Ford December/Q4/2024 Sales Results

[akirby]

10 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

The old guard that hates changes can go fuck themselves. Ford doesn't need to cater to them, as the sales results for Mustang coupe vs. Mach-E last year suggest

Focus groups and market research are only good for mass market models.  A Dakar Mustang only needs to appeal to a few thousand people to be successful.

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

What research? IMO focus groups when focusing on say a specific model like the Mustang (which in itself is a lightning rod when something changes) I think is going to get beat up by the old guard that hates changes. Not adjusting the nameplate is going to lead to the Mustang dying off. 

 

I see no problem adding to the Mustang lineup (Mach E, Rallye style mustang, Sedan) but not at the expense of getting rid of the coupe. 

 

They can overdo it too......we don't need 15 different Mustang models.

 

Keep it about where they have it.....Mach E, coupe/convertible, sedan, and leave it at that (with a caveat for the "Raptor" version, which remains to be seen whether it's coupe/convertible with special treament, or a shooting brake type that was rumored).

Expanding beyond that starts to harm the brand, IMO.

[Chrisgb]

1 hour ago, morgan20 said:

 

The old guard that hates changes can go fuck themselves. Ford doesn't need to cater to them, as the sales results for Mustang coupe vs. Mach-E last year suggest

As I will be turning 76 later this year, I begrudgingly have to admit you're right. My grandfather retired from the Milwaukee Road shortly after WWII, about the time MR started introducing diesel locomotives. Years later as I was about 9 or 10 years old, all the steam locos were retired and he lamented that yes, the diesels were more efficient but the sound and sight of a steam locomotive was an experience that my generation would never know. I told him that I've seen them on TV, and he laughed, probably at the idea that the ground trebling might and fury of a steam engine could be captures on a grainy black and white tv screen of the day.

I am now about the same age as he was then and I scoffed at the news that this BEV contraption was going to be called a Mustang. I have an Ecoboost Four in my Ranger, and it has the most horsepower of any of my 25 previous vehicles. Change is hard. Ford will discontinue ICE Mustangs at some point within my lifetime, I suspect, and hopefully before they paint themselves into corner, as Harley Davidson has done. As their faithful are aging out of 1937-styled Hogs, a dwindling few are following behind them and they are circling the drain.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Focus groups and market research are only good for mass market models.  A Dakar Mustang only needs to appeal to a few thousand people to be successful.

A very-low-volume super-high-price variant (of pretty much anything, not just Mustang) may be profitable incrementally on its own, and will definitely draw attention to the brand, which may even result in added sales short term, but IMO may harm overall “mass market” sales longer term.  Realize it’s a contrarian view of marketing, but the trend has repeated too often to be coincidence.  I think introducing a much higher price and more desirable variant that is not attainable to the vast majority of the masses will make many of them turn away completely.  Don’t know if it’s ego, pride, or what, but IMO a great way to reduce overall sales longer term, and thus overall profitability.

[bzcat]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

They can overdo it too......we don't need 15 different Mustang models.

 

Keep it about where they have it.....Mach E, coupe/convertible, sedan, and leave it at that (with a caveat for the "Raptor" version, which remains to be seen whether it's coupe/convertible with special treament, or a shooting brake type that was rumored).

Expanding beyond that starts to harm the brand, IMO.

 

Depends on how strong the Mustang brand is obviously. Porsche has 20+ variants of 911 and every new version just prints more money. The key is to limit supply. As long as you make 1 less than the market demands, you are fine.

 

I can see all of the following Mustang variants working:

Coupe, convertible, GTD, Mach E, "Raptorized" lifted coupe, ute, shooting break, "Gran Torino" 4 door coupe.

 

And of course don't forget the usual limited production editions like Bullitt, Mach 1, GT350, GT500.

 

Edited January 9 by bzcat

[rmc523]

2 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

Depends on how strong the Mustang brand is obviously. Porsche has 20+ variants of 911 and every new version just prints more money. The key is to limit supply. As long as you make 1 less than the market demands, you are fine.

 

I can see all of the following Mustang variants working:

Coupe, convertible, GTD, Mach E, "Raptorized" lifted coupe, ute, shooting break, "Gran Torino" 4 door coupe.

 

And of course don't forget the usual limited production editions like Bullitt, Mach 1, GT350, GT500.

 

 

911 is different from a Mustang family.

 

Porsche doesn't slap a 911 badge on a Cayenne body and call it a 911.  They may have 911 variants (coupe convertible, targa, etc) and special editions, but they're all the same core body/vehicle.  Slapping the Mustang name on too many unrelated products (completely unique bodies) will backfire at some point if done too much.

[jpd80]

7 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

What research? IMO focus groups when focusing on say a specific model like the Mustang (which in itself is a lightning rod when something changes) I think is going to get beat up by the old guard that hates changes. Not adjusting the nameplate is going to lead to the Mustang dying off. 

 

I see no problem adding to the Mustang lineup (Mach E, Rallye style mustang, Sedan) but not at the expense of getting rid of the coupe. 

 

6 hours ago, morgan20 said:

 

The old guard that hates changes can go fuck themselves. Ford doesn't need to cater to them, as the sales results for Mustang coupe vs. Mach-E last year suggest

Let me explain,

The original survey involved basically a jacked ICE Coupe that didn’t go well with feedback. After that, Ford started asking how about a modified Mach E, that’s when the changed reception happened.

 

As you both have pointed out, there’s a vast difference in perceptions and opinions between ICE Mustang buyers and BEV Mustang buyers.

The big question I have is now that GE and GE2 are becoming “dead end” electric platforms, switching  Mach E and any variant  to CE1 would seem a better result. 
 

I think you can work out what’s happening here with priorities…

Since Farley started talking about CE1 vehicles, any talk of details

about that jacked up Mustang stopped……..

 

Maybe RS Mach E thing was all Ford was prepared to do for now…

Edited January 9 by jpd80

[DeluxeStang]

29 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

911 is different from a Mustang family.

 

Porsche doesn't slap a 911 badge on a Cayenne body and call it a 911.  They may have 911 variants (coupe convertible, targa, etc) and special editions, but they're all the same core body/vehicle.  Slapping the Mustang name on too many unrelated products (completely unique bodies) will backfire at some point if done too much.

No but they "slap on" the Porsche branding and more importantly, 911 styling cues. 

[DeluxeStang]

I was discussing with someone how part of the issue with the s650 isn't that it's a bad car, it's just that it's not a huge leap forward in terms of design, platform, or tech, yet it's being priced like it is. The current mustang 2 + 2 is compromised, it has a backseat, but it's not practical for most people, it's not ideal if you need to take 3 or more people with you. But that backseat has also compromised it as a sports car. 

 

With Ford offering multiple mustang body styles, why not offer a V8 mustang sedan, something with an actually usable backseat to appeal to the crowd that wants a more practical muscle car, and then make the normal coupe a 2 seater, longer hood, lower, more exotic, maybe by stretching the hood, you'll be able to package it as a Front-mid engine car.

 

Now you have a kickass sedan, and a kickass sports coupe, and you can distribute those develop costs for the platform across 2-3 models, not just 1, which should help to keep the prices in check. People keep wanting Ford to bring the mustang price back down, as sad as it is, the days of the 30 grand V8 are over. The goal shouldn't be to offer a 30 grand V8, it should be to made buying a 50 or 60 grand car feel like a bargain, and to do that requires making the mustang look and feel more exotic. Something like this Corvette rendering, if that was 50 or 60 grand, it would almost be a no brainer. 

[DeluxeStang]

33 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 

Let me explain,

The original survey involved basically a jacked ICE Coupe that didn’t go well with feedback. After that, Ford started asking how about a modified Mach E, that’s when the changed reception happened.

 

As you both have pointed out, there’s a vast difference in perceptions and opinions between ICE Mustang buyers and BEV Mustang buyers.

The big question I have is now that GE and GE2 are becoming “dead end” electric platforms, switching  Mach E and any variant  to CE1 would seem a better result. 
 

I think you can work out what’s happening here with priorities…

Since Farley started talking about CE1 vehicles, any talk of details

about that jacked up Mustang stopped……..

 

Maybe RS Mach E thing was all Ford was prepared to do for now…

I am so confused lol. Farley says he doesn't see an off-road mustang happen, then we hear about a dealer meeting where it was shown to people a few months later, now you're saying that car didn't clinic well and probably won't be moving forward. What are we doing man?!

 

Lol. Ford's plans are all over the place. 

[rmc523]

52 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

 

Let me explain,

The original survey involved basically a jacked ICE Coupe that didn’t go well with feedback. After that, Ford started asking how about a modified Mach E, that’s when the changed reception happened.

 

As you both have pointed out, there’s a vast difference in perceptions and opinions between ICE Mustang buyers and BEV Mustang buyers.

The big question I have is now that GE and GE2 are becoming “dead end” electric platforms, switching  Mach E and any variant  to CE1 would seem a better result. 
 

I think you can work out what’s happening here with priorities…

Since Farley started talking about CE1 vehicles, any talk of details

about that jacked up Mustang stopped……..

 

Maybe RS Mach E thing was all Ford was prepared to do for now…

 

Based on your description of the survey, maybe those plans became the Mach E Ralle?

 

35 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

No but they "slap on" the Porsche branding and more importantly, 911 styling cues. 

 

Who'd have thought they'd put Porsche branding on a Porsche?  Having a brand design language isn't the same as naming everything "911 _____"

 

19 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I was discussing with someone how part of the issue with the s650 isn't that it's a bad car, it's just that it's not a huge leap forward in terms of design, platform, or tech, yet it's being priced like it is. The current mustang 2 + 2 is compromised, it has a backseat, but it's not practical for most people, it's not ideal if you need to take 3 or more people with you. But that backseat has also compromised it as a sports car. 

 

With Ford offering multiple mustang body styles, why not offer a V8 mustang sedan, something with an actually usable backseat to appeal to the crowd that wants a more practical muscle car, and then make the normal coupe a 2 seater, longer hood, lower, more exotic, maybe by stretching the hood, you'll be able to package it as a Front-mid engine car.

 

Now you have a kickass sedan, and a kickass sports coupe, and you can distribute those develop costs for the platform across 2-3 models, not just 1, which should help to keep the prices in check. People keep wanting Ford to bring the mustang price back down, as sad as it is, the days of the 30 grand V8 are over. The goal shouldn't be to offer a 30 grand V8, it should be to made buying a 50 or 60 grand car feel like a bargain, and to do that requires making the mustang look and feel more exotic. Something like this Corvette rendering, if that was 50 or 60 grand, it would almost be a no brainer. 

 

I like that concept - never seen it before (I'm guessing it's just a rendering).  Funny, I've drawn something very similar to it in the past...

 

16 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I am so confused lol. Farley says he doesn't see an off-road mustang happen, then we hear about a dealer meeting where it was shown to people a few months later, now you're saying that car didn't clinic well and probably won't be moving forward. What are we doing man?!

 

Lol. Ford's plans are all over the place. 

 

[akirby]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

A very-low-volume super-high-price variant (of pretty much anything, not just Mustang) may be profitable incrementally on its own, and will definitely draw attention to the brand, which may even result in added sales short term, but IMO may harm overall “mass market” sales longer term.  Realize it’s a contrarian view of marketing, but the trend has repeated too often to be coincidence.  I think introducing a much higher price and more desirable variant that is not attainable to the vast majority of the masses will make many of them turn away completely.  Don’t know if it’s ego, pride, or what, but IMO a great way to reduce overall sales longer term, and thus overall profitability.

That makes no sense.  Does the Mustang GTD make an ecoboost Mustang less desirable?  No way.

[Rick73]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

That makes no sense.  Does the Mustang GTD make an ecoboost Mustang less desirable?  No way.

Yes, to some, not all IMO.  The higher the top gets, the more the entry level option may feel like settling for bottom of barrel.  It may not be rational but I think it applies to many buyers, and not just with cars.  Example: Owning one of the first Mustangs was really cool, sold 100,000s, and since they were all pretty much the same, all owners therefore felt cool and proud.  Soon after the cool Mustang to have was a GT with 390, or later 428 Cobra Jet, or Boss 429, etc., and all of the sudden a regular Mustang was too ordinary to feel proud about.  Before you ask, no, I can’t prove what would have happened to sales longer term if Ford would have not pursued higher-priced Mustang variants.  Granted, Chevy, Dodge and Plymouth competition would have made the status quo hard to maintain.

[Sherminator98]

32 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, to some, not all IMO.  The higher the top gets, the more the entry level option may feel like settling for bottom of barrel.  It may not be rational but I think it applies to many buyers, and not just with cars.  Example: Owning one of the first Mustangs was really cool, sold 100,000s, and since they were all pretty much the same, all owners therefore felt cool and proud.  Soon after the cool Mustang to have was a GT with 390, or later 428 Cobra Jet, or Boss 429, etc., and all of the sudden a regular Mustang was too ordinary to feel proud about.  Before you ask, no, I can’t prove what would have happened to sales longer term if Ford would have not pursued higher-priced Mustang variants.  Granted, Chevy, Dodge and Plymouth competition would have made the status quo hard to maintain.

 

You really do have diarrhea of the mouth, don't you?

[jpd80]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, to some, not all IMO.  The higher the top gets, the more the entry level option may feel like settling for bottom of barrel.  It may not be rational but I think it applies to many buyers, and not just with cars.  Example: Owning one of the first Mustangs was really cool, sold 100,000s, and since they were all pretty much the same, all owners therefore felt cool and proud.  Soon after the cool Mustang to have was a GT with 390, or later 428 Cobra Jet, or Boss 429, etc., and all of the sudden a regular Mustang was too ordinary to feel proud about.  Before you ask, no, I can’t prove what would have happened to sales longer term if Ford would have not pursued higher-priced Mustang variants.  Granted, Chevy, Dodge and Plymouth competition would have made the status quo hard to maintain.

I tell you what I think would have happened to Mustang, it would have gone the way of Camaro…..and then it was only brought back because GM couldn’t stand the thought of Mustang unopposed….GM had to be the best but even with discount V8 model, the sales just didn’t come for Camaro.

[rmc523]

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Yes, to some, not all IMO.  The higher the top gets, the more the entry level option may feel like settling for bottom of barrel.  It may not be rational but I think it applies to many buyers, and not just with cars.  Example: Owning one of the first Mustangs was really cool, sold 100,000s, and since they were all pretty much the same, all owners therefore felt cool and proud.  Soon after the cool Mustang to have was a GT with 390, or later 428 Cobra Jet, or Boss 429, etc., and all of the sudden a regular Mustang was too ordinary to feel proud about.  Before you ask, no, I can’t prove what would have happened to sales longer term if Ford would have not pursued higher-priced Mustang variants.  Granted, Chevy, Dodge and Plymouth competition would have made the status quo hard to maintain.

 

So Ford should artificially limit themselves at the top end just so the low end can look the same?

 

Nah.

 

If anything, I see people with base models that start doing upgrades that make it look like the upper models (For example, I've seen plenty of Mustangs with body panels to make it look like a GT500.)

 

I'm not advocating dropping low end models, just saying to limit yourself at the upper end just to not potentially "offend" base model buyers is ridiculous.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

So Ford should artificially limit themselves at the top end just so the low end can look the same?

 

Nah.

 

If anything, I see people with base models that start doing upgrades that make it look like the upper models (For example, I've seen plenty of Mustangs with body panels to make it look like a GT500.)

 

I'm not advocating dropping low end models, just saying to limit yourself at the upper end just to not potentially "offend" base model buyers is ridiculous.

Most high-end specialty variants don’t sell in huge numbers, do they?  You can make extra profit on each copy, but overall profitability depends greatly on much higher-volume base units.  I just happen to disagree with accepted marketing assumption that superior image will always trickle down to added sales at bottom.  Sometimes it drives customers away, and not just with cars.

 

Your example of people upgrading their base model tells me the opposite may happen just as easily, that they are no longer happy with their vehicle.  And if buying new, why purchase knowing you’d have to upgrade it to be truly satisfied?  Some people may look forward to spending more on that upgrade, but others will see the need as a negative and choose something else.  Just saying that while halo vehicles undoubtedly have pros, they may also have cons to bottom line.  That tradeoff is rarely if ever considered.

[akirby]

7 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

That tradeoff is rarely if ever considered.

Because it only exists in your mind.

[rmc523]

5 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Most high-end specialty variants don’t sell in huge numbers, do they?  You can make extra profit on each copy, but overall profitability depends greatly on much higher-volume base units.  I just happen to disagree with accepted marketing assumption that superior image will always trickle down to added sales at bottom.  Sometimes it drives customers away, and not just with cars.

 

Your example of people upgrading their base model tells me the opposite may happen just as easily, that they are no longer happy with their vehicle.  And if buying new, why purchase knowing you’d have to upgrade it to be truly satisfied?  Some people may look forward to spending more on that upgrade, but others will see the need as a negative and choose something else.  Just saying that while halo vehicles undoubtedly have pros, they may also have cons to bottom line.  That tradeoff is rarely if ever considered.

 

You realize markups get bigger the higher you go, right?  So "overall profitability" on the higher end doesn't depend as much on higher volume.

 

Yes.  Because nobody has ever simultaneously been happy with their vehicle yet also wanted to upgrade it.........come on.

 

Vehicles like Mustang and Bronco are poster children for doing modifications and have been for some time.

 

 

So let me make sure I'm understanding....

 

Your theory is.....someone goes "I LOVE the Mustang.  But they have that super cool one that I can't afford.....so I'm just not going to buy the version of the same car that I CAN afford because I'll feel inferior to that special model"???

 

If that logic were true, every vehicle would come in one single offering - no options, no trim levels, no specialty models, no halo model, one and done.  Can't have the top of the line model with all the bells and whistles because someone that can't afford that trim it might not like it and feel bad!

[akirby]

Furthermore, it flies in the face of your “value” argument.  If you can spend $35k plus $5k in upgrades and get a car that looks like a $60k version, is t that the ultimate value buy?  

[Rick73]

40 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Your theory is.....someone goes "I LOVE the Mustang.  But they have that super cool one that I can't afford.....so I'm just not going to buy the version of the same car that I CAN afford because I'll feel inferior to that special model"???

Essentially yes, though prefer not to look at it as feeling inferior.  Maybe not being as proud of your new purchase is a more positive way to word it. 😀
 

I think it’s more like “I LOVED the Mustang, but now that I see the BOSS 429, the 289 Fastback I wanted and was going to buy doesn’t look as great as before”.  Some will buy the 289 Fastback anyway, others may not.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Essentially yes, though prefer not to look at it as feeling inferior.  Maybe not being as proud of your new purchase is a more positive way to word it. 😀
 

I think it’s more like “I LOVED the Mustang, but now that I see the BOSS 429, the 289 Fastback I wanted and was going to buy doesn’t look as great as before”.  Some will buy the 289 Fastback anyway, others may not.

The way I look at it, the aspirational models make the more affordable models even more desirable. If I really like the GTD, I can buy a gt, supercharge it, and throw on an aftermarket GTD body kit. All the cool ideas for the aftermarket come from the high end cars imo. 

[jpd80]

Some people don’t seem to realise that Mustang being Ford’s only car in USA

means there’s a lot  less pressure regarding CAFE and that’s what Ford wants.

[rmc523]

18 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Essentially yes, though prefer not to look at it as feeling inferior.  Maybe not being as proud of your new purchase is a more positive way to word it. 😀
 

I think it’s more like “I LOVED the Mustang, but now that I see the BOSS 429, the 289 Fastback I wanted and was going to buy doesn’t look as great as before”.  Some will buy the 289 Fastback anyway, others may not.

Ok…..

[morgan20]

22 hours ago, akirby said:

If you can spend $35k plus $5k in upgrades and get a car that looks like a $60k version, is t that the ultimate value buy?  

 

Yea, yesterday Ford announced Mustang EcoBoost RTR, tuned by Vaugh Gittin Jr's company. Ford didn't mention pricing or specs yet, but if this package is between $5k and $10k, it could be the ultimate value buy for Mustang