Fields: Ford to Launch New Vehicles in '07

[RichardJensen]

I wonder if Fields ordered a more dramatic 'makeover' for the D3 sedans...... We've seen the front fascia of the new Montego, but that's the only part of a new skin that needs to be tested in public (cooling, y'know). If Ford retains the mount points, new CAD stuff they've implemented should allow them to totally change the stamping with minimal field testing required. We already knew the interior was up for changes, so with new skin as well as new 3.5L engines all around, I think they're qualified to say that the Five Hundred and Montego are roughly as new as the Camry and Avalon (of which the Camry managed to grow in length and weight while still losing trunk and rear seat room. Cool). Of course posters to this board will bellyache that the platform's not significantly upgraded, but then there's always room for people that don't sign off on projects to gripe.

 

And before you gripers start to complain, see if any of this sounds familiar:

 

If any of your objections are listed below, simply name the product and post the number preceding the objection. If you have multiple objections, a comma delimited list will suffice. I'm not being patronizing, I'm just trying to save you from the agonizing pain of RMI.

 

1) Just fascia changes: "not enough"

2) Substantial sheetmetal changes: "not enough"

3) New interior, new frame: "not visible to the consumer"

4) More powerful engine: "not as powerful as xxxx"

5) Near top/Top of the class engine: "should've been out sooner"

6) Best in class capabilities: "too heavy" or "too late"

7) All new: "should've been out sooner"

8) Best in class equipment: "not available on enough models"

9) Best in class equipment available on all models: "not standard on all models"

10) Best in class equipment standard on all models: "should've been out sooner"

11) Car sales up, truck market share up: "SUV sales are down, the Explorer upgrade wasn't enough"

12) Ford management sucks

13) Ford is doomed

14) I hate everything

 

BTW, nice 'topper' Pioneer.

Edited July 19, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Noah Harbinger]

And before you gripers start to complain, see if any of this sounds familiar:

 

No doubt you'd stick ABS on the Fusion as #9 -- but ABS is hardly 'best in class equipment' when it's standard on practically every other midsized sedan. It's insanity, I tell you, insanity!

 

Pioneer, I think you meant :banmolest: re: Ride and Handling...

[bystander]

Try though I might, I can't see why "new vehicles" are so important to the analysts...the segment leaders in most cases aren't the brand-new entries. Sure, an all-new offering makes for a few months of fun commercials and reviews-but most of the same comes from a major freshening.

 

Problem is, if the "major freshening" is done on a car or truck that is already 6-7 years old (like the Escape), it probably won't be enough. After that much time in the marketplace, the new car needs to at least look all new (even if it isn't all new--no tired, recycled greenhouse sheetmetal). It helps to have a subtly revised stance or proportions. The new Camry may re-use a substantial amount of the old version's chassis, but it looks significantly different from the 2006 model inside and out and doesn't appear to re-use any sheetmetal.

 

Ford has ridden the 'major freshening' just about to death and it clearly hasn't worked. If not truly "all-new" from the ground up, from this point forward "major freshenings" should consist of no less than all-new interiors, all-new sheetmetal, and new wheels.

[bystander]

Probably because they're not trying to win new customers in a shrinking segment. They're trying to keep current customers happy. Why upgrade if you don't get better ride & handling.

 

Just say that Ford's working on personality instead of appearance. Most marriage counselors would recommend the same, and frankly most Explorer buyers are married to the brand.

 

With all due respect, that's a dumb strategy. It didn't work with the Jag XJ, it hasn't worked with the Explorer, and by all indications it won't work with the freshened Expedition/Nav. If you're trading in your Explorer, are you going to give serious consideration to the new version that looks nearly identical to the old one? Heck no. You're either going to buy something other than an Explorer (for a change, if nothing else), or you're going to hang on to your old Explorer and not buy new at all. After all, why incur the heavy depreciation of a new vehicle all over again for something that, quite honestly, isn't terribly more exciting than your old one and gets roughly the same crappy mileage? Even if you like the functionality of the Explorer and have a positive opinion of the nameplate, who wouldn't be tempted to try something different in the SUV segment just to avoid boredom. Ford has made that decision easy for a lot of its customers by "freshening" on the cheap.

 

Toyota understands this. When they do a "new" Camry, you can't easily pick out a single piece of carryover sheetmetal and the interior is always a clean sheet redesign. Think of how big a joke the Camry would be if, four years after its most recent styling change, they merely slapped a new front fascia and tail light treatment on, made some mechanical upgrades that nobody can see, and put in a new interior. That is the way Ford has operated on a lot of products for a long time and it flat out doesn't work any longer.

Edited July 20, 2006 by bystander

[RichardJensen]

Think of how big a joke the Camry would be if, four years after its most recent styling change, they merely slapped a new front fascia and tail light treatment on, made some mechanical upgrades that nobody can see, and put in a new interior.

You mean like what Honda does with the Accord? The most popular retail sedan on the market?

 

Oh, and the XJ is not an entry into a shrinking segment.

 

I also challenge you as I did Borg: you don't approve of Ford's strategy with the Explorer. You tell me what you think would've been different. And put numbers to your speculation. What would the difference be after one year, and after two years. Do you think that Ford could actually grab marketshare in a segment with owner loyalty rates almost as high as pickups that is also shrinking?

 

Also, this will be the first month for which ST numbers will be a comparable mix vs. the year earlier.

[630land]

"The camry went a lot further with its redesign than ford went with the explorer and the expedition and the upcoming escape,"

 

Umm I didn't know Camry was an SUV? Trucks and cars are completely different timelines and no one should expect a "whole new look" in a truck every 4 years at all. Look at the Import trucks and see they don't go "all new" each so called "generation".

 

Look at how "new" the current Xterra is, and the 2007 CRV mainly is hiding the spare tire, something the Escape always did.

 

Small SUV's are NOT a 'dying segment' at all, btw.

 

Explorer sales are down not on "old looks", but GAS PRICES! DUh!!!!!! The mythical trade in is not to anohter big SUV cuz it loks different, but to a smaller less hoggy vehicle!

 

Car enthusiasts can be too emotional, and care too much about looks, specs, and really do not know enough about the real world car biz.

Edited July 20, 2006 by 630land

[RichardJensen]

If you're trading in your Explorer, are you going to give serious consideration to the new version that looks nearly identical to the old one? Heck no. You're either going to buy something other than an Explorer (for a change, if nothing else), or you're going to hang on to your old Explorer and not buy new at all.

Okay. New Explorer out in 2002. Average length of new-car ownership: >5 years. That means that <<on average>> those 2003 Explorers that were PURCHASED won't be replaced until early 2008. I mean your typical Explorer owner who bought new has the '98-02 model.

 

What about leases? Few leases extend past 36 months. Given that the typical vehicle refresh is about every 4 years, indeed major changes rarely occur less than every five years, you are going to have between 50-60% of your lessees terminating their lease before any updates occur at all. Should we, therefore, suggest that all auto makers are uniformly stupid for forcing a sizable percentage of their lessees to walk right back into the same vehicle they had before.

 

Furthermore, you've overlooked the sales experience. You are trading off the '03 Explorer, you've gone back to your friendly neighborhood Ford dealer. Your sales rep come up and says, "Hi Mr. Bystander. It's good to see you back. Lookin' for something new, eh?" You reply, "Yeah. I don't know about this new Explorer. It's basically the same as the old Explorer, except uglier", he says, "Looks that way, doesn't it? Tell you what. I've got a beautiful green Eddie Bauer out back--it may look the same, but you have GOT to take this for a test drive. Come on, I don't have any other appointments this afternoon, and I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised."

 

After a test drive in a vehicle that is, from the inside, head and shoulders above your 2003, your resistance has been substantially weakened.

 

Explorer sales are down for two reasons: 1) the segment is totally uncool now, 2) SportTrac numbers are only just now up to speed. Local Ford dealer finally, as of mid-July, has a balanced number of STs to Explorers.

 

I also reiterate my request that you furnish an alternate scenario that would justify the added expense of altering all the Explorer's sheetmetal and hardpoints.

Edited July 20, 2006 by RichardJensen

[bystander]

You mean like what Honda does with the Accord? The most popular retail sedan on the market?

 

Oh, and the XJ is not an entry into a shrinking segment.

 

I also challenge you as I did Borg: you don't approve of Ford's strategy with the Explorer. You tell me what you think would've been different. And put numbers to your speculation. What would the difference be after one year, and after two years. Do you think that Ford could actually grab marketshare in a segment with owner loyalty rates almost as high as pickups that is also shrinking?

 

Also, this will be the first month for which ST numbers will be a comparable mix vs. the year earlier.

 

First of all, the Accord is not the best selling car in the U.S., the Camry is by a large margin (433,703 for the Camry vs 369,293 for the Accord for 2005). And that was the next to last model year of the outgoing Camry--we'll see how sales of the mildly freshened Accord stands up to the substantially new 2007 Camry and Fusion. Honda's recent nose and tail job on the Accord is a significant departure from their hitherto practice of an all-new appearing car every 4 years or so. We'll see if it works. I think it's telling that while Toyota is preparing to boost Camry production to roughly a half million cars per year, you don't hear of such bold plans regarding the Accord. In summary, I think your first point regarding the Accord is not a good point at all.

 

The XJ analogy is perfectly relevant: when your "new" car/truck looks too much like the old, customers will not get excited about it as they would a car/truck that actually looks new. It is foolish to invest millions/billions on parts the customer can't see and then expect your products to go toe to toe with new competition that actually looks new.

 

True, the compact SUV segment is shrinking, but the size of the segment has to do with sales, and nothing to do with marketshare. The Explorer used to be the undisputed king of the compact SUV market (even without the contribution of the Sport Trac). Now it is second to the Trailblazer. In fact, June 2006 sales (which include Sport Trac) the 'freshened' 2006MY Explorer still trails the Trailblazer. In fact, even after the Sport Trac launch, Explorer sales have fallen more 2006 over 2005 than the Trailblazer, which is now in its 4th or 5th year of the current model's life cycle (witness June 2006 sales vs Jun 05). The defenders of the 2006 Explorer 'freshening' like to point to the compact SUV segment shrinking as the cause for its rapidly falling sales, but Explorer sales are falling at a faster rate than its major segment competitor. That argument doesn't pass the sniff test. With a more effective redesign, there is no reason to believe that the Explorer wouldn't have gained share even in a falling segment. The argument about high owner loyalty being an impediment to market share gain rings hollow: it didn't prevent the Trailblazer from overtaking Explorer in the segment, did it?

Edited July 20, 2006 by bystander

[silvrsvt]

First of all, the Accord is not the best selling car in the U.S., the Camry is by a large margin (433,703 for the Camry vs 369,293 for the Accord for 2005). And that was the next to last model year of the outgoing Camry--we'll see how sales of the mildly freshened Accord stands up to the substantially new 2007 Camry and Fusion. Honda's recent nose and tail job on the Accord is a significant departure from their hitherto practice of an all-new appearing car every 4 years or so. We'll see if it works. I think it's telling that while Toyota is preparing to boost Camry production to roughly a half million cars per year, you don't hear of such bold plans regarding the Accord. In summary, I think your first point regarding the Accord is not a good point at all.

 

 

You missed Richards point....the Camry is the best selling car by units, but not the best selling car to retail markets

[mrjones944]

In an interview with the Associated Press Monday from his office in the company's product design center, Fields said more new vehicles are on the way starting next year.

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE

 

God how I hope a new Ranger is on the way. And when I say new I do not mean different mirrors and a centered rear badge.

[RichardJensen]

With a more effective redesign, there is no reason to believe that the Explorer wouldn't have gained share even in a falling segment. The argument about high owner loyalty being an impediment to market share gain rings hollow: it didn't prevent the Trailblazer from overtaking Explorer in the segment, did it?

Uhh. The Trailblazer looks just like it did last year and the year before.

 

How is it that you can allege that Ford has lost sales because the Explorer doesn't look new enough, while simultaneously arguing that the Trailblazer has an edge because it looks the same as it has for the last four years? Ditto the 4Runner which has also seen a sales increase this year.

 

----

 

Oh, BTW, a little over 15% of all Camry sales are to fleet buyers. About 2% of Accord sales are. That means that with the extra cash incentives on the Camry last year, it outsold the Accord to retail buyers to the tune of... maybe 5,000 units. The Accord outsold the Camry to retail buyers in 2004.

Edited July 20, 2006 by RichardJensen

[bystander]

I also reiterate my request that you furnish an alternate scenario that would justify the added expense of altering all the Explorer's sheetmetal and hardpoints.

 

I'll cut to the chase and just respond to the above. Rather than putting together some made-up scenario that we can just argue about endlessly (because it surely won't match up with your made-up scenario), I'll point to recent history to make my case. The justifications for altering the Explorer's sheetmetal and hardpoints are as follows: diminishing sales of the Panther, diminishing sales of the Ranger, diminishing sales of the Freestar/Monterrey, etc, etc, etc. All of the aforementioned platforms have been mechanically updated and not significantly visually updated for many years. The results of such an approach are clear: it has not worked. It is not working for the '06 Explorer. It will not work with the '07 Expedition. The customer was not born yesterday.

[RichardJensen]

Then, please, allow me to again ask you how the Chevy Trailblazer, which has not been siginicantly redesigned lo these past five years, managed to catch up and pass the Explorer?

 

Might it have something to do with GM's history of gigantic incentives on the vehicle?

Edited July 20, 2006 by RichardJensen

[swenson88]

Uhh. The Trailblazer looks just like it did last year and the year before.

 

How is it that you can allege that Ford has lost sales because the Explorer doesn't look new enough, while simultaneously arguing that the Trailblazer has an edge because it looks the same as it has for the last four years? Ditto the 4Runner which has also seen a sales increase this year.

 

----

 

Oh, BTW, a little over 15% of all Camry sales are to fleet buyers. About 2% of Accord sales are. That means that with the extra cash incentives on the Camry last year, it outsold the Accord to retail buyers to the tune of... maybe 5,000 units. The Accord outsold the Camry to retail buyers in 2004.

 

 

Does this just imply that people are simply moving away from the Explorer then? Into other midsize SUV's, and not that the segment itself is collapsing at the rate that Explorer sales are? That sounds even worse.

 

As for the Accord, I find it hard to criticize the tail-job it received for 2006 when it was a brand new redesignn in 2003, most likely due for a redesign again in 2008. The problem with Ford's refreshenings is they come at a time when many other manufacturers would be doing full redesigns. Take the Explorer - it seems like it would have made more sense to save the money spent on a refreshening 4 model years in and give it a full redesign 5-6 model years in. Instead, we're now stuck with an Explorer that will look essentially the same probably for 8-9 years or so, which is too long. I can't really think of any good reason why an SUV shouldn't receive frequent updates similar to a passenger car. Pickup trucks I understand - with the number of wheelbases, trim levels, cab options, etc it must take awhile to recoup the investment on a redesign. But in my eyes an SUV is just a tall car that sells at even higher profits, so redesign the damn thing like your cars, not your trucks.

[bystander]

Uhh. The Trailblazer looks just like it did last year and the year before.

 

How is it that you can allege that Ford has lost sales because the Explorer doesn't look new enough, while simultaneously arguing that the Trailblazer has an edge because it looks the same as it has for the last four years? Ditto the 4Runner which has also seen a sales increase this year.

 

----

 

Oh, BTW, a little over 15% of all Camry sales are to fleet buyers. About 2% of Accord sales are. That means that with the extra cash incentives on the Camry last year, it outsold the Accord to retail buyers to the tune of... maybe 5,000 units. The Accord outsold the Camry to retail buyers in 2004.

 

 

Uhh. It's very simple. The Explorer redesign was ineffective because it hasn't stemmed the tide of market share losses to a four-year old competitor. Your argument seems to be that segment shrinkage is to blame. I'm pointing out that within the falling segment, the Explorer is losing ground to a competitor that is actually much older. To my simple mind, if the 'freshened' Explorer still loses sales to the old Trailblazer, the 'freshening' wasn't at all effective.

 

Like I said, the Camry outsells the Accord no matter how you slice it (retail, fleet, overall). We'll see how effective the 2006 Accord nosejob is relative to the 2007 Camry--the jury is still out.

 

 

 

The problem with Ford's refreshenings is they come at a time when many other manufacturers would be doing full redesigns.

 

 

Bingo! Problem statement in a nutshell.

[RichardJensen]

Does this just imply that people are simply moving away from the Explorer then?

In part, we forget how crappy the old Blazer and Jimmy were. The new Trailblazer and Envoy, being far far more competitive entries were going to take Ford market share. However, GM also accelerated this process by slapping gigantic incentives on these models. Toyota's new 4Runner was also a huge leap forward.

 

Now, are people abandoning the Explorer for other vehicles? Yes. However, it seems that one of the most popular vehicles that they are trading their Explorer for is a Freestyle. The Freestyle's sales over 2005 roughly offset declines in Explorer volume, excl. the Sport Trac.

 

For the year, Explorer sales are down about 30k units. Lost ST volume, I'm going to guess, accounts for most of that.

 

---------------------

In response to Bystander's post

 

Interesting line of reasoning: Ford is not updating its sheetmetal often enough, in comparison with other manufacturers (presumably including Toyota and GM) who do not have to update their sheetmetal as often because their products are better.

 

 

Thanks. I'll be sure and keep that in mind.

 

You do, of course, realize that Ford lost substantial pickup truck market share (as did GM) with the launch of the '94 Ram pickup. Not once, since that time, have they gotten back to pre-Ram levels. Does that mean that all subsequent F150 redesigns have been failures? I mean, if we're going to go by the market share argument, surely the present F150 is not a success compared to the '87 F150 which had higher market share.

Edited July 20, 2006 by RichardJensen

[bystander]

---------------------

In response to Bystander's post

 

You do, of course, realize that Ford lost substantial pickup truck market share (as did GM) with the launch of the '94 Ram pickup. Not once, since that time, have they gotten back to pre-Ram levels. Does that mean that all subsequent F150 redesigns have been failures? I mean, if we're going to go by the market share argument, surely the present F150 is not a success compared to the '87 F150 which had higher market share.

 

Yes, but the Ram didn't overtake the F150 in marketshare because the F150 design has been aggressively updated since 1996. The Explorer lost its commanding market leadership position to the Trailblazer due to inept product planning and a bungled 'freshening'. The 2006 Explorer should have been a shot in the arm if not in overall sales, at least for market share. The June 2006 sales figures show it is still trailing the Trailblazer, in spite of its 'redesign' (Gee, maybe it hasn't reclaimed the lead over the four year old Trailblazer because it looks almost identical to the five year old 2002 design). By all indications, Ford's once shining star is on track to go out with a whimper right behind the Crown Vic, Ranger, Freestar, Taurus, Town Car, Taurus, LS, Thunderbird...

[RichardJensen]

The Explorer lost its commanding market leadership position to the Trailblazer due to inept product planning and a bungled 'freshening'.

But the Explorer was ALL NEW for MY 2003, and lost its 'market leadership' position in the years subsequent... How does that support your argument that Ford's failure to significantly update the Explorer cost it its market leadership?

Edited July 21, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Kool_ZX3]

Explorer 95,642 YTD

Trailblazer 92,012 YTD

[BORG]

It sort of boggles the mind that GM is pulling the plug on the Trailblazer/Envoy/et.al when they have done a swell job holding onto its marketshare, despite similar slash and burn incentive programs on the Explorer. If GM is planning the demise of their BOF utes with these kind of numbers, could the Explorer be next?

 

The Explorer will have some significant functional disadvantages over its own future CUV stable-mates, largely cabin space and fuel economy. Is there a point to having an Explorer after the Fairlane, Freestyle, Edge fill the gaps? We will almost certainly never see a substantially new Explorer and I'm sick and tired of seeing Ford's Crown Viced for eternity.

Edited July 21, 2006 by BORG

[RichardJensen]

Explorer 95,642 YTD

Trailblazer 92,012 YTD

Gee, I guess Bystander was so assertive regarding Trailblazer numbers I assumed he was correct.

 

After some thorough research, here's a digest. Clipped from the .pdf (for some reason or another) is a note saying the Explorer's sales for 2005 are reduced 30k.

 

If you change the number of STs sold for 2006 to 10k (a more realistic number, IMO), you get a market share decline of about .8%.

 

So, yeah, you can see market share decline for the new Explorer. However, when you look at the performance of all domestic SUVs it's also clear that the decline hasn't been due to them (with the possible exception of the Commander/Grand Cherokee duo).

 

D'oh. I just realized I left Mercury out of the equation. I'll add them and those ridiculous GM derivatives and get back to you...

Edited July 21, 2006 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Revised numbers. I've also shown the percentage of marketshare gained or lost by each platform.

 

Enjoy.

 

BTW, Borg, it comes out looking like the GM platform has done worse this year than the Ford platform. I didn't include Aviator numbers because the model is not only on its way out, its transaction price is much higher than the rest of these models.

SUVvolume_2.pdf

Edited July 21, 2006 by RichardJensen

[ANTAUS]

The Explorer is a sustainable case. Just because GM is jumping ship on the midsize BOF ute's, it doesn't mean it's the best decision either. In the past, GM also exited the BOF passenger car market with the termination of the Caprice, leaving the CV in a unique and only segment. GM also exited the pony car segment as well.

 

There decision might rather do with other issues such as trying to incease their CAFE...or divert all resources to something they think they can benefit much more from like their new Crossovers. Maybe the decision to kill the Trailblazer, was due to their thinking that instead, people will pony up for the larger Tahoe and offset their declining sales.

 

In retrospect, the 4Runner isn't going anywhere, or the Pathfinder. So the market share might tip in favor of the Explorer. Honestly, the Explorer can't get better than it already is. It pioneered IRS suspension for a BOF vehicle of it's kind, implementing a foldable rear seat, and numerous other items that places it ahead of the competition. Other than tweaking power, NVH, and interior fitments, there's only so much you can do to improve the wheel.

 

IN the next 2-4 years we'll see where this segments head into. I really don't see doom and gloom for the Explorer, rather sustainability in a shrinking segment, with a larger share.

[NickF1011]

Yes, but the Ram didn't overtake the F150 in marketshare because the F150 design has been aggressively updated since 1996.

 

The F-150 wasn't updated at all from 1996 through 2003. :shrug:

[swenson88]

The F-150 wasn't updated at all from 1996 through 2003. :shrug:

 

 

BUT - the Ram debuted in 1994 MY, the F150 was completely redesigned for the 1997 MY, then the Ram was completely redesigned for the 2002 MY, and the F150 was completely redesigned for the 2004 MY. In the meantime the Explorer debuted in the 1991 MY, got a Ford-style freshening in 1995 and 1998 (extensive, but not clean-sheet), and then got a full redesign in 2002 MY. My opinion is that there is no reason an SUV should be on any longer of a redesign cycle than a passenger car, especially given the higher profitability of SUV's. 5 years, 6 max. This is even more pertinent given the extreme competition in the midsize SUV market, BOF or CUV. In the 90's the Explorer maybe had 5 competitors, now it's more like 25. The 2006 refreshening just should have been a 2007 or 2008 complete redesign.