Ford Wants to Be 'The Porsche of Off-Road'

[morgan20]

14 hours ago, ehaase said:

Numerous Toyotas and Hondas have a reputation of going 200,000 miles or more with regular maintenance and no major failures.  No Fords, except F series and Panthers, have that reputation. Initial quality awards aren't sufficient. Several service advisors at my local Ford dealer have told me to keep driving my 2010 model because "the new stuff don't (sic) last." The first generation Escape sold well and was reliable, but it also used primarily Mazda components. 

 

Yea, I found this list of SUVs that manage to keep runnin' with 250k+ miles on the odometer. Toyota and Honda dominate, but there is one body on frame Ford on the list

 

[akirby]

40 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, I found this list of SUVs that manage to keep runnin' with 250k+ miles on the odometer. Toyota and Honda dominate, but there is one body on frame Ford on the list

 

OTOH I know multiple edge owners with 200k and at least one with 300k.  Requires diligent maintenance though.

[DeluxeStang]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

It is but the 2.0 shit the bed with the coolant intrusion problem.

Has this issue been rectified with newer versions of the 2.0?

[DeluxeStang]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

OTOH I know multiple edge owners with 200k and at least one with 300k.  Requires diligent maintenance though.

Guarantee those edges are all running the 3.5 duratec. Anything with that engine is a tank in the reliability department. 

[akirby]

39 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Guarantee those edges are all running the 3.5 duratec. Anything with that engine is a tank in the reliability department. 

A tank where a leaky water pump destroys the engine.  But otherwise you’re right.

 

I’ve seen plenty of 2.0 ecoboosts with 200k.  The 2.0L is a lot newer than the 3.5L so it won’t have as many high mileage vehicles yet.  Daughter’s 2014 escape is around 130k.

[akirby]

43 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Has this issue been rectified with newer versions of the 2.0?

Fixed in 2019.

[rmc523]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

Absolutely.  I think it would be less of a commodity product and yield more profit.

 

So just ignore the segment?

[akirby]

2 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

So just ignore the segment?

If it’s not very profitable- yes.  Just like minivans and sedans.  I would also offer a longer wheelbase Bronco Sport with a hybrid option as a partial replacement.

[morgan20]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

I would also offer a longer wheelbase Bronco Sport with a hybrid option as a partial replacement.

 

This is a great idea not only to achieve the head honcho's goal of making Ford the Porsche of off road, but also his goal of getting out of the boring-car business and into the iconic-vehicle business

[DeluxeStang]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

If it’s not very profitable- yes.  Just like minivans and sedans.  I would also offer a longer wheelbase Bronco Sport with a hybrid option as a partial replacement.

Maybe take the AWD hybrid from the '25 maverick and throw it in the bronco. I kinda understood why they never offered the FWD hybrid in the BS with how hard they pushed the AWD being standard. But now that a AWD hybrid exists, there's no excuse. 

Edited January 24 by DeluxeStang

[Trader 10]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

A tank where a leaky water pump destroys the engine.  But otherwise you’re right.

 

I’ve seen plenty of 2.0 ecoboosts with 200k.  The 2.0L is a lot newer than the 3.5L so it won’t have as many high mileage vehicles yet.  Daughter’s 2014 escape is around 130k.

My 2015 Edge with the 2.0 has 208,000 trouble free miles. Regular oil changes and a coolant flush are all I’ve done to it. Absolutely no problems at all with the vehicle. Still running the original plugs hoses and belt and alternator and starter. I’d take the 2.0 over the 3.5 all day 7 days a week. 

[pffan1990]

 

 

4 hours ago, akirby said:

If it’s not very profitable- yes.  Just like minivans and sedans.  I would also offer a longer wheelbase Bronco Sport with a hybrid option as a partial replacement.

 

3 hours ago, morgan20 said:

This is a great idea not only to achieve the head honcho's goal of making Ford the Porsche of off road, but also his goal of getting out of the boring-car business and into the iconic-vehicle business

 

Agree with both of you. Once the Escape sales begin to substantially drop or is no longer profitable, it can be phased out with the introduction of the longer-wheelbase Bronco Sport with standard AWD/4WD. This keeps the Bronco sub-branding an off-road set of vehicles as well as fulfilling Farley's goal. I honestly think Ford should go ahead and at least introduce the longer Bronco Sport now as sales for those would surely take off. Offer a hybrid of it.

I could see the 'Escape' name eventually be used on an upcoming CE1 skunkworks vehicles. I know there's talk of off-road SUV (some say should have some tie-in to the Bronco sub-branding which I agree with) and a pickup versions of the CE1, but I could see an Escape version of CE1 be for aero-styled longer-range vehicle. The CE1 products can be built at BOC alongside the eventual T3 and its derivatives.

Speaking of C2 products (though I do not intend to throw this thread off-topic), I also think the new Lincoln Nautilus needs to be built alongside the current Escape/Corsair at Louisville Assembly Plant. While at it, build a Ford version of it and call it Edge. Not much would need to be done except changes to styling and packaging to the Nautilus. Think of it as Fordifying the new Nautilus to make a new Edge. Also build the new Ford Evos as well but call it Ford Fusion. This keeps LAP going with production of other ICE C2 products, except for Maverick and Bronco Sport, after the eventual end of ICE Escape/Corsair.

Edited January 24 by pffan1990

[Sherminator98]

53 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Maybe take the AWD hybrid from the '25 maverick and throw it in the bronco. I kinda understood why they never offered the FWD hybrid in the BS with how hard they pushed the AWD being standard. But not that a AWD hybrid exists, there's no excuse. 

 

Battery supply issues, maybe with the changes that might be coming, they might use those cells in hybrid packs instead of EVs? 

[DeluxeStang]

1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Battery supply issues, maybe with the changes that might be coming, they might use those cells in hybrid packs instead of EVs? 

This would be the smart play. I'm all in on EVs, but it's clear placing more emphasis on hybrids for at least the next few years is the best strategy. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:

This would be the smart play. I'm all in on EVs, but it's clear placing more emphasis on hybrids for at least the next few years is the best strategy. 

I said this a few years ago that we needed hybrids as a transition to EVs.  Guess I was right.

[DeluxeStang]

32 minutes ago, akirby said:

I said this a few years ago that we needed hybrids as a transition to EVs.  Guess I was right.

With how much large EVs are struggling, it might be a good idea to convert BOC into a hybrid and CE1 plant where the actual consumer demand will be. 

[morgan20]

9 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

I'm all in on EVs, but it's clear placing more emphasis on hybrids for at least the next few years is the best strategy. 

 

Why not emphasize both for the next few years? In the U.S., Ford's EV lineup and its hybrid lineup are the same in 2025 as when I got my F-150 Lightning three years ago. Actually, the hybrid lineup shrunk:

 

EV: F-150 Lightning, Mach-E, E-Transit

Hybrid: F-150 Powerboost, Maverick, Escape, Corsair GT, PI, Explorer (discontinued), Aviator GT (discontinued)

 

Since the head honcho wants Ford to be the Porsche of off road, EV versions of Raptor and Bronco should be highest priority. Next, add Tremor and FX4 to F-150 Lightning. Finally, as akirby and pffan1990 mentioned, introduce a hybrid version of Bronco Sport and offer it in a long wheelbase model.

 

Ford's competitors aren't sittin' still. They are all refreshing and/or expanding their EV lineups fast, some are refreshing and/or expanding their hybrid lineups too

Edited January 24 by morgan20

[DeluxeStang]

Do you guys think Ford would offer a V8 bronco/ranger for the next generation to broaden enthusiasts appeal, or would this cause too many issues with meeting CAFE averages? I'm thinking of something like a ranger/bronco raptor r version, higher pricing, lower volumes. 

[rmc523]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

If it’s not very profitable- yes.  Just like minivans and sedans.  I would also offer a longer wheelbase Bronco Sport with a hybrid option as a partial replacement.

 

I just don't like the idea of endlessly cutting out segments......and they don't always enter new segments to offset that.

 

58 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

Why not emphasize both for the next few years? In the U.S., Ford's EV lineup and its hybrid lineup are the same in 2025 as when I got my F-150 Lightning three years ago. Actually, the hybrid lineup shrunk:

 

EV: F-150 Lightning, Mach-E, E-Transit

Hybrid: F-150 Powerboost, Maverick, Escape, Corsair GT, PI, Explorer (discontinued), Aviator GT (discontinued)

 

Since the head honcho wants Ford to be the Porsche of off road, EV versions of Raptor and Bronco should be highest priority. Next, add Tremor and FX4 to F-150 Lightning. Finally, as akirby and pffan1990 mentioned, introduce a hybrid version of Bronco Sport and offer it in a long wheelbase model.

 

Ford's competitors aren't sittin' still. They are all refreshing and/or expanding their EV lineups fast, some are refreshing and/or expanding their hybrid lineups too

 

Their lineup period.  

 

15 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Do you guys think Ford would offer a V8 bronco/ranger for the next generation to broaden enthusiasts appeal, or would this cause too many issues with meeting CAFE averages? I'm thinking of something like a ranger/bronco raptor r version, higher pricing, lower volumes. 

 

No.  no need to.

 

Plus, I don't think the V8 will fit as-is, so you'd have to redesign the whole thing just to make that fit on a specialty high end powertrain?  And affect the global models too to accommodate that?  doesn't make sense...

Edited January 24 by rmc523

[morgan20]

31 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

Do you guys think Ford would offer a V8 bronco/ranger for the next generation to broaden enthusiasts appeal

 

Nah, there ain't any good business cases for that.

 

If Ford wants to broaden enthusiasts appeal, EV versions of next generation Bronco/Ranger are the way to go

[rmc523]

4 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

Nah, there ain't any good business cases for that.

 

If Ford wants to broaden enthusiasts appeal, EV versions of next generation Bronco/Ranger are the way to go

 

Or at least the hybrid model that has been rumored for years.

[jpd80]

With every Ford plan, the objectives are basically the same

1. Only build desirable vehicles

2. Charge premium prices

3. Massive profits

 

Over the last two decades, Ford has been shedding customers, using the 

argument that it is better to sell fewer vehicles at higher prices. However,  that theory doesn’t apply to F Series because it makes most of the profits……they need to keep selling as many F Series  as they can to help pay for everything. Bronco was a great opportunity to reintroduce a second strong income stream but through a series of events, buyers seem to have had their fill….could be just economy affecting lifestyle vehicles more than others..

 

Edited January 24 by jpd80

[02MustangGT]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

that theory doesn’t apply to F Series because it makes most of the profits

I made that same point in a different thread while debating whether CAFE was the primary factor in lack of ICE Mustang sales (sell more F-series, earn more profit).  The fact is…F-series and to some extent, other body on frame high profit vehicle sales pave the way for Ford to:

 

1.  Continue to pay CAFE fines for low profit/non-compliant vehicles like the Mustang. (Granted, I don’t believe CAFE is much of a factor in sales numbers for the mild refresh turned “gen7” Mustang). 

2.  Continue to fund projects and decisions that have yet to result in any tangible product and/or profit.  (Tomorrow is a new day though so perhaps Ford will soon surprise us with something special).  
 

 

Edited January 25 by 02MustangGT

[akirby]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

With every Ford plan, the objectives are basically the same

1. Only build desirable vehicles

2. Charge premium prices

3. Massive profits

 

Over the last two decades, Ford has been shedding customers, using the 

argument that it is better to sell fewer vehicles at higher prices. However,  that theory doesn’t apply to F Series because it makes most of the profits……they need to keep selling as many F Series  as they can to help pay for everything. Bronco was a great opportunity to reintroduce a second strong income stream but through a series of events, buyers seem to have had their fill….could be just economy affecting lifestyle vehicles more than others..

 

It’s not quite that simple.  What happens is you have new products on the board like Bronco Sport, Maverick, Ranger and Bronco and those have specific resource and investment requirements and potential ROI.  Option A is build a new factory and hire more designers, engineers, testers, marketers, etc. but that kills the ROI.  Option B is you have existing products with very little profit margin in declining markets that can be killed and those resources reassigned saving billions.  Same applies to EVs although new or retooled factories are virtually required.

 

Why do you keep shitting on Bronco?  Both Bronco and Bronco Sport were over 100k last year with greatly increased prices and without big incentives.  If Ford wanted more sales they would lower prices.

[02MustangGT]

Option C : sell more F-series to support poor planning and decisions.  F-series, Bronco brand and Maverick aside, which other Ford models would you consider desirable from a general consumer perspective?  Mustang could be, but IMO, Ford can do better and hopefully we will see the “plan” become a reality sometime in the near future.  And by plan, I’m talking best (or near best) in class vehicles that meet profitability requirements.