Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Company Lost Billions on Sedans

[Happy european guy]

49 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Lol.  Not sure what F250 has to do with anything.

 

I just don't consider a design with a mish-mash of styling cues that don't relate to one another elegant.

 

The black on the hood edge looks like a hood wind deflector, the bizarre unnecessary rectangles by the license plate, squared off rear design elements on an otherwise curvy vehicle, stuck on round taillight pods, etc.

 

 

The body shape overall isn't bad for the segment, but I just don't like the detailing.....maybe it looks better in person?

The overall shape is good for the segment. The details put it above all in the segment. Here some pics of the Stellantis B segment siblings…

 

Citroen

Opel

Peugeot

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, .I. said:

The overall shape is good for the segment. The details put it above all in the segment. Here some pics of the Stellantis B segment siblings…

 

Citroen

Opel

Peugeot

These, especially the green hatch, are great examples of the sort of styling direction Ford should strive for with their future affordable compact EVs. Sharp, eye catching, but not over styled. 

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, .I. said:

The overall shape is good for the segment. The details put it above all in the segment. Here some pics of the Stellantis B segment siblings…

 

Citroen

Opel

Peugeot

 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I feel the detailing on the Ypsilon is terrible.  The green Peugeot is by far the best of the bunch, IMO....(except those ugly wheels lol).  The Opel is next with the Citroen and Ypsilon are tied for  a distant third.

 

I've always preferred cleaner designs.....they look more elegant to me - adding a ton of trim, extra shapes, etc. tells me they're overstyling it and that the base design wasn't good enough, so they tack on "look at me" elements to overcome it.

 

 

[AM222]

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Long term, I don't think the Mach E has future as a standalone product because its acting as a compliance model for the EU. 

 

Once the new C class pure EV comes along in a few years, there really is no point in keeping the Mach E as it currently stands in production.

The Mach E could become the coupe style CUV along side whatever replaces the Escape and I'd guess eventually the Mustang would join it as a coupe. 

I think the Mach E was really intended for North America where most of its sales come drom.

 

If you're talking about compliance cars for the EU, that would be the VW-based compact Explorer EV and its Coupe (Capri!) derivative.

 

Again, unlike its competitors, none of them are global.

[paintguy]

The sedan, or dare I say even the coupe can have better handling and performance than an SUV or truck. Certainly my Ford Taurus SHO has some performance potential, albeit in a size larger than many may desire. I've driven Explorers of the same vintage. The weight and height make it feel more ponderous. At the time, 2014, got a great price (A-plan) and a substantial rebate. Rebate significantly higher than an equivalent Explorer, which was more expensive to start with and built on the same assembly line. In the end, I understand why Ford cut the sedans. To keep up, substantial investment would be required. At the same time, Ford is faced with electrification costs, perhaps forced by regulation (trying to stay non political). It seems electric sedans have performance. Some of this is used as a sales tool. If this proves to be a segment, I expect Ford to try as well. 

[Sherminator98]

16 hours ago, AM222 said:

I think the Mach E was really intended for North America where most of its sales come drom.

 

If you're talking about compliance cars for the EU, that would be the VW-based compact Explorer EV and its Coupe (Capri!) derivative.

If the Mach E was NA only, it wouldn’t be built in Mexico, which has far more favorable trading climate with the EU vs the United States. 
 

Also don’t forget that the Mach E has been in production for almost four years now and the Explorer EV is just now hitting the market. 
 

Mach E sales where roughly 50/50 EU Vs NA and 40/60 in 2023. 
 

 

[Andrew L]

1 hour ago, paintguy said:

The sedan, or dare I say even the coupe can have better handling and performance than an SUV or truck. Certainly my Ford Taurus SHO has some performance potential, albeit in a size larger than many may desire. I've driven Explorers of the same vintage. The weight and height make it feel more ponderous. At the time, 2014, got a great price (A-plan) and a substantial rebate. Rebate significantly higher than an equivalent Explorer, which was more expensive to start with and built on the same assembly line. In the end, I understand why Ford cut the sedans. To keep up, substantial investment would be required. At the same time, Ford is faced with electrification costs, perhaps forced by regulation (trying to stay non political). It seems electric sedans have performance. Some of this is used as a sales tool. If this proves to be a segment, I expect Ford to try as well. 

 

A sedan and a coupe will pretty much always out handle a CUV or an SUV due to the lower center of gravity.  Of course things like suspension setup will be a big factor.  For instance a stock Crown Vic would not be able to out handle a Cayenne.  But same setup across the board a sedan would do better.

 

I got into an argument with a friend about this and he was adamant that a CRV was just as good as a Civic on a race track because he owned a CRV and it "drove exactly the same" as the Civic he replaced it with 🙃

[tbone]

On 6/18/2024 at 11:57 AM, DeluxeStang said:

These, especially the green hatch, are great examples of the sort of styling direction Ford should strive for with their future affordable compact EVs. Sharp, eye catching, but not over styled. 

I prefer the Opel of the three options provided.  

[DeluxeStang]

34 minutes ago, tbone said:

I prefer the Opel of the three options provided.  

 

34 minutes ago, tbone said:

 

I can respect that. It's pretty timeless and restrained by modern design standards, it should age quite nicely. 

[AM222]

7 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

If the Mach E was NA only, it wouldn’t be built in Mexico, which has far more favorable trading climate with the EU vs the United States. 
 

Also don’t forget that the Mach E has been in production for almost four years now and the Explorer EV is just now hitting the market. 
 

Mach E sales where roughly 50/50 EU Vs NA and 40/60 in 2023. 
 

 

Why the Mach E is made in Mexico. Plant availability and lower cost of production.
“Ford is building it in Mexico because it had an open factory there and it needed to be overhauled to build an electric vehicle, Hackett said." 
-Bloomberg
 

"Hackett specified that the car’s cost of production will be lower than the revenue gained from its sale (“contribution margin”) right from the beginning.  The vehicle line will still have to cover the initial cost of R&D before it becomes “profitable” for the company, but this is true of any vehicle line."
-electrek (from a Jim Hackett interview by Bloomberg)

The Explorer EV's smaller size is more in line with what's popular in Europe. At least among high volume non-luxury brands. In Europe, it's the Kuga-sized vehicles and smaller subcompacts that's popular.

 

Edited June 20, 2024 by AM222

[AM222]

On 6/18/2024 at 11:39 PM, .I. said:

 

 

The Opel Corsa's styling is simple, but boy does it look light years ahead of the recently discontinued Fiesta.


The Corsa and its crossover alternative, the Mokka are attractive subcompacts.

Again, a smart move from Stellantis to offer the Corsa and Mokka in both ICE and BEV versions. 
 

Edited June 20, 2024 by AM222

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, AM222 said:

Why the Mach E is made in Mexico. Plant availability and lower cost of production.
“Ford is building it in Mexico because it had an open factory there and it needed to be overhauled to build an electric vehicle, Hackett said." 
-Bloomberg
 

"Hackett specified that the car’s cost of production will be lower than the revenue gained from its sale (“contribution margin”) right from the beginning.  The vehicle line will still have to cover the initial cost of R&D before it becomes “profitable” for the company, but this is true of any vehicle line."
-electrek (from a Jim Hackett interview by Bloomberg)

The Explorer EV's smaller size is more in line with what's popular in Europe. At least among high volume non-luxury brands. In Europe, it's the Kuga-sized vehicles and smaller subcompacts that's popular.

Good post, thanks for Hackett’s comments on Mexico.

Even though Explorer EV is a lot smaller than Mach E, I’m still not convinced that this is  what Ford’s European buyers actually want, it still feels like a compliance vehicle but maybe that’s the VW underpinnings?

 

Quote

Hackett specified that the car’s cost of production will be lower than the revenue gained from its sale (“contribution margin”) right from the beginning.  The vehicle line will still have to cover the initial cost of R&D before it becomes “profitable” for the company, but this is true of any vehicle line."
-electrek (from a Jim Hackett interview by Bloomberg)

Adding to development cost is all the additional reworking done to change it from its original dull, uninspired beginnings.

Edited June 20, 2024 by jpd80

[AM222]

57 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Good post, thanks for Hackett’s comments on Mexico.

Even though Explorer EV is a lot smaller than Mach E, I’m still not convinced that this is  what Ford’s European buyers actually want, it still feels like a compliance vehicle but maybe that’s the VW underpinnings?

It being based on a VW platform sounds like a compliance car. Hopefully its better than the VW version, it at least looks better. 

What European buyers bought in 2023.
Five of the top 10 best-selling cars in Europe of 2023 are B-segment subcompacts, one is an A-segment city car, three are C-segment compacts, while the Model Y I believe is considered a D-segment mid-size (at least outside NA). Stellantis models are available in ICE and BEV versions.

Top 10 best-selling cars in Europe of 2023
1. Tesla Model Y (251,604)
2. Dacia Sandero (234,715)
3. VW T-Roc (204,610)
4. Renault Clio (201,604)
5. Peugeot 208 (193,679)
6. Opel/Vauxhall Corsa (188,154)
7. VW Golf (183,716)
8. Toyota Yaris Cross (176,285)
9. Fiat 500 (173,187)
10. Skoda Octavia (160,662)
-Autocar

Before, Ford used to have at least two models in the top 5. The Fiesta and Focus.

Edited June 20, 2024 by AM222

[Sherminator98]

https://www.macheforum.com/site/threads/does-the-mach-e-being-built-in-mexico-bother-you.158/page-2
 

 

The video link is dead but this is from 2020

 

 

Joe: Well part of the reason it's made in Mexico -- it's a global vehicle. It's important to our European portfolio, and we can export from Mexico to Europe duty free. That's a big part of this. But, you know we make 80+ percent of our sales in the U.S., or made here in the U.S. and we're pretty proud of that. And our manufacturing plants in the U.S. are pretty full.

[paintguy]

On 6/19/2024 at 6:56 PM, Andrew L said:

 

A sedan and a coupe will pretty much always out handle a CUV or an SUV due to the lower center of gravity.  Of course things like suspension setup will be a big factor.  For instance a stock Crown Vic would not be able to out handle a Cayenne.  But same setup across the board a sedan would do better.

 

I got into an argument with a friend about this and he was adamant that a CRV was just as good as a Civic on a race track because he owned a CRV and it "drove exactly the same" as the Civic he replaced it with 🙃

Agree with the sentiment. Ford took away the handling as an option, unless you want a Mustang. Crown Vic and Cayenne an interesting comparison. Price points are radically different. It seems premium products from Ford (Lincoln) are not oriented in the direction of performance.  

[akirby]

1 hour ago, paintguy said:

Agree with the sentiment. Ford took away the handling as an option, unless you want a Mustang. Crown Vic and Cayenne an interesting comparison. Price points are radically different. It seems premium products from Ford (Lincoln) are not oriented in the direction of performance.  

Handling on crossovers and even trucks is so much better than it used to be, plus 99% of drivers never push it hard enough to notice a difference.  Outside of true sports cars and a few Caddy and German sedans it’s just not needed.

 

Then you have Edge ST (dead now), Explorer ST and Aviator GT and Raptors with plenty of high performance.   Performance is not just cornering.

[morgan20]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Then you have Edge ST (dead now), Explorer ST and Aviator GT and Raptors with plenty of high performance.   Performance is not just cornering.

 

To SUV and pickup truck drivers, plenty of high performance means going fast in a straight line LOL. Edge ST, Explorer ST, Aviator GT, and Raptors do that well. F-150 Lightning too. Those vehicles can get unwieldy and ponderous in fast driving when the road gets twisty, but most drivers won't care.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, morgan20 said:

 

To SUV and pickup truck drivers, plenty of high performance means going fast in a straight line LOL. Edge ST, Explorer ST, Aviator GT, and Raptors do that well. F-150 Lightning too. Those vehicles can get unwieldy and ponderous in fast driving when the road gets twisty, but most drivers won't care.

 

Performance doesn't resonate with buyers as much as it does with car magazines and good handling cars even less so, because the vast majority of buyers won't even get to 50-60% of their cars capabilities driving to work. 

[jpd80]

51 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Performance doesn't resonate with buyers as much as it does with car magazines and good handling cars even less so, because the vast majority of buyers won't even get to 50-60% of their cars capabilities driving to work. 

This. 
Today’s adequate performance is seen as acceleration rates that would put most cars form the 2000s to shame…to make a true high performance sedan today is such an impossible task, especially when you have SRTs with over 700 HP benchmark. Cadillac tried with it Alpha platform but I don’t think there’s enough buyers out there to justify the effort.

 

Ford Australia had I-6 turbos and S/C Coyote V8s in Falcons well over a decade ago,

none of that was even considered for North America as a twin with Mustang.

Anyone wanting those types of vehicles is probably in a small niche but

perhaps pursuing as a skunkworks project, I dunno, probably wishful thinking..

Edited June 22, 2024 by jpd80

[Motorpsychology]

12 hours ago, jpd80 said:

This. 
Today’s adequate performance is seen as acceleration rates that would put most cars form the 2000s to shame…to make a true high performance sedan today is such an impossible task, especially when you have SRTs with over 700 HP benchmark. Cadillac tried with it Alpha platform but I don’t think there’s enough buyers out there to justify the effort.

 

Ford Australia had I-6 turbos and S/C Coyote V8s in Falcons well over a decade ago,

none of that was even considered for North America as a twin with Mustang.

Anyone wanting those types of vehicles is probably in a small niche but

perhaps pursuing as a skunkworks project, I dunno, probably wishful thinking..

10-4. But still a 4dr V8 "Mustang" (Aus. Ford Falcon GT) would've been a good niche car to  expand Mustang into its own brand and segue into the Mach-e. Ford could've put the tooling for this car on the boat with Ranger's and set it up at FRAP. The last Falcon GT was priced around $80,000 AUS; probably could have sold here for that much or more in USD, as an answer to the Cadillac CT-5 Blackwing.

 

2016 ford Falcon GT

Edited June 22, 2024 by Chrisgb
Recorrect Autocorrect corrections

[rmc523]

On 6/22/2024 at 8:56 AM, Chrisgb said:

10-4. But still a 4dr V8 "Mustang" (Aus. Ford Falcon GT) would've been a good niche car to  expand Mustang into its own brand and segue into the Mach-e. Ford could've put the tooling for this car on the boat with Ranger's and set it up at FRAP. The last Falcon GT was priced around $80,000 AUS; probably could have sold here for that much or more in USD, as an answer to the Cadillac CT-5 Blackwing.

 

2016 ford Falcon GT

 

It would've failed just like the G8 did.

 

The styling (while attractive) was a generation behind, and wouldn't have moved the needle.

[akirby]

Every mfr is in a different place with regards to their heritage, institutional knowledge, intellectual property, engineering talent, infrastructure, suppliers, overhead, cost structure, global capacity, etc.  What makes sense for one doesn’t make sense for another.

 

Some go for maximum volume and markets like Toyota, others are specialized like Ferrari.  Toyota can’t build and sell a 488 and Ferrari can’t build and sell a Camry.  Ford is in between.

 

Ford has opportunities with F series, Mustang, Bronco and Explorer and commercial sales that are unique and they don’t want the high volume low margin that comes from cars when they have other options.  Look at Maverick vs Santa Cruz or Tundra vs F150.

 

You also have to consider what other products the mfr has in the hopper.  Each company has a finite amount of cash and other resources so even if there is a good business case the resources might not be available right now.

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Every mfr is in a different place with regards to their heritage, institutional knowledge, intellectual property, engineering talent, infrastructure, suppliers, overhead, cost structure, global capacity, etc.  What makes sense for one doesn’t make sense for another.

 

Some go for maximum volume and markets like Toyota, others are specialized like Ferrari.  Toyota can’t build and sell a 488 and Ferrari can’t build and sell a Camry.  Ford is in between.

 

Ford has opportunities with F series, Mustang, Bronco and Explorer and commercial sales that are unique and they don’t want the high volume low margin that comes from cars when they have other options.  Look at Maverick vs Santa Cruz or Tundra vs F150.

 

You also have to consider what other products the mfr has in the hopper.  Each company has a finite amount of cash and other resources so even if there is a good business case the resources might not be available right now.

I get that.

It’s a slow gravitation towards only building vehicles that make a certain profit level. But let’s not delude ourselves that everything has to be an either / or decision. Ford decides to spend upwards of $50 billion on an all electric future but then pulls back when it realises that future might be a slower transition. What I’m trying to say is that there’s a lot of grey in between the yes/no choices on vehicles but yes, some will remain gone to history because they have no real business case anymore…that’s a hard thing for some people to hear as they “wake up” and realise their favourite vehicle is not in vogue anymore. Buyers move on and Ford either follows the market or misses out. The big question is fishing out the valuable niches that make certain vehicles like Maverick worth building.

Edited June 24, 2024 by jpd80

[Texasota]

22 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The big question is fishing out the valuable niches that make certain vehicles like Maverick worth building.

That is the challenge and sometimes manufactures stumble into it. I think Ford was somewhat surprised with how successful the Maverick has become.

[akirby]

22 hours ago, jpd80 said:

 

It’s a slow gravitation towards only building vehicles that make a certain profit level.

I don’t think that’s really accurate.  I don’t think Ford drew a line in the sand and said stop building vehicles with lower profit margins.  
 

They set a corporate goal of either 8%-10% but we know some will be higher and some lower.

 

What they do is what all corporations do with their budget planning.  They make a list of all the projects currently in progress and new ones that have been approved and they rank them in a spreadsheet based on strategic importance, regulatory compliance, level of effort and amount of funding required and ROI potential.

 

Then you start a running total of expense and capital and when you run out of money you draw the line.  Anything below the line is not funded for that year.  If you want to fund something below the line you have to kill or move something above the line.  Which is what they did with Fusion and Maverick/BS.

 

If there was no Maverick or BS they’d still be building Fusions even at low margins because it would cost more to idle the plant.