Fields: Ford to Launch New Vehicles in '07

[NLPRacing]

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

 

The front end was updated and the 5.4 received the PI heads for MY-1999 (plus the Lightning debuted), and for MY-2001, the SuperCrew debuted, which I think was pretty significant. Also, the interior received a bit of an update in 2001 as well (seat belts integrated into the seat backs on SuperCabs, etc). Nothing major (except for the SuperCrew) may have happened from MY-1997 to MY-2003, but it received many minor updates along the way and was never decontented like the Ranger and Panthers.

[silvrsvt]

I think it's the other way around. The CUV's are at a disadvantage to the Explorer. The Edge can only seat five, the Freestyle has low towing capacity, and all three do not have a V8 available.

 

 

But the Explorer is also overkill for most People also. The CUV's can do people moving cheaper (MPG wise) then the Explorer can, which the vast majority of Explorer owners do. I'd venture to guess that less then 30% of Explorer owners do any form of towing with their vehciles. Other then that, what is point of someone buying an Explorer over a CUV? Most people don't care about a V8 option (esp with gas prices and a rumored option on the D3 People mover) and the V6 gets the Explorer around pretty well.

 

I think thats part of the reason why GM is looking at killing off the Trailblazer and all of its devertives...since its new CUVs fill the people moving role and the Tahoe does towing much better then the Trailblazer and people who can afford a Tahoe can afford its gas also.

[DCK]

But the Explorer is also overkill for most People also. The CUV's can do people moving cheaper (MPG wise) then the Explorer can, which the vast majority of Explorer owners do. I'd venture to guess that less then 30% of Explorer owners do any form of towing with their vehciles. Other then that, what is point of someone buying an Explorer over a CUV? Most people don't care about a V8 option (esp with gas prices and a rumored option on the D3 People mover) and the V6 gets the Explorer around pretty well.

 

I think thats part of the reason why GM is looking at killing off the Trailblazer and all of its devertives...since its new CUVs fill the people moving role and the Tahoe does towing much better then the Trailblazer and people who can afford a Tahoe can afford its gas also.

It is sad when the explorer can't beat a tahoe as far as gas mileage is concern. Ford never cared about gas mileage and now they are paying the price.

[Surgen]

It is sad when the explorer can't beat a tahoe as far as gas mileage is concern. Ford never cared about gas mileage and now they are paying the price.

 

Tahoe has good mileage - no doubt. Before slamming Explorer, let's look at the other mid-size BOF SUV's:

Trailblazer 4.2L v6 4x4 - 15/21 MPG

Pathfinder 4.0L v6 4x4- 15/21 MPG

Grand Cherokee 4.7L v8 4x4 - 15/20 MPG

4Runner 4.7L V8 4x4 - 16/19 MPG

 

Now Explorer must really suck and it is:

Explorer 4.6L v8 4x4 - 15/21 MPG

 

Looks real uncompetitive to me. :shrug:

Edited July 21, 2006 by Surgen

[Daryll40]

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.

 

Interesting discussion. I am not a Ford insider, but a longtime Ford customer. We current own a 2003 Mountaineer Premier with all the bells and whistles. I used to lease a new Explorer every 2 years, but as SUVs became less and less valuable on the resale market the short-term lease deals went away.

 

Anyway, I have to tell you Ford folks that at just under 4 years (Sept 2002) and just over 50,000 miles, our Mountaineer has been the best Ford product I've ever owned. The only "repair" was a leaky strut that the dealer found and replaced (and I am suspicious that maybe it was just dealer make-work) under warranty.

 

Unfortunately, the gas situation has me in a bind. I wanted to buy a new Explorer/Mountaineer, but I am just too afraid to commit. The depreciation is horrendous. So I sunk about $1500 into my current vehicle (tires, brakes, new battery, fluid flushes) and we'll keep on truckin' for another 2-4 years. Yeah, I know...gas is the same in an '06/07 Explorer as it is in my '03. But my '03 is worth bupkis so gas is the ONLY expense, really. It's already depreciated!

 

I am not even sure of my point here. Other than, I guess, to give credit where credit is due in that this has been an excellent vehicle. But also to point out that the state of the world, not something bad that Ford has done, is causing me to skip a vehicle (keeping ours for 6-8 years instead of 3-4).

 

Oh, my other cars are a Honda CR-V (perfect...better mileage than Escape/Mariner) and a Lexus LS430 which, while riding better than any other vehicle I've ever owned, has had quite a few warranty repairs to my surprise at 3 years and 30,000 miles. I will say, however, that resale value of my 2 Japanese products is WAY better than the Ford products. So for those of us who don't keep vehicles too long, this is a major factor that Ford needs to deal with.

[bystander]

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

 

The F150 was updated in 1995-1996, with the F250 Light Duty (later F150 7700lb) added a year or two after that and the SuperCrew model appearing around 1999-2000MY. The 2004 F150 debuted in late 2003.

[bystander]

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...

 

 

Your analysis makes my point perfectly--thanks. The Explorer, in spite of its 2006 'redesign' is losing sales at roughly the same rate as the 4 year old Trailblazer (in fact, Trailblazer actually outsold Explorer and Sport Trac in June 2006). That's because the customer doesn't particularly view the 'new' Explorer as much more than the old, 2002-vintage model. The all-new redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee/Commander actually picked up a substantial amount of market share and even absolute sales in spite of increased fuel prices and a general exodus from the compact SUV segment. Hmmm... What does that tell you? 1) If you do a half-ass redesign in a competitive segment, you're likely to be rewarded with falling sales and market share. 2) Truly redesign your product (including the part the customer pays the most attention to) and you'll be rewarded with improved market performance, even in a shrinking segment.

 

I'm sure you'll come up with some tortured, convoluted argument to suggest that an opposite conclusion is warranted...

Edited July 22, 2006 by bystander

[RichardJensen]

"tortured and convoluted"? It would be difficult to top what you've just presented.

 

Tell me, do you think that the 5k unit increase in Cherokee and Commander sales (over the Cherokee alone) in the first half of the year have made the launch of the Commander a profitable venture?

[Footballfan]

"tortured and convoluted"? It would be difficult to top what you've just presented.

 

Tell me, do you think that the 5k unit increase in Cherokee and Commander sales (over the Cherokee alone) in the first half of the year have made the launch of the Commander a profitable venture?

 

The Jeep plant in Detroit that makes those vehichles have no down weeks and consistent overtime.

[RichardJensen]

The Jeep plant in Detroit that makes those vehichles have no down weeks and consistent overtime.

Not my point. What did the Commander cost, and is it worth it, given the marginal improvement on year over year volume. Also, given that total GC and Commander volume have fallen throughout the year, is it likely that at the end of the year, the GC and Commander will even be ahead of GC volume from last year?

 

Bearing in mind, of course, that the GC itself was substantially revised two years ago, and has seen volume continue to fall.

Edited July 22, 2006 by RichardJensen

[DCK]

Tahoe has good mileage - no doubt. Before slamming Explorer, let's look at the other mid-size BOF SUV's:

Trailblazer 4.2L v6 4x4 - 15/21 MPG

Pathfinder 4.0L v6 4x4- 15/21 MPG

Grand Cherokee 4.7L v8 4x4 - 15/20 MPG

4Runner 4.7L V8 4x4 - 16/19 MPG

 

Now Explorer must really suck and it is:

Explorer 4.6L v8 4x4 - 15/21 MPG

 

Looks real uncompetitive to me. :shrug:

But the explorer is the newest and came out when gas prices are astronomically high. The had an opportunity to enhance the gas mileage as much as possible like what GM has done with the tahoe and really take a bite out of the competitions sales, instead the explorer sales are falling at a higher percentage than any other mid-size suv, while the pilot and rav-4 are staying steady and even gaining some sales. Lets see what the expedition will get, also lets see if the edge can get better gas mileage than the much larger and wider and heavier lambdas that will get 25 miles per gallon.

[Footballfan]

Not my point. What did the Commander cost, and is it worth it, given the marginal improvement on year over year volume. Also, given that total GC and Commander volume have fallen throughout the year, is it likely that at the end of the year, the GC and Commander will even be ahead of GC volume from last year?

 

Bearing in mind, of course, that the GC itself was substantially revised two years ago, and has seen volume continue to fall.

 

The Commander is basically a new tophat on the Grand Cherokee; essentially the same wheelbase, track, etc. There have been a lot of sales of the Commander to traditional Grand Cherokee buyers. But overall, I think DC's move was a good one- at least they are keeping ahead of the game!

[RichardJensen]

instead the explorer sales are falling at a higher percentage than any other mid-size suv

Gee. You didn't read my .pdf, did you.

 

Durango and Envoy sales are falling faster than the Explorer, as are Grand Cherokee sales (excl. Commander).

 

Footballfan, I don't think the Commander is keeping DC far enough ahead to justify the cost of developing it.

[bystander]

"tortured and convoluted"? It would be difficult to top what you've just presented.

 

Tell me, do you think that the 5k unit increase in Cherokee and Commander sales (over the Cherokee alone) in the first half of the year have made the launch of the Commander a profitable venture?

 

I would take a 5k unit increase and the higher transaction prices (i.e. higher profit margins) that come when you put an all-new product on the market over a precipitous 40k unit decrease (June CYTD) and still-low transaction prices that were the result of the 2006 Explorer program. By your rationale, Ford should never again redesign the F150 or SuperDuty because their sales are sure to drop in segments that are A) becoming more crowded and B) shrinking due to high fuel prices.

[RichardJensen]

I would take a 5k unit increase and the higher transaction prices (i.e. higher profit margins)

Do you know that Chrysler has higher transaction prices for these models? Their incentives have been higher than Ford's all year. Presently they are MUCH higher as Chrysler alone goes the "crazy eddy" discount route.

 

Why not cross compare comparably equipped Commanders and 3-row Explorers on the Edmunds TMV site.

 

I believe we will also find that the commercial use sector of the fullsize pickup market is so large that it completely justifies attention to the F-Series and SuperDuty. The midsize SUV segment, all together, will probably end the year occupying as much of the new car market as the F-Series alone.

Edited July 23, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Bluecon]

Tahoe has good mileage - no doubt. Before slamming Explorer, let's look at the other mid-size BOF SUV's:

Trailblazer 4.2L v6 4x4 - 15/21 MPG

Pathfinder 4.0L v6 4x4- 15/21 MPG

Grand Cherokee 4.7L v8 4x4 - 15/20 MPG

4Runner 4.7L V8 4x4 - 16/19 MPG

 

Now Explorer must really suck and it is:

Explorer 4.6L v8 4x4 - 15/21 MPG

 

Looks real uncompetitive to me. :shrug:

The EPA numbers are decieving.

In this Edmunds test of midsize pickups the Ranger is the lightest yet gets the 2nd worst mileage and

the Toyota and Nissan walk all over it in accelaration. The 4.0l V6 is not up to modern standards.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...74/pageNumber=8

 

Getting away from the fire sales and extending the basic warranties should help that.

Why would you buy a domestic unless they are on fire sale?

The public has been trained.

[bystander]

Do you know that Chrysler has higher transaction prices for these models? Their incentives have been higher than Ford's all year. Presently they are MUCH higher as Chrysler alone goes the "crazy eddy" discount route.

 

Why not cross compare comparably equipped Commanders and 3-row Explorers on the Edmunds TMV site.

 

I believe we will also find that the commercial use sector of the fullsize pickup market is so large that it completely justifies attention to the F-Series and SuperDuty. The midsize SUV segment, all together, will probably end the year occupying as much of the new car market as the F-Series alone.

 

As you suggested, I compared Explorer vs the Jeep products (Grand Cherokee and Commander) on the Edmunds TMV site.

 

Eddie Bauer Explorer 4x4 4.0L V6 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $27,955

 

Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 4x4 4.7L V8 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $31,336

 

DIFFERENCE: ($31,336 - $27,955) = $3,381

 

 

Limited Explorer 4x4 4.6L V8 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $31,066

 

Jeep Commander Limited 4x4 5.7L V8 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $34,612

 

DIFFERENCE: ($34,612 - $31,066) = $3,546

 

 

If you assume that the average price difference throughout the model ranges of both vehicles for comparable content is only $2000, when you multiply that by the approximate annual platform volume (estimate at 200,000 units), you get a $400 million differential in revenue per year. That doesn't even account for any sales volume changes.

 

But apart from that, what you're apparently not accounting when you claim that Ford was better off not investing additonal money to redesign the sheetmetal of the Explorer is the added cost of running Louisville Assembly Plant at lower utilization rates caused by the volume drop. Think about how many millions (billions?) Ford is spending this year and charging to 'restructuring' because they are having to close so many plants and buyout so many workers. How much better that money would have been spent 3-4 years ago to actually develop products that could fill at least some of those plants to capacity. Ford is blowing through cash now (ostensibly for 'restructuring') to close plants and jettison workers that might have been put to productive use had that money been spent a few years earlier on new product development. They will never regain the lost market share from these past five years.

[RichardJensen]

As you suggested, I compared Explorer vs the Jeep products (Grand Cherokee and Commander) on the Edmunds TMV site.

 

Eddie Bauer Explorer 4x4 4.0L V6 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $27,955

 

Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 4x4 4.7L V8 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $31,336

 

DIFFERENCE: ($31,336 - $27,955) = $3,381

Limited Explorer 4x4 4.6L V8 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $31,066

 

Jeep Commander Limited 4x4 5.7L V8 Customer Cash Adjusted TMV: $34,612

 

DIFFERENCE: ($34,612 - $31,066) = $3,546

If you assume that the average price difference throughout the model ranges of both vehicles for comparable content is only $2000, when you multiply that by the approximate annual platform volume (estimate at 200,000 units), you get a $400 million differential in revenue per year. That doesn't even account for any sales volume changes.

 

But apart from that, what you're apparently not accounting when you claim that Ford was better off not investing additonal money to redesign the sheetmetal of the Explorer is the added cost of running Louisville Assembly Plant at lower utilization rates caused by the volume drop. Think about how many millions (billions?) Ford is spending this year and charging to 'restructuring' because they are having to close so many plants and buyout so many workers. How much better that money would have been spent 3-4 years ago to actually develop products that could fill at least some of those plants to capacity. Ford is blowing through cash now (ostensibly for 'restructuring') to close plants and jettison workers that might have been put to productive use had that money been spent a few years earlier on new product development. They will never regain the lost market share from these past five years.

You compared a V6 Explorer to a V8 Grand Cherokee?

 

Why don't you try again, and equip them with comparable engines and standard/optional equipment.

 

Right now you can get a $40k Overland package Grand Cherokee for $34k.

 

--

 

BTW, Ford's total reskin of the Explorer in '02 did nothing to stop Ford from having to close SLAP, so--again--I ask you, please try and provide further proof that replacing all the sheetmetal guarantees higher sales (and higher capacity usage).

Edited July 23, 2006 by RichardJensen

[waymondospiff]

The Jeep plant in Detroit that makes those vehichles have no down weeks and consistent overtime.

 

 

That may be true, but have you visited Detroit Metro recently? Look at the lots (yes, lots plural.) full of brand spanking new GCs & Commanders.

 

Since this topic has become largely about the SUV market, here is my take: Ford once again has no clue how to market a product correctly. GM's planning a big splash for a large 3-row crossover SUV this fall. Large interiors, comfortable ride & handling, and car-like fuel economy. All this for 2007. Ford? They've been there since 2005 with the Freestyle. Room for seven, excellent ride & handling, and 27 mpg.

 

And what does Ford do with this ideal vehicle? Give it essentially ZERO marketing support (Don't even mention the absolutely insipid "Bold Moves" ad mentioning 500 mile tanks with the ex-husband. Oi.) and market the heck out of the "all-new" Explorer in the face of declining sales.

 

I'm at a loss to describe this any more. There are no words for the, uhhh, cluelessness at Ford regarding the Freestyle. The Freestyle should be rolling 150-200K sales/year, instead it's raking in around 70K. Embarrassing.

 

Scott

[DCK]

Since this topic has become largely about the SUV market, here is my take: Ford once again has no clue how to market a product correctly. GM's planning a big splash for a large 3-row crossover SUV this fall. Large interiors, comfortable ride & handling, and car-like fuel economy. All this for 2007. Ford? They've been there since 2005 with the Freestyle. Room for seven, excellent ride & handling, and 27 mpg.

 

And what does Ford do with this ideal vehicle? Give it essentially ZERO marketing support (Don't even mention the absolutely insipid "Bold Moves" ad mentioning 500 mile tanks with the ex-husband. Oi.) and market the heck out of the "all-new" Explorer in the face of declining sales.

 

I'm at a loss to describe this any more. There are no words for the, uhhh, cluelessness at Ford regarding the Freestyle. The Freestyle should be rolling 150-200K sales/year, instead it's raking in around 70K. Embarrassing.

 

Scott

Ford has given up on the freestyle, it was clear when they said they created the vehicle on what worked best for them and not the customer.

 

They desperately need to get the new 3.5 in the vehicle and and the vehicle a total redesign.

 

As we all know the design is absolutely terrible, the Edge is pure stunning, they need to quickly apply the talent of the people who designed the edge to redesign the freestyle, along with a new interior and engine and the sales will take off. The interior currently in it is just as plain and dull as the exterior. Ford may have been first with a 7 seat cross over but GM did it right, the GM's look stunning have plenty of interior room, great interiors, nice features and will beat the japanese in gas mileage, power and size and style. The edge i believe will do the same for its size class and will outclass the smaller japanese crossovers but the freestyle just can't compete with the larger crossovers without the new engine and complete redesign.

 

BTW, Ford's total reskin of the Explorer in '02 did nothing to stop Ford from having to close SLAP, so--again--I ask you, please try and provide further proof that replacing all the sheetmetal guarantees higher sales (and higher capacity usage).

The 02 explorer was a complete bore and tons of new competition came out, the trail blazer and envoy tore the explorer sales apart just as much as the firestone fiasco. Then the redesigned 4runner and all new pilot came to market and then the redesigned durango. So obviously from the fire stone fiasco alone explorer salesw were screwed.

[RichardJensen]

GM did it right, the GM's look stunning have plenty of interior room, great interiors, nice features and will beat the japanese in gas mileage, power and size and style.

Huh? A crossover that weighs as much as an Explorer is going to have better power and gas mileage than the Freestyle?

 

And would somebody again tell me why GM bothered to combine Buick and GMC franchises, only to give them both versions of this vehicle?

 

---

 

Regarding the 2003 Explorer,

 

Buyer makeup is a HUGE consideration here. Why did the Explorer take off in the first place? Because it appealed to people that didn't own SUVs. Now, that provided a huge reservoir of new customers when gas prices were cheap, but now that gas prices have climbed dramatically, it has left Ford with a customer base far less likely, as a whole, to replace their current Explorer with another Explorer.

 

Jeep customers are probably the best in this segment. I think we'll see some resiliency there (I also think the Commander is what the next Grand Cherokee should've been, and they shouldn't have done the two model thing). Jeep has a bigger percentage of core customers, I think, than any other brand in the segment.

 

The other manufacturers are going to have a hard time maintaining their customer base. Same thing will happen in trucks, but the advantage Ford has in trucks is similar to the advantage Jeep has in SUVs. Ford's F-Series moves some serious fleet and commercial volume. It's not generally seen as a personal truck. At least not like the Silverados and Rams (not to mention the wuss Titans and Tundras).

[bystander]

You compared a V6 Explorer to a V8 Grand Cherokee?

 

Why don't you try again, and equip them with comparable engines and standard/optional equipment.

 

Right now you can get a $40k Overland package Grand Cherokee for $34k.

 

BTW, Ford's total reskin of the Explorer in '02 did nothing to stop Ford from having to close SLAP, so--again--I ask you, please try and provide further proof that replacing all the sheetmetal guarantees higher sales (and higher capacity usage).

 

 

Adding the 4.6L V8 to the Eddie Bauer 4x4 raises the transaction price to $29,029--still over $2,000 less than a Grand Cherokee Limited with 4.7L V8. I stand by my earlier point. Hundreds of millions in lost profit and likely higher volumes to support more efficient utilization rates were lost by doing a half-ass redesign.

 

And SLAP didn't close until after the 2006 Explorer hit the market with a thud. At any rate, with Explorer sales continuing to drop and the 2006 'redesign' only losing more and more of its 'momentum', even running one plant (LAP) at full capacity may be in doubt... Ford really screwed the pooch.

[RichardJensen]

SLAP didn't close until after the 2006 Explorer hit the market with a thud.

It was going anyway. Unless you think an all new Explorer would sell 200k units more than the previous model.

 

Also, make sure that you have optional equipment lined up. The transaction prices I came up with in the mid $30k range showed a pretty substantial difference between the Explorer Limited and the GC Limited (one with the 4.6L V8, the other with the 4.7). A Grand Cherokee Ltd. equipped all the way out to practicall Overland levels (Overland only comes with the Hemi), came to just over $34k on the Jeep site. A comparably equipped Explorer checked out at about $35.5k on Edmunds TMV (Which I'm starting to have SERIOUS doubts about, seeing how it doesn't have Chrysler's Employee Pricing discount).

Edited July 24, 2006 by RichardJensen

[2005Explorer]

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.

 

I noticed according to your pdf file, that the Mountaineer seems to have held onto sales better then it's brother. Do you think this is because people who shop the Mountaineer are at a higher income level and therefore less effected or care less about fuel prices or is it because it looks better? I think the 2006 Explorer is attractive, but I know a lot of people think the Mountaineer looks better, especially after the re-design.

Edited July 24, 2006 by 2005Explorer

[RichardJensen]

I noticed according to your pdf file, that the Mountaineer seems to have held onto sales better then it's brother. Do you think this is because people who shop the Mountaineer are at a higher income level and therefore less effected or care less about fuel prices or is it because it looks better? I think the 2006 Explorer is attractive, but I know a lot of people think the Mountaineer looks better, especially after the re-design.

It could be any of the things you suggest, but it could also be an indication that Ford sold more Sport Tracs than they hinted at. Ford's only public comment about the ST is that 'about 5,000' Sport Tracs are sold every month.