Ford April 2012 Sales Figures

[jpd80]

MKEscape has been in development much longer, and IIRC it goes into production Q1 of 2013. The Explorer-variant didn't get the green light until close to the 2011 Explorer launch. It's more than just a reskin... expect the Continuously Controlled Dampening, Lincoln SelectDrive, and a host of other changes in transition.

Remembering that a few years back Mulally was wanting a Lincoln version of the Kuga but that wasn't possible at the time,

so no doubt, he put plans in motion to make this gen of Escape available in a Lincoln version.

 

I am surprised that a new D3 Aviator didn't launch with the Explorer, to me that's a missed opportunity..

[PREMiERdrum]

I am surprised that a new D3 Aviator didn't launch with the Explorer, to me that's a missed opportunity..

 

I think it speaks to the general lack of vision within Lincoln at the time.

[akirby]

I think it speaks to the general lack of vision within Lincoln at the time.

 

I wouldn't call it lack of vision - I'd call it lack of a committed plan. When the 2011 Explorer was being created Ford had not yet decided what to do with Lincoln and Mercury. And that was on purpose because they were focusing on revitalizing the Ford brand and getting back to black ink. The MKT was also relatively new.

 

I think once they did decide to go forward with Lincoln there was still debate about what to do with the navigator and MKT and MKX relative to the new Aviator. There may have been platform questions as well (whether to use D4 or CD4 or something else).

[rmc523]

The MKT "Town Car" launched with the 2012 model, which has only been in production for 4 weeks.

 

You mean 2013 model?

 

Huh? I'm one of the Flex supporters (partially because we have one), but I don't recall anyone here that has said the Flex should get priority over Explorer in marketing and promotion.

 

Some of us have argued that Flex could use more marketing and promotion in general since it's launch as many people still have no idea what it is - that's the closest I can get to what he's arguing (that I recall, anyway).

[PREMiERdrum]

You mean 2013 model?

 

Yup,

[mikeyairtime]

You have no idea what you're talking about. What Ford says publicly has nothing to do with their internal business plans. The old Ranger wasn't viable and the new one isn't ready yet. When the market is only 250K vehicles or less what does it mean to "dominate" that market? 100K? 150K? And what does it cost for that domination vs. how much profit can be made?

 

Building a base is what I'm talking about. Brand loyalty is what I'm talking about. Developing a market is what I'm talking about. Once a kid gets in a Tacoma he's a Toyota guy and Ford will have to pry him out.

 

Which 30 mpg FWD world truck is that? And how do you know Ford isn't already planning to offer something like that? I guarantee there will be a new Ford truck within 2 years that will offer best in class fuel economy. Whether that's a smaller, lighter F150, F100, Ranger or unibody based is TBD.

 

That would be the one attached, the one we see all over except here in the US. For a (non truck) guy who knows everything you need to get out more. A cheap high mpg truck, not another bloated suv with a bed.

 

But which do you think is more important? A F100 that still functions as a full sized work truck but gets 4 mpg better than the best full sized pickup today that can compete in a market of 1.5M - 2M vehicles or something that only competes in the small truck segment in a market of 250K tops (and falling)?

 

Neither, a real little truck, not a little 3' bed but a real 6' bed that can carry a couple dirt bikes or bring home a couch from IKEA.

 

 

Oh and BTW, a smaller lighter F150, you mean a Ford Tundra. And I have no idea......

Edited May 2, 2012 by mikeyairtime

[akirby]

The ranger was dropped because of fear plain and simple. Fear that it would cut into the #1 truck in America. There's another problem and that is executives totally out of touch with the market.

 

This is the part that you have no idea about. Ford is simply being smart about where they spend their money (or where they don't). Spending money on an old product in a shrinking market would be stupid.

[2005Explorer]

I don't think they were sure what they wanted to do with Lincoln and the Navigator until recently.

 

What are they doing with the Navigator (and the Expedition for that matter)? No one seems to know.

Edited May 3, 2012 by 2005Explorer

[ANTAUS]

I wouldnt mind seeing a Lincoln version of the Escape, but already having the Escape fully loaded hitting $37K, I mean...where are they going to start it at $40K ? Then push the MKX into the $50K and trust me, it aint no $50K vehicle...

[PREMiERdrum]

What are they doing with the Navigator (and the Expedition for that matter)? No one seems to know.

 

There was an MCE for both ready to roll out last year which was pushed back for whatever reason. That MCE (new engines, front clips, and interiors) was set to carry through 2015 or so, when an all-new version would debut on the new F-150 platform.

 

The MCE may have just been delayed to next year, perhaps allowing them to stagger the launch of the new model behind the F-150. I've heard that the longterm future of both is simply "under review" (which isn't really that telling, everything is always "under review").

[silvrsvt]

I wouldnt mind seeing a Lincoln version of the Escape, but already having the Escape fully loaded hitting $37K, I mean...where are they going to start it at $40K ? Then push the MKX into the $50K and trust me, it aint no $50K vehicle...

 

Well some Examples:

 

Acura MDX $43K

Acura RDX $34K

 

It does raise an interesting question about the Lincoln Explorer...where does that slot in price with the MKX and Lincoln Escape...going by what Acura is doing, the list on a Lincoln Escape would be over $45K

[akirby]

There was an MCE for both ready to roll out last year which was pushed back for whatever reason. That MCE (new engines, front clips, and interiors) was set to carry through 2015 or so, when an all-new version would debut on the new F-150 platform.

 

The MCE may have just been delayed to next year, perhaps allowing them to stagger the launch of the new model behind the F-150. I've heard that the longterm future of both is simply "under review" (which isn't really that telling, everything is always "under review").

 

It's also possible they decided to wait for the new platform.

[jpd80]

I wouldnt mind seeing a Lincoln version of the Escape, but already having the Escape fully loaded hitting $37K, I mean...where are they going to start it at $40K ? Then push the MKX into the $50K and trust me, it aint no $50K vehicle...

MKX already starts at $39,500 and is by no means "fully loaded" even though it's about $5,000 above Edge Limited.

Escape Titanium is around $30,000 so I expect MKEscape will be around $35,000, still about $4,500 less than an MKX.

 

Ford is moving up market and so too is Lincoln

Edited May 3, 2012 by jpd80

[2005Explorer]

It's also possible they decided to wait for the new platform.

 

I'm not sure they can make it until 2015 without any updates. I know how Ford treated the Ranger and Crown Victoria and maybe that is the same plan with these, but those were headed for the trash heap so it didn't matter much. If they plan on replacing it in a few years I think they would want to keep it somewhat relevant in the market. Some new styling and new 5.0 V8 and 3.5 EB engines could put a little life back in them for the next 3 model years.

[fordmantpw]

I'm not sure they can make it until 2015 without any updates. I know how Ford treated the Ranger and Crown Victoria and maybe that is the same plan with these, but those were headed for the trash heap so it didn't matter much. If they plan on replacing it in a few years I think they would want to keep it somewhat relevant in the market. Some new styling and new 5.0 V8 and 3.5 EB engines could put a little life back in them for the next 3 model years.

 

But is there enough profit in doing that to make it worth while? Or is it just better to put the extra money into the all new model and really raise the bar?

[jpd80]

But is there enough profit in doing that to make it worth while? Or is it just better to put the extra money into the all new model and really raise the bar?

Especially onsidering that the 5.4 3V Expy 2WD is only 1-2 mpg behind the 5,0 and Ecoboost F150 2WD respectively

Edited May 3, 2012 by jpd80

[akirby]

If they plan on replacing it in a few years I think they would want to keep it somewhat relevant in the market.

 

Did that hurt the new Explorer?

[Kev-Mo]

Done. This is really all we ever need to know about the decision to kill the Ranger. The hand-wringing over lost potential Ranger buyers to Toyota is utterly overblown.

 

Not picking a fight, but I’m not so sure it is that simple –

If my company typically sells 100k widgets in a given period and my competitors sell 80k widgets – then the market increases by 20k and I sell 105k widgets and my competition sells 95k widgets – I am not sure I could walk into the meeting and say we are doing great, especially if I have to speak to that line chart.

But we were capacity constrained! Yes, not the worst problem to have, but there are many facets to an enterprise in order for it to succeed at the expense of its competition. An accurate market demand forecast is one area, and apparently Ford did not execute well here.

Those last few months on the posted line chart are cause for a bit of alarm. Not the sky is falling, gloom and doom, or Ford should still offer an obsolete small truck (although a competitive one would be nice), but certainly a bit of alarm. Other product lines, notably Toyota, offer more variety and somehow appeal to younger buyers even though their product does not clearly win in any single category. An earlier post showed they are lower in incentives also. Toyota’s profit forecasts are plenty healthy for the upcoming year, so that card is not worth playing. It clearly appears that they are gaining at Ford’s expense – or due to Ford’s inability to respond to increased overall market.

In the next few months we will be chanting: We’re number three, we’re number three, and we’re number three!

Controlling growth, embedded with continued quality and profitability are great challenges for any company. As I see it, this is why guys like Mulally and Farley make the big bucks. I am a big fan and eagerly wait to see how they respond – tactically and strategically.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Kev-Mo

[NickF1011]

Not picking a fight, but I’m not so sure it is that simple –

If my company typically sells 100k widgets in a given period and my competitors sell 80k widgets – then the market increases by 20k and I sell 105k widgets and my competition sells 95k widgets – I am not sure I could walk into the meeting and say we are doing great, especially if I have to speak to that line chart.

 

That analogy only works if all widgets bring the same profits, which in the case of the F-series and Ranger they did not.

[akirby]

That analogy only works if all widgets bring the same profits, which in the case of the F-series and Ranger they did not.

 

Nor does overall sales volume guarantee profits.

 

Being no. 3 is fine if the company is healthy and profitable.

[Kev-Mo]

That analogy only works if all widgets bring the same profits, which in the case of the F-series and Ranger they did not.

 

Read the entire post, this is not about the Ranger specifically. It is about the market growth that Ford is missing out on.

In summary - Ford is selling more cars and trucks, but everyone is selling more cars and trucks. I mentioned this in the March discussion and you guys destroyed me. The line chart clearly shows others are grabbing more share of the growth -and profitable to boot! This would be cause for concern in any enterprise.

 

I stand by the widget analogy as a simple explanation. I know you and RJ will not agree - but some others see it. Again, not doom and gloom, but cause for concern and perhaps a tactical move.

[mettech]

That analogy only works if all widgets bring the same profits, which in the case of the F-series and Ranger they did not.

 

Then why build anything other than the F-series?

 

It appears that Ford believes that being in every segment in the automobile/CUV/SUV is important.. no matter what the profit margins are.

 

Does Ford share those platforms in other markets? Yes... to exclude the Mustang.

 

Ford is bringing in the Transit Connect and the new E-series that was developed overseas.

 

Will the Transit Connect bring in the same profit margin as the next or current E-series? If not, should it be dropped.

 

 

Not bring the T6 to the States is a mistake.

[NickF1011]

Read the entire post, this is not about the Ranger specifically. It is about the market growth that Ford is missing out on.

In summary - Ford is selling more cars and trucks, but everyone is selling more cars and trucks. I mentioned this in the March discussion and you guys destroyed me. The line chart clearly shows others are grabbing more share of the growth -and profitable to boot! This would be cause for concern in any enterprise.

 

I stand by the widget analogy as a simple explanation. I know you and RJ will not agree - but some others see it. Again, not doom and gloom, but cause for concern and perhaps a tactical move.

 

Ford is growing at a rate they are comfortable with. Who's to say that Ford would be making as much money if they simply focused on volume growth? You are looking at it in a very one-dimensional manner.

[NickF1011]

It appears that Ford believes that being in every segment in the automobile/CUV/SUV is important.. no matter what the profit margins are.

 

Yes. Ford's minivan is very competitive. Oh wait.

 

The ROI on the Ranger was likely headed very close to zero. Should any of Ford's other lines of vehicles trend in that manner I would wholly expect them to cancel those too.

 

Not bring the T6 to the States is a mistake.

 

Perhaps. But it's not a mistake that can be readily corrected now or in the immediate future, so there's no sense crying over it now. In the end, we'll never know how Ford's numbers crunched out. If they didn't see T6 as being a profitable proposition at this time, then they lost absolutely nothing not selling it here.

Edited May 3, 2012 by NickF1011

[Edstock]

I stand by the widget analogy as a simple explanation. I know you and RJ will not agree - but some others see it. Again, not doom and gloom, but cause for concern and perhaps a tactical move.

Understandable.

 

However, Ford is currently in process of launching how many products for both nameplates over the next 24 months? Problem is, they're not here NOW, and not for a few months more, it seems.

 

The new Escape, Fusion, Focus ST, have yet to make it to showrooms. Some kind of Max hybrid, maybe either the Eco-Sport or B-Max then 18 months from now a re-freshed FIesta, plus Mustang plus Lincoln product, plus new F-150 plus the Econoline/Transit and a re-freshed TransitConnect.

 

Seems the PD gang are kinda busy these days . . .