less logical, and more emotional in their purchasing decisions. 

[DeluxeStang]

17 minutes ago, akirby said:

I hear you but I don’t see people switching that easily.  I think Raptor has the best chance of doing that.  Price would be the other thing but only if Ranger was significantly cheaper and that kills profits.

Not to mention if the ranger was significantly cheaper, it would almost certainly start to cannibalize some maverick sales. 

 

I agree about it being difficult to get people to alter their purchasing habits. The maverick is our first truck, we never would have bought it if it had been more expensive, or less fuel efficient. Prior to the maverick, we owned several sedans back to back, and likely would have retained that trend if the maverick hasn't come along. We aren't conventional truck people at all, but the charm of a product as well thought out as the maverick was undeniable. On a side note, I genuinely think the maverick is the best product Ford has made in years. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by DeluxeStang

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Both Honda and Toyota are well known for being laggards among legacy automakers in the ongoing transition to BEV. GM President Mark Reuss explained the dilemma with hybrids nowadays.

 

 

 

 

GM, and Ford are much better off devoting their resources "on the answer that we all know is going to happen (BEV), and get there faster and better than anybody else". Or at least faster and better than legacy automakers from Japan, South Korea, and Europe.

Being a laggard is not necessarily bad when justified.  “Laggard” has negative connotation but in reality not rushing into bad ideas can be a sign of wisdom.  I’m not suggesting BEVs are a bad idea, just that the argument is inherently flawed.

 

Anyway, the problem I see is that GM can’t control buyers directly, or government for that matter, so investing in what they see as the best solution means very little if customers can’t or won’t buy their electrified products.  Currently there appears to be a stronger market for hybrids than BEVs, and it seems to me that both are coming at expense of ICE which is good for environment.  Some hybrids can’t be manufactured fast enough even when priced to make a profit while many BEVs continue to struggle even though priced below profitability.

 

i understand environmentalists’ concern that hybrid success will delay or halt BEV adoption, but I don’t view the issue that black and white.  Reducing GHGs is a very complicated issue because as a society we have limited resources which means we should always be looking at the bigger picture, not just ICE versus Hybrids versus BEVs.  Some mandates seem too myopic in my opinion.

 

 

[akirby]

12 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Not to mention if the ranger was significantly cheaper, it would almost certainly start to cannibalize some maverick sales. 

That too.  It’s a very complicated marketing problem.

[Rick73]

It’s also complicated because a 2.3EB-based hybrid Ranger will probably be more like an F-150 PowerBoost than a Maverick Hybrid when it comes to added cost and fuel-economy gains.  Buyers are choosing Maverick Hybrid over 50% versus PowerBoost less than 20%.  Perceived added value for a hybrid Ranger may be difficult to predict.  IMO much will depend on specs, performance, and cost.

[akirby]

34 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

It’s also complicated because a 2.3EB-based hybrid Ranger will probably be more like an F-150 PowerBoost than a Maverick Hybrid when it comes to added cost and fuel-economy gains.  Buyers are choosing Maverick Hybrid over 50% versus PowerBoost less than 20%.  Perceived added value for a hybrid Ranger may be difficult to predict.  IMO much will depend on specs, performance, and cost.

Can’t compare Maverick hybrid sales to anything else because until recently the hybrid was the cheapest option.  I bet the take rate now is a lot less than 50%.