Ford March 2012 Sales

[RichardJensen]

Oh, silly me, I forgot who I'm dealing with here.

 

I'm dealing with "The SUV boom ended in 2008."

 

I should've known that you would just make something up and then cherry pick random bits of randomness and offer it up as 'evidence'.

[RichardJensen]

Geez, intellectual laziness that parades as intellectual rigor gets under my skin. I need a drink and a bit of quiet time away from this nonsense.

[Biker16]

And C-cars are not?

 

To an extent. today people have been downsizing to C-cars moving them up market, this has opened up the lower end to smaller B-cars to fill the void left by the C-cars moving up market.

 

because of the incredibly shrinking of the Full-size market.

 

source

 

The large-sedan segment is forecast to shrink further as a percentage of the overall U.S. market, to 2.9 percent in 2017 from 3.6 percent in 2011, AutoPacific Inc. says.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20120405/OEM04/120409897#ixzz1rGzhhERj

 

[NickF1011]

To an extent. today people have been downsizing to C-cars moving them up market, this has opened up the lower end to smaller B-cars to fill the void left by the C-cars moving up market.

 

So a $16,000 Focus doesn't compete for buyers with a $19,000 Fiesta?

[Biker16]

DEFINE THEM.

 

you are pushing this bullshit line about EPA segments being law, which is nonsense.

Use your brain and figure out why the BMW 5 series is not in the same class as an Sonic.

 

LIKE WHAT, BIKER?

 

Blah, blah,Blah

 

Oh, silly me, I forgot who I'm dealing with here.

 

I'm dealing with "The SUV boom ended in 2008."

 

I should've known that you would just make something up and then cherry pick random bits of randomness and offer it up as 'evidence'.

 

yet it takes you 4 post to respond to one post.

 

Geez, intellectual laziness that parades as intellectual rigor gets under my skin. I need a drink and a bit of quiet time away from this nonsense.

 

isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

 

you need perspective.

[RichardJensen]

you are pushing this bullshit line about EPA segments being law, which is nonsense.

I'm saying that if you want to use an alternative method of classification then do the goddamn homework and define one.

 

isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I DEFY you to furnish an example of me arbitrarily defining something and then refusing to supply ANY basis for that definition. You can't because I don't pull crap like this. What I say here, I say with full expectation that I will have to defend it logically. You apparently are content to assume that people will accept things on your say-so, and you are inevitably ill-prepared to support your claims.

 

you need perspective.

 

Yes. That people like you aren't worth my time.

Edited April 6, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

I'm saying that if you want to use an alternative method of classification then do the goddamn homework and define one.

 

There isn't a way to define classes, It has always been subjective

 

this is my point. you can say that I threw cars together thats fines, but you don't have beeter method of defining class, the EPA rules were never designed to define market classification.

 

I DEFY you to furnish an example of me arbitrarily defining something and then refusing to supply ANY basis for that definition. You can't because I don't pull crap like this. What I say here, I say with full expectation that I will have to defend it logically. You apparently are content to assume that people will accept things on your say-so, and you are inevitably ill-prepared to support your claims.

 

in this thread.

http://www.blueovalf...ompact-lincoln/

 

you Richard Jensen, stated that the idea of compact Lincoln was stupid.

 

using the Sales number of the BMW 1 series and Audi A3 as evidence to prove their was no demand for compact luxury cars. this was in 2010, you yourself defined the BMW 1 series as a Compact car when it is in fact a sub compact car. you then went one to use this false assumption to justifiy how linlcon should not offer a compact car. by comparing the sales of luxury sub compact cars to that of A Linlcon compact car. You neglected to take into account that the MKc would be an EPA midsized car, and while today you have taken issue with a subjective ways of classification of Compact car, back then you yourself used the same subjective classification to make your support your argument.

 

for the record.

 

Lexus sold

 

Sub compact

2717 ISs in march

 

Compact

2223 CT

261 HS

 

For the record

small cars were

45% of all Lexus sales in march.

 

the IS and CT were 2nd and 3rd best selling car for Lexus last month.

 

you arbitrarily defined sub compact as compact cars.

you arbitrarily defined compact luxury cars as failures when they re not compact cars at all.

 

Yes. That people like you aren't worth my time.

 

so run away Again.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Biker16

[fordmantpw]

There isn't a way to define classes, It has always been subjective

 

So you make up the class to fit your argument.

 

Enough said.

[Edstock]

you Richard Jensen, stated that the idea of compact Lincoln was stupid.

 

so run away Again.

Are you done? Yes, in RJ's opinion "the idea of compact Lincoln was stupid", and it still is — but that's just my OPINION.

 

WHY? Because the North American market isn't big enough for Lincoln to make and sell a "compact" Lincoln because brain-dead Americans equate luxury with BIG. Some Americans, those who are well-educated, appreciate that luxury does come in small expensive vehicles — and they buy foreign small luxury.

 

 

The point is, until Lincoln is sold in the EU and the Rest-of-the-World, a C-size Lincoln sedan is not profitable — but the MK Escape should do very, very nicely — in my opinion.

 

 

[FordBuyer]

I wouldn't complain if Ford introduces B-Max and its included in with Fiesta's contribution to B Cars..

 

Toyota counts Corolla and Matrix as one. I would like to see a B Max, but I now doubt it as Ford probably sees it robbing sales away from new Escape. Maybe if gas hits $5/gallon nationwide. Ford at best is probably only making 20,000 C Maxes/year and they will be pricey with those expensive batteries aboard. I'm afraid for the next few years, Focus and Fiesta hatch will be Ford's most efficient cargo carriers for reasonable price. And maybe a base Escape that after a year or so will sell in the $23,000 range.

[BlackHorse]

LOL, This argument has happened before. Only this time Biker is in my position. I think both of you are kicking against the bricks.

 

Lets keep in mind that the average age of a new car buyer in the US is 47 years old. The average age of a even a Civic sedan buyer is 38 and this is a car that many believe is a "youth" oriented car. For the most part, people in their twenty somethings don't buy new cars because they are too expensive. Some do however.

 

Now, the automotive industry is going to group cars in certain classes such as those that Biker listed above, i.e. B-segement, mid-size sedean and so on. That is just human nature and how we do things. We group them into classes and categories regardless of what we are talking about. Cars, computers, lawn mowers, light bulbs, you name it, they are all classed into groups.

 

I have always maintained and still maintain that people do not so easily fit into nice neat little boxes that somebody else thought up for them. In other words, a person shopping for a car might have a few requirements or parameters that they want the car to meet and generally chief among these is price. But that doesn't mean that they are only going to look at cars in group A or group B or only 1 type of car. Your average person is going to end up looking at a variety of cars that seemingly have nothing in common with one another but all of which probably fit the needs they have in some way or another. One might have better passenger room than another but both have passenger room enough to fit the bill. One might get better mpg than another but both fall within acceptable mpg requirements. You get the idea. Anyway, my point is that automakers and to a large extent auto enthusiasts are going to group cars into segments and that's fine. Where they mess up is trying to group customers into segments. Human beings don't work that way. This of course drives many a left brained control freak up the wall because don't those customers understand that they are supposed to behave in a predictable and consistent manner in order to fit the established parameters.

 

So in a manner of speaking Biker is right, classes are subjective. You can have classes and categories of cars until the cows come home. You can class and sub-class and sub-sub-class to your hearts content in order to make the automtovie world fit into perfect logical order. It won't amount to a hill of beans though when customers show up to look at cars on various different car lots because humans are unpredictable and you never know what they are actually going to do.

[RichardJensen]

There isn't a way to define classes, It has always been subjective

Subjective does not mean the same thing as 'undefinable'.

 

Furthermore, if the definition is 'subjective' then what is the value of asserting, as you did, that the "B" Segment is the "Third largest car segment"?

 

If you can't define a segment, then you have no business claiming that the segment is 'the third largest car segment'.

 

in this thread.

http://www.blueovalf...ompact-lincoln/

 

you Richard Jensen, stated that the idea of compact Lincoln was stupid.

 

you yourself defined the BMW 1 series as a Compact car

Fair enough on the 1-series. Although I would point out that the Lexus IS has 99cu. ft. of passenger+cargo space and is about as close to being a compact car as the Yaris is to being a sub compact--and I readily included the Yaris in what should be termed the 'entry-level (e.g. starting price under $20,000) subcompact class, and the A3 is in fact a compact car.

 

If you recall, the first objection was that people would not be willing to suffer the inconveniences of a compact car in order to own a Lincoln. This immediately exempts the brands (BMW, Mercedes) that have successfully been selling compact cars for years. (and I'm going to stretch the definition of compact to include the BMW 3-Series, in the same way I stretched the definition of sub compact to include the Yaris).

 

The second objection was that the Concept C's peers (A3 & C30) and mid $20k starting price lux cars in general sold abysmally.

 

And finally, I'd note that Ford has canned the Concept C.

 

Did I mistakenly classify the 1-Series as a compact? Yes. Did my whole argument rely on the proper classification of the 1-Series? No.

Edited April 6, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

So a $16,000 Focus doesn't compete for buyers with a $19,000 Fiesta?

does a $24,000 focus compete with a 21,000 fusion?

 

does it matter?

[NickF1011]

does a $24,000 focus compete with a 21,000 fusion?

 

does it matter?

 

Well if a vehicle's class isn't based strictly on its size then it must be based on something, no? So price isn't it? What is it then?

[Biker16]

 

Fair enough on the 1-series. Although I would point out that the Lexus IS has 99cu. ft. of passenger+cargo space and is about as close to being a compact car as the Yaris is to being a sub compact--and I readily included the Yaris in what should be termed the 'entry-level (e.g. starting price under $20,000) subcompact class, and the A3 is in fact a compact car.

 

If you recall, the first objection was that people would not be willing to suffer the inconveniences of a compact car in order to own a Lincoln. This immediately exempts the brands (BMW, Mercedes) that have successfully been selling compact cars for years. (and I'm going to stretch the definition of compact to include the BMW 3-Series, in the same way I stretched the definition of sub compact to include the Yaris).

 

whatever Richard, the 3 series,A4, C-class and G35 are all compact cars per the EPA, Remember you were arguing how different those car were from the A3 and 1 series, becuase they were larger????

 

99Cu/Ft is a Sub-compact car. you cannot bend the rules, this is an absolute Fact.

 

WTF does price have to do with EPA class categories..... careful it gets slippery.

 

a compact is a compact sub-compact is a Sub compact, nothing else matters.... right?

 

The second objection was that the Concept C's peers (A3 & C30) and mid $20k starting price lux cars in general sold abysmally.

 

price has nothing to do with categorization of classes according to the EPA.

45% of Lexus sales in march were compact cars.

 

And finally, I'd note that Ford has canned the Concept C.

 

I noticed that, I was disappointed, but 45% of Lexus sales in march were compact cars, right?

 

Did I mistakenly classify the 1-Series as a compact? Yes. Did my whole argument rely on the proper classification of the 1-Series? No.

 

you also mistakenly classified the 3 series, A4, A3, C-Class, and Acura. I guess you were being intellectually lazy too.

 

Are you done yet?

[NickF1011]

45% of Lexus sales in march were compact cars. [/b]

 

 

 

I noticed that, I was disappointed, but 45% of Lexus sales in march were compact cars, right?

 

I assume you are only referring to Lexus cars. Cuz the IS, HS, and CT combined only account for 25.8% of their total sales. Even including the ES only gets you to 41%.

Edited April 6, 2012 by NickF1011

[Biker16]

So you make up the class to fit your argument.

 

Enough said.

 

Then take my list and define what is wrong with it.

 

I took into account. all small footprint cars from non luxury brands. that are infcat based on B-class architectures, to give better picture of the volume those architectures sell in the US market.

 

If you disagree that is fine, I am not defending my list, because it is my list, but the idea that Dick can say the EPA's rules are law is bullshit.

 

Well if a vehicle's class isn't based strictly on its size then it must be based on something, no? So price isn't it? What is it then?

 

It isn't strictly based on anything except what the buyer needs and wants. it blurry and vague, but it's the truth.

 

70% of all Explorer buyers could make do with a minivan, but they still bought a Explorer, It not logical, neat or tidy, it just IS.

 

when you think about a sub compact car, all of those cars I listed could be potential options.

 

Price is important

Format is important.

Size is important.

utility

performance

comfort

value

it goes on and on.

 

The list is a varied as the tastes of buyers.

 

Because the general footprint of small cars are small buyer put more of a premium on utility, it makes more complex. because one car offers considerably more or less cargo or passenger room than the other because, there is so much variation within the class, and because the volumes of " subcompact CUVs" are too low o be strictly defined by companies or the consumer. it makes it difficult to make hard definitions of car like the Juke or the Soul, they are sub compact CUVs, but they ARE very different.

 

in mature classes like the full-sized car segment for example there isn't much difference in size or space but those differences are more expressed in content and performance.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

you also mistakenly classified the 3 series, A4, A3, C-Class, and Acura. I guess you were being intellectually lazy too.

Did the mistaken terminology alter the core of the argument?

 

Let's define it thus:

 

---

 

Lincoln should not build the Concept C for the following reasons:

 

Luxury cars with starting prices below MKZ do not sell well.

 

Luxury cars that are shaped like the Concept C do not sell well.

 

Lincoln does not have the brand cachet to induce people to buy a car smaller than the MKZ.

 

----

 

That is my argument, more rigorously defined. Can you find a fault with it?

[RichardJensen]

Then take my list and define what is wrong with it.

We did. It's not defined by any independently verifiable measure.

 

At least the EPA's classifications can be verified by measurement.

[RichardJensen]

it blurry and vague

Then don't say things like "70,800 B Segment Vehicles were sold in March"

 

That's neither blurry nor vague, that's a matter of fact declaration that should be supported by something other than "my list of stuff that's on my list."

Edited April 6, 2012 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

based on B-class architectures

That's darn close to being a defensible definition.

 

You might add: "A B-Class architecture supports at least one vehicle that is smaller than an EPA compact offered by the same manufacturer." That would cover the Hyundai/Kia B architecture, even though all the vehicles based on that architecture are officially EPA compacts. You can't really define it as 'the least expensive (or smallest) vehicle sold by an entry-level manufacturer' as that would include the Subaru Impreza.

 

78,000+ vehicles sold in March might've met that definition. I'd have to double check.

 

But that's the point. It's a number that can be externally verified.

Edited April 6, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

I assume you are only referring to Lexus cars. Cuz the IS, HS, and CT combined only account for 25.8% of their total sales. Even including the ES only gets you to 41%.

 

I see now it 45% of all Lexus car sales, and 25% of total sales.

 

my bad for not being more though.

[Biker16]

Did the mistaken terminology alter the core of the argument?

 

No but it illistrates the hypocrisy of one person mking up a list of cars and another person doing the same thing.

 

Luxury cars with starting prices below MKZ do not sell well.

 

maybe the MKz is underpriced.

 

Luxury cars that are shaped like the Concept C do not sell well.

 

That is a bold assumption since their are so few of them being sold. and none being sold in this country

 

 

this is the closest to it. and it sold 2300 last month compared to 2800 MKZs.

 

 

Lincoln does not have the brand cachet to induce people to buy a car smaller than the MKZ.

 

Maybe, maybe not, I think it would have been the compact car that could have added Cachet to the lincoln brand bringing more eyes to the lincoln.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Biker16

[jpd80]

The new MKZ now has a much longer wheelbase and different canopy making it feel more like a big car.

this may open up a space below it for a Focus based product but I'm not sure as Titanium Focus fits the bill

and perhaps the British Titanium X is a better proposition for exploring the luxury end of the C segment...

[Biker16]

The new MKZ now has a much longer wheelbase and different canopy making it feel more like a big car.

this may open up a space below it for a Focus based product but I'm not sure as Titanium Focus fits the bill

and perhaps the British Titanium X is a better proposition for exploring the luxury end of the C segment...

 

My Idea for a Lincoln C-Car would be based on the C-max, with either a hybrid or/and EB16 drivetrain, with 2+2 seating arraignment and sliding rear seats, and the IP and luxury acourments from the MKg. It would what the Escape is to the C-Max, the MKG would be to the MKc.

 

the footprint would be small but the interior room would rival a midsized luxury car, with the agility of a compact sports sedan.

 

that my idea and I am sticking to it. Having a compact tall wagon require very little sacrifice for the buyer.