Jump to content

jpd80

Member
  • Posts

    31,217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    172

Everything posted by jpd80

  1. The biggest advance in vehicle quality came from better designs in the first place coupled with a standardised build process where each station did a similar or the same operation across Ford’s plants. That improved line training and skills required to do jobs properly. If you give line workers vehicles that are easier to assemble, then of course the quality of the build must go up and everyone is happy, Ford gets a better product they can charge more for and workers get better bonus checks.
  2. Sorry, my fault that you misunderstood my post, because I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the costs with any future incentives is at least partially baked into that MSRP, not that the MSRP label changes…..although Deanh mentioned previously an example of different sets of window stickers turning up for vehicles already at the dealership The poster I was responding to was talking about Manufacturers setting a non-negotiable price…….as far as I know, manufacturers cannot dictate prices. Again, please forgive my imprecise wording And boy, dealers learned a lot about buyers from that, they could jack up prices, knowing that some buyers would pay that with perhaps the intention of flipping it for even more cash. We’ve just seen that in my location with tons of Ranger Raptor orders at inflated prices, when Ford freed up supplies late last year, many cancellations started pouring in, to the point of those buyers walking away from deposits but others picking up the same vehicles at MSRP. Work that one out….
  3. There’s only two production plants in Mexico, Hermosillo (Maverick and Bronco Sport) and Cuautitlan (Mach E) Last year, Ford ramped up production on Mach E only to find buyers didn’t increase so they’ve been fighting this for nearly a year. Similarly, production at Hermosillo was ramped up later in 2023 which has resulted in increased inventory as well but I think dealers can shift Maverick and Bronco Sport more quickly than Mach E. Hopefully, improving weather into spring improves dealership foot traffic and walk in buyers see what they want.
  4. Exactly, it’s only a matter of time before Ford reacts with changes that commence just beyond the end of this contract. Heck, GM transferred a ton on new production to Mexico a few years back and shut like three or four plants, the UAW struck for a while but we’re always going to fold.
  5. Not meaning to argue your point As I understand it, all Ford vehicles come with MSRP set by Ford but includes incentives, be that 0% financing or varying degrees of cash incentive. In good times, neither of those incentives are applied and in fact we’ve just exited a nasty period of dealer mark ups. Normally, there’s no incentives on a new Model Year while the previous MY is being cleared, I know that like duh but sometimes needs repeating, especially when run out stock is actually extremely low or nonexistent, there’s no need for Ford to push any incentives…. Where dealers get stuck with stock that just won’t sell, Ford will eventually offer dealers a final payment, a specific incentive amount that normally guarantees quick sale. So that lower non-negotiable price you mentioned has a whole bunch of caveats attached and is exactly why dealers don’t normally make much on new vehicle sales save for ADMs. It would help at ton if Ford actually did what you advise and set a “fixed lower non-negotiable price” guaranteeing dealers a better margin on sales but unfortunately Ford doesn’t do that…
  6. While F Series remains well below 200,000 (168k?), I think Ford will be OK because those end of year model $8,000 discounts will remain well contained. In fact, any time incentives remain subdued, Ford’s profits should be consistent. Explorer is a concern with +30,000 inventory but that could also be an advantage if sales increase going into spring and summer. Readily available stock has been something that galls dealerships, now they have some stock to push….
  7. And this is why Ford can’t afford to get rid of dealerships, they need someone in between to act as a filter because their tracking and customer responses are well, sub par to be kind…
  8. What is absolutely hilarious is that Ford markets telematics and tracking systems to its commercial customers while it does a terrible job of organising and tracking orders and supply of its own vehicles. Maybe Ford should get its own house in order first before telling others how to run their business?
  9. So where from here. I remember back when Mulally brought manufacturing jobs back to the US and in particular, Michigan. While Ford appeared to do that for the best reasons, it also wanted the UAW to take the burden of pension liabilities. So in some ways, everyone got something from that deal. Fast forward to 2023 and the UAW unrest where many of the rank and file were expecting a catch up deal to make up for the lean years and what Fain delivered was exactly that…..but at a heck of a cost. Now, Ford is actively looking to move future projects away from the US. Everything hit Ford at once, an aggressive UAW contract with higher ongoing costs right when there is a downturn in vehicle sales but worse, Ford’s big hope of that BEV sales ramp up is not happening. So how pissed off are the Ford brass, how far would they go with production changes to risk off the next UAW contract, how many plants would they be looking to pull back production and move to Mexico? There are are loads of questions in there and perhaps looking at what’s planned to happen in this contract will show us where Ford can change things beyond the end of this term?
  10. All bets are off, let the UAW stew on what plants they think will close after this contract ends….
  11. This could be just my impression but a shorter hood on a compact pickup like Maverick would make it look more like it’s progenitor vehicle, the Transit Connect. After all, the reason the hood was lengthened was to make it resemble a Ranger or even an F150. Do buyers now want a stumpy nose? Im asking because I don’t know if styling preferences have changed and I’m stuck in the past with my opinions.
  12. The skunkworks is based in Irvine and headed by Former Tesla executive Alan Clarke. That should give certain people here a hard on at the mention of an ex-Tesla chief heading up the project…. https://fordauthority.com/2024/02/low-cost-ford-ev-skunkworks-project-led-by-former-tesla-exec/ Now if this is a low cost project, the odds are good that they are developing a skateboard BEV lower to be added to existing Ford bodies. Currently, the two projects vehicles are a Utility (Bronco Sport) and a Pickup (Maverick?) that are going into Louisville after Escape and Corsair end.
  13. Since this new Ford Transit Connect is a share with VW Caddy, the 1.5 turbo is called Ecoboost but the engine and DCT come via VW (built in a VW plant) I agree, by the time you spec a LWB compact van with high roof (if possible), it’s probably easier /costs similar to get a SWB Transit Custom with extra width.
  14. Not sure that sharing the ICE top hats would be all that compromised as BEV buyers like the Frunk space in front, the shorter nose definitely reduces space in that area. Also not convinced that Maverick buyers want a super long bed but yes, something longer than present might be welcomed - maybe just lengthen rear wheel overhang a tad?
  15. Apologies, I realised my mistake after posting, Puma & Tourneo Courier are made together (silly me) The widths on both are just over 70” at 71” and 70.5” but I get your point perfectly because my mistake was conflating the new Caddy based Tourneo Connect with the smaller Turner Courier. It never ceases to amaze me how much difference width makes to the feel of a vehicle and today’s compact vehicles don’t feel as small as they once did exactly because of that extra width you mentioned. just on CE1 BEVs, would love to see BEV Bronco Sport but perhaps a shade longe wheelbase to make battery fit better but also more roomier rear seat inside……maybe even a BEV Maverick as well. Done right, those two could sew up a lot of the compact BEV market by offering something different to Tesla - that’s the key I think….
  16. Sounds like CE1 is a replacement for Europes Subcompact B platform used on BEV Puma and the new BEV Tourneo connect. Ford calls them its own work but a little digging reveals a lot of parts shared with VW Caddy…..
  17. Correct, it was an attribute prototype, most likely testing out motors, controllers and batteries, body, trim and HVAC testing would come after that with prototypes. Everyone believed Farley when he said it was nothing more than a compliance vehicle but you know, that was probably the ideal vehicle for Europe at the time and heaven knows how much extra Ford spent turning Mach E into a sports version of a Utility……probably why the damn thing will be red ink for years. The aero is all about meeting battery range targets, something the original vehicles were missing significantly. I have to wonder if Ford has swapped one disadvantage for another, s vehicle looks anything like Tesla X it May suff the same fate as Mach E, consigned to the not good enough list for many buyers.
  18. Correct, service industries are always being told by accountants to do “less” in certain areas. It s kind of an opportunity cost thing where they say stop wasting your time on this and concentrate on that instead. So I can see exactly the same thing playing out on car options.
  19. And that’s where there’s a bit of difference between Mach E and Tesla Y not much I’ll grant you but the Mach E feels bigger than Escape and more like the Edge, hip and shoulder room are close/same. Correction, the Y is also smaller than I thought, hip and shoulder room is compact size too well ther ya go…..these modern compacts feel bigger to me than they actually are.
  20. Exactly, Actual usage may show a different result and leads to greater accuracy without any emotional bias.
  21. The issue with the Edison team is not bureaucracy but what is it they are actually designing. The problem is that Ford keeps shuttling between developing BEVs to replace ICE vehicles and wanting to be Tesla…the coming OAC vehicle is example of that and leads to your next point…. I think that the real issue is that Ford doesn’t really know who it’s BEV buyers are and what they actually want. So they build two vehicles, Mach E and Lightning, early adopters go wild and reservations skyrocket… Through a series of unfortunate delays, any chance of sales momentum is lost and enthusiasm evaporates. Let me be clear here, Mach E is on the original GE architecture and is basically midsized, Edge sized but longer wheelbase. GE2 is a heavy evolution of GE with a lot of new and different motors, controllers and batteries but importantly wider to make larger BEVs. Conversely, CE1 is to cover compact vehicles like Escape/Bronco Sport sized vehicles that are narrower than Mach E. (None of them are subcompacts) Remember that developments are also being tailored around incentive requirements including size, price and whether a particular price/size also requires two row or three row. So that’s why some decisions look a bit odd until we dig deeper
  22. Correct, Hackett inherited a mess from Mark Fields and the VW deal answered a lot of instant problems like having a ready to go architecture, supply chain and most importantly, battery supply. It answered all of Ford’s problems by providing affordable BEVs with 90% of the work done. Problem was that Ford then realised how much money VW stood to make supplying everything.
  23. Thinking about what you said above, Its possible that that the broader strategy looks at various trim levels and bundled options to determine what is really needed - obligation of the various bundled features adds a lot of complication, maybe that can be rolled into trim versions to lock in defined supplier amounts and further streamline the process? Sure beats the heck out of customer surveys, lots of data that’s factual, not subjective /customer feelings.
  24. While I agree with sum of what you’re saying, we need to separate Musk the manager from Musk who gets on late at night texting or who gets hurt because people criticise him. To the first point, Ford would kill to have someone who could make decisions and bet the farm on calculated guesses. That's what really speeds up decision making and keeps costs down by limiting the amount of cooks wanting to add their five cents worth….a big issue with a corporate like Ford where normal decisions get bogged down for weeks and months because the Ford bible says you can’t do that. To the second point, Musk’s character flaws are well known but the biggest one is his ego, surrounded by people who always agree and tell you that you’re right never ends well. Equally, working at Ford and having every decision questioned and micromanaged is also a soul killer, so many talented people just give up and do what the boss wants so as not to be yelled at for having ideas. On topic regarding an affordable compact BEV, Ford keeps circling the airport on this one and unless I miss my guess, different people within Ford want different things. Ford Europe clearly has a desire to evolve its C2 platform into affordable BEVs (E-Max). Ford brass and North America would have none of it and signed up VW MEB architecture deal, Hackett called it job done but then after he took his golden parachute Ford realised that it was paying a big price for something it should be able to engineer internally. Now we’re back to a skunkworks doing an add on development of GE2 but for smaller vehicles….Ford groundhogs day.
×
×
  • Create New...