Jump to content

Competitor Mid-Sized Truck Plans


Recommended Posts

Citation?

 

And even if that was true it doesn't eliminate the investment required to ramp us U.S. production.

 

If it was as easy as you make it out to be then it would have already been done.

 

 

 

If they don't need to do anything because they're the market leader then why are they doing a new one for 2014? And if they need to do something for 2014 to be competitive then why aren't they doing things NOW?

 

 

 

That's entirely possible, but you can't come to that conclusion just because new vehicles are being developed. You think there are untapped sales just waiting for new products but you don't have any objective data to back that up.

 

New global vehicles like the T6 are designed with the strictest crash standards (US) in mind. Ranger currently has the best Euro crash ratings; significantly beating the Nissan Navara. Navara = US Nissan Frontier with a diesel, so T6 should pass US standards as-is or with very minor tweaks. Hell, even that POS Mahindra technically passed US standards (albeit, with Poor ratings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New global vehicles like the T6 are designed with the strictest crash standards (US) in mind. Ranger currently has the best Euro crash ratings; significantly beating the Nissan Navara. Navara = US Nissan Frontier with a diesel, so T6 should pass US standards as-is or with very minor tweaks. Hell, even that POS Mahindra technically passed US standards (albeit, with Poor ratings)

 

Why can't you just let it go? The T6 can't come here because it makes no sense at this time for Ford to do so! Seems like all your doing is arguing that the ship is sinking when it already has...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a market there, of that I have no doubt.

 

Of course there's a market. Nobody is saying there isn't a market. I'm sure Ford could sell 100K T6 Rangers with no problem (but at least 20K of those would be cannibalized F150 sales so the net would only be 80K). But that's not the issue.

 

The issue is

 

1. how much would it cost to do that (it's not cheap to start up production of a new vehicle besides the vehicle development and certification costs)

2. what resources would be required and which other projects would be impacted.

3. what is the incremental ROI to do this versus the other projects

 

Don't forget that any potential ROI from a Ranger has to be compared against whatever Ford is already working on internally that we don't know about.

 

And I think even you would agree that if Ford had a plan to sell at least 80K more F150s that it would likely generate more profits and be less expensive and easier than selling 80K new Rangers because F150 capacity can be increased without opening a new plant or doing any additional certification and testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How big is the market? Is worth pursuing now?

 

I'm sure Ford has much better research then any of us and decided that its not worth doing at this time...it might change, but at this time its not...

 

How hard is that to figure out?

 

How big is the "whatever the hell the Flex is" market? I'll tell you: 30k units. Even if Ford makes a profit on the Flex, it's not a smart business decision. SUV buyers have zero brand loyalty; they'll trade in for a newer Pilot/Escalade/etc. without a second thought.

 

If you kill off Flex and instead build ~100k F-100's you:

 

1. Fill the $20-30k hole and keep the F-150 upmarket

2. Offer a starter truck to attract new buyers to F-series

3. Give dealerships an out when a customer comes in to look at an F-150, but realizes it's way too big to park in his garage and city streets

4. Give dealerships the ability to upsell F-150 when customers come in to look at F-100

5. Boost CAFE numbers

 

But hey, SUV's/CUV's are red hot right now, so Ford customers must be too stupid to realize they actually want to buy Flex, right?

Edited by GTwannabe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New global vehicles like the T6 are designed with the strictest crash standards (US) in mind. Ranger currently has the best Euro crash ratings; significantly beating the Nissan Navara. Navara = US Nissan Frontier with a diesel, so T6 should pass US standards as-is or with very minor tweaks. Hell, even that POS Mahindra technically passed US standards (albeit, with Poor ratings)

 

Fiesta was a global vehicle yet it took an extra year to modify it to meet U.S. standards.

 

I'm sure the changes required for T6 would be small but it's not accurate to say that it already meets all the standards especially when it hasn't been tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How big is the "whatever the hell the Flex is" market? I'll tell you: 30k units. Even if Ford makes a profit on the Flex, it's not a smart business decision. SUV buyers have zero brand loyalty; they'll trade in for a newer Pilot/Escalade/etc. without a second thought.

 

If you kill off Flex and instead build ~100k F-100's you:

 

1. Fill the $20-30k hole and keep the F-150 upmarket

2. Offer a starter truck to attract new buyers to F-series

3. Give dealerships an out when a customer comes in to look at an F-150, but realizes it's way too big to park in his garage and city streets

4. Give dealerships the ability to upsell F-150 when customers come in to look at F-100

5. Boost CAFE numbers

 

But hey, SUV's/CUV's are red hot right now, so Ford customers must be too stupid to realize they actually want to buy Flex, right?

 

Kill of Flex and build 100k F-100s? How did you come up with that?

 

And seriously, WTH does the Flex have to do with this discussion? It has absolutely nothing to do with the mid-size truck market. We don't know if it was a smart business decision because we don't know the numbers. We don't know profit, the cost to add it to an existing plant (building vehicles off the same platform mind you), how many conquest buyers it brought in, etc, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hey, SUV's/CUV's are red hot right now, so Ford customers must be too stupid to realize they actually want to buy Flex, right?

 

No but apparently you're too stupid to understand the difference between

 

keeping one model that's already been designed with a strategic advantage (conquest sales and high ATPs) to a shared platform with shared engines built on a shared existing production line for a market segment that is 10 times the size of the small truck market segment and growing instead of shrinking and which doesn't siphon sales from another Ford vehicle line that sells 600K/yr

 

and

 

adding one model that requires a new (for the U.S.) platform and production line, new drivetrains (none of the proposed smaller engines are currently RWD) into a shrinking market and which could be in conflict with other Ford truck projects already underway for the U.S. and which would most certainly take some market share away from the more expensive and more profitable F150.

 

You can't simply compare a new Ranger with the current lineup. You have to compare it against what Ford expects to have in place in 2014/2015 and the only people who know that is Ford - and their actions (or lack thereof) are evidence that they believe they have a better option on the table - and we won't see it for another year or two at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but apparently you're too stupid to understand the difference between

 

keeping one model that's already been designed with a strategic advantage (conquest sales and high ATPs) to a shared platform with shared engines built on a shared existing production line for a market segment that is 10 times the size of the small truck market segment and growing instead of shrinking and which doesn't siphon sales from another Ford vehicle line that sells 600K/yr

 

and

 

adding one model that requires a new (for the U.S.) platform and production line, new drivetrains (none of the proposed smaller engines are currently RWD) into a shrinking market and which could be in conflict with other Ford truck projects already underway for the U.S. and which would most certainly take some market share away from the more expensive and more profitable F150.

 

You can't simply compare a new Ranger with the current lineup. You have to compare it against what Ford expects to have in place in 2014/2015 and the only people who know that is Ford - and their actions (or lack thereof) are evidence that they believe they have a better option on the table - and we won't see it for another year or two at least.

 

Flex doesn't do anything Explorer can't. Explorer also has high ATP's. Selling 3x the number of T6 F-100's (at 1/3 the profit per vehicle) generates the same profit as Flex, but adds robustness to the F-series lineup and brings in new fiercely loyal truck buyers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you kill off Flex and instead build ~100k F-100's

 

 

 

Couple things:

 

Flex has a much higher ATP then the mythical F-100

 

Its shared with a platform that sells at least 200K units a year between the Taurus and Explorer

 

It shares a plant that makes other D3 products

 

The F-100 on the T6 would be its own plant, own stampings, engines, etc etc and not be able to make a profit either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flex doesn't do anything Explorer can't. Explorer also has high ATP's. Selling 3x the number of T6 F-100's (at 1/3 the profit per vehicle) generates the same profit as Flex, but adds robustness to the F-series lineup and brings in new fiercely loyal truck buyers.

 

Flex brings in people who normally won't buy a Ford. It costs ALOT less to develop the Flex vs the T6 and its costs are spread over 3-4 other products...the T6 doesn't have that.

 

Where are these buyers you keep talking about? besides yourself?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flex brings in people who normally won't buy a Ford. It costs ALOT less to develop the Flex vs the T6 and its costs are spread over 3-4 other products...the T6 doesn't have that.

 

Where are these buyers you keep talking about? besides yourself?

 

T6 development costs are paid for. Engine development is paid for (2.0 Ecoboost, which Ford bolted into a few T6 mules). Tooling can be set up in Mexico for lower labor costs and NAFTA chicken tax exemption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T6 development costs are paid for. Engine development is paid for (2.0 Ecoboost, which Ford bolted into a few T6 mules). Tooling can be set up in Mexico for lower labor costs and NAFTA chicken tax exemption.

 

I see no application of the 2L EB in a RWD product...now...its coming in Falcon, but its not here...its not EPA smog certified either!

 

Where do you build it in Mexico? Where is this mythical plant they have idle that they can build it in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got your last word in GT?

 

You got your last attempt to convince us that the wallet on the street in front of us really has a million dollars in it, despite the fact that none of us have opened it? You happy with where you're at now?

 

I hope so, because I'm closing this thread, and if you again try to convince us that you know better than Ford Motor, you better bring a lot more to the table than your own say so, your own opinions and your own predictions.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...