Assimilator

The F-150 BEV battery is unfortunately smaller than I was expecting, it's only 50% bigger than the Mach E battery which would make it about half the size of the Tesla Cybertruck's max configuration. It's a really long narrow battery, the truck frame doesn't leave sufficient room for a huge battery pack. I'm curious to see what kind of range they get, but I don't see how they are going to get more than 300 miles. It's a simple low-tech and inexpensive conversion because there is unused space between the frames, but any sled-based design will murder them on performance. If people are looking for Ford to answer Cybertruck with similar EV specs, this could potentially magnify the gap more than anything. I'm a little concerned right now that Ford wasn't ambitious enough. I don't know what motors the F-150 is using, but I know the Transit BEV is using the Mach E motors so I'm assuming the same or similar.

It's possible they are going to EOL Focus and Fiesta, I know they are loss leaders in most markets. It's also possible VW will take over development for those small cars, they have great potential synergy there anyway. I don't see anything in the pipeline for those segments right now, but they could go 8 years before anything happens. It's just a guess, I assume Ford is just sitting on them until they figure it out.

Ford is a relatively small global carmaker now, it's 6th in the world and soon to become the 3rd ranked automaker in Detroit. It has only so many resources at this point to turn around the business and it has to make them count. Ford is only going to get smaller before it gets bigger, but it's good to be the growth company if you can do so profitably. The fact Ford can weather this turnaround without sacrificing plants and workers tells me they are the right size which is a great place to be in for growth. I definitely trust a company less focused on growth and more focused on strength. If they can achieve the same product shift of the larger companies with the resources of a smaller company, I think that's impressive. Nothing strikes me as dysfunctional about Ford, they are proving to be highly adaptable and responsive now.

The Explorer is growing on me in the same way the Cybertruck is growing on me, I think I'm just getting use to it but it's not something I look at and admire like the 2016 Explorer refresh (to this day). My reaction whenever I see an Explorer coming at me is disgust, LOL. I could go on and on on why I hate the front-end, but I love the rest (except the back-end and interior). The Explorer interior is just as frustrating to look at as the front, I don't know what they were thinking. The binnacle is filled with a huge glob of black plastic with noticeable seams right in full view, and then there is the floating display which looks either too small or too ridiculous. It's all constantly disappointing and I'm just glad Lincoln exists. The Mach E gives me hope however.

Aviator is quite a phenomenon for Lincoln, I'm sure they are bringing in lots of conquest sales like Navigator. I just hope it sustains over time. Ford's utility sales have been lagging the industry and they've been the only company showing sales declines, so they have a long way to go before they have a sufficiently diverse and competitive utility range. That starts with just updating the basics with Escape and Explorer, and next year they can start adding stuff. The most volume is always in the cheaper cars and that's where Ford seems to have the lowest priority, probably because it just doesn't make that much money when they really need their investments and factories doing something that returns more than just volume. So to fill the gap, they just phoned in the EcoSport from India and called it a day with really no commitment to that product longterm. We will get more affordable utilities over the next 2-3 years. Eventhough Ford is barely in the Top 5 of utility sellers in the US, they still have some of the most desirable volume because they are strong in Midsize (Explorer, Aviator, Edge, Nautilus) and Full-Size. It wasn't until this year that GM overtook Ford on Midsize. I'm sure Bronco will help soon. Otherwise GM dwarfs Ford in every utility segment. As for Explorer and Escape styling, I'm conflicted. I can't get behind the front design on Explorer, I think the last car stood out more and I don't see this car becoming the phenomenon that the last car was, it just doesn't look like an upscale utility. I love the proportions, but it also looks more like a wagon and doesn't have that utility presence that I think people expect and desire out of an Explorer. I appreciate what they did technically, but I think the designers let it down. I really think a facelift would do wonders. Same with Escape, better proportions but completely inert and unnecessarily car-like styling. It's a great appliance, but it has as much personality as one. I don't see these products adding much growth for Ford when the competition is just so outstanding and diverse now.

It's way too early to complain about Escape sales right now with such a fresh launch. Explorer didn't really change from the previous month so that might be worth a thought or two, but I would also say it's a little early since they are always figuring out the product mix for the dealers within the first year. And of course incentives and favorable lease rates come in to play later. Expedition, that almost seems like a mistake, that's pretty insane! Fusion numbers are also shocking, they dropped so much. But if you look at the year, YTD sales aren't down that much. It's obviously not a great year overall, but they were able to recover a big chunk of the lost car sales with other vehicles despite those other vehicles (Explorer and Escape) going through a disruptive changeover. I don't think they'll be in a growth pattern until end of 2020 or 2021, assuming the economy holds. We still have to go a whole year with virtually no cars, this year we still had lots of cars to sell. We won't have new volume products next year until late so it's hard to see where they'll get growth beyond returning Escape and Explorer to their normal levels. Ranger still has room, hopefully they'll add another 20-40K Ranger sales next year which should help close the car gap a little more.

Looks awesome with that white!

Allot of the de-contenting is in areas like this, where you don't notice it. To me it's the worst part of the process, it makes the cars lower-quality with no reduction in cost to the consumer.

Well that explains why I suddenly notice more Rangers! Have these charts been posted here or somewhere?

Another de-contenting story. I bought a 2019 Nautilus to replace my 2018 MKX and noticed they had removed the plastic cover over the spare tire under the cargo floor (I bought the cargo package for both cars which has the organizer around the spare tire instead of a foam block). I complained about it suspecting it was missing, but I guess I was the only one who complained because they found out it had been eliminated. Hopefully they weren't lying to me, but they showed me none of their Nautiluses had them.

You can keep features while cutting costs through lean design, Tesla is particularly good at this. They've significantly reduced part count costs through software and a single user interface. You just have to be onboard with touching the screen instead of using buttons. Tesla doesn't even use a rain sensors, it uses the camera and AI. The 2019 Escape is a pretty good example of emergency cost cutting that did not benefit the customer's Botton line. They redesigned the LED taillights to a single halogen bulb, eliminated the steering wheel paddles and CD player, and cut some of the standard equipment on Titanium, and actually made the car more expensive by reducing incentives and leasing residuals. That's mainly what drove sales down for Escape, although Hackett explained it as customer prep for a more expensive 2020 Escape. That's partly true, but I'm sure it had more to do with diminished margins in that segment. Until Mach E, I was complaining about Ford's lack of new amenities in their all-new products, I'm hoping we get back to a Ford that is less about removing stuff and more about adding stuff (like the Mullally years). I've been watching some reviews of the latest Hyundai Sonata and it's weird and annoying that I'm envious of their clever toys.

Sorry, I'm a package deal.

The Ranger is less European and more Asia Pacific where it was born in their design studios. Each region has a unique design philosophy to fit their markets. Dearborn got a crack at the Ranger for the US modification, but obviously with a limited budget. The steel bumpers definitely give it that US Ford Pickup look which made a big difference when you compare them. But compared to an F-150, it certainly looks a little soft.

I think Ranger has settled around the 8,500/month range right now, but it's been growing slowly all year. I think that's how many they planned to sell with only 1-shift running at the plant. I think they could get up to 120,000 units annually if they pushed it. That's getting pretty close to the GM Twins which are around 13K/month collectively, and they've lost ground this year if memory serves. This isn't a huge market overall which is why it only came here with the backing of Bronco as justification. Toyota Tacoma took decades of uninterrupted evolution to turn into the phenomenon it's become today, it's hard to judge a market's demand based on that vehicle. Ranger sightings are still quite rare for me, although I've noticed more in the past month than I have all year.

I'm no fan of Ranger, especially for it's pricing, but I'm glad we have it. I actually think it's pretty attractive up front, not so much elsewhere. The interior is actually nice looking, but the switchgear was obviously randomly assembled from the parts bin with very little thought put into it.

People who can't have the new thing tend to trash the new thing to make themselves feel better about having the old thing.

Moral of the story, "Architecture" is a nebulous term that doesn't really mean what people think it does...and that's the point really since it sounds more progressive that it needs to be. They are primarily consolidating on fewer new platforms and sharing systems more efficiently. Weirdly, shared platform products where not that good at sharing parts, I really had no idea they were using so may different part designs on the same platforms. C2 is really doing most of the heavy lifting at Ford, it's scaling to more segment classes than we've seen before, but it's also fairly industry standard at this point. Ford as a whole is skeptical of flexible platforms.

Mustang is staying on its own platform, but shares some parts commonality with CD6 now and in the next-gen design (heck, CD6 shares parts with CD4). CD6 is an Explorer/Aviator only platform however, although it started life with more vehicles promised to it (Continental and Mustang). Either way, the parts sharing is how they can keep it all under the same "Architecture" even if the platforms aren't related. So it doesn't matter, you're getting the right modernized platform for each car with better design efficiency.

Edge and Nautilus are moving to the new C2 FWD platform, not CD6. I'm curious to see how they scale this platform up so much, but I suspect we will see a reworked version of C2 for the larger cars since they usually need new suspensions and hard points for heavier, wider, longer designs. Europe is suppose to get replacements for their CD4 Galaxy and S-Max based on C2, but I'm not sure what those are.

That's the one! Also interesting is this graphic which hints at the models to be based on the C2 architecture. Focus Escape Corsair Transit Connect I THINK I can account for most of the vehicles still to come. Edge Nautilus CD542 (Mondeo replacement) Compact Pickup Compact Utility Bronco Scout Chinese Lincoln Compact Crossover I'm not sure which of these vehicles counts as "White Space", maybe the pickup? But that sedan profile is super interesting here. That could be CD542 or something else, I don't know. It would not be surprised if it's a Chinese vehicle. https://twitter.com/MikeMartinez_AN/status/1202214435378679808

Ford is working on a Mondeo successor, CD5??? I think, I'm forgetting the exact code. It's described as a crossover but Ford has given it a Car code which is interesting. Regrettably, it's not on the US charts so I don't have much confidence in it coming to the US right now as the Fusion replacement. I'm wondering if this is another Puma, an EU specific product. It's also getting a PHEV btw. It is built on a version of their new FWD architecture, there are prototypes running around built off of the new Focus. So despite regulations, the US isn't the only market that is getting the crossover alternative to the sedan. I do feel that without something more stylish and traditional in the entry-level space, Ford is leaving a conspicuous hole. They certainly could shrink that market down to 100,000 vehicles annual and still be in good shape. So I am hoping we get that unknown Mondeo crossover replacement, but I think Escape/Kuga is likely their last truly global volume product. Ford appears to have moved back to regional development for most products with low volume exports here and there. I know Ford of China is largely its own entity now which is a big part of solving their adaptability problem. I think we are just going to have to get use to Ford going back to a much more regionalized product showroom with diminished opportunity to share the final products. I think this is a smart approach because Ford's weakest products are those that have to please the most markets.

The Explorer and Aviator's problems are multi-faceted, but re-engineering the entire plant mid-stream certainly contributes to the disastrous on-the-fly problem solving they were doing while trying to minimize disruption to the Explorer's inventory. It was really the perfect storm and I kinda saw it coming a mile away, but I was hoping Ford had cracked it. Ford is so damn predictable once you know them. It also doesn't help that Explorer and Aviator were launching simultaneously with countless new systems and technologies that basically created a ton of fires to put out when they least needed the complications. It was overly ambitious and aggressive for a company that has long struggled to iron out their launch process. But as always, Ford solves the problems eventually even if they seem to forget their history (or disregard it). But if you want to be first in-line, you're just asking for trouble. On the other hand, Escape and Corsair are shockingly trouble free so far. Admittedly this is a MUCH less complicated new car launch than all the factory-gutting launches they have been doing recently. But like Explorer, this is the only Escape plant so there isn't much room to slowly stage a launch. The fact that this launch seems so trouble free is just awesome. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the problems show up eventually in the product through recalls, but so far I'm not hearing about huge batches of faulty cars ending up in Ford's corporate fleet or stacking up to be fixed. This could be the first smooth Escape launch. The moral of the story, manufacturing engineering is super hard.

The only counter arguments I keep seeing here to explain the popularity of SUVs and Crossovers comes down to government and corporate conspiracies forcing consumers into vehicles they don't actually want. Consumers and competition have no real influence on the market and the facts are actually lies. It's at this point where the conversation is pointless.

It costs Billions to develop an all-new car and it has to earn that money back and then some over an extended period of time. With an outlook guaranteeing declining sales and commanding lower prices, I would be more alarmed if Ford DID spend money on new sedans, it's a guaranteed money loser on a belief that the market could come back with zero evidence that it will or could. Opening up new plants also costs hundreds of millions and Ford needs those plants to make vehicles that earn money. So not only do they need the capital to go into growth avenues, but they also need those plants to make profitable volume. I'm sure Ford is also facing a Conundrum with Fusion, it's too expensive to make because it was designed with higher margin customers in mind who are simply buying utilities now. But it also costs a tremendous amount of money to develop a new cheaper Fusion and then dedicate valuable floorspace for it. So sure, Ford could make higher margins if they can make Fusions cheaper, but they also have to spend a fortune to make that Fusion...and they will still be filling their factories with a negative growth margin killer. And the Escape IS cheaper to make! It's built on a high volume global c-semgnet architecture with lower cost components. Think of it this way, the Fusion and Edge are companion products with similar costs, yet the Escape and Fusion cost the same and the Edge costs way more. That can't be fixed by Mexico, although Ford tried.

I've been waiting to hear more about this version. On paper this product sounds exciting, but it also never made sense since the entire premise of the vehicle is really about charging the boost mode. It's not more fuel efficient and it's not particuarly fun to drive this giant vehicle on the weak hybrid motor alone to get a few miles of EV-only range. I'm not entirely shocked they don't like this vehicle, but I have a feeling it was meant to be driven more relaxed than the power numbers indicate. I don't really think this product makes any sense, if I'm going to bother plugging my car in, it really needs to be worthwhile and that's not the case here. A PHEV Escape or Corsair....sure. They aren't fun, but it's starting to look like Ford has some work to do on making Hybrids fun and that's turning out to be the big disappointment for me so far.