Ford is done with making boring cars

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Focus Active with some cladding on the wheel wells wouldn't have moved the needle.

The whole point to Focus Active was to reclassify it as a utility, By doing that, government fuel economy requirements are then relaxed.

 

I get that Focus Active want the best design  but consider what Fird could do with the right motivation- that was the whole point with my discussion of available C2 products. There are always options for Ford, it doesn’t necessarily have to sell every model available globally but, perhaps consider if some product holes exist.

 

And yes, I get that Ford doesn’t want to waste production on low return product, niche products are exactly those that buyers want but perhaps competition is not covering…..

Edited October 7 by jpd80

[rmc523]

9 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The whole point to Focus Active was to reclassify it as a utility, By doing that, government fuel economy requirements are then relaxed.

 

I get that Focus Active want the best design  but consider what Fird could do with the right motivation- that was the whole point with my discussion of available C2 products. There are always options for Ford, it doesn’t necessarily have to sell every model available globally but, perhaps consider if some product holes exist.

 

And yes, I get that Ford doesn’t want to waste production on low return product, niche products are exactly those that buyers want but perhaps competition is not covering…..

 

I understand on paper.

 

In reality, it was a Focus with some extra plastic cladding on the wheel wells....not exactly going to convince people, IMO.

 

I'm referring specifically to the Focus active in this sense - there is likely a way to "cool" that type of product up, but slapping some plastic on regular Focus wasn't it to me.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

So you're proposing a wagon at that point, right?

 

I thought you were saying completely changing the entire roofline to be more upright.

I'm saying keep the design the same from the rear doors forward, and just redesign the part of the roofline that drops down, replacing it with a more upright, conventional crossover shape. Give it the 2.0 and 2.5 hybrid and I could see it appealing to a lot of edge buyers.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

I understand on paper.

 

In reality, it was a Focus with some extra plastic cladding on the wheel wells....not exactly going to convince people, IMO.

 

I'm referring specifically to the Focus active in this sense - there is likely a way to "cool" that type of product up, but slapping some plastic on regular Focus wasn't it to me.

Correct about tacked on wheel arches and what I was referring in my original post was a lengthened and widened version to cover more mid sized vehicles. Not only for North America but also Europe and ROW markets.

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm saying keep the design the same from the rear doors forward, and just redesign the part of the roofline that drops down, replacing it with a more upright, conventional crossover shape. Give it the 2.0 and 2.5 hybrid and I could see it appealing to a lot of edge buyers.

 

That'd be a wagon, which are wildly unpopular here.

[DeluxeStang]

45 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

That'd be a wagon, which are wildly unpopular here.

The evos is a crossover, so no, it wouldn't. It would if I was proposing this for the fusion, but the evos is lifted. 

[2005Explorer]

On 10/7/2024 at 7:28 AM, Rick73 said:

Is Porsche business model, based on it being an exclusivity brand, comparable to Ford?  Reducing overall volume may actually help Porsche, but I’m not sure the same would apply to Ford long-term if they focus on margins so much so that they slowly shrink size to nothing.  Not implying you said that, just that Ford has to be careful balancing short-term profits versus long-term health IMO.

I think trying to turn Ford into an exclusivity brand would work about as well as it has for Stallantis trying to do the same with Jeep and Ram.

[morgan20]

26 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said:

I think trying to turn Ford into an exclusivity brand would work about as well as it has for Stallantis trying to do the same with Jeep and Ram.

 

Worked really well for Jeep, no reason it can't work for Ford

 

[Sherminator98]

4 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

Worked really well for Jeep, no reason it can't work for Ford

 

 

 

It has?

https://caredge.com/guides/jeep-dodge-chrysler-sales-trends

 

[Rick73]

Exact point I was questioning.  Higher prices can improve margins, but often at expense of volume.  Total profit may or may not be higher, but long-term this strategy is not sustainable IMO unless vehicles become more desirable to buyers, otherwise market share just keeps eroding.

[Sherminator98]

22 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Exact point I was questioning.  Higher prices can improve margins, but often at expense of volume.  Total profit may or may not be higher, but long-term this strategy is not sustainable IMO unless vehicles become more desirable to buyers, otherwise market share just keeps eroding.

 

 

Its a balancing act-with just a 3% difference in profit margin, it more then makes up for lower volume (using my Escape vs Bronco Sport example). Plus platform sharing helps off set some of those costs. Then factor incentives and other things-When my wife got her Bronco Sport, the sales guy (who is a friend of mine) said the Escape has a much better leases, but I'm also assuming that is at the expense of profit margins on them. The BS has almost no incentives on them and the dealership had stupid shit like helium air in the tires that where off set by the 2K incentives they where offering, so we winded up paying MSRP on it. 

 

Why do you think Ford is pushing for a 10% margin on each vehicle sold.

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The evos is a crossover, so no, it wouldn't. It would if I was proposing this for the fusion, but the evos is lifted. 

 

"crossover" in name only - raising a sedan / hatch profile an inch or two doesn't equal a true crossover, IMO.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Exact point I was questioning.  Higher prices can improve margins, but often at expense of volume.  Total profit may or may not be higher, but long-term this strategy is not sustainable IMO unless vehicles become more desirable to buyers, otherwise market share just keeps eroding.

What you’re not understanding is that lower volume also gives you less overhead.  Less capital, less expense and in some cases even fewer factories.   Thats a huge advantage.

[morgan20]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

It has?

https://caredge.com/guides/jeep-dodge-chrysler-sales-trends

 

 

Yea, lower sales volume, premium pricing, elimination of low-end models (Renegade and Cherokee), and as akirby mentioned less capital, less expense and in some cases even fewer factories (Belvidere, IL plant is idled) is a good business model for Jeep.

 

Ford can adopt these practices in its transition to iconic products. In some ways it already has

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

"crossover" in name only - raising a sedan / hatch profile an inch or two doesn't equal a true crossover, IMO.

I don't disagree, I'm pretty vocal on this site, and mustang 7g about stating how the mach-e is just a lifted hatchback. It's pretty clear to me that the mach-e is the electric focus RS Ford never build, AWD, 4 doors, hatchback shape, aggressive design, etc.

 

I wish people looked at the car, and not what it was called. The iconic 5 Hyundai thing is very clearly a hatchback, and a damn cool one imo. Ford needs to do a CE1 rival to that, something sharp with wedge styling. 

[2005Explorer]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

What you’re not understanding is that lower volume also gives you less overhead.  Less capital, less expense and in some cases even fewer factories.   Thats a huge advantage.

It's not really working for Stallantis. Sure ATPs on that chart above look amazing until you realize how much lot rot is going on. You can buy brand new 2022 and 2023 Jeeps and Rams. Now they have to idle some plants for months? Terrible management only looking at ATPs and nothing else. There has to be balance between volume and profit margin to keep a healthy business.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, 2005Explorer said:

It's not really working for Stallantis. Sure ATPs on that chart above look amazing until you realize how much lot rot is going on. You can buy brand new 2022 and 2023 Jeeps and Rams. Now they have to idle some plants for months? Terrible management only looking at ATPs and nothing else. There has to be balance between volume and profit margin to keep a healthy business.

Well of course you can’t only look at ATPs.  Where did you get that idea?  All we’re saying is there are multiple aspects to a business case beyond volume and higher ATPs and lower volumes CAN be a good play u dear the right circumstances.

[2005Explorer]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Well of course you can’t only look at ATPs.  Where did you get that idea?  All we’re saying is there are multiple aspects to a business case beyond volume and higher ATPs and lower volumes CAN be a good play u dear the right circumstances.

You're right it can be and you absolutely need a vehicle mix that can bring in more price conscience buyers along with those aspirational vehicles that make huge profit. Affordable vehicles can be attractive and sell in enough volume to make good profits. I believe Ford knows this as a mainstream brand. I just brought up the example of Stallantis because they took the route of short term profits by jacking up prices to astronomical levels while cutting almost every affordable model out of their line. If you've been following any of the news their current situation is turning into a disaster.

 

I'm friends with a young man who was at a Ram dealership and he transferred to a Chevy dealership owned by the same company. He was literally making no money trying to sell Ram trucks. He said the lot was full of overpriced old stock that nobody wanted. Stallantis expected them to sell overpriced stuff that was sitting on the lot well over a year without incentives. Luckily he's at a Chevy dealer now and can sell product because they have a good selection of vehicles that are attractive to all different types of customers. He's making a lot more money at the Chevy dealership. I think it's safe to assume the dealership that's moving a lot of metal on a daily basis is making more money than the dealer with product just sitting there even if the handful they can move in the month have great ATPs.

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

It's not really working for Stallantis. Sure ATPs on that chart above look amazing until you realize how much lot rot is going on. You can buy brand new 2022 and 2023 Jeeps and Rams. Now they have to idle some plants for months? Terrible management only looking at ATPs and nothing else. There has to be balance between volume and profit margin to keep a healthy business.

 

I mean, at an FCA dealer, you can also buy a new 2016 too!

[Bob Rosadini]

21 hours ago, akirby said:

What you’re not understanding is that lower volume also gives you less overhead.  Less capital, less expense and in some cases even fewer factories.   Thats a huge advantage.

Provided those expense reductions are quickly followed up on.  Like less volume so you knock of a shift....so fixed costs stay the same.  I'm filling up the 36 gallon tank on the 150 yesterday (Ugh)  and  an elderly lady pulls in on the opposite  lane in a nice 4 dr Focus. And I'm thinking, if she lives to replace that car she will probably be in a Kia, Yota etc. 

 

I know Farley and his crew know what they are doing...I just can't believe the other guys are so clueless🤔

[akirby]

12 hours ago, 2005Explorer said:

You're right it can be and you absolutely need a vehicle mix that can bring in more price conscience buyers along with those aspirational vehicles that make huge profit. Affordable vehicles can be attractive and sell in enough volume to make good profits. I believe Ford knows this as a mainstream brand. I just brought up the example of Stallantis because they took the route of short term profits by jacking up prices to astronomical levels while cutting almost every affordable model out of their line. If you've been following any of the news their current situation is turning into a disaster.

 

I'm friends with a young man who was at a Ram dealership and he transferred to a Chevy dealership owned by the same company. He was literally making no money trying to sell Ram trucks. He said the lot was full of overpriced old stock that nobody wanted. Stallantis expected them to sell overpriced stuff that was sitting on the lot well over a year without incentives. Luckily he's at a Chevy dealer now and can sell product because they have a good selection of vehicles that are attractive to all different types of customers. He's making a lot more money at the Chevy dealership. I think it's safe to assume the dealership that's moving a lot of metal on a daily basis is making more money than the dealer with product just sitting there even if the handful they can move in the month have great ATPs.

Thats inventory and market mismanagement.  If you’ve been paying attention it’s not just about high ATPs.  Maverick is a perfect example.  Lower ATPs but no big discounts.

[Biker16]

When conversations like this happen, I am remided of this. 


 

When will automakers figure out that cars cost too much? 

[92merc]

When adjusted for inflation, a $48k comes out to $36k in 2014.

 

Just saying...

[Sherminator98]

23 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

When will automakers figure out that cars cost too much? 

 

Just like everything else, everything got more expensive for the most part. 

[Biker16]

The official inflation between 2014 and 2024 is 33% not the 48% we have seen in new cars.