June 2012 Sales Results

[Biker16]

A completely unrelated reference...

 

But I'm glad you brought it up. By your logic, the derivative market screwed investors because the government had no control. GM and Chrysler investors got screwed because the government took control.

 

Either way, it's apples and oranges. I appreciate your ignorance nonetheless. :P

 

So.... gubment does nothing is wrong... gubment does something wrong too?

 

ideologue... GM caused the economy to go to shit, right? I thought it was the free marketers, your side of the fence BTW, that allowed an unregulated derivatives market to sink the ship until the Gubment I.E. people of the United States bailed those banks out to the tune of 800 billion dollars, while GM and Chrysler were bailed out because those banks would not extend credit to anyone, so GM and Chrysler could not secure a line a credit similar to what Ford secured a few years earlier because the credit markets were frozen. 800,000 that was the number of jobs saved by government intervention in GM and Chrysler.

[sullynd]

Will the CVT be in the C-Max?

 

The e-CVT used in hybrids is not related to the CVT used in non-hybrids, such as the Five Hundred.

[aneekr]

The e-CVT used in hybrids is not related to the CVT used in non-hybrids, such as the Five Hundred.

 

Correct. The former is a "power sharing" design with two prime mover inputs (electric motor + IC engine) while the latter is a chain driven variable diamater pulley CVT with one primary mover input.

 

Incidentally, the unit used in the Five Hundred/Montego/Freestyle was ZF Friedrichshafen's CFT30.

[timmm55]

Isn't that essentially what he said?

 

Contrast with Sync which was good customer research paired with fairly solid execution.

 

"fairly solid" execution seemed like damned faint praise to me, especially for a segment leading technology.

[Extreme4x4]

So.... gubment does nothing is wrong... gubment does something wrong too?

 

ideologue... GM caused the economy to go to shit, right? I thought it was the free marketers, your side of the fence BTW, that allowed an unregulated derivatives market to sink the ship until the Gubment I.E. people of the United States bailed those banks out to the tune of 800 billion dollars, while GM and Chrysler were bailed out because those banks would not extend credit to anyone, so GM and Chrysler could not secure a line a credit similar to what Ford secured a few years earlier because the credit markets were frozen. 800,000 that was the number of jobs saved by government intervention in GM and Chrysler.

 

That statement is incorrect.

 

When Ford got their bank loans, the same basic loan program was offered to GM. GM's response was "we are GM and we don't need anyones money." Later, when GM really needed money, they went back to the bankers. The bankers asked them why they should loan them the money, and what their plan was (Ford was very humble when they received their loans. They admitted how badly they had screwed up and mismanaged their money, and showed a detailed plan on how they were going to fix it). GM basically acted like typical arrogant GM and said "you will give us money because we are GM, and that should be enough for anyone."

 

They didn't get any money.

 

They also tried to merge with Ford. Ford looked over their proposal (out of respect), which I am sure went something like "you give us access to all of your money, and we will make all of the decisions." They basically said, "thank you for the offer, but no thank you. We are pretty pleased with where we are."

 

It was basically after this, and after trying to merge with other companies................. which also failed................. that led them to needing government money to keep the lights on. By that point, they had burned any bridges that were available, and the government was the last financier available...................... to keep the lights on.

 

Please, no revisionist history. My series of events comes from Wescoent, who was in the room when everything transpired.

 

As for sales, I saw a new Escape on the road yesterday. I was surprised to see one so quickly. It looked good.

[FordBuyer]

That statement is incorrect.

 

When Ford got their bank loans, the same basic loan program was offered to GM. GM's response was "we are GM and we don't need anyones money." Later, when GM really needed money, they went back to the bankers. The bankers asked them why they should loan them the money, and what their plan was (Ford was very humble when they received their loans. They admitted how badly they had screwed up and mismanaged their money, and showed a detailed plan on how they were going to fix it). GM basically acted like typical arrogant GM and said "you will give us money because we are GM, and that should be enough for anyone."

 

They didn't get any money.

 

They also tried to merge with Ford. Ford looked over their proposal (out of respect), which I am sure went something like "you give us access to all of your money, and we will make all of the decisions." They basically said, "thank you for the offer, but no thank you. We are pretty pleased with where we are."

 

It was basically after this, and after trying to merge with other companies................. which also failed................. that led them to needing government money to keep the lights on. By that point, they had burned any bridges that were available, and the government was the last financier available...................... to keep the lights on.

 

Please, no revisionist history. My series of events comes from Wescoent, who was in the room when everything transpired.

 

As for sales, I saw a new Escape on the road yesterday. I was surprised to see one so quickly. It looked good.

 

Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker. Good vs. Evil. Always gotta love those stories. Now to find a good scriptwriter, and director.

[jpd80]

Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker. Good vs. Evil. Always gotta love those stories. Now to find a good scriptwriter, and director.

Well go back to 2004-5, GM actually did a 12 month make over ahead of Ford and proclaimed their company much more efficient.

They saw Ford mortgage everything and openly said they Felt Ford was doing way too much. (we're now at the end of 2006)

 

Next year in 2007, Gas prices soared and the lifestyle truck market curled up and died, with it went Ford and GM's profits as large SUV sales also tanked.

Ford had their mortgage and started closing down plants like Atlanta, it was about this time that GM was starting to run into cash flow troubles and by the

third quarter, they were starting to miss supplier payments, lurching on through 2008 Q1 and Q2 to finally...oops we're outa cash...

 

GM thought that had more time and better financial friends...

[sullynd]

"fairly solid" execution seemed like damned faint praise to me, especially for a segment leading technology.

 

Well, SYNC was my biggest disappointment with our Flex until they released an app a year after purchase which (mostly) solved my problem. "Fairly solid" seems about right to me.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I think these numbers are fantastic. I do not care 1 iota about the sales numbers of the others. Kevin O'Leary is my hero: "I only care about 1 thing: MAKING MON-EY". That's it. It's the ONLY reason for Ford to exist. You maximize profit to the extent possible. And ROI/ROE is a MUCH more important goal than the absolute numbers. Thus: Making $4B profit on a 10% margin is better than $5B on a 7.5% margin. Sure, that extra billion is an extra billion, but you're doing SOMETHING more inefficiently to get it. And that's bad news that will bite you in the ass at some point. Make a quality vehicle, constantly improve them and only produce what you can sell. If you need to produce more and hold the margin, then you do it. (i.e., Fusion).

 

 

 

I have to disagree with parts of this, and with the many other posters who are laudiing all over Ford's June sales gain. The truth is the US automotive market did the gaining while Ford lost market share. Good quarterly and annual profits are nice, but as history has shown us many times, these can all to quickly come to an end. Declining market shares seldom turn out good for corporations over the long term. There is no magic for Ford or anyone else in the automotive industry. Profits can only soar for so long while market share erodes. This also encourages more production moves to Mexico as forcing down the unit costs becomes vitally important. UAW workers will soon enough end-up on the losing side. A company which gets outrun when the market advances becomes weak when the demand recedes. A company which is too slow to catch the rising tide by efficiently ramping up production in a timely manner often finds itself finally getting product to a market which is drying up for at least what is has to offer.

[RichardJensen]

A company which is too slow to catch the rising tide by efficiently ramping up production in a timely manner often finds itself finally getting product to a market which is drying up for at least what is has to offer.

And this general truth applies to which specific Ford products?

[Edstock]

A company which gets outrun when the market advances becomes weak when the demand recedes.

 

That's your opinion. Please define what "weak" is, precisely and why this is a special problem for a "company which gets outrun when the market advances". Please provide examples of how this is the case. A company in that market roller-coaster might be very relieved that production has finally caught up with the back-orders, and be really pleased they didn't invest in what wasn't a solid market advance.

 

Of course, it helps if you are selling something of value. So demand recedes; if you have good product, you may even increase market share.

[DC Car Examiner]

Best-selling cars by class (asterisks denote a new winner compared to the previous month):

 

Subcompact cars: Kia Soul

Compact cars: Honda Civic

Midsize cars: Toyota Camry

Large cars: Chevrolet Impala

Entry-luxury cars: BMW 3-Series*

Luxury cars: Mercedes-Benz E-Class*

Compact crossovers/SUVs: Ford Escape*

Midsize crossovers/SUVs: Chevrolet Equinox

Large crossovers: Ford Explorer

Large SUVs: Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban

Entry-luxury crossovers/SUVs: Lexus RX

Luxury crossovers/SUVs: BMW X5

Minivans and vans: Ford E-Series*

Pickups: Ford F-Series

 

Full top-10 sales charts for each class at link:

http://www.examiner.com/article/best-selling-cars-of-june-2012-and-the-first-half-of-2012-by-class

[jpd80]

I have to disagree with parts of this, and with the many other posters who are laudiing all over Ford's June sales gain. The truth is the US automotive market did the gaining while Ford lost market share. Good quarterly and annual profits are nice, but as history has shown us many times, these can all to quickly come to an end. Declining market shares seldom turn out good for corporations over the long term. There is no magic for Ford or anyone else in the automotive industry. Profits can only soar for so long while market share erodes. This also encourages more production moves to Mexico as forcing down the unit costs becomes vitally important. UAW workers will soon enough end-up on the losing side. A company which gets outrun when the market advances becomes weak when the demand recedes. A company which is too slow to catch the rising tide by efficiently ramping up production in a timely manner often finds itself finally getting product to a market which is drying up for at least what is has to offer.

Oh Blah blah blah...

All that matters is that Ford is within 45,000 units of Gm each month ...and they're doing it without fleet dumping.

[FordBuyer]

Best-selling cars by class (asterisks denote a new winner compared to the previous month):

 

Subcompact cars: Kia Soul

Compact cars: Honda Civic

Midsize cars: Toyota Camry

Large cars: Chevrolet Impala

Entry-luxury cars: BMW 3-Series*

Luxury cars: Mercedes-Benz E-Class*

Compact crossovers/SUVs: Ford Escape*

Midsize crossovers/SUVs: Chevrolet Equinox

Large crossovers: Ford Explorer

Large SUVs: Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban

Entry-luxury crossovers/SUVs: Lexus RX

Luxury crossovers/SUVs: BMW X5

Minivans and vans: Ford E-Series*

Pickups: Ford F-Series

 

Full top-10 sales charts for each class at link:

http://www.examiner....f-2012-by-class

 

Ford has four different nameplates that are best seller in its segment. What other auto company has that distinction? Ford also produces about 650,000 vehicles/quarter and sells about 620,000 leaving them only about 30,000 in reserve. That will even be hard to maintain as Hermosillo goes down for retooling and slow ramp up next month, and part of KCAP is retooling and won't be open for production until later in 2013. Third shift at LAP doesn't start until this fall. And AAI won'd be producing extra Fusions until late 2013. So those expecting year over year Ford increases of 30%+ plus must be on something illegal. It takes almost a year to retool a plant from scratch and another 6 months to get up to full ramp up speed. For that matter, LAP is still many months away from full ramp up speed as third shift hasn't been added yet and the 2 shifts it's on now even with overtime is not near maximum production yet.

[Biker16]

Briefly:

- DCT, like CVT, is getting negative reviews from customers even when working properly or within tolerances (cf BlackHorse)

 

- DCT is not being used on identical engines in newer vehicles in the Ford lineup, which suggests that Ford is either not pleased with it 1) because customers don't like it or 2) because it doesn't deliver promised fuel economy improvements.

 

- FNA managers, having already been burned by the BW CVT fiasco, to the tune of a few hundred million, would almost certainly not have gone along with a dog-and-pony show from a supplier for a novel transmission. Europe based engineers, however, who had charge of the C2 program appear to have bought into the notion.

 

Try not to be cranky about it. The important thing is that Ford learned from their mistakes.

 

the DCT made in the North America

 

is the GETRAG Powershift® 6DCT250 TRANSMISSION

 

Torque limited to 200ft/lbs.

 

I.E.

 

over boost on the EB16 would place it close to that limit. add in AWD and increased mass and clutch life would be adversely affected

 

another reason is the different expectations from the driver in C vs CD cars in North America. the need for more refinement in a midsized car is must.

 

BTW Black horse was a whiny little expletive, his opinion doesn't mean jack

 

Focus sales are up 34 % this year.

[Biker16]

That statement is incorrect.

 

When Ford got their bank loans, the same basic loan program was offered to GM. GM's response was "we are GM and we don't need anyones money." Later, when GM really needed money, they went back to the bankers. The bankers asked them why they should loan them the money, and what their plan was (Ford was very humble when they received their loans. They admitted how badly they had screwed up and mismanaged their money, and showed a detailed plan on how they were going to fix it). GM basically acted like typical arrogant GM and said "you will give us money because we are GM, and that should be enough for anyone."

 

They didn't get any money.

 

They also tried to merge with Ford. Ford looked over their proposal (out of respect), which I am sure went something like "you give us access to all of your money, and we will make all of the decisions." They basically said, "thank you for the offer, but no thank you. We are pretty pleased with where we are."

 

It was basically after this, and after trying to merge with other companies................. which also failed................. that led them to needing government money to keep the lights on. By that point, they had burned any bridges that were available, and the government was the last financier available...................... to keep the lights on.

 

Please, no revisionist history. My series of events comes from Wescoent, who was in the room when everything transpired.

 

As for sales, I saw a new Escape on the road yesterday. I was surprised to see one so quickly. It looked good.

 

you are speaking of 2007 -2008. I was talking about the line of credit for took out in 2004 or 2005. that line of credit cushioned them and gave them the cash they need to keep going and to refuse government assistance in 2008.

 

Of note: Toyota and Honda had more than enough cash on hand to survive without drastically reducing capacity like Ford had to. They were able to idle the plants an workers until thing got better and take advantage of the market growth we are seeing today.

 

Make no mistake If GM would have gone under in 2008 Ford would have soon followed. The supplier networks were too interconnected.

[FordBuyer]

you are speaking of 2007 -2008. I was talking about the line of credit for took out in 2004 or 2005. that line of credit cushioned them and gave them the cash they need to keep going and to refuse government assistance in 2008.

 

Of note: Toyota and Honda had more than enough cash on hand to survive without drastically reducing capacity like Ford had to. They were able to idle the plants an workers until thing got better and take advantage of the market growth we are seeing today.

 

Make no mistake If GM would have gone under in 2008 Ford would have soon followed. The supplier networks were too interconnected.

 

That's why Mulally was in Washington with Waggoner and Nardelli/Press begging for loans and all got beat up especially by the Republican Senators from the South who had the foreign transplants in their states. They acted like it was their money and the hundreds of thousands of domestic auto workers and supplier should be sacrificed on the altar of coservative politics. In the end though, the Domestic CEO's were just taken to the woodshed to be tortured for awhile to make it look like the politicians were watching out for taxpayer money as if they ever did countless times before. Nothing more than a dog and pony show.

[akirby]

Of note: Toyota and Honda had more than enough cash on hand to survive without drastically reducing capacity like Ford had to. They were able to idle the plants an workers until thing got better and take advantage of the market growth we are seeing today.

 

Ford did not reduce capacity just to survive. They cut capacity because they had too much of it except for Fusion. Period.

 

Other than Fusion, which models are capacity constrained to the point they need a new plant?

[FordBuyer]

Ford did not reduce capacity just to survive. They cut capacity because they had too much of it except for Fusion. Period.

 

Other than Fusion, which models are capacity constrained to the point they need a new plant?

 

Possibly Escape when new Lincoln goes into production there and Ford starts offering special lease rates and incentives on new Escape. And maybe F-Series if fuel prices get down to $3 or so and stay there for awhile with global economy slowing. Ford is selling 50,000 F-Series/month with no real recovery in housing. If housing really starts recovering, Ford could easily sell another 20,000 trucks/month. Not like before when they sold over 80,000/month, but 60,000-70,000 is not beyond reality assuming housing gets going again. As for better utilizing an existing plant, OAC is not that busy with only Edge selling well and rest of lineup low volume sellers. It seems to me OAC could make another 100,000 units/year if it had the right product.

[Noah Harbinger]

Only once the debt is paid.

 

It's not forgiveness unless you have something to forgive.

[RichardJensen]

the need for more refinement in a midsized car is must

Ford, at present, is the only manufacturer without a conventional automatic in its compact car. Because customers are demanding midsize type refinement from compact cars, Ford will offer a conventional automatic either in place of or in tandem with the DCT within the life cycle of the C2 platform. You can make book on that.

[silvrsvt]

Ford, at present, is the only manufacturer without a conventional automatic in its compact car. Because customers are demanding midsize type refinement from compact cars, Ford will offer a conventional automatic either in place of or in tandem with the DCT within the life cycle of the C2 platform. You can make book on that.

 

but do they even have the build capacity in the 6F do this?

[NickF1011]

Of note: Toyota and Honda had more than enough cash on hand to survive without drastically reducing capacity like Ford had to. They were able to idle the plants an workers until thing got better and take advantage of the market growth we are seeing today.

 

Toyota never had the excess capacity issues Ford had in the first place so their need to idle or close anything down didn't exist.

[grbeck]

So.... gubment does nothing is wrong... gubment does something wrong too?

 

ideologue... GM caused the economy to go to shit, right? I thought it was the free marketers, your side of the fence BTW, that allowed an unregulated derivatives market to sink the ship until the Gubment I.E. people of the United States bailed those banks out to the tune of 800 billion dollars, while GM and Chrysler were bailed out because those banks would not extend credit to anyone, so GM and Chrysler could not secure a line a credit similar to what Ford secured a few years earlier because the credit markets were frozen. 800,000 that was the number of jobs saved by government intervention in GM and Chrysler.

 

Wrong on both counts. One, as others have noted, GM WAS offered a line of credit similar to the one Ford negotiated, but GM management refused. Yes, GM couldn't get credit in 2008, but that is because no sane lender would have extended it credit even without the collapse of the financial sector. GM needed to file for bankruptcy around 2005. It was evident by then that GM was in deep trouble.

 

Two, the market was "sunk" because of govermment meddling in the finance sector that dates back to the 1990s. Blaming this collapse on the free market run amok is laughable at best.

[03 LS]

That statement is incorrect.

 

When Ford got their bank loans, the same basic loan program was offered to GM. GM's response was "we are GM and we don't need anyones money." Later, when GM really needed money, they went back to the bankers. The bankers asked them why they should loan them the money, and what their plan was (Ford was very humble when they received their loans. They admitted how badly they had screwed up and mismanaged their money, and showed a detailed plan on how they were going to fix it). GM basically acted like typical arrogant GM and said "you will give us money because we are GM, and that should be enough for anyone."

 

They didn't get any money.

 

They also tried to merge with Ford. Ford looked over their proposal (out of respect), which I am sure went something like "you give us access to all of your money, and we will make all of the decisions." They basically said, "thank you for the offer, but no thank you. We are pretty pleased with where we are."

 

It was basically after this, and after trying to merge with other companies................. which also failed................. that led them to needing government money to keep the lights on. By that point, they had burned any bridges that were available, and the government was the last financier available...................... to keep the lights on.

 

Please, no revisionist history. My series of events comes from Wescoent, who was in the room when everything transpired.

 

As for sales, I saw a new Escape on the road yesterday. I was surprised to see one so quickly. It looked good.

As I remembered, GM did get their money, by selling half of GMAC, and this was before Ford's 23B mortgage, IIRC. The difference between GM and Ford's plan was they did not have a realistic view of how bad their operations were (as bad or worse than Ford's), so they planned no real reform but just got the money they thought was enough to wait it out (through the downturn), and they did also get UAW concessions in 2007. Then things got worse and 2008 happened.