Farley Says Boring Vehicles Are Going Away

[jpd80]

26 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I like this idea I've seen you and Akirby mention about a maverick utility. But I have concerns if Ford develop a maverick utility with that classic boxy shape, it would lead to a lot of cross model cannibalization between the maverick utility and bronco sport.

Yeah see, Ford has done a good job of indoctrinating people that “One Ford” was the best plan economically

it referred to offering buyers choices in the same segments as unnecessary duplication. Anytime a vehicle

comes under heavy competition, it folds and calls it a commodity vehicle.

 

 

Quote

 

I say either off escape, and devote the resources, the plant capacity that was intended for the escape to the bronco sport to expand production. If Ford wants to continue offering multiple compact crossovers, I say essentially turn the next escape into a baby mach-e. Something that could still sell as a passion product, but was significantly different than what the bronco sport was offering. Ford seems to be pulling a lot of inspiration from Jeep, and Porsche as of late. If the mustang is the 911, and the mach-e is the Cayenne, then the electric escape could be Ford's macan. 

The Escape refresh was a disaster, the Bronco Sport is basically a return ot the old original boxy Gen 1 Escape.

Let it take as much of that market as it can.

 

I think we agree on Maverick Utility as a replacement for Escape but in a different way to Bronco Sport,

a longer wheelbase would take the fight to the likes of RAV4 and others that are just a sea of bland styling.

 

14 minutes ago, Deanh said:

not necessarily true...availability or lack of it I think is even a bigger issue...the good old supply and demand syndrome...price plays a part, but its definitely just a part of the puzzle

Exactly, would that they could make and sell as many Mavericks and Bronco Sports as buyers actually want.

The most frustrating part is Ford cannot get on top of supplier issues and that really sucks big time.

 

its like that vast majority of people at Ford do nothing but get in the way……

the first thing managers at Ford learn is to say no to good ideas that might cost money

and improve sales because he will get reamed by his boss and lose his bonus.

Edited January 19 by jpd80

[T-dubz]

Maybe y’all are on to something here. If you squint your eyes, this kinda looks like a tiny expedition. A three row compact suv could be one of those new markets ford is trying to get in to. There might be some other 3 row compacts out there but none that would have the space and legroom this would have. 

[akirby]

3 hours ago, T-dubz said:

That means absolutely nothing. The reason people pay msrp or above or wait a long time for it is solely due to price. Any comparable truck alternative is probably 40k so even if I pay 27k instead of the 25k msrp, I’m still saving 13k over going with the alternative. If the maverick started at 40k instead of 25k, there would be no waiting to buy it, no paying above msrp, and probably no loyal fan base. The reason the Ecosport failed was because it was ugly, and too small. Maverick is by no means a looker, but it’s bland enough to be inoffensive and it offers way more utility then the Ecosport ever could and can carry four adults somewhat comfortably.

 

 

This guy isn’t passionate about his Maverick?  Or all the other folks who follow a group called the Maverick Mafia?

 

 

[T-dubz]

54 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

This guy isn’t passionate about his Maverick?  Or all the other folks who follow a group called the Maverick Mafia?

 

 

Do you believe the fusion is a passion product? When I had one, I’d go to fusion websites and you’d see people doing the same thing, customizing the interior, spending thousands to do Mondeo headlight swaps, upgrading the sound system, etc. Google any car model and you will find a forum of people discussing it. The honda civic is the definition of commodity vehicle, and is about as boring as can be, yet it had more people customizing it than the maverick will ever have. Just because a few people are passionate about a vehicle does not make the vehicle itself a passion product. 

[Rick73]

Maybe boring vehicles are OK to non-car-guys?

 

Hypothetically, how would a more-basic lower-cost Maverick sell, even if priced with equal margin?  Toyota, for example, has a base RAV4 or Camry with 2.5L NA FWD powertrain.  They offer AWD and hybrids (like Maverick), but also offer an even lower-cost base trim..  What would happen if Ford offered an even lower cost boring Maverick (holding profitability constant)?

[akirby]

1 hour ago, T-dubz said:

Do you believe the fusion is a passion product? When I had one, I’d go to fusion websites and you’d see people doing the same thing, customizing the interior, spending thousands to do Mondeo headlight swaps, upgrading the sound system, etc. Google any car model and you will find a forum of people discussing it. The honda civic is the definition of commodity vehicle, and is about as boring as can be, yet it had more people customizing it than the maverick will ever have. Just because a few people are passionate about a vehicle does not make the vehicle itself a passion product. 

The only thing that matters is whether 100k+ buyers annually love the vehicle enough to buy it without big discounts.  Fusion always had big incentives because not enough people loved it enough to overpay relative to the competition.  Maverick is still selling without big incentives.

 

Thats the goal here.  Be able to sell products and maintain profit margins and decent volume.  Until we start seeing price cuts (from Ford not dealer discounts - those don’t matter) and big discounts Maverick and Bronco Sport and Bronco are huge hits.

[ice-capades]

12 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Maybe boring vehicles are OK to non-car-guys?

 

Hypothetically, how would a more-basic lower-cost Maverick sell, even if priced with equal margin?  Toyota, for example, has a base RAV4 or Camry with 2.5L NA FWD powertrain.  They offer AWD and hybrids (like Maverick), but also offer an even lower-cost base trim..  What would happen if Ford offered an even lower cost boring Maverick (holding profitability constant)?

 

The problem related to Maverick profits or margins is that profits are minimal with nearly non-existent margins at MSRP for the lower cost vehicles which is why so many Dealers added ADMs to price their Mavericks at thousands of dollars above MSRP. I've never agreed with the use of ADMs, with the exception of special limited production vehicles such as the Shelby Mustangs but had to understand Dealers implementing the widespread use of ADMs during the COVID period with the limited availability of vehicles due to supply chain and production constraints. 

Edited January 20 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[danglin]

28 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

The problem related to Maverick profits or margins is that profits are minimal with nearly non-existent margins at MSRP for the lower cost vehicles which is why so many Dealers added ADMs to price their Mavericks at thousands of dollars above MSRP. I've never agreed with the use of ADMs, with the exception of special limited production vehicles such as the Shelby Mustangs but had to understand Dealers implementing the widespread use of ADMs during the COVID period with the limited availability of vehicles due to supply chain and production constraints. 

 

Yeah, I do not understand why sedans were dropped since margins for anything other than F Series do not seem to be any better than the cars they were selling!

[Chrisgb]

22 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

That’s what I call the cross traffic alert whenever it goes off when I’m backing down the driveway and it goes off when it senses the house 

Cross traffic alert? mine only works on Thursday mornings. As I back out of the garage, it detects the garbage and recycling cans I just put out.

I have to say, my Ranger has had only one recall (technically two in the same letter) for updated rear SuperCab headrests and front seatbelts that may have been improperly installed. Mine were fine, and the old headrests I took down from the shelf to exchange them, and put the new ones back in their place. We never have any passengers back there. 

Edited January 20 by Chrisgb

[Chrisgb]

14 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Do you believe the fusion is a passion product? When I had one, I’d go to fusion websites and you’d see people doing the same thing, customizing the interior, spending thousands to do Mondeo headlight swaps, upgrading the sound system, etc. Google any car model and you will find a forum of people discussing it. The honda civic is the definition of commodity vehicle, and is about as boring as can be, yet it had more people customizing it than the maverick will ever have. Just because a few people are passionate about a vehicle does not make the vehicle itself a passion product. 

For many, a new vehicle is just a down payment on accessories.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, ice-capades said:

 

The problem related to Maverick profits or margins is that profits are minimal with nearly non-existent margins at MSRP for the lower cost vehicles which is why so many Dealers added ADMs to price their Mavericks at thousands of dollars above MSRP. I've never agreed with the use of ADMs, with the exception of special limited production vehicles such as the Shelby Mustangs but had to understand Dealers implementing the widespread use of ADMs during the COVID period with the limited availability of vehicles due to supply chain and production constraints. 

 
Low existing margins doesn’t address the question of whether buyers would buy a lower-cost Maverick if Ford built one (and priced it so Ford still made same profit).  For example, when I purchased a Ranger decades ago, I had choice of 4-cylinder and 5-speed manual, which I chose.  Last year, Toyota still offered a base Tacoma with NA 2.7L 4-cylinder and manual transmission.  I would guess most buyers choose AT over MT, but that hasn't prevented Toyota from still offering the manual.

 

There is so little demand for manual transmissions in US any more that it’s probably a bad example to use (though not boring), but does Ford even have a lower-cost and simpler powertrain they could install in a Maverick that was below the 2.0L EcoBoost or Hybrid?  And I mean a naturally-aspirated 4-cylinder, not a 3-cylinder turbo.  Same question goes for Ranger.  I can see myself buying another Ranger, but not with existing powertrains.  It’s like Ford has given up on buyers who prefer simpler vehicles.  Sadly, we are a small minority, so I understand Ford’s decision.  The only way the market will return to “simpler” times is when buyers can no longer afford vehicles.

 

[HotRunrGuy]

15 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Maybe boring vehicles are OK to non-car-guys?

 

Hypothetically, how would a more-basic lower-cost Maverick sell, even if priced with equal margin?  Toyota, for example, has a base RAV4 or Camry with 2.5L NA FWD powertrain.  They offer AWD and hybrids (like Maverick), but also offer an even lower-cost base trim..  What would happen if Ford offered an even lower cost boring Maverick (holding profitability constant)?

 

Huh? The base Maverick XL w/the 2.0EB already has a nearly $5K MSRP price advantage over your base trim RAV4 example.  How much lower do you think Maverick needs to be?

 

HRG

[Rick73]

24 minutes ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

Huh? The base Maverick XL w/the 2.0EB already has a nearly $5K MSRP price advantage over your base trim RAV4 example.  How much lower do you think Maverick needs to be?

 

HRG

As low as Ford can build it and still turn a good profit. ? 

 

Seriously, adjusted for inflation, my very basic Ranger XLT cost me less than $21,000 (excluding TTL).  Ford doesn’t make the equivalent of such a vehicle at all today as far as I can tell.  Modern Maverick comes close, though I’m not a great fan of FWD (and I’ve owned plenty).  More importantly, I don’t need or want EcoBoost power and I’m not willing to pay a premium for something I don’t need or want, and will cost me even more down the road.  I hate to admit it, but find lack of choices at base level irritating.  Obviously it’s not Ford’s problem because they will just say I can go elsewhere.

[Joe771476]

Gee I see a ton of Escapes and Edges here in New England. And they're going to discontinue them? Well what do you expect from a company that sold off Ford farm tractor, Class 8 L-series truck, and discontinued Taurus and Fusion to name a few!

[GearheadGrrrl]

51 minutes ago, Joe771476 said:

Gee I see a ton of Escapes and Edges here in New England. And they're going to discontinue them? Well what do you expect from a company that sold off Ford farm tractor, Class 8 L-series truck, and discontinued Taurus and Fusion to name a few!

Good points- Makes sense to discontinue a product when it can't even keep one assembly line busy, needs too much capital investment, and that capital investment won't be rewarded. But Ford is still the 2nd most recognized tractor brand after John Deere and if Ford hadn't exited that market they'd be making profits on tractors like John Deere is. L series had just had a major investment and while not very profitable then, now that there's only 4 big truck makers left in this market Ford could be reeling in those profits instead of giving them to Daimler.

 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

Well what do you expect from a company that sold off Ford farm tractor, Class 8 L-series truck, and discontinued Taurus and Fusion to name a few!

More profit?

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Joe771476 said:

Gee I see a ton of Escapes and Edges here in New England. And they're going to discontinue them? Well what do you expect from a company that sold off Ford farm tractor, Class 8 L-series truck, and discontinued Taurus and Fusion to name a few!

Getting rid of edge frees up additional resources that Ford can invest to further strengthen it's already iconic products. The explorer is an icon, but basically all of us can agree the CD6 explorer was a swing and a miss, a step down from the generally excellent 5th Gen explorer. 

 

So what if for the next gen ICE explorer, Ford goes all in to make it a standout, class leading product again. Perhaps Ford could design the next explorer to have three, and two row configurations from the beginning, with the two row either having more cargo space, or a slightly shorter wheelbase. You get your new and improved explorer, and a new two row utility with a far more recognizable name, and boxy styling which buyers find more appealing. 

 

Case in point, look at the current edge, and the wagoneer s, both below. The wagoneer s is what a new two row edge replacement could look like if it took the approach I just discussed. I'd take that jeep design with a Ford badge on it over the current edge any day of the week, especially if their prices were comparable. 

 

 

Edited January 21 by DeluxeStang

[rmc523]

On 1/19/2024 at 5:18 PM, jpd80 said:

Yeah see, Ford has done a good job of indoctrinating people that “One Ford” was the best plan economically

it referred to offering buyers choices in the same segments as unnecessary duplication. Anytime a vehicle

comes under heavy competition, it folds and calls it a commodity vehicle.

 

 

The Escape refresh was a disaster, the Bronco Sport is basically a return ot the old original boxy Gen 1 Escape.

Let it take as much of that market as it can.

 

I think we agree on Maverick Utility as a replacement for Escape but in a different way to Bronco Sport,

a longer wheelbase would take the fight to the likes of RAV4 and others that are just a sea of bland styling.

 

Exactly, would that they could make and sell as many Mavericks and Bronco Sports as buyers actually want.

The most frustrating part is Ford cannot get on top of supplier issues and that really sucks big time.

 

its like that vast majority of people at Ford do nothing but get in the way……

the first thing managers at Ford learn is to say no to good ideas that might cost money

and improve sales because he will get reamed by his boss and lose his bonus.

I think the problem with OneFord was that it was never fully realized as it should have been, IMO.

at the time, Ford had many duplicate platforms in the same segments, which really didn’t make sense.  Mulally’s goal to eliminate that duplication was warranted.

 

BUT he never took it to its logical (to me) next step….

after consolidating to “core” products on reduced platforms, the next step should have been to them EXPAND offerings in various segments on those same platforms, especially with regional-specific products.   Instead, Mulally wanted the same product globally.

fast forward to now, and we’ve finally  seen some of Ford expanding on platforms, but while simultaneously pulling others (Edge).

[rmc523]

10 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Getting rid of edge frees up additional resources that Ford can invest to further strengthen it's already iconic products. The explorer is an icon, but basically all of us can agree the CD6 explorer was a swing and a miss, a step down from the generally excellent 5th Gen explorer. 

 

So what if for the next gen ICE explorer, Ford goes all in to make it a standout, class leading product again. Perhaps Ford could design the next explorer to have three, and two row configurations from the beginning, with the two row either having more cargo space, or a slightly shorter wheelbase. You get your new and improved explorer, and a new two row utility with a far more recognizable name, and boxy styling which buyers find more appealing. 

 

Case in point, look at the current edge, and the wagoneer s, both below. The wagoneer s is what a new two row edge replacement could look like if it took the approach I just discussed. I'd take that jeep design with a Ford badge on it over the current edge any day of the week, especially if their prices were comparable. 

2024-Jeep-Wagoneer-S-EV-SUV-3.avif

2017-ford-edge-sport-review.webp

You argue against your own point here…. Jeep already does this with Grand Cherokee and the L version….then bringing in Wagoneer S, which effectively would be a new Edge

[DeluxeStang]

10 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

You argue against your own point here…. Jeep already does this with Grand Cherokee and the L version….then bringing in Wagoneer S, which effectively would be a new Edge

I'm saying the wagoneer s is an excellent example of an appealing utility. Just imagine that shape in its current form, along with a longer version which would be the three row explorer. 

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

The explorer is an icon, but basically all of us can agree the CD6 explorer was a swing and a miss, a step down from the generally excellent 5th Gen

 

Not all of us.  The current Explorer is far better than the previous one for me including the ST model.

[DeluxeStang]

35 minutes ago, akirby said:

Not all of us.  The current Explorer is far better than the previous one for me including the ST model.

The quality just isn't there. Overnight, explorer went from a crossover where people were owning them for 10-15 years with little to no issues, to an SUV where someone who's owned theirs for a year and for half of that, it's been in the shop. 

 

As for design, the reduced overhangs are an improvement over the fifth gen, but the fifth gen looks much classier, and more refined. All of the lines on the fifth gen flow into each other, even small details like how the chrome strip on the tailgate perfectly lines up with the white reverse lights in the taillights. A lot of the design elements on the sixth gen feel tacked on, the headlights have this odd intrusion into the grille opening that never looks good, on the rear, they ditched the full width chrome strip that flowed into the taillights. So now the rear lights look tacked on, and the rear end looks plain. As for the lines on the side, the fifth gen has these two streaks with an indented center running down the body side, very similar to s550 actually. The 6th gen has soft surfacing, with this odd diagonal character line running down the body, just looks odd. 

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm saying the wagoneer s is an excellent example of an appealing utility. Just imagine that shape in its current form, along with a longer version which would be the three row explorer. 

Are not Jeep Wagoneer and Wagoneer L more comparable to Ford Expedition and Expedition MAX in size?  I assume you like the Wagoneer shape, as do I, but it’s more rounded or aero-looking by comparison,  so not sure why “boxy styling which buyers find more appealing“ is the way to go?  I’m sure some buyers prefer boxy, but not all; and not to mention continued emphasis on vehicle aerodynamics will likely ensure truly boxy vehicles are a thing of the past IMO.

[tbone]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The quality just isn't there. Overnight, explorer went from a crossover where people were owning them for 10-15 years with little to no issues, to an SUV where someone who's owned theirs for a year and for half of that, it's been in the shop. 

 

As for design, the reduced overhangs are an improvement over the fifth gen, but the fifth gen looks much classier, and more refined. All of the lines on the fifth gen flow into each other, even small details like how the chrome strip on the tailgate perfectly lines up with the white reverse lights in the taillights. A lot of the design elements on the sixth gen feel tacked on, the headlights have this odd intrusion into the grille opening that never looks good, on the rear, they ditched the full width chrome strip that flowed into the taillights. So now the rear lights look tacked on, and the rear end looks plain. As for the lines on the side, the fifth gen has these two streaks with an indented center running down the body side, very similar to s550 actually. The 6th gen has soft surfacing, with this odd diagonal character line running down the body, just looks odd. 

It’s funny, because everything that you complained about regarding the sixth generation model is why I like it better than the fifth generation, and I’ve owned both.  To me the current model is much better than the previous and feels more upscale. There are certainly some things that could be better, but they aren’t substantial to me.  

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Are not Jeep Wagoneer and Wagoneer L more comparable to Ford Expedition and Expedition MAX in size?  I assume you like the Wagoneer shape, as do I, but it’s more rounded or aero-looking by comparison,  so not sure why “boxy styling which buyers find more appealing“ is the way to go?  I’m sure some buyers prefer boxy, but not all; and not to mention continued emphasis on vehicle aerodynamics will likely ensure truly boxy vehicles are a thing of the past IMO.

Wagoneer s is its own thing, different model than the normal wagoneer, just uses the wagoneer name. The larger wagoneer is ok, some of the design choices like the body colored window pillars look out of place on a modern upscale product. Thought I vastly prefer the wagoneer s. As for the styling, the wagoneer s works because it has that perfect balance of boxy, and curvy. The explorer is boxier than the current edge, but it's not as slab sized as something like the bronco.