Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

The average cost of a new car is roughly $35k.

 

Pricing might be getting out of hand, but outside of building a car in China or even Mexico to make a profit. there is no way of putting that gene back into the bottle.

 

This why we are approaching the nexus of ride sharing/autonomous cars/etc for a set fee. Youll lease a car for $500, but that price will include insurance and off site recharging-but you wont own the car-youll have to use an app and hopefully it will show up within 10-15 minutes of it showing up. Thats where this is all leading.

Well isn't the reason we can't build a low cost car in this country simply because we have a model that says... the more complexity and systems you put into it the higher the ATP?? If Ford designed a manufacturing system to crank out a bare bones inexpensive car, they couldn't do it?? Its the age of robots, outsourced sub assemblies (I think) so why can't they crank out an import fighter?

 

IMO they can-but the ATP issue is what seems to be the only yardstick that matters.

 

Like I said-IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a technique I use in training presentations to identify the OCDs who just have to say something

 

Here's another one Aluminium......I use it alot......:P

 

You misspelled beer can. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't the reason we can't build a low cost car in this country simply because we have a model that says... the more complexity and systems you put into it the higher the ATP?? If Ford designed a manufacturing system to crank out a bare bones inexpensive car, they couldn't do it?? Its the age of robots, outsourced sub assemblies (I think) so why can't they crank out an import fighter?

 

The imports are "expensive" too...the only reason the most of them make more money then Domestic makes is currency manipulation and cheaper labor costs.

 

If a company can sell say 10K car and break even or make money on it in the US-don't you think they would be doing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't the reason we can't build a low cost car in this country simply because we have a model that says... the more complexity and systems you put into it the higher the ATP?? If Ford designed a manufacturing system to crank out a bare bones inexpensive car, they couldn't do it?? Its the age of robots, outsourced sub assemblies (I think) so why can't they crank out an import fighter?

 

Of course they could build such a car but for what purpose? To make $1 on each one? The imports don’t have a F series or Expedition so they don’t have much choice. They make up for the lower profit margins with global economies of scale and currency exchange rates.

 

At those prices you can make far more money by not building such a vehicle and buying a CD or investing in the stock market instead. Once you look at it from a business standpoint it should make perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The imports are "expensive" too...the only reason the most of them make more money then Domestic makes is currency manipulation and cheaper labor costs.

 

If a company can sell say 10K car and break even or make money on it in the US-don't you think they would be doing it?

.

The demands of Wall Street would not allow it....it must make a profit for the investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The demands of Wall Street would not allow it....it must make a profit for the investors.

Exactly-it boils down to that market share is a horrible indicator of being profitable-Porsche has been a prime example of that. Not much market share, but wildly profitable. I think thats part of the mindset Ford must have since they arent chasing market share (I.e. building new plants) and are content with their current share and are looking to maximize the amount of $$$ they can make off it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly-it boils down to that market share is a horrible indicator of being profitable-Porsche has been a prime example of that. Not much market share, but wildly profitable. I think thats part of the mindset Ford must have since they arent chasing market share (I.e. building new plants) and are content with their current share and are looking to maximize the amount of $$$ they can make off it

 

Bingo! Plus, with the automotive market being so cyclical, if you can remove yourself from some of the fight for market share and focus on profit per vehicle, you can isolate yourself a bit more from those cycles for shallower dips and shorter peaks for a more steady flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get back to the subject at hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is soooo much wrong in that video it's not even funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an analogy.

 

You have an apple cart with limited space. You can buy regular granny smith and red delicious apples from the wholesaler and compete directly with the grocery stores and big box stores and if you're lucky you can make 20 cents per apple selling 100 per day. Now publix decides to have a sale and you have to match their prices and your profit drops to 10 cents per apple and you're only selling 75 per day. Next week Kroger does the same. Now you're not making much at all.

 

Or you can find a local orchard that grows unique varieties not found in the grocery store and you can sell 75 per day making 80 cents per apple and you're not impacted if the grocery store decides to have a sale because you have a unique product. You've invested the exact same time and money but you're making $60/day instead of $7.50/day.

 

That's exactly the scenario with regular car sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is soooo much wrong in that video it's not even funny.

 

He lost me at "supposably"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He lost me at "supposably"...

 

There is soooo much wrong in that video it's not even funny.

.

I agree 100%...just trying to swerve the conversation back to the 7.X motor...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an analogy.

 

You have an apple cart with limited space. You can buy regular granny smith and red delicious apples from the wholesaler and compete directly with the grocery stores and big box stores and if you're lucky you can make 20 cents per apple selling 100 per day. Now publix decides to have a sale and you have to match their prices and your profit drops to 10 cents per apple and you're only selling 75 per day. Next week Kroger does the same. Now you're not making much at all.

 

Or you can find a local orchard that grows unique varieties not found in the grocery store and you can sell 75 per day making 80 cents per apple and you're not impacted if the grocery store decides to have a sale because you have a unique product. You've invested the exact same time and money but you're making $60/day instead of $7.50/day.

 

That's exactly the scenario with regular car sales.

OK AK, Very good analogy. And trust me guys, I own a lot of Ford stock and I totally get the profitability picture. The point I was trying to make (and obviously failed in that attempt) is that IF Ford or anyone else wanted to build a low cost vehicle without losing their ass, they could. Again it would be expanding the product mix so that when all the millennials discover that they are not going to be left as much money as they thought they would when the old folks croak, they could buy something other than a used car.

 

Now, no argument, if there is no idle plant capacity that could build such a vehicle, and you are maxing production in all you plants with the high ATP vehicles- case closed. Unless of course you do a JV with someone who still has a belief that a market exists for a "people's car". ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the 7.??, note he made no mention of commercial trucks-and in particular class 6 and 7. I thought commercial trucks-and in particular class 6 and 7 was the big motivator for a big gasoline engine-recognizing not every operator of mediums runs the kind of annual mileage needed to justify the diesel premium.

 

And if this medium duty application is/was the key reason to bring this big block gasser out, I believe the true gear heads on this site have indicated the 6.2 is just not suited for the duty cycles a high GVW/CCW engine must meet.

 

This then blows his case apart as he keeps talking about the 6.2 roots behind this motor-at least I think he harped on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the old adage about selling a young person their first new car and making them a customer for life is no longer true. There are too many good choices out there and a lot of folks who buy a cheap vehicle because it's cheap doesn't have any brand loyalty to start with - they'll always buy whatever is cheap. I think loyalty is far more prevalent within a specific model - like Accord and Camry and F150. They've built up a loyal customer base who buy the same models over and over and that's the only way you get to 400K, 600K or 1M vehicles per year. You saw that with the 2nd gen Fusion - big jump in sales as the first gen buyers traded in for a 2nd gen in addition to all the new sales. Repeat with each generation and you can see how that snowballs over time.

 

Ford could easily continue building Fusion in Mexico on C2 with simplified options and make a small profit. But they'd have to build a new factory at some point for the other new models so that's a huge investment and huge fixed cost. Had they decided not to do two new small utilities that would probably still be the plan.

 

So you end up with option A - keep Fusion, build a new plant (and you might need to add engineers and designers as well) or option B - jettison Fusion, reuse Hermosillo and avoid the cost of building a new plant and hiring more people. And you have to factor in future demand for each product. And then you look at the ROI for each one.

 

It's not really a case of right or wrong - it's just making the best business decision at a particular point in time. And Ford has a lot more options than most mfrs right now with BEVs, PHEVs, HEVs and AVs to invest in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the derail - I'll try to stay on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the 7.??, note he made no mention of commercial trucks-and in particular class 6 and 7. I thought commercial trucks-and in particular class 6 and 7 was the big motivator for a big gasoline engine-recognizing not every operator of mediums runs the kind of annual mileage needed to justify the diesel premium.

 

And if this medium duty application is/was the key reason to bring this big block gasser out, I believe the true gear heads on this site have indicated the 6.2 is just not suited for the duty cycles a high GVW/CCW engine must meet.

 

This then blows his case apart as he keeps talking about the 6.2 roots behind this motor-at least I think he harped on that.

 

That dude's a hack and has no clue what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an analogy.

 

You have an apple cart with limited space. You can buy regular granny smith and red delicious apples from the wholesaler and compete directly with the grocery stores and big box stores and if you're lucky you can make 20 cents per apple selling 100 per day. Now publix decides to have a sale and you have to match their prices and your profit drops to 10 cents per apple and you're only selling 75 per day. Next week Kroger does the same. Now you're not making much at all.

 

Or you can find a local orchard that grows unique varieties not found in the grocery store and you can sell 75 per day making 80 cents per apple and you're not impacted if the grocery store decides to have a sale because you have a unique product. You've invested the exact same time and money but you're making $60/day instead of $7.50/day.

 

That's exactly the scenario with regular car sales.

In automotive manufacturing terms, Ford is the grocery store.

 

If Ford is that grocery store then they can't compete with other grocery stores selling the same apples. I'd pull my investment out of that grocery store too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That dude's a hack and has no clue what he's talking about.

 

At least he posted a picture of a gas V-8 this time (early 6.2L in a 2011 F-150). Last time he posted a picture of a 7.3L Powerstroke long block. Getting closer!

Edited by 7Mary3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At least he posted a picture of a gas V-8 this time (early 6.2L in a 2011 F-150). Last time he posted a picture of a 7.3L Powerstroke long block. Getting closer!

 

He had the displacement right the first time! :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on here knows all about this new 7.3 engine. Lets see how can we pry some information from you?

 

Can you tell us the bore spacing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent question!

If 7.3 liter V8 has same architecture as the 6.2 V8, bore centers would be 115mm. It would need to have a taller deck height at around 10.

However, if the 7.3 is a completely new architecture, I suspect the bore centers will be increase to around 117mm, close to the old FE series of the 1960s.

With 117mm bore centers, we would have enough room for water between each bore with ample wall thinness for a couple of overbites in the reman business. Deck height would be around 256mm to allow for a heavy duty piston compression height and say a 1.63 rod to stroke ratio.

If we take this same block and utilize a shorter stroke to get to 7.0 liters, the con rod would get longer and the piston compression height would get shorter giving us something around a 1.76 rod to stroke ratio. This is how you can have a 7.3 HD and a 7.0 HP from the same block!

Unfortunately, no one is taking yet so its all speculation on my part!

 

Edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent question!

If 7.3 liter V8 has same architecture as the 6.2 V8, bore centers would be 115mm. It would need to have a taller deck height at around 10.

However, if the 7.3 is a completely new architecture, I suspect the bore centers will be increase to around 117mm, close to the old FE series of the 1960s.

With 117mm bore centers, we would have enough room for water between each bore with ample wall thinness for a couple of overbites in the reman business. Deck height would be around 256mm to allow for a heavy duty piston compression height and say a 1.63 rod to stroke ratio.

If we take this same block and utilize a shorter stroke to get to 7.0 liters, the con rod would get longer and the piston compression height would get shorter giving us something around a 1.76 rod to stroke ratio. This is how you can have a 7.3 HD and a 7.0 HP from the same block!

Unfortunately, no one is taking yet so its all speculation on my part!

 

Edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original reports were that we would see more about this motor in the latter part of 2018....well??? It is November 2018....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×