Ford is done with making boring cars

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

I think Ford’s resources are just spread thin especially with all the changes to the EV program the last few years.  Plus changing their minds causing too many stops and starts killing momentum.  Ford’s unwillingness to add people and factories (outside Blue Oval City) has really handcuffed them in terms of product development.

Yes, a lot of ICE based engineers were let go once projects finished. It’s getting a lot harder now that Ford’s full BEV future is a bit further down the track.

[SoonerLS]

On 10/18/2024 at 10:14 AM, DeluxeStang said:

It's a doorway into truck utility without having to pay the truck tax. I have a truck bed now, but I'm not getting 12 mpg or having to pay 2 grand for maintenance items every so often. 

In eleven years and over 200,000 miles, I’ve never paid “2 grand” for any maintenance items on my F-150. Even a full set of tires doesn’t come close. Heck, I just priced a set for my truck vs. a set for my Flex, and the Michelins for my truck are about $100/tire cheaper. The brakes are also among the least expensive and easiest I’ve ever done. Economies of scale will do that for ya—when they sell 500K-600K units per year with parts that cross multiple generations of trucks, parts become inexpensive and plentiful. 

Edited October 22 by SoonerLS

[rmc523]

16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Go back a step and understand why Ford’s main BEV plan is struggling,

Ford thought it knew what buyers wanted but got caught in a change

in buyer momentum. It bet everything on a 100% BEV future….

 

The fact that Ford is still trying to formulate a plan of exciting, desirable

vehicles shows that it doesn’t  really understand what the bulk of those

buyers actually want. The narrative coming from Farley is Ford openly

trying to quantify what it must do to get those buyers who will pay more

for what they want.

 

The biggest issue I have with that sort of thinking is that it’s more about

what Farley wants Ford to sell to make lots of money versus what those 

buyers actually want……it’s a mental thing, like how the Maverick would

show Ford the way back to quicker product concept to production route.

Since the Maverick, it’s like Ford went back to the next big thing, those

small BEVs…….they need to do more than that but it feels like Ford is

thinking problem solved…

 

To be fair, I don't think any manufacturer really knows what buyers want - there are other brands with a variety of EV models and they're not flying off the lots either.

 

Definitely agree with you that the successful "warp speed" process that brought Maverick was thrown out the window for whatever reason.  Why not follow that same process with another model?  Or even a new Escape?

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

To be fair, I don't think any manufacturer really knows what buyers want - there are other brands with a variety of EV models and they're not flying off the lots either.

 

Definitely agree with you that the successful "warp speed" process that brought Maverick was thrown out the window for whatever reason.  Why not follow that same process with another model?  Or even a new Escape?

Exactly.

Its like Farley has fallen in love with what the skunkworks is doing and that

has  taken his focus off those hybrids he was talking about earlier this year.

I would like to see Farley keep talking about those hybrid developments 

as bridge for future BEV buyers..

 

With regards the plight of other brands, yeah I agree I’d sooner be in the Ford camp

than Stellantis or VW or the other German brands, the three main German brands

are now really struggling in China which is a big percentage of their profits.

 

Edited October 22 by jpd80

[tbone]

On 10/21/2024 at 11:37 AM, DeluxeStang said:

I've mentioned it before, but I wonder if Ford will use this transition to more enthusiasts vehicles to spice up their design language. That's a criticism I've heard from quite a few people, especially younger buyers when it comes to Ford's, that they look "boring" or "plain". I personally find Ford's design language very tasteful, like Mazda's, eye catching, but not too over the top. 

 

I wouldn't change much about the mustang or bronco, they look fantastic. But if Ford is having to apply more radical areo to things like their more affordable EVs to improve range, it would be wise to introduce a new Ford design language on those EVs that was more daring, and bold. Lean into the futuristic look instead of making your affordable EVs look like something I'd find in a bargain bin. In other words, Ford should try both and see what works. 

 

From the VERY small portion of what we can see of the t3 design from this model, the a-pillar, beltline, and heavily angled front fender, it seems like they're gonna lean more into the futuristic styling for these upcoming EVs. 

I personally like Ford’s styling for reasons that you have stated, but I can see why some buyers might see them as plain. I do think that next generation F150, and other Ford vehicles, need to be spiced up a bit.  

 

Sales of the F150 are still good of course, but I have seen a significant uptick in tundra sales, which I think has been helped with more bold styling. 
 

Not that I think the new Ranger is ugly, but when compared to the new GM twins, and the Tacoma, it is certainly understated.  And don’t get me started on the new Expedition.  
 

I can see how those other vehicles could be more appealing to young people and they are all good looking vehicles.  
 

The new EVs could help with a new styling direction, which could be incorporated into the ICE vehicles as long as it isn’t too radical. 

[tbone]

On 10/21/2024 at 6:05 PM, akirby said:

I think Ford’s resources are just spread thin especially with all the changes to the EV program the last few years.  Plus changing their minds causing too many stops and starts killing momentum.  Ford’s unwillingness to add people and factories (outside Blue Oval City) has really handcuffed them in terms of product development.

 
how long can this go on? If you don’t want to hire all those engineers from ICE development back full-time, how about hiring them back as contractors to bridge the gap.  I think they need some additional new vehicles, because Ford doesn’t have a lot of different models for consideration.  

[tbone]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Exactly.

Its like Farley has fallen in love with what the skunkworks is doing and that

has  taken his focus off those hybrids he was talking about earlier this year.

I would like to see Farley keep talking about those hybrid developments 

as bridge for future BEV buyers..

 

With regards the plight of other brands, yeah I agree I’d sooner be in the Ford camp

than Stellantis or VW or the other German brands, the three main German brands

are now really struggling in China which is a big percentage of their profits.

 

For someone who appears to be a car guy, some of Farleys comments and decisions have made me begin to question whether it’s time for him to go.  Ford’s product development has been entirely too tumultuous over the last few years.  I understand the pitfalls of the EV transition, however there have been some major costly mis-steps with no consequences.  

[Sherminator98]

9 hours ago, tbone said:

 
how long can this go on? If you don’t want to hire all those engineers from ICE development back full-time, how about hiring them back as contractors to bridge the gap.  I think they need some additional new vehicles, because Ford doesn’t have a lot of different models for consideration.  

 

I think people are conflating information here-Ford doesn't need additional ICE engineers to develop ICE products-ICE Powertrains are at a developmental stopping point because coming out with say completely new engine that needs at least 10-15 years of production to break even on is a nonstarter in this environment. 

 

I don't think we will see any major additions to the ICE powertrain lineup-just the addition of hybrid powertrains that are based on the 10R for RWD products and incremental improvements in FWD/AWD products.

 

With that said, needs to figured out how to bridge the gap with ICE products on the lower end of the spectrum while making sure they are still developing and innovating with EVs, because eventually CAFE requirements are going to push ICE out of 80-90% of the marketplace. 

[rmc523]

14 hours ago, tbone said:

I personally like Ford’s styling for reasons that you have stated, but I can see why some buyers might see them as plain. I do think that next generation F150, and other Ford vehicles, need to be spiced up a bit.  

 

Sales of the F150 are still good of course, but I have seen a significant uptick in tundra sales, which I think has been helped with more bold styling. 
 

Not that I think the new Ranger is ugly, but when compared to the new GM twins, and the Tacoma, it is certainly understated.  And don’t get me started on the new Expedition.  
 

I can see how those other vehicles could be more appealing to young people and they are all good looking vehicles.  
 

The new EVs could help with a new styling direction, which could be incorporated into the ICE vehicles as long as it isn’t too radical. 

 

Tundra is seeing a "significant" uptick (from low sales) because it was fully redesigned for the first time in 17 years.

[tbone]

7 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Tundra is seeing a "significant" uptick (from low sales) because it was fully redesigned for the first time in 17 years.

While I don’t disagree there was pent up demand for Toyota customers, I drive by a Toyota dealer for work, and I have regularly seen representation of Fords, GMs, and Rams  in the trade in lot, so it’s not all Tundras being traded.  I know these are arbitrary observations, but I’m not exaggerating when I say I have seen a ton of new Tundras in my area. 

[DeluxeStang]

On 10/22/2024 at 8:28 PM, tbone said:

The new EVs could help with a new styling direction, which could be incorporated into the ICE vehicles as long as it isn’t too radical. 

My line of thinking is if Ford is already having to apply radical areo to these new EVs anyways, they may as well lean into the sleek/futuristic look. Selling more futuristic stuff alongside more conservative designs would cast as wide of a net as possible.

 

This rendering is of a Honda CRV proposal, but when I think of a sleek, lower to the group and areo dynamic shape, this is the sort of thing that would appeal to me. When Farley talks about making future cars passion products, I imagine a hatchback that looks more like this rendering than a conventional focus/fiesta. Something that really stands out more for a very reasonable price. 

 

Ford could really screw up with this areo driven designs philosophy, or they can use it to turn ordinary cars into something stunning. Let's hope it's the later. 

Edited October 24 by DeluxeStang

[jpd80]

53 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

My line of thinking is if Ford is already having to apply radical areo to these new EVs anyways, they may as well lean into the sleek/futuristic look. Selling more futuristic stuff alongside more conservative designs would cast as wide of a net as possible.

 

This rendering is of a Honda CRV proposal, but when I think of a sleek, lower to the group and areo dynamic shape, this is the sort of thing that would appeal to me. When Farley talks about making future cars passion products, I imagine a hatchback that looks more like this rendering than a conventional focus/fiesta. Something that really stands out more for a very reasonable price. 

 

Ford could really screw up with this areo driven designs philosophy, or they can use it to turn ordinary cars into something stunning. Let's hope it's the later. 

Hiring F1 development engineers and technicians is smart and refreshing.

It shows that Ford is looking for people with a completely new perspective

on how to reform that current aero/corporate styling. They know where to

find the hidden “slipperiness”. I look forward to seeing how this works out.

[rmc523]

12 hours ago, tbone said:

While I don’t disagree there was pent up demand for Toyota customers, I drive by a Toyota dealer for work, and I have regularly seen representation of Fords, GMs, and Rams  in the trade in lot, so it’s not all Tundras being traded.  I know these are arbitrary observations, but I’m not exaggerating when I say I have seen a ton of new Tundras in my area. 

 

While trade ins of domestic brands are true (obviously there are going to be cross shoppers regardless), I'd counter that with saying it's possible they were Tundra buyers to begin with, but didn't want the same truck they've had for so long at their last purchase.

For example, if said buyers are doing 3-year leases and they most recently had a 2021, at that time the Tundra was the same as their 2018 and 2015 3-year leases (it last had a refresh for 2014), so they could've been tired of the same truck for so long.

[DeluxeStang]

11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Hiring F1 development engineers and technicians is smart and refreshing.

It shows that Ford is looking for people with a completely new perspective

on how to reform that current aero/corporate styling. They know where to

find the hidden “slipperiness”. I look forward to seeing how this works out.

I'm looking forward to it as well. I just hope the three row was a real learning experience for Ford. By that, I mean it sounds like they valued aerodynamic efficiency so much on that project that it created a monstrosity. Some said it was the ugliest design Ford had made in decades. 

 

Hopefully they go into the CE1 design and areo process trying to place more emphasis on aesthetics instead of just drag coefficient. It won't be long now until you, ExplorerDude, or someone else sees what these CE1 products actually look like. Hopefully they don't disappoint.

Edited October 24 by DeluxeStang

[rmc523]

42 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm looking forward to it as well. I just hope the three row was a real learning experience for Ford. By that, I mean it sounds like they valued aerodynamic efficiency so much on that project that it created a monstrosity. Some said it was the ugliest design Ford had made in decades. 

 

Hopefully they do into the CE1 design and areo process trying to place more emphasis on aesthetics instead of just drag coefficient. It won't be long now until you, ExplorerDude, or someone else sees what these CE1 products actually look like. Hopefully they don't disappoint.

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall to see/hear these things!

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall to see/hear these things!

I guarantee someone got fired, or at least demoted over the three row failure. There's no way Ford let everyone off the hook for that one. 

[rmc523]

7 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I guarantee someone got fired, or at least demoted over the three row failure. There's no way Ford let everyone off the hook for that one. 

 

I mean, with how the company changes plans like underwear, can you really fault folks if the direction is north one day and south the next (I guess that'd fall on the decision maker, though....and how high does that go up the chain?)?

 

IMO, they should've never deviated from the original boxy plan, but refined aero on it - sounded more fitting for "Explorer" branding.

 

I also don't have a problem with them putting out a "strange" product (Flex was one and I loved mine), but it should be more of a side track rather than the main one.

Edited October 24 by rmc523

[SoonerLS]

19 hours ago, tbone said:

While I don’t disagree there was pent up demand for Toyota customers, I drive by a Toyota dealer for work, and I have regularly seen representation of Fords, GMs, and Rams  in the trade in lot, so it’s not all Tundras being traded.  I know these are arbitrary observations, but I’m not exaggerating when I say I have seen a ton of new Tundras in my area. 

Those “trade-ins” aren’t necessarily trade-ins. I’d wager that a bunch of them came from the auction. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

Those “trade-ins” aren’t necessarily trade-ins. I’d wager that a bunch of them came from the auction. 

Most in fact.  Which is why they’re not giving you more than wholesale because they can buy one just like it at the auction at wholesale price.

[tbone]

10 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I guarantee someone got fired, or at least demoted over the three row failure. There's no way Ford let everyone off the hook for that one. 

You would hope so, but sadly that’s not always the case and a lot of organizations.

 

7 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

Those “trade-ins” aren’t necessarily trade-ins. I’d wager that a bunch of them came from the auction. 

there’s no doubt some of them are auction trucks, but the new Tundras are regularly showing up, and regularly disappearing.  

[AM222]

On 10/22/2024 at 4:35 AM, jpd80 said:

Go back a step and understand why Ford’s main BEV plan is struggling,

Ford thought it knew what buyers wanted but got caught in a change

in buyer momentum. It bet everything on a 100% BEV future….

True this is their biggest issue. The demand for hybrids (that don't need to be plugged) is up and Ford's hybrid lineup isn't growing, in fact the new Explorer lost its hybrid option.

1. It's surprising the new Expedition and Navigator don't have a hybrid option.

2.The Ranger needs an affordable hybrid option, not just a PHEV option.

3. Ford will definitely still need affordable small ICE/hybrid models for its rest-of-the-world markets for probably the next 8+ years. 

4. Affordable small models won't be boring if you give them interesting designs. 

This tiny entry-level ICE A-segment city hatch/crossover from Hyundai looks more interesting than even the C-segment Escape. Ford should understand that being affordable doesn't need to be boring.

It also has an extended wheelbase BEV version 

Edited October 29 by AM222

[DeluxeStang]

54 minutes ago, AM222 said:

True this is their biggest issue. The demand for hybrids (that don't need to be plugged) is up and Ford's hybrid lineup isn't growing, in fact the new Explorer lost its hybrid option.

1. It's surprising the new Expedition and Navigator don't have a hybrid option.

2.The Ranger needs an affordable hybrid option, not just a PHEV option.

3. Ford will definitely still need affordable small ICE/hybrid models for its rest-of-the-world markets for probably the next 8+ years. 

4. Affordable small models won't be boring if you give them interesting designs. 

This tiny entry-level ICE A-segment city hatch/crossover from Hyundai looks more interesting than even the C-segment Escape. Ford should understand that being affordable doesn't need to be boring.

It also has an extended wheelbase BEV version 

I like that, here's a rendering of what something similar from Ford would look like. Based on what Farley has said, he wants to expand the bronco, raptor, and mustang brands, but he's also said he wants the RS sub brand to make a comeback for fast Ford's. So I'm asking myself what sort of EVs would make the most sense for the RS badge. 

[Sherminator98]

36 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

 

 

Looks like a bad photoshop of the pre 2020 Escape greenhouse with the EU Explorer body/front end. Even the headlights aren't really correct-seems like Ford is going to use C-clamp style lights like on the Maverick or some of the Chinese CUVs on upcoming products. 

Edited October 29 by silvrsvt

[AM222]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I like that, here's a rendering of what something similar from Ford would look like. Based on what Farley has said, he wants to expand the bronco, raptor, and mustang brands.

 

That would be great but since Icon models are premium it would be nice if Ford can balance it out by having affordable B and C-segment models on the other end of its global range.

Something like this shelved affordable subcompact (below) would have worked for the rest of the world outside the USA & Canada. Even the current Puma would have worked as an affordable model if Ford built it in Thailand for the Asia-Pacific region, South Africa and Mexico.
 

 

Edited October 29 by AM222

[jpd80]

Up until recently, Ford thought it would have a battery supply problem but BEV sales are now far less than predicted. Ford should have more than enough supply for hybrids and plug ins. If their theory now is smaller batteries make more sense/profit then surely more hybrids are best use of those resources.

 

I’m still wondering about Blue Oval Center and whether Ford just Kees delaying production start up.