Autoextremist: Ford in Free Fall

[ehaase]

 

I'll reserve judgement but tend to think that all Ford's references to "white space silhouette" vehicles is code for them not having any idea what they're going to do!

 

I think some prominent posters here read too much into this "white space" stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Ford and/or Lincoln sedan based on the Mach I electric vehicle platform, but that's hardly a Taurus or Fusion replacement.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

I think some prominent posters here read too much into this "white space" stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Ford and/or Lincoln sedan based on the Mach I electric vehicle platform, but that's hardly a Taurus or Fusion replacement.

Thats because its a made up vague term that they havent defined at all.

[jpd80]

Why?

Why keep divisions around that struggle to make money

selling a bunch of Fiestas and Focus that are made in

A high cost German plant

[jpd80]

How would Ford show a Fusion Active concept after killing the next generation Fusion development months ago?

 

They didn’t cancel development of NG Mondeo (China)

Just supplier contracts for Hermosillo and Valencia

[jpd80]

Thats because its a made up vague term that they havent defined at all.

They have to be careful here because admitting that the white space

vehicles are just cars with higher ride height could put Ford in conflict

when it claims them as crossovers for CAFE

Edited May 15, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

White space is, by definition, undefined.

[jpd80]

White space is, by definition, undefined.

Farley describing them as crossovers...probably forced to do so

because of concerns that Ford was abandoning car buyers

Edited May 15, 2018 by jpd80

[probowler]

Why do we harp on the business aspect? To explain why Ford does some of the things it does. It does not mean we like it or support it necessarily, it just means that as a business decision their criteria makes sense.

 

E.g. Ford says it wants a 8% margin. They’re willing to take less revenue to do it. Why? Because it’s more efficient.

 

Other companies are ok with a smaller margin. And other companies don’t have some of the higher margin vehicles like Ford. E.g. Kia isn’t going to be able to sell a full sized pickup and make money. So for some companies the smaller cars are the only thing they can sell at volume so they stay in that business with smaller margins. Also they may be selling those vehicles globally so North America is just incremental volume. But even those companies are also going after the new smaller utes and “active” vehicles.

 

I guarantee you if Ford didn’t need MAP for Ranger/Bronco and they weren’t doing EVs/Autonomous cars then Fusion and Focus production would continue albeit with a slightly different product mix and probably lower volume. But they need that factory space and capital for other things. It’s never a single thing - it’s always 2 or 3 or 12 things that together go into a decision like that.

At this point Ford has been struggling with factory space for HOW long now?? It seems like years... Yeah you don't want to sit under capacity... but it would be nice to have SOME room for growth and extra production. Higher margins are great, but shouldn't selling more vehicles still be a goal?

I feel like Ford is dropping the ball by not having another factory ready

[rmc523]

At this point Ford has been struggling with factory space for HOW long now?? It seems like years... Yeah you don't want to sit under capacity... but it would be nice to have SOME room for growth and extra production. Higher margins are great, but shouldn't selling more vehicles still be a goal?

I feel like Ford is dropping the ball by not having another factory ready

 

Well, they were building one.....then stopped partway through.

[Assimilator]

A theoretical Fusion Active won't be a lifted sedan. The point is that the sedan silhouette is not popular.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Assimilator

[Harley Lover]

Since when does explaining why something makes business sense constitute being happy about it?

 

The problem is that those "explaining why something makes business sense" don't know any more about the topic than those criticizing the decision, but position themselves as all knowing about every topic. Those same posters usually parrot the Ford line - as when Ford was all about not following GM to mid size trucks. There were months, if not years, of conventional wisdom posted here about how right Ford was with its decision to forego the mid size truck segment.. right up to the moment Ford announced their entry into the segment, then suddenly the conventional wisdom shifted 180 degrees to "explain why Ford's decision made business sense".

 

As Ford repeatedly demonstrates, there is nothing magical in their decision making processes, and they appear to be confused about their direction about as often as they appear to have a clue about what they plan to do.

[SteelyD]

Autoextremist is in free fall.

[jpd80]

 

The problem is that those "explaining why something makes business sense" don't know any more about the topic than those criticizing the decision, but position themselves as all knowing about every topic. Those same posters usually parrot the Ford line - as when Ford was all about not following GM to mid size trucks. There were months, if not years, of conventional wisdom posted here about how right Ford was with its decision to forego the mid size truck segment.. right up to the moment Ford announced their entry into the segment, then suddenly the conventional wisdom shifted 180 degrees to "explain why Ford's decision made business sense".

 

As Ford repeatedly demonstrates, there is nothing magical in their decision making processes, and they appear to be confused about their direction about as often as they appear to have a clue about what they plan to do.

 

I think it's unfortunate that you choose to throw unqualified stones, Ford chose to not go with T6 Ranger back in 2006 (not 2011)

Ford motor and the market was in a very different place then and remember that Ford couldn't get a smaller truck it wanted for Ranger.

T6 was basically a Sport Trac replacement. - end of story.

 

So five years after T6 was begun, Ford decides to kill BOF Ranger, Explorer and Sport Trac - Mulally was not going to

then turn around and give back those recurring savings on what was essentially a Sport Trac sized replacement

with doubtful sales volume - that's exactly why it wasn't supplied, not enough perceived interest up until 2011.

 

And had Ford got the smaller Ranger truck it wanted for 2011, there's a very good chance that it would have been

too small compared to the increasing size of competitors' mid sized trucks

.

Edited May 15, 2018 by jpd80

[630land]

Most of the loudest car industry critics buy used imports.

[akirby]

At this point Ford has been struggling with factory space for HOW long now?? It seems like years... Yeah you don't want to sit under capacity... but it would be nice to have SOME room for growth and extra production. Higher margins are great, but shouldn't selling more vehicles still be a goal?

 

I feel like Ford is dropping the ball by not having another factory ready

For once I agree with you, but I understand their reasoning. Overextending factory floor space costs too much in overhead but it also limits your options for growth. I think part of the issue was the disparate platforms. By standardizing on C2 and CD6 maybe they can finally expand a little or be able to move production around and accommodate some newer stuff in a much faster manner.

 

I think if Ford had the extra capacity we would have seen Ranger and Bronco a couple of years ago. Higher margins should support a little more investment going forward.

[jniffen]

Two things that come to mind

1. How much will the 'leaving the car business' affect the sales of the current Ford sedans.

I don't know if I would be buying a vehicle that will no longer be manufactured in 1-3 years.

2. Will the American auto (can't say car anymore) buying public swing back to sedans if gas gets above $4/gal, (which may or may not, I'm already paying $3.10/gal for premium).

The Truck/SUV/CUVs MPG drops drastically with strong winds, I rented a Escape one time driving down to Des Moines, in a strong cross winds was getting 14 MPG, had to fill up 120 miles down the road with the 12 gal tank, was doing speed limit of 70MPH.

[akirby]

2. Will the American auto (can't say car anymore) buying public swing back to sedans if gas gets above $4/gal, (which may or may not, I'm already paying $3.10/gal for premium).

 

You’re forgetting that all Ford utilities will be available as a hybrid or PHEV. That should alleviate any problems with rising gas prices.

[2b2]

A theoretical Fusion Active won't be a lifted sedan. The point is that the sedan silhouette is not popular.

just-imho - that was ALL 'spin'

[Bob Rosadini]

 

I think it's unfortunate that you choose to throw unqualified stones, Ford chose to not go with T6 Ranger back in 2006 (not 2011)

Ford motor and the market was in a very different place then and remember that Ford couldn't get a smaller truck it wanted for Ranger.

T6 was basically a Sport Trac replacement. - end of story.

 

So five years after T6 was begun, Ford decides to kill BOF Ranger, Explorer and Sport Trac - Mulally was not going to

then turn around and give back those recurring savings on what was essentially a Sport Trac sized replacement

with doubtful sales volume - that's exactly why it wasn't supplied, not enough perceived interest up until 2011.

 

And had Ford got the smaller Ranger truck it wanted for 2011, there's a very good chance that it would have been

too small compared to the increasing size of competitors' mid sized trucks

.

Not sure I agree that "unqualified stones" are being thrown here. In my mind, sales were down big time, thanks IMO to little effort put into marketing and making reasonable improvements. "Sales are down"- shocker! Plus wasn't it pretty much agreed on that every potential Ranger sale was in fact a potential 150 sale- ATP on 150 won that battle. " fuel economy is almost as good if not better', "More truck for the money". ETC ETC. Plus I was always under impression that St Paul was a very valuable piece of real estate. Was it ever sold and if so for how much?

 

As always, it is usually pretty easy to paint whatever picture you want on any given subject when you can selectively pick your points. IMO Big Al was interested in plant closings and it was an easy case to support killing the Ranger.

 

Then again, was the decision to pass on T-6 made before Al's time.??

[jpd80]

Not sure I agree that "unqualified stones" are being thrown here. In my mind, sales were down big time, thanks IMO to little effort put into marketing and making reasonable improvements. "Sales are down"- shocker! Plus wasn't it pretty much agreed on that every potential Ranger sale was in fact a potential 150 sale- ATP on 150 won that battle. " fuel economy is almost as good if not better', "More truck for the money". ETC ETC. Plus I was always under impression that St Paul was a very valuable piece of real estate. Was it ever sold and if so for how much?

 

As always, it is usually pretty easy to paint whatever picture you want on any given subject when you can selectively pick your points. IMO Big Al was interested in plant closings and it was an easy case to support killing the Ranger.

 

Then again, was the decision to pass on T-6 made before Al's time.??

F150 was indeed a lot more fuel efficient and Ford had every right to push it as hard as they did,

Ecoboost became a huge hit, a lot bigger than Ford expected.

 

The sheer fact that F Series sales took off like they did says that Ford did a lot of things right

but could that have included a Ranger too? Maybe and that was a lot of the conversation at

the time too... so Ford probably saw Ranger as nice to have but not essential at the time.

 

And the reason we're probably seeing Ranger back in the US (not Mexico) is mostly because

it's preferable to an under performing Focus at MAP

 

 

AM was in the chair when T6 Kick off Meeting happened in 2006, US wanted a smaller truck

which could not be made to fut under the product envelope.

Edited May 16, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

The problem with Ranger is that sales were way down (60K I think) and a huge investment was needed in both the vehicle and the factory to keep it in production and that was money that Ford just didn’t have at the time.

 

Meanwhile F series sales had dropped dramatically so the factories weren’t even close to full.

 

It’s a different story today. F series can’t grow much more without adding another factory. But they can continue to grow truck sales with Ranger (and Bronco). It’s all about the bigger picture.

[probowler]

Hopefully with that increased platform consolidation, it will reduce the risk of idle factories should Ford decide to increase production capacity again... IF the factories can be quickly configured for different vehicles, then when one model starts to lag you just start pumping out something else that's more popular.

[jpd80]

The problem with Ranger is that sales were way down (60K I think) and a huge investment was needed in both the vehicle and the factory to keep it in production and that was money that Ford just didn’t have at the time.

 

Meanwhile F series sales had dropped dramatically so the factories weren’t even close to full.

 

It’s a different story today. F series can’t grow much more without adding another factory. But they can continue to grow truck sales with Ranger (and Bronco). It’s all about the bigger picture.

The Ranger problem was exacerbated on two fronts, the reduced Ranger pick up sales and the the reduction of Sport Trac sales

Ranger split across two markets and two different price points but both seeing reduced sales.

 

IIRC, there was one month during the 2007 gas spike when F Series combined sales dropped below 30,000

Ford was saying it was seeing permanent die back in the segment. So they were preparing for the absolute worst

and rewrote their projections accordingly.

 

On plants, isn't it odd that Ford does not seek to build more plants, instead deferring to replace what it sees as

lower profit declining sales products for new growth products with more chance of higher profits.Outside of F150,

there is no thought of building the same product at more than one North American plant, I find that "interesting"

considering Toyota's recent announcement to run two RAV4 plants.

Edited May 16, 2018 by jpd80

[snooter]

You’re forgetting that all Ford utilities will be available as a hybrid or PHEV. That should alleviate any problems with rising gas prices.

You should write comedy skits for hollywood...

[jpd80]

See, there are still a lot of people convinced that buyers will run back to cars when gas prices increase,

Ford obviously doesn't believe that will happen and will offer hybrids instead of running back to cars.

it's their mistake to make if wrong but I think the potential gains outweigh keeping a foot in the past.

That's sad coming form me because I love sedans, I've got my a V8 keeper in the shed.

Edited May 16, 2018 by jpd80