Ford November 2023 Sales

[jpd80]

Higher lithium costs have given manufacturers a hard time over the past couple of years but recently, prices are returning to previous lower levels. Hopefully that has a flow on effect with easing price pressure into 2024.

 

The hybrid Maverick was a great entry level product that buyers embraced, it worked but  Ford now knows that buyers regard fuel efficiency as a basic standard of vehicles, not a premium option. Could this also be contributing to the resistance with BEVs, buyers don’t like paying up front for future fuel savings? Whatever, there’s a bit of complex psychology going on here, the key is unlocking the answer…

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

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%.

 Do you suppose Ford increased Maverick hybrid pricing because supply and demand gave them the opportunity for greater profits, or because their manufacturing costs were higher?  I expect it could be a little of both, but expect more of the former. 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Higher lithium costs have given manufacturers a hard time over the past couple of years but recently, prices are returning to previous lower levels. Hopefully that has a flow on effect with easing price pressure into 2024.

 

The hybrid Maverick was a great entry level product that buyers embraced, it worked but  Ford now knows that buyers regard fuel efficiency as a basic standard of vehicles, not a premium option. Could this also be contributing to the resistance with BEVs, buyers don’t like paying up front for future fuel savings? Whatever, there’s a bit of complex psychology going on here, the key is unlocking the answer…

 

As has been stated before, Maverick is hard to peg because of hybrid being standard, AND limited supply.

 

If two equal models hybrid and non-hybrid were on the same lot, for the same price, would hybrid still win?

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 Do you suppose Ford increased Maverick hybrid pricing because supply and demand gave them the opportunity for greater profits, or because their manufacturing costs were higher?  I expect it could be a little of both, but expect more of the former. 

I assume the former.

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

As has been stated before, Maverick is hard to peg because of hybrid being standard, AND limited supply.

 

If two equal models hybrid and non-hybrid were on the same lot, for the same price, would hybrid still win?

The hybrid is now a $1500 upgrade so we’ll find out.

[Deanh]

41 minutes ago, akirby said:

The hybrid is now a $1500 upgrade so we’ll find out.

from my standpoint we cant keep our hands on any of them, but theres significantly more interest and calls on the Hybrids....and the prices the used Hybrids are fetching is ridiculous

[rmc523]

24 minutes ago, Deanh said:

from my standpoint we cant keep our hands on any of them, but theres significantly more interest and calls on the Hybrids....and the prices the used Hybrids are fetching is ridiculous

 

I like the Mavericks.  The interior could perhaps be a bit nicer (I know the interior story), but at least they did a good job of dressing up cheaper materials.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

The hybrid Maverick was a great entry level product that buyers embraced, it worked but  Ford now knows that buyers regard fuel efficiency as a basic standard of vehicles, not a premium option. Could this also be contributing to the resistance with BEVs, buyers don’t like paying up front for future fuel savings? Whatever, there’s a bit of complex psychology going on here, the key is unlocking the answer…

Agree completely that most buyers expect a much higher level of fuel efficiency at a reasonable cost, whether that’s a standard vehicle or a low-cost option.  I know there are buyers who will sacrifice fuel efficiency to obtain sub-4-second zero-to-sixty times and the like, but I’d bet that’s a small percentage of buyers.

 

Regarding BEVs and fuel savings, that’s a valid point because assumptions used in popular estimates from a few years ago have changed considerably.  The first reports I recall reading used a Tesla Model 3 at an efficiency of 4 miles per kWh, and electricity rates that were fairly low.  That was compared against average car of only +/- 22 MPG and fairly expensive gas.  Energy savings favored BEV over ICE by a wide margin, helping pay for higher-cost electric vehicle.

 

Today a hybrid the size of a Tesla 3 can achieve up to 50 MPG, and gas is lower per gallon, making energy cost differences pretty low.  Electricity has gone up at least in my area.  And when BEVs have to charge at public chargers, energy costs can actually be higher.  Obviously there are exceptions due to location, but for me, energy savings driving a Tesla 3 would not add up to much compared to a Hybrid Accord or Camry.  In fairness, hybrid Accord or Camry probably cost about the same as a base Model 3, so there wouldn’t be much savings to justify.

 

In summary, I’m not sure the argument that it’s cheaper to drive a BEV long-term is valid.  There are also questions regarding possible higher insurance and maybe depreciation as well.

[HotRunrGuy]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

The hybrid is now a $1500 upgrade so we’ll find out.

 

Only on XL & XLT.  On Lariat, the Hybrid is cheaper, because it is FWD only, while the Lariat 2.0EB is automatically AWD.

 

HRG

[Deanh]

9 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Only on XL & XLT.  On Lariat, the Hybrid is cheaper, because it is FWD only, while the Lariat 2.0EB is automatically AWD.

 

HRG

lol...sadly we veiw the Maverick as "affordable"...this may give away how long Ive been in the business, but I recall we had Rangers advertised ( no A/C ) stick shift std cabs advertised for $8995........scary...probably explains my crotchety nature at times...lol.

[HotRunrGuy]

27 minutes ago, Deanh said:

lol...sadly we veiw the Maverick as "affordable"...this may give away how long Ive been in the business, but I recall we had Rangers advertised ( no A/C ) stick shift std cabs advertised for $8995........scary...probably explains my crotchety nature at times...lol.

 

"affordable" is relative. Yesterday, it only cost me $11K to take delivery of my '24 Maverick Lariat.  Of course, that was after trading-in my '23,,,,,,,

 

Hahaha, HRG
 

[ice-capades]

35 minutes ago, Deanh said:

lol...sadly we veiw the Maverick as "affordable"...this may give away how long Ive been in the business, but I recall we had Rangers advertised ( no A/C ) stick shift std cabs advertised for $8995........scary...probably explains my crotchety nature at times...lol.

 

LOL... I can beat that as we advertised new 1986 Thunderbirds for $8,888! We stocked 100 Thunderbirds, split 50/50, new vs. used and sold 600 per year until Ford started to kill the Thunderbird in 1989 with massive standard equipment changes and price increases. We were the largest Thunderbird dealership from Washington, D.C. to the Canadian border. Don Imus on WNBC in New York did our commercials "live" Monday thru Friday mornings, between 7:00am - 9:00am, 48 weeks per year. 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by ice-capades

[DeluxeStang]

40 minutes ago, Deanh said:

lol...sadly we veiw the Maverick as "affordable"...this may give away how long Ive been in the business, but I recall we had Rangers advertised ( no A/C ) stick shift std cabs advertised for $8995........scary...probably explains my crotchety nature at times...lol.

It's absolutely crucial to factor in inflation when making comparisons between old, and modern cars. When we do, we realize how truly terrible of a deal those older cars were. A 1994 ranger had a $9,800 starting price. That means it was over 19k by today's prices. 19 grand for a base model with roll down windows, a gutless and problematic engine, and no features. Compare that to the maverick, that starts in the low 20s, is fast, and better built/more capable than those old rangers could ever hope to be. The maverick is just a ranger, but better in every way for not that much more money. 

[Rangers09]

About 1989, I bought a new base model Festiva that didn't even come with an AM/FM radio for under CAN $9,000, or under $8K, when converted to US $. Brilliant motor that I put on 200,000 miles before it was stolen.

[Deanh]

11 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

It's absolutely crucial to factor in inflation when making comparisons between old, and modern cars. When we do, we realize how truly terrible of a deal those older cars were. A 1994 ranger had a $9,800 starting price. That means it was over 19k by today's prices. 19 grand for a base model with roll down windows, a gutless and problematic engine, and no features. Compare that to the maverick, that starts in the low 20s, is fast, and better built/more capable than those old rangers could ever hope to be. The maverick is just a ranger, but better in every way for not that much more money. 

lol...understand that...but what does a Ranger start at now?.....and actually the 2.3 motor with the stick shift was absolutely unbreakable...I believe the same engine resided in the Tempo and was avarient of the Pinto drivetrain!....as for problematic engine...probably pertainiung to the 3.0 perhaps, I know of a few owners that had issues ...but problems werent a guarantee...my boy drove his for 300,000 miles.....and it STILL runs...

[silvrsvt]

My old man still has his 1998 Ranger and it still looks almost new with well over 130K miles on it. He's been retired for almost 20 years too and doesn't go far.

 

As for cars and how they improved vs how much they cost-

 

I remember selling my 1986 Escort GT in 1993 when I went into the Army. I remember ordering my 1998 Mustang GT and getting it and being slightly disappointed with it-it wasn't leaps and bounds better then the Escort I had (in materials or handling) and I sold in 2002 for a 2002 SVT Focus. Nice car but mechanically a giant POS. I winded up getting a 2006 Mustang GT to replace it and it was leaps and bounds better then the old Mustang and the SVT Focus I had. It was further re-enforced when I was dating someone who had a 2004 Mustang GT convertible-it had horrible cowl shake and other things and then she traded it in on a 2007 Mustang GT convertible-that car was just as quiet as my 2006 coupe and zero cowl shake on it.

[mackinaw]

2 hours ago, Deanh said:

.....and actually the 2.3 motor with the stick shift was absolutely unbreakable...I believe the same engine resided in the Tempo and was avarient of the Pinto drivetrain!....

The Lima 2.3L dates back to 1974.  Variations ended up in the Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and the SVO Mustang.  They were bulletproof.  A guy I know put over 500,000 miles on his 2.3L Ranger back in the 80's and 90's.

[ausrutherford]

14 hours 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.

 

 

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…

 

 

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.

 

 

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…

 

I believe the Tacoma and Hilux are set to (re?)merge. I think that part of the plan for the new Champ was to take the place of the lower cost Hiluxes since a Tacoma-based Hilux will naturally be larger and more costly than the past Hilux. 

[akirby]

5 hours ago, Deanh said:

lol...sadly we veiw the Maverick as "affordable"...this may give away how long Ive been in the business, but I recall we had Rangers advertised ( no A/C ) stick shift std cabs advertised for $8995........scary...probably explains my crotchety nature at times...lol.

I bought a 90 Ranger for $7995.  4 cyl XLT manual, am/fm/cassette, chrome wheels, sliding rear window.

[Chrisgb]

2 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

I believe the Tacoma and Hilux are set to (re?)merge. I think that part of the plan for the new Champ was to take the place of the lower cost Hiluxes since a Tacoma-based Hilux will naturally be larger and more costly than the past Hilux. 

Both the HiLux and Tacoma are built off of the TNGA-F frame, fast becoming Toyota's Swiss Army knife truck architecture. For the 2024MY, The HiLux is as close as ever to the Tacoma in size and capacities.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Chrisgb
Moved response out of quote box.

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, Deanh said:

lol...understand that...but what does a Ranger start at now?.....and actually the 2.3 motor with the stick shift was absolutely unbreakable...I believe the same engine resided in the Tempo and was avarient of the Pinto drivetrain!....as for problematic engine...probably pertainiung to the 3.0 perhaps, I know of a few owners that had issues ...but problems werent a guarantee...my boy drove his for 300,000 miles.....and it STILL runs...

A maverick starts in the low 20s. It's basically a modern 90s ranger, but better in basically every way. The 2.3 was very durable, but so is the 2.5 hybrid in the maverick. I don't hate those old rangers, they were just extremely compromised. 

[ice-capades]

Sometimes it's best to look back to put things in perspective!

 

[Deanh]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

I bought a 90 Ranger for $7995.  4 cyl XLT manual, am/fm/cassette, chrome wheels, sliding rear window.

lol...welcome to the Geezer club...Id love one of those trucks right now...

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Deanh said:

lol...welcome to the Geezer club...Id love one of those trucks right now...

I’s rather have the 95 Supercab 4.0L manual.

[Rick73]

My Ranger XLT had 2.3L and 5-speed manual.  I loved the smaller size compared to present-day Ranger.  I suppose Maverick is close in size to old Rangers, but I liked the RWD and body-on-frame ruggedness even though it wasn’t really that great by modern standards.  Still, a modern version of old Ranger would still be my preference if buying a truck today.