Jump to content

SUV Sales


Recommended Posts

I have noticed lately that there are alot of SUV's still on the dealer lots , with gas prices hurting alot of people it is apparent that SUV sales are in a tale spin . My advice would be to put better incentives with the great financing to hopefully clear the 06's before the 07's get there . Will the gas crunch kill the SUV or can people still afford the gas guzzling SUV in these times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noticed lately that there are alot of SUV's still on the dealer lots , with gas prices hurting alot of people it is apparent that SUV sales are in a tale spin . My advice would be to put better incentives with the great financing to hopefully clear the 06's before the 07's get there . Will the gas crunch kill the SUV or can people still afford the gas guzzling SUV in these times?

I believe it should be possible to get 25 miles per gallon out of a mid-size truck based SUV, especially if a much larger tahoe is getting 21, it is up for the manufacturers to invest in the resources to make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tahoe gets 21 mpg WOW maybe its time for me to look elsewhere for my SUV's , thats alot of savings at the pump versus the 14 to 15 I get with the Ford

 

21 is EPA highway. I doubt you will always get that. Probably closer to 16-18. I know if the conditions are perfect I have gotten 21 on my Explorer, but you have to be very careful how you drive and you can't be pointing it towards a 40MPH wind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would the armchair CEOs please answer a few questions please.

 

 

What would have said 3 years ago if Ford said, we are replacing the Explorer with a car based SUV?

 

 

What would you have said 5 years ago if Ford said they were shifting the focus from very profitable trucks to low profit B-cars

 

What would you have said 10 years ago if Ford said they were diverting F150 R&D dollars to the Taurus?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just curious how many hypocrites are on the board today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would the armchair CEOs please answer a few questions please.

What would have said 3 years ago if Ford said, we are replacing the Explorer with a car based SUV?

What would you have said 5 years ago if Ford said they were shifting the focus from very profitable trucks to low profit B-cars

 

What would you have said 10 years ago if Ford said they were diverting F150 R&D dollars to the Taurus?

Just curious how many hypocrites are on the board today.

This has got to be the stupidist thing i heard. Do you not understand multi-tasking and not throwing all your eggs in one basket, years ago when ford was making money they should have invested in cars as well as maintain there truck dominance, but what happened? They didn't even properly invest in the trucks or we would have a new ranger, and not half ass exterior changes on the suv's. Instead during the time period ranger sales dropped from 450k to the 70-80k range that it will end up this year. While the competition aka Nissan, GM, Toyota, and Chrysler have a slew of new mid-size truck offerings. Then the response we get is well now Ford is good because they have the only real compact truck, well it looks like the buying public doesn't care because look at its sales, all they needed tp do was keep the ranger fresh and they couldn't even accomplish that because of the greed. I see the edge doing extremely well and with mark fields i think Ford realizes their complete stupidity.

 

For you first question about the explorer:

 

Obviously it wouldn't be in the best interest but ford should have been persuing an explorer size CUV which matched honda's 25 mpg rating, We did get the freestyle which failed because it is terribly designed and proportioned. At the same time they should have went through every single detail on how they can get the best fuel economy from the explorer and they didn't. Keep in mind 3 years ago was the time when gas sarted rising significantly.

 

Second question about the B-segment cars:

 

DIVERSIFY, who said they need to quit from investing in high profit trucks? They were making plenty of money to invest in small cars also, they are a full size brand. And forget about b-segment they didn't even invest in keeping their c-segment car competitive, or heck the taurus redesign in 2000 was also terrible, it is why it became queen of the rental lots, after driving a taurus people would get bad impressions about ford.

 

Third question about the giving funds to the taurus instead of F-150:

 

Again with the thinking ford can only invest in one vehicle at a time, especially ten years ago was the time the taurus went from first place to a disgrace, where the hell is the rule they couldn't invest in both the f-150 and taurus? They certainly had the money to do so back in 1996.

Edited by DCK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 is EPA highway. I doubt you will always get that. Probably closer to 16-18. I know if the conditions are perfect I have gotten 21 on my Explorer, but you have to be very careful how you drive and you can't be pointing it towards a 40MPH wind!

 

 

Thank you for stating something that everyone likes to forget. I rarely look at the EPA numbers............. and if I do, it is only to amuse myself when I beat them.

 

What a vehicle gets in the real world has nothing to do with what it gets in the EPA tests. I challenge anyone to get 20mpg out of a Tahoe in AZ. About the only way I can think of, is if you shut it off while you are going downhill. Realistically, in the typical city cycle, all of the fullsize trucks/SUV's get about the same mileage. The only real difference is if you are a hotdog. Then you will get less. If you were to test all of the fullsize trucks/SUV's in a real highway test............... such as from Phx to Payson (100 miles of up and down mountains, and curves and wind), then you find that they all get pretty much the same mileage, again.

 

Thus, there might as well be a disclaimer on the Tahoe EPA highway mileage. It should have an asterick that says "this mileage is based on completely flat ground, to a slight downhill cant, with no wind, and no need to use the A/C or the heater. This allows the cylinder deactivation to actually work, and actually save you money on fuel."

 

In the rest of the world, cyclinder deactivation would come on so infrequently, that there would be no savings.

 

However, EPA numbers make the sheep happy. It comforts them at night, when they have just gotten a tank full........... and calculated out their mileage to be around 13-14................ that they actually have something to aspire to. Whatever.

 

I will venture to guess that a 6-speed auto, and higher gears, would yield better EPA numbers, than cylinder deactivation. Of course, with higher gears, everyone would complain about sluggish performance off the line. Personally, I find the cylinder deactivation BS to be next to useless, and over complex, in a heavy truck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would the armchair CEOs please answer a few questions please.

What would have said 3 years ago if Ford said, we are replacing the Explorer with a car based SUV?

What would you have said 5 years ago if Ford said they were shifting the focus from very profitable trucks to low profit B-cars

 

What would you have said 10 years ago if Ford said they were diverting F150 R&D dollars to the Taurus?

Just curious how many hypocrites are on the board today.

1.) 3 years ago, I would have said that's a bad idea, because the Explorer is a segment leader, and a good configuration. By that time, the Explorer development and tooling was paid for. Keep the Explorer and add the car based SUV - if you really think you need one (personally, I think they will be a flash-in-the-pan. I think configurations like the Mazda 5, and the European Galaxy (not Galaxie) are going to claim an increasingly large share of the market).

2.) 5 years ago, I would have said bravo. But that's just my politics. I have always hated SUVs (for 95% of what and who they get used for: ferrying soccer moms and pencil necks between the burbs and the mall or office). Ford had better figure out how to make a profit on B cars. The writing was on the wall in 1974. The wall fell on our heads in 2001. We had better catch a clue.

3.) 10 years ago, I would have said that the F-150 had reached near perfection, but that the Taurus was ready for a re-birth - so yes, I think I would have gone for that.

 

Don't know if that helps you pigeon-hole me or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for stating something that everyone likes to forget. I rarely look at the EPA numbers............. and if I do, it is only to amuse myself when I beat them.

 

What a vehicle gets in the real world has nothing to do with what it gets in the EPA tests. I challenge anyone to get 20mpg out of a Tahoe in AZ. About the only way I can think of, is if you shut it off while you are going downhill. Realistically, in the typical city cycle, all of the fullsize trucks/SUV's get about the same mileage. The only real difference is if you are a hotdog. Then you will get less. If you were to test all of the fullsize trucks/SUV's in a real highway test............... such as from Phx to Payson (100 miles of up and down mountains, and curves and wind), then you find that they all get pretty much the same mileage, again.

 

Thus, there might as well be a disclaimer on the Tahoe EPA highway mileage. It should have an asterick that says "this mileage is based on completely flat ground, to a slight downhill cant, with no wind, and no need to use the A/C or the heater. This allows the cylinder deactivation to actually work, and actually save you money on fuel."

 

In the rest of the world, cyclinder deactivation would come on so infrequently, that there would be no savings.

 

However, EPA numbers make the sheep happy. It comforts them at night, when they have just gotten a tank full........... and calculated out their mileage to be around 13-14................ that they actually have something to aspire to. Whatever.

 

I will venture to guess that a 6-speed auto, and higher gears, would yield better EPA numbers, than cylinder deactivation. Of course, with higher gears, everyone would complain about sluggish performance off the line. Personally, I find the cylinder deactivation BS to be next to useless, and over complex, in a heavy truck.

Any way you spin it GM took the initiative and Ford didn't. Whether it is trully beneficial or not the fact remains that GM has the right to brag aout how they have the tahoe getting 21 mpg, when people go look between the expedition and tahoe gm has a very large advantage.

Edited by DCK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...