Ford fusion and other sedans popular amongst younger buyers

[DeluxeStang]

https://fordauthority.com/2024/09/ford-fusion-among-gen-zs-top-vehicles/

 

I'm just saying right now, if CE1 enables Ford to make a profitable affordable sedan and hatchback, they need to do it. More affordable products appeal most directly to younger consumers, and as you can see pretty clearly here, 90% of the most popular vehicles driven by millennials and gen z are some sort of car form factor. Further evidence that bringing back some sort of car form factor would be a smart idea if it can generate a profit. 

[morgan20]

5 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

if CE1 enables Ford to make a profitable affordable sedan and hatchback

 

Not gonna happen

[akirby]

7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

https://fordauthority.com/2024/09/ford-fusion-among-gen-zs-top-vehicles/

 

I'm just saying right now, if CE1 enables Ford to make a profitable affordable sedan and hatchback, they need to do it. More affordable products appeal most directly to younger consumers, and as you can see pretty clearly here, 90% of the most popular vehicles driven by millennials and gen z are some sort of car form factor. Further evidence that bringing back some sort of car form factor would be a smart idea if it can generate a profit. 

Theyre popular because they’re CHEAP.

[morgan20]

27 minutes ago, akirby said:

Theyre popular because they’re CHEAP.

 

Yea, and almost always bought as used vehicles which are much more popular than new vehicles especially for younger consumers. Ford can profit by selling manufacturer backed extended warranties and certifications like Blue Advantage for them

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Theyre popular because they’re CHEAP.

Which is exactly what CE1 is targeting, affordable cars. Hence why it's the perfect platform for it. 

[DeluxeStang]

4 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

Not gonna happen

We'll see. A lot of people within the company have softened their stance on sedans, particularly electric ones. Farley and Ford's head of Europe have both gone in record and said they're not opposed to the idea. 

[T-dubz]

51 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Which is exactly what CE1 is targeting, affordable cars. Hence why it's the perfect platform for it. 

Gen z are currently 12 to 27 years old. These are high school and college kids. There isn’t a new vehicle that will come even close to their price range, which is probably sub $15k. I’d guess a good portion of them are still driving their first vehicle. 

I don’t think gen z prefers sedans, they just get what they can afford. With that said, I still don’t think an affordable sedan is a bad idea if it can be profitable.

[morgan20]

9 hours ago, T-dubz said:

I still don’t think an affordable sedan is a bad idea if it can be profitable.

 

Bad idea or not, it's not gonna happen as mentioned earlier. Ford hasn't had a sedan in the USA that's affordable and profitable in ages. When I worked for Ford, a joke that wasn't went:

Cheap, good, makes money. Pick two.

 

Ford products that are cheap and good don't make money

Those that are cheap and make money aren't good

Those that are good and make money aren't cheap

And several Ford products are not cheap, not good, and still don't make money!

 

CE1 ain't gonna change that

[silvrsvt]

10 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Gen z are currently 12 to 27 years old. These are high school and college kids. There isn’t a new vehicle that will come even close to their price range, which is probably sub $15k. I’d guess a good portion of them are still driving their first vehicle. 

I don’t think gen z prefers sedans, they just get what they can afford. With that said, I still don’t think an affordable sedan is a bad idea if it can be profitable.

 

My nephew is 18 years old and 4 year old Altima in good shape is 20K...he was a dumbass and wrecked his first car (Mazda 6) and my niece is getting it next year since he is a freshman in College and can't have a car. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

11 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

We'll see. A lot of people within the company have softened their stance on sedans, particularly electric ones. Farley and Ford's head of Europe have both gone in record and said they're not opposed to the idea. 

I’ve heard some rumors, but I’ll leave it at that because there’s nothing concrete. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, morgan20 said:

 

Bad idea or not, it's not gonna happen as mentioned earlier. Ford hasn't had a sedan in the USA that's affordable and profitable in ages. When I worked for Ford, a joke that wasn't went:

Cheap, good, makes money. Pick two.

 

Ford products that are cheap and good don't make money

Those that are cheap and make money aren't good

Those that are good and make money aren't cheap

And several Ford products are not cheap, not good, and still don't make money!

 

CE1 ain't gonna change that

Where would you place Maverick in that triangle?  By “cheap” I assume you mean affordable or low-cost.  Maverick seems to balance constraints fairly well in that it’s relatively affordable, good, and presumably somewhat profitable.  I’d guess not as profitable as a loaded Expedition, but if a company like Ford focuses solely on maximizing short-term profitability, I would bet their market share will gradually decline until they can no longer compete overall.

 

Regarding affordability choices, I find it interesting that Ford doesn’t even offer a basic powertrain IIRC for buyers on tight budgets willing to sacrifice or ignore higher performance.  Maybe there is enough demand to offer at least one or two KISS and profitable vehicles.

 

 

[morgan20]

38 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Where would you place Maverick in that triangle?

 

Cheap and good for the lower end and hybrid versions, makes money and good for the higher end and non-hybrid versions

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I’ve heard some rumors, but I’ll leave it at that because there’s nothing concrete. 

I get where you're coming from, you don't want to come out with insider information that this exact product is coming, and then have it get cancelled or something. If you don't want to say what it is, can you say what it isn't lol?

 

When you initially started discussing this mystery flat rock product, I assumed it was something mustang related. This was around the same time Farley openly discussed doing multiple future mustang body styles. I assumed it was a mustang sedan, mustang raptor, or very long shot, a mid engine mustang. But it seems like we can take all three of those options off the table?

 

Whatever this thing is, it's something car based, but not mustang related, can we take it that far? 

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

Bad idea or not, it's not gonna happen as mentioned earlier. Ford hasn't had a sedan in the USA that's affordable and profitable in ages. When I worked for Ford, a joke that wasn't went:

Cheap, good, makes money. Pick two.

 

Ford products that are cheap and good don't make money

Those that are cheap and make money aren't good

Those that are good and make money aren't cheap

And several Ford products are not cheap, not good, and still don't make money!

 

CE1 ain't gonna change that

Ford maverick hybrid, just saying. Cheap, good product, by all accounts is profitable. I'm just saying if battery size and areo is key to making affordable EVs profitable, it's gonna be a hard sell to make some sort of boxy, affordable Ford EV that has acceptable range in the 200s or ideally more. 

 

If Ford puts a 40 KWH battery in something with a boxy shape like a bronco sport, it's gonna have like 150 miles of range. That's my concern, and this needs to be communicated to the team working on this EVs. Yes, they should be affordable, but if they push so hard on the affordability front that they're shit cars, they still won't sell. 

 

I'd say a range of 250 or more is kinda the bare minimum, most people want 300. It doesn't need to have 500-700 miles of range like these massive luxury evs, it doesn't. But with everything going into these platforms, our first thought when seeing them shouldn't be "Needed to do better". 

 

I see some people claiming buyers will accept 150-200 miles of range if these things are cheap. My maverick was cheap, I still wouldn't have bought it if it was getting 20 mpg and only went 200 miles on a tank of gas. 

[ice-capades]

24 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I get where you're coming from, you don't want to come out with insider information that this exact product is coming, and then have it get cancelled or something. If you don't want to say what it is, can you say what it isn't lol?

 

When you initially started discussing this mystery flat rock product, I assumed it was something mustang related. This was around the same time Farley openly discussed doing multiple future mustang body styles. I assumed it was a mustang sedan, mustang raptor, or very long shot, a mid engine mustang. But it seems like we can take all three of those options off the table?

 

Whatever this thing is, it's something car based, but not mustang related, can we take it that far? 

 

Give @fuzzymoomoo a break! If he's not saying anything, there's a good reason why not! Besides, the last thing we need is endless rounds of speculation! LOL!

[DeluxeStang]

52 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

 

Give @fuzzymoomoo a break! If he's not saying anything, there's a good reason why not! Besides, the last thing we need is endless rounds of speculation! LOL!

Speculation is in my blood lol. 

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Ford maverick hybrid, just saying. Cheap, good product, by all accounts is profitable. I'm just saying if battery size and areo is key to making affordable EVs profitable, it's gonna be a hard sell to make some sort of boxy, affordable Ford EV that has acceptable range in the 200s or ideally more. 

 

If Ford puts a 40 KWH battery in something with a boxy shape like a bronco sport, it's gonna have like 150 miles of range. That's my concern, and this needs to be communicated to the team working on this EVs. Yes, they should be affordable, but if they push so hard on the affordability front that they're shit cars, they still won't sell. 

 

I'd say a range of 250 or more is kinda the bare minimum, most people want 300. It doesn't need to have 500-700 miles of range like these massive luxury evs, it doesn't. But with everything going into these platforms, our first thought when seeing them shouldn't be "Needed to do better". 

 

I see some people claiming buyers will accept 150-200 miles of range if these things are cheap. My maverick was cheap, I still wouldn't have bought it if it was getting 20 mpg and only went 200 miles on a tank of gas. 

 

I think alot of people are making many assumptions about the Skunkworks EV that is coming-yeah its not going to have a 93 or 131 Kw battery like the Lightning does, but I don't think shape alone makes big deal as much as all the details in that shape that affect the aerodynamics. Those details drive up the manufacturing costs of that said product. 

 

Just look at this- 

https://www.aerocivic.com/

 

Not exactly practical, but you'll at least get the idea. 

[AM222]

10 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

Bad idea or not, it's not gonna happen as mentioned earlier. Ford hasn't had a sedan in the USA that's affordable and profitable in ages.

Ford should do what other successful manufacturers do. Toyota can make a profit from the Corolla because it's pretty much sold in most if not all inhabited continents.

 

Ford had the right idea with One Ford,  the main problem were the cars.  The last Fiesta and Focus generations sold in the US were true world cars but stuck to the dimensions of their 2000s predecessors. They were on the small end of their respective segments, at least by 2010s standards. Then there's the dreaded PowerShift issue.

 

The Ranger is probably the last true global Ford model that follows the old One Ford philosophy. 

Edited September 12 by AM222

[silvrsvt]

2 hours ago, AM222 said:

Ford should do what other successful manufacturers do. Toyota can make a profit from the Corolla because it's pretty much sold in most if not all inhabited continents.

 

But are they? I'm guessing they are breaking even on the nameplate, but the platform does make more due to the other models on it that command more $$$

 

[02MustangGT]

43 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But are they? I'm guessing they are breaking even on the nameplate, but the platform does make more due to the other models on it that command more $$$

 

Toyota sold 1.6 million Corolla’s worldwide in 2023.  The “sales don’t equal profit” debate doesn’t apply in this case. 

Edited September 13 by 02MustangGT

[silvrsvt]

8 hours ago, 02MustangGT said:

Toyota sold 1.6 million Corolla’s worldwide in 2023.  The “sales don’t equal profit” debate doesn’t apply in this case. 

 

 

Please

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I get where you're coming from, you don't want to come out with insider information that this exact product is coming, and then have it get cancelled or something. If you don't want to say what it is, can you say what it isn't lol?

 

When you initially started discussing this mystery flat rock product, I assumed it was something mustang related. This was around the same time Farley openly discussed doing multiple future mustang body styles. I assumed it was a mustang sedan, mustang raptor, or very long shot, a mid engine mustang. But it seems like we can take all three of those options off the table?

 

Whatever this thing is, it's something car based, but not mustang related, can we take it that far? 

I don’t want to say any more beyond I’ve heard rumors. The only reason I mentioned the flat rock thing to begin with was because it’s publicly available information that was shared in the 2023 UAW agreement. If/when the company is ready to announce something I’ll comment further. 

[morgan20]

19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Ford maverick hybrid, just saying. Cheap, good product, by all accounts is profitable.

 

The first two (cheap and good) are correct, the third (profitable) is not

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, morgan20 said:

 

The first two (cheap and good) are correct, the third (profitable) is not

I have a hard time believing the maverick isn't profitable, even in the lower trims. By Ford's own admission, the entire reason they pivoted away from sedans and hatchbacks is because they were losing money on them. A huge chunk of mavericks are lower trim hybrids, if they're losing money on all of those, it kinda defeated the whole purpose to changing their strategy to begin with. 

 

Maybe when the maverick first came out and was around 20k they were losing money. But the entry level maverick will start around 27 grand for 2025, a huge uptick, in just a few years, all while early maverick sales paid down tooling and other manufacturing and development expenses. It has to be profitable, even in hybrid trim. There's no way. 

[AM222]

13 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But are they? I'm guessing they are breaking even on the nameplate, but the platform does make more due to the other models on it that command more $$$

 

I'm sure they do; subcompact and compact models make up a large chunk of Toyota's global sales outside the USA and Canada. 
I think I posted this in another thread before, how one single model like the RAV4 outsells the Escape, Bronco Sport and Maverick combined, then there are many global markets where Ford either has no compact SUV or has switched to the Chinese Ford Territory which is built on its own JMC-Ford platform.  Ford has to bring back "One Ford" at least for affordable models in can market globally.