Ford is done with making boring cars

[Biker16]

On 10/13/2024 at 12:47 PM, silvrsvt said:

 

Wake me up when any of them actually challenge Ford in their primary market of trucks, which the vast majority of their profit comes from. 

 

Adding "small cars" isn't going to make them gain share in this market nor will it add to their profit. 

 

Ford is focused on selling less CUVs/SUVs at a higher profit and growing their Ford Pro line, which is what they are good at. 

 

 

 

For some reason all that focus, hasn't resulted in Ford leadong the market in profits or profit per vehicle. Even with impressive sales of trucks. Profits and margins trail competitor with more diverse product profolios like Toyota, GM and Hyundai. 

 

The point I want to make is that selling expensive vehicles can only hides deep systemic issues with costs and product development have haunted this company for decades.

 

Why can't Ford make a profotble car while toyots and other can? 

[Sherminator98]

5 hours ago, Biker16 said:

Why can't Ford make a profotble car while toyots and other can? 

 

For someone who is "smart" you know why:

 

Toyota exists in a protected market that favors smaller cars and has almost double the world wide market share of everyone else as a percentage (10% vs everyone else 5 or so)

 

Both Hyundai and Toyota have lower overall costs when it comes to their work force

 

GM is in the process of killing off its cars outside of maybe Cadillac, but this doesn't factor into the cheap thing that your fixated on. 

 

Not to mention your completely ignoring what Ford is trying to do-they are looking at selling a little less at a higher profit and maybe becoming more NA centric in the process. They are playing to their strengths instead of fighting the current to try and grow market share at the expense of profitability. I'm sure they could grow market share if they sold a Focus like product at a loss. 

[akirby]

Ford’s problem is cost which is high due to warranty costs plus mismanagement of platforms.   They solved the latter starting with C2 and seem to be on track to solving the first one but that will take years to pay off and requires consistent effort.

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

I think what some people, both in this comments section, and on other discussion boards aren't realizing as much as they should, is new cars have gradually transitioned from a need, to a want item. Wind the clocks back 4-5 decades and people genuinely needed new cars. Cars didn't last a very long time, you had to replace them frequently, often with a new car. 

 

You bought a new car because you needed to get into something dependable. Or because your wife was pregnant and you needed something more practical. These days, you still see small issues, but catastrophic strand you in the side of the road issues are significantly less common than they used to be. Your car will generally last a really long time if you take care of it. So there's less need to upgrade to a new car, the car I already own is perfectly fine, why spend the money? 

 

That's why it's really important to make more emotional, exciting cars, the kinds of things you've always dreamed about owning. That gives you an incentive to buy that new car where there's no practical need to. Some may doubt Ford's strategy, but appealing to people who genuinely love cars seems like a brilliant strategy moving forward. 

[DeluxeStang]

Just now, DeluxeStang said:

I think what some people, both in this comments section, and on other discussion boards aren't realizing as much as they should, is new cars have gradually transitioned from a need, to a want item. Wind the clocks back 4-5 decades and people genuinely needed new cars. Cars didn't last a very long time, you had to replace them frequently, often with a new car. 

 

You bought a new car because you needed to get into something dependable. Or because your wife was pregnant and you needed something more practical. These days, you still see small issues, but catastrophic strand you in the side of the road issues are significantly less common than they used to be. Your car will generally last a really long time if you take care of it. So there's less need to upgrade to a new car, the car I already own is perfectly fine, why spend the money? 

 

That's why it's really important to make more emotional, exciting cars, the kinds of things you've always dreamed about owning. That gives you an incentive to buy that new car where there's no practical need to. Some may doubt Ford's strategy, but appealing to people who genuinely love cars seems like a brilliant strategy moving forward. 

Think about it. Toyota and Honda have thrived on appealing to non car people who just want an A to B pod. Most of the people who buy from those brands couldn't care less about cars. What happens to those kinds of brands as ride sharing, driverless car, walkable communities, and public transit become more common and accessible? 

 

It seems like the only way long term a car company will be able to appeal to a large group of buyers is by making things people actually want to own. A Corolla owner will probably one day just start taking the bus if it's convenient. A mustang gt or bronco owner is gonna be owning, buying, and loving those cars until they die. Ford's appealing to the people who love cars, and who will always want to buy them regardless of other transportation options. That's brilliant imo. 

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

Think about it. Toyota and Honda have thrived on appealing to non car people who just want an A to B pod. Most of the people who buy from those brands couldn't care less about cars. What happens to those kinds of brands as ride sharing, driverless car, walkable communities, and public transit become more common and accessible? 

 

It seems like the only way long term a car company will be able to appeal to a large group of buyers is by making things people actually want to own. A Corolla owner will probably one day just start taking the bus if it's convenient. A mustang gt or bronco owner is gonna be owning, buying, and loving those cars until they die. Ford's appealing to the people who love cars, and who will always want to buy them regardless of other transportation options. That's brilliant imo. 

With due respect, I think you’re using too much confirmation bias in making your case on importance of emotional and exciting vehicles.  Obviously very few buyers want boring cars per se, but I think you should ask what an “exciting” design is worth monetarily on average to most buyers.  If you’re going to make money off excitement, you should know it’s true value, right?  I personally prefer an exciting car over a boring one, but won’t pay a significant price premium, or compromise much on function, comfort, reliability, fuel economy, or pretty much anything else.  So other than appearance of looking nicer, what exactly is “exciting”, and is it the same for all buyers?  I seriously doubt it.  This forum is primarily for car guys and we are becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of population, so we should take our collective minority feedback and ideas accordingly.  Everyone agrees exciting is better than boring, but I have yet to see a clear definition of what that actually means beyond marketing speak that means very little to most real buyers.

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

With due respect, I think you’re using too much confirmation bias in making your case on importance of emotional and exciting vehicles.  Obviously very few buyers want boring cars per se, but I think you should ask what an “exciting” design is worth monetarily on average to most buyers.  If you’re going to make money off excitement, you should know it’s true value, right?  I personally prefer an exciting car over a boring one, but won’t pay a significant price premium, or compromise much on function, comfort, reliability, fuel economy, or pretty much anything else.  So other than appearance of looking nicer, what exactly is “exciting”, and is it the same for all buyers?  I seriously doubt it.  This forum is primarily for car guys and we are becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of population, so we should take our collective minority feedback and ideas accordingly.  Everyone agrees exciting is better than boring, but I have yet to see a clear definition of what that actually means beyond marketing speak that means very little to most real buyers.

 

TLDR

 

The point your missing is that the only way to make your self stand out and charge more is offer something that appeals to the consumer in some tangible way. 

Just look at how the Bronco and Bronco Sport launch was for an idea of what Ford wants to do.

 

I don't see Toyota getting that type of excitement from random customers with its products, even with the launch of their Tacoma or Land Cruiser recently. 

 

More competition in the marketplace, how are you going to keep or make market share without impacting profit? Your competition might undercut you in price (Chinese EVs) or offer longer warrantees (Korean makers) and so on and whatever else other companies can think of doing. 

[akirby]

52 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

With due respect, I think you’re using too much confirmation bias in making your case on importance of emotional and exciting vehicles.  Obviously very few buyers want boring cars per se, but I think you should ask what an “exciting” design is worth monetarily on average to most buyers.  If you’re going to make money off excitement, you should know it’s true value, right?  I personally prefer an exciting car over a boring one, but won’t pay a significant price premium, or compromise much on function, comfort, reliability, fuel economy, or pretty much anything else.  So other than appearance of looking nicer, what exactly is “exciting”, and is it the same for all buyers?  I seriously doubt it.  This forum is primarily for car guys and we are becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of population, so we should take our collective minority feedback and ideas accordingly.  Everyone agrees exciting is better than boring, but I have yet to see a clear definition of what that actually means beyond marketing speak that means very little to most real buyers.

You’re making it too complicated.  There are many factors that make a vehicle desirable from styling to function to performance to customization options.   The key is not having to use heavy discounts to sell them.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

With due respect, I think you’re using too much confirmation bias in making your case on importance of emotional and exciting vehicles.  Obviously very few buyers want boring cars per se, but I think you should ask what an “exciting” design is worth monetarily on average to most buyers.  If you’re going to make money off excitement, you should know it’s true value, right?  I personally prefer an exciting car over a boring one, but won’t pay a significant price premium, or compromise much on function, comfort, reliability, fuel economy, or pretty much anything else.  So other than appearance of looking nicer, what exactly is “exciting”, and is it the same for all buyers?  I seriously doubt it.  This forum is primarily for car guys and we are becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of population, so we should take our collective minority feedback and ideas accordingly.  Everyone agrees exciting is better than boring, but I have yet to see a clear definition of what that actually means beyond marketing speak that means very little to most real buyers.

I'm saying you can make affordable vehicles more exciting. You can offer a 25k entry level vehicle that's a hybrid truck instead of of a generic blob, and people will love it. Because it's something very different, that people have wanted for decades, and something you can't get from anyone else. Rethinking your entry level vehicle, creating something that's still more affordable, but is far more desirable, because you rethought what your entry level model could be. 

 

I don't see Ford charging a massive premium for these more exciting products. Maybe a thousand or a couple thousand dollars more than more boring alternatives, but nothing insane.

[Rick73]

44 minutes ago, akirby said:

You’re making it too complicated.  There are many factors that make a vehicle desirable from styling to function to performance to customization options.   The key is not having to use heavy discounts to sell them.

I agree completely with what you stated above except for the “making it complicated” part, the rest being point I was trying to make to DeluxeStang.  It’s not complicated at all.  People are diverse with diverse tastes and preferences, but most want what I call value, which you refer to as desirable.  Semantics aside, same thing.

 

As example, everyone agrees 400 HP is more exciting than 300 HP everything else being equal, but how much are most people willing to pay for the extra power?  Depends on specific buyer.  That’s not making it complicated, it’s just acknowledging that choices are rarely black and white like some here want to make them.  They are not.  For all we know many buyers may prefer what DeluxeStang considers boring, and would avoid what he likes and calls exciting.

 

As an example only, there’s little doubt an 800 HP Mustang will be exciting, but how many will Ford sell at whatever price they charge?  Total profit from a handful of cars will be a drop in the bucket towards Ford profitability.  Granted an 800 HP Mustang is an extreme, but message is Ford won’t prosper based on vehicle “excitement” that is not cost effective to buyers.  And that’s called competition.

[Rick73]

6 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm saying you can make affordable vehicles more exciting. You can offer a 25k entry level vehicle that's a hybrid truck instead of of a generic blob, and people will love it. Because it's something very different, that people have wanted for decades, and something you can't get from anyone else. Rethinking your entry level vehicle, creating something that's still more affordable, but is far more desirable, because you rethought what your entry level model could be. 

 

I don't see Ford charging a massive premium for these more exciting products. Maybe a thousand or a couple thousand dollars more than more boring alternatives, but nothing insane.

Agree but that’s not where Ford appears to be headed.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

With due respect, I think you’re using too much confirmation bias in making your case on importance of emotional and exciting vehicles.  Obviously very few buyers want boring cars per se, but I think you should ask what an “exciting” design is worth monetarily on average to most buyers.  If you’re going to make money off excitement, you should know it’s true value, right?  I personally prefer an exciting car over a boring one, but won’t pay a significant price premium, or compromise much on function, comfort, reliability, fuel economy, or pretty much anything else.  So other than appearance of looking nicer, what exactly is “exciting”, and is it the same for all buyers?  I seriously doubt it.  This forum is primarily for car guys and we are becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of population, so we should take our collective minority feedback and ideas accordingly.  Everyone agrees exciting is better than boring, but I have yet to see a clear definition of what that actually means beyond marketing speak that means very little to most real buyers.

The current escape starts at around 27k. What if Ford replaced the generic looking escape with something like this Alpine concept? I'm not saying this is what that ev escape would look like, just that this is the sort of direction I'm talking about. 

 

Make the escape an EV, which would make it feel a lot more refined and upscale than the current escape, give it a more expressive exterior, better tech, and charge 30 grand for it or something. 

 

The bronco sport appeals to people, the escape doesn't really. Either kill it and allocate more resources to the bronco sport and maverick, or try a new approach with the escape. I'm personally proposing making the bronco sport and electric escape as differentiated from one another as possible to maximize Ford's appeal in the compact crossover segment with just two offerings. 

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

People are diverse with diverse tastes and preferences, but most want what I call value, which you refer to as desirable.  Semantics aside, same thing.

 

Nope not the same thing.  Value implies a price component and generally excludes higher priced models, versions and options.  It also implies compromises in a lot of cases (I wanted the luxury package but it’s a much better value without it).   A desirable vehicle is desirable because of styling, performance, image, etc. and for that people are buying them without big discounts and sometimes above MSRP.  
 

These buyers say I want that!  How much is it?  Can I afford it?

 

A value buyer typically starts with cost.

 

Nobody looks at Escape and says I gotta have one of those.  At best they say it’s cute and they start shopping.

 

People see a Bronco Sport and immediately say I gotta have one.

 

Thats the difference.

[akirby]

That’s also why I was advocating for making a street only Bronco Sport and a longer version with a hybrid option.  Those would sell without big discounts and would be easy to manufacture.

[Sherminator98]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

That’s also why I was advocating for making a street only Bronco Sport and a longer version with a hybrid option.  Those would sell without big discounts and would be easy to manufacture.

 

The only problem with that is your diluting what the Bronco Sport is by making a "street" only version and a larger one would butt heads in pricing with the lower end Mid Size Bronco. I don't think either would be justified, Ford needs a smaller vehicle like the Puma under the BS that can capture the cheaper lower end. 

 

What I think is going into happen, esp if the Skunkworks EV is going to be a compact pickup, that the EV CUV version will straddle the price/size gap between the Bronco Sport and Bronco. I'm thinking something that is like the upcoming Jeep Recon, which looks like the Wrangler but isn't as hardcore as it. 

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

That’s also why I was advocating for making a street only Bronco Sport and a longer version with a hybrid option.  Those would sell without big discounts and would be easy to manufacture.

Ford wants to keep the bronco sport AWD it seems to emphasize that off-road image. Now that the maverick can be had with an AWD hybrid, it seems like the perfect powertrain option for the BS. 

[Texasota]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

The bronco sport appeals to people, the escape doesn't really. Either kill it and allocate more resources to the bronco sport and maverick, or try a new approach with the escape.

Recent sales figures show the Escape significantly outselling the Bronco Sport. It may be more boring but it is also more practical and fuel efficient which is why people buy them. I really like my Escape PHEV.

[Sherminator98]

23 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Recent sales figures show the Escape significantly outselling the Bronco Sport. It may be more boring but it is also more practical and fuel efficient which is why people buy them. I really like my Escape PHEV.

 

Escape are also sold at a much bigger discount then Bronco Sports are too

 

Even accounting for lower sales numbers and average transaction prices (via MSRP) and estimating the Escape has a 5% profit and the Bronco Sport has 8%, the Bronco Sport makes a significant more money for Ford then the Escape does. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Recent sales figures show the Escape significantly outselling the Bronco Sport. It may be more boring but it is also more practical and fuel efficient which is why people buy them. I really like my Escape PHEV.

Escape competes with all the other C sized crossovers. BS has no direct competition.

[T-dubz]

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The only problem with that is your diluting what the Bronco Sport is by making a "street" only version and a larger one would butt heads in pricing with the lower end Mid Size Bronco. I don't think either would be justified, Ford needs a smaller vehicle like the Puma under the BS that can capture the cheaper lower end. 

 

What I think is going into happen, esp if the Skunkworks EV is going to be a compact pickup, that the EV CUV version will straddle the price/size gap between the Bronco Sport and Bronco. I'm thinking something that is like the upcoming Jeep Recon, which looks like the Wrangler but isn't as hardcore as it. 

Akirby is right. What’s holding the sport back is size and price. It’s too small for families. It’s 8” shorter than the escape. If ford made the bronco sport the same size as the escape, it would drastically increase the sports customer pool. Families would be interested.

 

Price is also a big factor. I’m sure everyone has noticed that the only trim that sells is the big bend. No one is paying extra for the bigger engine or the upgraded 4wd in the badlands. They aren’t even paying extra for the luxury options in the outer banks. You can believe ford’s marketing all you want, but the bronco sport is not some lifestyle adventure vehicle, it is a daily driver with some style. Offering it in fwd makes it cheaper, which again expands the customer pool. 
 

also, hardcore bronco fans already think the bronco sport itself dilutes the bronco name. They don’t consider it a real bronco anyways, so they won’t care 😆. Bronco II was also 2WD so there’s precedent.

 

 

[DeluxeStang]

So in an attempt to steer this conversation back towards the idea of Ford making more aspirational products, what is each of your wishlists for future Ford products? What would you really be pushing for Ford to make if you were in a position of influence?

 

I'm gonna retread some of my own picks here, but I'd love to see an RS 200 revival. The concept they showed looks promising, but I would like to see some refinement to the design if they put it into production. It's a little blobby/lumpy from some angles. Take some aspects of that concept, and blend it with the more supercar like roofline and more upright rear end of this Ferrari design project, and it would be perfect. 

Edited October 16 by DeluxeStang

[DeluxeStang]

Beyond that, I almost hope the CE1 truck is a cab-over design. That would make Ford's small electric truck REALLY appealing, if slightly controversial. Not only would it be a very affordable small truck, it would be a very affordable small truck with a huge amount of utility baked in. 

 

As for the utility, it keeps bouncing back and forth depending on the source. Some have said it's more comparable to the BS, others have said it's more like an escape replacement. If it's the later, as previously mentioned, doing something that that Alpine crossover would grab a lot of attention.

 

IDK, what do you guys want to see? We don't have much evidence of Ford's exact future product plans, most of what we're saying is speculation anyways. So let's just bounce ideas off one another. 

[jpd80]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

Escape competes with all the other C sized crossovers. BS has no direct competition.

Ford messed up with the styling that was needed for Escape, that was

probably due to Ford Europe preferences for Kuga in its home market.

 

Thinking slightly boxier styling but with say Maverick nose to distinguish 

it from Bronco Sport…..yes I understand reservation of this overlaps a bit

with BS bit would certainly give a soft road version of the BS.

 

Don’t know if I explained that properly, I’m hoping someone can articulate 

that thought better…

[fuzzymoomoo]

17 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Ford messed up with the styling that was needed for Escape, that was

probably due to Ford Europe preferences for Kuga in its home market.

I wish I could share my true opinion on this. I’ll say this, there’s plenty to improve on when it comes to the current Escape. I’ll just leave it at that. 

[Sherminator98]

7 hours ago, T-dubz said:

Price is also a big factor. I’m sure everyone has noticed that the only trim that sells is the big bend. No one is paying extra for the bigger engine or the upgraded 4wd in the badlands. They aren’t even paying extra for the luxury options in the outer banks. You can believe ford’s marketing all you want, but the bronco sport is not some lifestyle adventure vehicle, it is a daily driver with some style. Offering it in fwd makes it cheaper, which again expands the customer pool. 

 

In my area that couldn't be farther from the truth, I see lots of Outer Banks and a couple Badlands models. I'd say the spilt is like 40/40/20 with special models like the heritage making up like 2-5% out of that cut. 

 

The other thing that is interesting is that an AWD Escape Active vs a Bronco Sport Big Bend (using the options from my wife's car, which didn't have much) actually costs more MSRP-the Escape is $34850 vs $32K that the BS was.