Farley Says Boring Vehicles Are Going Away

[tbone]

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.

I personally am not a fan of the rounded boxy styling of the current Grand Cherokee and Wagoneer.  They look like they are trying to bridge the boxy and round styles and it just doesn’t resonate with me, when compared to previous Jeep styling. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

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. 

You do realize the Wagoneer S is a BEV?

[DeluxeStang]

50 minutes ago, akirby said:

You do realize the Wagoneer S is a BEV?

Yes, I'm not saying Ford should pattern the next edge/explorer after those mechanicals. Just that the wagoneer s would be a solid form of inspiration from a design standpoint. 

[silvrsvt]

For everyone saying we should follow Jeeps lead-um they've lost quite a bit of market share over the past few years. 

 

https://www.theautopian.com/jeep-is-in-trouble-and-hopes-nostalgia-can-save-it

 

In a market where almost every brand is growing, Jeep has lost 12% of sales compared to 2022, which itself was a dismal year. This comes after four consecutive years of sales declines for Jeep. 

 

 

Wrangler sales where down 14% even with a new model, but I'm going to guess that was partly due to the strike too

[akirby]

But how are Jeep profits in the U.S.?  If they’re cutting unprofitable models and right sizing production then profits might be the same or better.  But if profits are also falling that’s a problem.

[Chrisgb]

Nice to see Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 sales rebounding. 

 

 The original Fury Chrysler Plymouth in South St Paul, MN had a 1959 Plymouth Belvedere 4 door that was never sold. It is a sand color with a cream roof. tan interior The current owner(s) bring it out to cruise-ins and one year to the Twin Cities Auto Show. It was on sale for a couple three years back then, and with a shoulder shrug, parked in some dark corner.

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

But how are Jeep profits in the U.S.?  If they’re cutting unprofitable models and right sizing production then profits might be the same or better.  But if profits are also falling that’s a problem.

 

That is a good question, but they are also "hurting" since they can't sell ICE only vehicles (well Wanglers and Grand Cherokees that come in HEV models) in CARB states unless its special order due to CAFE or emissions issues from what I understand also. 

Edited January 22 by silvrsvt

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

For everyone saying we should follow Jeeps lead-um they've lost quite a bit of market share over the past few years. 

 

https://www.theautopian.com/jeep-is-in-trouble-and-hopes-nostalgia-can-save-it

 

 

 

 

 

Wrangler sales where down 14% even with a new model, but I'm going to guess that was partly due to the strike too

Guys, we're getting a bit off topic here.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Guys, we're getting a bit off topic here.

Yes, plus connecting “boring” to sales numbers could be difficult considering that so many of the best selling vehicles would probably fall under Farley’s boring or commodity designation; except for maybe pickup trucks.

 

It would help if we knew what Farley really meant regarding his boring comment, but in video he talks about the opposite instead — passion and excitement associated with Bronco and Mustang.  However, Bronco, Bronco Sport, and Mustang combined for just over 15% of 2023 sales if I’m reading data correctly.  What about Transit that sells equally well and is as boring as a vehicle can get?  Or does Transit get a pass for falling under “work” designation Farley also mentions?   I think Farley would be happy with boring if it turned a high-enough profit. 
 

As mentioned before, different people have different tastes that lead them to become passionate about very different vehicles.  A few on this forum are passionate about BEVs, and others couldn’t care less.  Same goes for diesel pickups with over 1,000 lb-ft of torque.  In video Farley was talking to a small percentage of buying public passionate about motor sports.

[DeluxeStang]

40 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, plus connecting “boring” to sales numbers could be difficult considering that so many of the best selling vehicles would probably fall under Farley’s boring or commodity designation; except for maybe pickup trucks.

 

It would help if we knew what Farley really meant regarding his boring comment, but in video he talks about the opposite instead — passion and excitement associated with Bronco and Mustang.  However, Bronco, Bronco Sport, and Mustang combined for just over 15% of 2023 sales if I’m reading data correctly.  What about Transit that sells equally well and is as boring as a vehicle can get?  Or does Transit get a pass for falling under “work” designation Farley also mentions?   I think Farley would be happy with boring if it turned a high-enough profit. 
 

As mentioned before, different people have different tastes that lead them to become passionate about very different vehicles.  A few on this forum are passionate about BEVs, and others couldn’t care less.  Same goes for diesel pickups with over 1,000 lb-ft of torque.  In video Farley was talking to a small percentage of buying public passionate about motor sports.

The best way to describe what Farley is taking about, is making vehicles that make people say "I want that" compared to people saying "Sure, I'll take one as long as it's discounted, why not". That doesn't mean everything needs to be a V8 mustang, or a rock bashing bronco. 

 

If you understand what your buyers want, and care enough to put the effort in to doing something unique, you can turn basically any vehicle into a passion product. An electric transit for instance that appeals to business owners because it saves them a considerable amount of money on maintenance and fuel costs. A compact truck that buyers fall in love with because it's the utility and practicality of a truck, with better fuel efficiency than a small sedan. A compact crossover that actually tries to have personality and character. Three examples, arguably some of the least enthusiast oriented vehicles on the planet, a truck, cargo van, and small crossover, all becoming desirable products because they dared to be different. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

The best way to describe what Farley is taking about, is making vehicles that make people say "I want that" compared to people saying "Sure, I'll take one as long as it's discounted, why not". That doesn't mean everything needs to be a V8 mustang, or a rock bashing bronco. 

It’s more difficult than that for Ford as its research data has always been too out of date to be fast acting except Maverick. IMO, Farley really doesn’t know what he’s talking about, especially after the heavy bet on early BEV ramp up. He bet against the ICE side of the business remaining so strong.

 

Quote

If you understand what your buyers want, and care enough to put the effort in to doing something unique, you can turn basically any vehicle into a passion product. An electric transit for instance that appeals to business owners because it saves them a considerable amount of money on maintenance and fuel costs. A compact truck that buyers fall in love with because it's the utility and practicality of a truck, with better fuel efficiency than a small sedan. A compact crossover that actually tries to have personality and character. Three examples, arguably some of the least enthusiast oriented vehicles on the planet, a truck, cargo van, and small crossover, all becoming desirable products because they dared to be different. 

No, it’s more about tacking away from what everyone else is doing kill say Maverick pickup vs a sea of everyone else’s utilities. If you want to create a desirable product, don’t do the same things that everyone else is, make a point of differentiation. Some examples of this might be  found in Ford vehicles that exist elsewhere in Europe or China but require some rework. I can almost guarantee that they won’t be considered - Farley knows they exist, his corporate brain doesn’t work that way…

Edited January 22 by jpd80

[akirby]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

The best way to describe what Farley is taking about, is making vehicles that make people say "I want that" compared to people saying "Sure, I'll take one as long as it's discounted, why not". That doesn't mean everything needs to be a V8 mustang, or a rock bashing bronco. 

 

If you understand what your buyers want, and care enough to put the effort in to doing something unique, you can turn basically any vehicle into a passion product. An electric transit for instance that appeals to business owners because it saves them a considerable amount of money on maintenance and fuel costs. A compact truck that buyers fall in love with because it's the utility and practicality of a truck, with better fuel efficiency than a small sedan. A compact crossover that actually tries to have personality and character. Three examples, arguably some of the least enthusiast oriented vehicles on the planet, a truck, cargo van, and small crossover, all becoming desirable products because they dared to be different. 

Nailed it.  I don’t know why this concept is so hard for some to understand.  It all boils down to higher margins.

 

And you don’t have to appeal to everybody.  Just enough to hit your sales targets.

 

And remember he excluded commercial vehicles - those have different goals.

Edited January 22 by akirby

[DeluxeStang]

40 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

If you want to create a desirable product, don’t do the same things that everyone else is, make a point of differentiation

Agreed, I'll go a step further and say it's not enough to be different for the sake of being different. You have to be different in a way that genuinely improves people's lives and the overall ownership experience. Ford seems to be getting that now for the first time in a long time. 

 

51 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 IMO, Farley really doesn’t know what he’s talking about, especially after the heavy bet on early BEV ramp up. He bet against the ICE side of the business remaining so strong.

I see Farley as an old man trying to find his place in the young and rapidly developing electric car industry. Sure, he made mistakes, all leaders do if they're bold enough. But he could admit when he was wrong, there are A LOT of people who are incapable of doing that. 

 

He's since developed a far more balanced approach to the future of the industry, the smart approach imo, which is to have a foot in future ICE offerings, and EVs, and hybrids. Yes, Farley has three feet, don't ask me how or why. 

[mackinaw]

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 IMO, Farley really doesn’t know what he’s talking about, especially after the heavy bet on early BEV ramp up. He bet against the ICE side of the business remaining so strong......

 

A foolish statement.  The pressure from Wall Street and investment companies on the traditional auto manufacturers is enormous.  Where they decide to put their money can make or break an auto company.  Woe be to you if you’re seen as lagging behind.  Three to four years ago, when EV fever was at its peak, EVERYBODY was trying to prove to Wall Street that they were going to be the next Tesla.  Look at GM which, in trying to appease Wall Street, foolishly walked away from hybrids and went into developing EV’s 100% (where did that get them?).  Farley had little choice but to prove to Wall Street that Ford too, was all in on EV’s.

 

And look what happened at Toyota.  As recently as last summer, several investment companies were demanding that Akio Toyoda (Toyota’s Chairman of the Board) RESIGN because he had the audacity to suggest that the EV transition will take longer than thought, and that there’s still a future for ICE powered vehicles.  Toyoda stayed put, but pressure from the investment companies has forced Toyota to commit billions of dollars in developing EV vehicles, so they can stay on Wall Street’s good side.

 

It’s so easy to play armchair quarterback when you’re not the person making decisions involving billions of dollars in investments.  I don’t envy any auto CEO.  The behind-the-scenes financial stuff they have to deal with is constant and never-ending.  No wonder Farley races cars whenever he can.

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Agreed, I'll go a step further and say it's not enough to be different for the sake of being different. You have to be different in a way that genuinely improves people's lives and the overall ownership experience. Ford seems to be getting that now for the first time in a long time. 

Zooming in on that, more than a use based essential, the vehicle must be a “gotta have” like Maverick and Bronco….

That gotta have element is all to do with priorities and understanding that your customers want more than just

a high priced novelty widget…..

 

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I see Farley as an old man trying to find his place in the young and rapidly developing electric car industry. Sure, he made mistakes, all leaders do if they're bold enough. But he could admit when he was wrong, there are A LOT of people who are incapable of doing that. 

Understand the situation in which Farley was promoted to CEO.

Hackett got the job as an outsider brought in to follow Bill Ford’s instructions about moving forward with electrification.

Mark Fields deliberately slow walked EVs because buyers weren’t ready nor were suppliers and battery development.

Thats why Farley inherited a few gaps and false start, workaround decisions in Hackett’s plans and why changes were made.

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

He's since developed a far more balanced approach to the future of the industry, the smart approach imo, which is to have a foot in future ICE offerings, and EVs, and hybrids. Yes, Farley has three feet, don't ask me how or why. 

He’s been forced to face reality.

Ford has a $50 billion BEV plan sitting there waiting to go forward but now, he has to explain to Bill Ford (who is no genius)

exactly why Blue Oval Center is now up in the air in so far as projections on production and expansions.

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Nailed it.  I don’t know why this concept is so hard for some to understand.  It all boils down to higher margins.

 

And you don’t have to appeal to everybody.  Just enough to hit your sales targets.

 

And remember he excluded commercial vehicles - those have different goals.

I get it, if Ford is going to make 2 million vehicles a year, they better be the best profit mix possible.

 

A previously expressed, the way Ford researches and develops new vehicles is their biggest problem,

most of it is an enormous waste of time when based data that’s way too old and the market has moved on.

From what I see, Jim Baumbik and his team have done basically nothing more after Maverick exactly because

Farley dropped the ball and thought BEVs were the only vehicles required in Ford’s future. Maybe that’s a bit hard

on him but the truth is Ford needs to pick up the pace with other ICE vehicles coming up to the desirable level.

 

 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, mackinaw said:

 

A foolish statement.  The pressure from Wall Street and investment companies on the traditional auto manufacturers is enormous.  Where they decide to put their money can make or break an auto company.  Woe be to you if you’re seen as lagging behind.  Three to four years ago, when EV fever was at its peak, EVERYBODY was trying to prove to Wall Street that they were going to be the next Tesla.  Look at GM which, in trying to appease Wall Street, foolishly walked away from hybrids and went into developing EV’s 100% (where did that get them?).  Farley had little choice but to prove to Wall Street that Ford too, was all in on EV’s.

Foolish is over committing the company, way too early, so let’s talk about that…

Farley committed up to $50 billion on the strength of 200k reservations that evaporated…how foolish does that now look?

Yes, Ford is still going forward with Blue Oval Center and the two Battery JV plants but wher are the customer sales?

Are they magically coming from people suddenly deciding that hybrids and BEVs are for them? 
 

Now, had Ford stuck to its original rollout plans, they would be bang on schedule today, save for the slowdown.

Ford just doesn’t need to over commit and that’s exactly why it paused…Farley will soon realise that ramp up

will be way slower…and so too will Will Street….GM is in the same boat with Barra heavily committing and then reneging…

 

Quote

 

And look what happened at Toyota.  As recently as last summer, several investment companies were demanding that Akio Toyoda (Toyota’s Chairman of the Board) RESIGN because he had the audacity to suggest that the EV transition will take longer than thought, and that there’s still a future for ICE powered vehicles.  Toyoda stayed put, but pressure from the investment companies has forced Toyota to commit billions of dollars in developing EV vehicles, so they can stay on Wall Street’s good side.

I think Toyota’s recent profits speak for themselves….it gives them the money to pay for BEV development.

and 2024 projection is for +$20 Billion profit….

 

Quote

It’s so easy to play armchair quarterback when you’re not the person making decisions involving billions of dollars in investments.  I don’t envy any auto CEO.  The behind-the-scenes financial stuff they have to deal with is constant and never-ending.  No wonder Farley races cars whenever he can.

The desire for accelerated rollout came from Bill Ford he’s been pushing electrification since before Mark Fields.

Remember, Bill Ford nearly ran the company into bankruptcy and had to bring in Mulally to save Ford.

For all of Farley’s faults he is working under the directions of Bill Ford who is no financial genius….

 

Edited January 23 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Guys, for the longest time Ford and other legacy automakers thought of BEVs as just a powertrain extension 

to their existing ICE assembly processes. It was a minimalistic process that would work with smallish batteries

but once you want more than 200 miles, the design is out the window.

 

Then GM came up with the skateboard body on frame idea it had Ben developing for decades and that seemed

to be a good answer - enter Ultium platform with its pouch batteries and flexible architecture and power suspension

modules. A much better idea but still, GM struggles with getting its vehicles manufactured and sold…

 

Tesla is the gold star example simply because it’s been making BEVs from much longer and paid its dues.

The early Tesla 3s had a ton of parts requiring welding and we all laughed as how many people were needed.

Then came Gigacastings and the production emphasis changed as the body shop became less of a restriction.

But even looking at Tesla, there’s nothing there that couldn’t be engineered by Ford, GM, VW or even Toyota.

So after all of the billions spent, why are they still not properly on the road to BEV production?

I think they’re lucky that not many buyers want them yet….

 

OK, enough from me. There’s a ton here to dissect and discuss and everyone’s

input is welcome. Sure I’m a mad hatter but it’s the only way to shock some of you….

 

Edited January 23 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

51 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Understand the situation in which Farley was promoted to CEO.

Hackett got the job as an outsider brought in to follow Bill Ford’s instructions about moving forward with electrification.

Mark Fields deliberately slow walked EVs because buyers weren’t ready nor were suppliers and battery development.

Thats why Farley inherited a few gaps and false start, workaround decisions in Hackett’s plans and why changes were made.

He’s been forced to face reality.

Ford has a $50 billion BEV plan sitting there waiting to g

 

A previously expressed, the way Ford researches and develops new vehicles is their biggest problem,

most of it is an enormous waste of time when based data that’s way too old and the market has moved on.

From what I see, Jim Baumbik and his team have done basically nothing more after Maverick exactly because

Farley dropped the ball and thought BEVs were the only vehicles required in Ford’s future. Maybe that’s a bit hard

on him but the truth is Ford needs to pick up the pace with other ICE vehicles coming up to the desirable level.

 

 

Ford's certainly had a turbulent stretch for the better part of a decade, that's for sure. I've heard many mixed things about the Ford family, some Ford employees say they're great, others have said they have a quite tyrannical approach to leadership where whatever they say goes. They need to change that, you can't achieve great things if people are afraid to push back against the boss. 

 

As for ford's strategy being a bit all over the place, it's annoying, but I will give them a bit of credit, this was an issue basically every large OEM had, rushing into the development of new BEVs in a frenzy, and overestimating demand. But as you stated, Farley is smart enough to embrace reality. He's realizing EVs have a future, but they aren't the only future. 

 

That does make me wonder where some of Ford's icons like the next gen bronco and mustang stand. I wouldn't be surprised if s750 is in some advanced design studio as we speak, but they haven't figured out the engineering direction for it yet. It sounded like initially, they were planning to move that to GE2 and let s650 be the last horah for the ICE mustang. Now, I expect s750 to have at least some ICE offerings. Time will tell if Ford commits to a new performance platform that can accommodate both ICE and BEV tech, or if said s750 retains the current mustang chassis. I bet the people working in many of Ford's programs are pulling their hair out due to Ford's ever evolving strategy. 

 

The one benefit is it would appear platforms like c2 can accommodate very rapid vehicle development programs. So while Ford may have gotten it wrong at first, platforms like that should enable them to pivot relatively quickly. 

 

 

[AM222]

On 1/20/2024 at 6:18 AM, 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.

I think when done right, the "One" concept works. Asian and European brands have been doing this for decades. 

For example: Honda (CR-V), Toyota (Rav4), Hyundai (Tucson) have one C-segment SUV model sold globally.

Depending on the market or region, Ford has two different models in the 2-row compact SUV segment, the Escape-Kuga and the unrelated Territory which will finally be made available with a right-hand drive version. It will replace the Kuga in South Africa.

-www.citizen.co.za

Edited January 23 by AM222

[AM222]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:39 AM, DeluxeStang said:

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. 

The current Explorer still has traces of Kinetic Design, I think this makes it look a bit dated. The rising side crease/ character line of the Explorer was common on Ford models launched in the late-2000s and early-2010s like the Fiesta, EcoSport, previous gen Escape-Kuga etc.


Some new Ford designs launched 2021 or later with a design language that mixes boxy and curvy with sharp edges.



Just had to add the Tourneo Courier B-segment MPV with its SUV-inspired styling.

[akirby]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Foolish is over committing the company, way too early, so let’s talk about that…

Farley committed up to $50 billion on the strength of 200k reservations that evaporated…how foolish does that now look?

Yes, Ford is still going forward with Blue Oval Center and the two Battery JV plants but wher are the customer sales?

Are they magically coming from people suddenly deciding that hybrids and BEVs are for them? 
 

Now, had Ford stuck to its original rollout plans, they would be bang on schedule today, save for the slowdown.

Ford just doesn’t need to over commit and that’s exactly why it paused…Farley will soon realise that ramp up

will be way slower…and so too will Will Street….GM is in the same boat with Barra heavily committing and then reneging…

 

I think Toyota’s recent profits speak for themselves….it gives them the money to pay for BEV development.

and 2024 projection is for +$20 Billion profit….

 

The desire for accelerated rollout came from Bill Ford he’s been pushing electrification since before Mark Fields.

Remember, Bill Ford nearly ran the company into bankruptcy and had to bring in Mulally to save Ford.

For all of Farley’s faults he is working under the directions of Bill Ford who is no financial genius….

 

 

But what did Farley actually do regarding BEV development vs what was said?   Killed Edge and imported Nautilus.  Other products weren’t affected (at least not irreversibly) and Edge needs a C2 redesign anyway if it needs to come back.  And he’s building BOC for truck production which I would argue is necessary to maintain Ford’s truck market leadership and serve as a learning experience for BEV production.  Rivian and VW were missteps but only caused delays which may be a blessing in disguise.  BEVs are not going away, they’re here to stay and only the adoption timeline has changed.

 

I don’t see anything Farley has done that would severely impact Ford’s bottom line or that could be called foolish given the projected demand.

 

As mackinaw pointed out - failing to do what he did given the circumstances at the time would have been disastrous for Ford.

[silvrsvt]

Much of what has been said about EVs has been nothing more then press releases to investors who saw what was happening with Tesla stock and the general lightning rod nature of EVs has clouded up what is actually happening...going on past reports, the EV going into OAC should have been out 18 months ago...and then people are forgeting the cluster fuck that COVID restrictions caused over the past almost 4 years. 

 

Once again-the auto industry is a long lead time one-things that where done back 36-48 months ago are finally hitting the market, or at lease would have if the COVID shitshow didn't happen. 

I'm guessing we'll see the official release of the Explorer and Aviator in the next 45 days and the updated Bronco Sport by the summer? The OAC EVs will most likely be shown off by the end of the year?

So what else am I missing?

[Rick73]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Tesla is the gold star example simply because it’s been making BEVs from much longer and paid its dues.

The early Tesla 3s had a ton of parts requiring welding and we all laughed as how many people were needed.

Then came Gigacastings and the production emphasis changed as the body shop became less of a restriction.

But even looking at Tesla, there’s nothing there that couldn’t be engineered by Ford, GM, VW or even Toyota.

So after all of the billions spent, why are they still not properly on the road to BEV production?

I think they’re lucky that not many buyers want them yet….

The major difference from my perspective is that Tesla accepted and embraced physical limitations of electrification from very beginning, creating vehicles that had small frontal areas combined with low aerodynamic coefficients of drag, in order to market practical and somewhat affordable BEVs given state of technology at given time.  That’s how they achieved driving range that most buyers considered necessary.  And from beginning, Tesla has been relentless to make vehicles that cost less to buy, and use higher efficiency as a means to lower vehicle costs.   An additional benefit of efficiency is not only lower costs, but also faster charging, another disadvantage to BEV ownership.
 

Tesla have made mistakes too, like coming out with Cybertruck instead of emphasizing getting more-affordable Model 2 to market sooner.  I’m not sure semi was a great idea either based on reported sales estimates.  
 

Anyway, manufacturers who have tried to electrify vehicles with large frontal areas and poor aerodynamics have struggled by comparison thus far.  Other than Tesla, efficient and therefore more affordable BEVs have sold best.  We will have to see if larger electric SUVs with poor aerodynamics will be able to compete in the next few years.  Improved battery technology and costs will help, but comparison to more efficient vehicles will remain, just that difference will be less.

 

 

 

 

[Tico]

What is missing, and maybe Ford just can't make money in this segment, is an entry level vehicle. Meaning Under $30K USD out the door including tax. I personally know of at least 4 people, friends or extended family who were or are in the market for "basic" transportation and wanted to buy something new. They asked me about Ford but even searching Maverk invetory around here this is nothing under 30K asking price. Ford has nothing to offer. So they end up looking at Corrola or Civic. Trailblazer or HRV for CUVs. A search online turns up several of Trailblazers and HRVs new at dealerships nearby under 30K. The problem for Ford is once they buy Chevy or Honda or Toyota they are much more likely to go back there if they are ever in a position to buy up to something more expensive. Many of these people were Focus or Fusion owners in the past. I am NOT saying bring back those products. I am saying offer something passionate in the entry level space. There must be something offered outside the USA that could be made in Mexico and sold here at a profit. Yes make is pasionate so people "take a chance" on Ford instead of just going for the HRV or Corrola becuase its an affordable and safe choice.

Edited January 23 by Tico

[akirby]

31 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

The major difference from my perspective is that Tesla accepted and embraced physical limitations of electrification from very beginning, creating vehicles that had small frontal areas combined with low aerodynamic coefficients of drag, in order to market practical and somewhat affordable BEVs given state of technology at given time.  That’s how they achieved driving range that most buyers considered necessary.  And from beginning, Tesla has been relentless to make vehicles that cost less to buy, and use higher efficiency as a means to lower vehicle costs.  

 

Oh please Tesla has never been about affordability until the last year or so.  Model S and X were super expensive.