Ford Inside News banner

161 - 180 of 190 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,943 Posts
It is quite typical around here to compare Ford against a selected best from ALL other automakers. That is silly, because no single full line automaker is better than everyone else, in every possible way. Not even close. Ford has it's problems like everyone else, and lately, they appear to have far more problems. But we also know that they finally actually have a real long term plan. How well that plan works, will need to be realized first. Debating that plan is part of the fun around here, for me. To rmc523's point about complaints and timing, I share his frustration, because everyone here should know about how long it takes to change direction in a radical way in this industry, and complaining daily or weekly about it, won't change that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Ford (and Detroit in general) historically had a longer than industry average product churn which partly lead to their near demise. Much of that came from the simple fact that they were poorly managed companies that responded to immediate conditions instead of planning longterm. In many ways Mullally's Ford was Ford responding in epic fashion to immediate needs, but not necessarily preparing Ford for a sustainable future. Ford is stuck in a perpetual cycle of rebirth every 10 years. We are going through another one now but the conditions are far less dire since they are still profitable. But this is probably the first time Ford has been largely alone in its misery. I'm both confident and skeptical in Ford's future knowing that this will happen again and again. But when it comes to products, at least right now, Ford's churn is not that far off from the industry. It's just the timing of everything, we went from the boom time of the Mullally years to the drought of the Fields years which simply corresponds with the product lifecycles. And Fields was also grappling with OneFord that wasn't completely successful, and the fact Fields couldn't make decisions ultimately meant Ford lost its footing almost completely. So instead of gradually phasing to a new decade, Ford basically has to start over and bank on what it has been working on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Out of the 5 new platforms, only 1 will be BoF. Does this mean the next gen Ranger/Bronco will be on a smaller/revised frame of the F150? I know Nissan does this with the Titan(old)/Frontier - so it's very possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Ford is using "Architectures" to very broadly refer to the system of modules being shared between vehicles of a similar driveline. Even shared platforms today are not using the same modules. So it's less about the platform, more about the systems plugging into them. Platforms are still tailored to each application and cost, F-150 and Ranger are not neccessarily merging fames.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,893 Posts
Discussion Starter #166
On the last 55 years, Ford have some examples of product development that influenced the whole industry:
The Mustang, first pony car
The Taurus, first modern american midsize sedan
The Explorer, the SUV that started the American love for SUVs
The Navigator, the luxury SUV that started the fever for luxury SUVs
The F-Series, the best and most innovative pick up truck

Maybe the Ford’s mistake is to trust in the succes of those cars and not invest money to keep them competitive (with the exception of the F-series)

I think that Ford needs to accelerate the process to transform an idea to a production car, and the new 5 architectures is a step in that direction.

I’m impatient, too. I feel that a whole century has passed since the last Ford launch (in USA) and waiting for next year is a long time.
I think it's something more basic. Did we notice that Ford just this month announced a New team tasked with surveying the consumer about what they actually want in a vehicle, like they already do with the F-150? All along Ford has been deciding what the consumer wants, and it's been hit and miss. But their recent announcement about the NEW team makes it clear why Ford products other than F-150 continue to struggle. With Ford blaming the customer for not wanting what Ford wanted to sell the customer. Ford made cars for the European market and just expected the NA customer want them too. Now making cars designed for the Chinese market, and NA and Europe are expected to want it. Ford has been vocal about designing Lincoln models specifically for the Chinese market as if that's a benefit for NA. It's just eye opening that Ford is just now thinking of asking the NA customer what they want.

This Ford focused decision making is clear by the recent reports that China consumers wanted a larger screen in an EV. Duhhhh....like that took rocket science, which indicates Ford was just trying to save money trying to use their tiny screens and blind to what the industry is offering. And seriously, they had to halt design of Fords first full EV because it was boring? The question is how did a boring design make it that far to begin with? Ford reminds me of a stubborn old man, who tries to continue to do things the way he always did, regardless of what's happening around him. Ford clearly does not take into account what the competition is doing and tries to design in a vacuum.

What's the best selling EV style? A sedan (Model 3)

What's the next best selling EV style? a 5-door hatch (Leaf)

What's the slowest selling EV style? An SUV

So if an automaker has the global manufacturing power, what EV style should they make at the highest volume to benefit from scale and offer quicker profitability?

1. Sedan
2. 5-door hatch (4-door fast back)

Automakers gambling on these Frankenstein car/crossover/suv things are missing their higher volume profitability, with ultra-low volume overpriced Frankencars. For one they are asking the consumer for too many changes at once. Adopt an EV drivetrain, along with a blended body style that does not match anything familiar to them.

It just seems so much less costly, and much more profitable to put the EV drivetrain under 'familiar' vehicle styles that offers the consumer the greatest benefit from the EV drivetrain. Which would be the sedan or 5-door hatch(fastback). Which is why if the new EV based on a Mustang is not a Next Gen Mustang EV, it will fail. What a waste it would be for an EV based on a Mustang to not be designed to take advantage of all the performance advantages an EV drivetrain can offer. Especially if it's called a MACH 1. Seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Ford re-organized its product research team under a new head, but every Ford product undergoes exhausting consumer studies and workshops, this is NOT new! The reason Ford switched from sedans to utilities is because of those studies.

And believing Ford is the only company suffering from the demise of the sedan is absolutely ridiculous, this is an industry wide trend that has been happening since the 90s and accelerated to it's ultimate fate under the Crossover. Ford put forward the best product it could make and people still didn't want to pay for it.

The profile of Crossovers is very flexible, you're going to see that with the Mach1. Really the big mandate is that the profile most include a clearly idendtifiable hatch design with proportions that balance a roomier and more flexible passenger compartment. You can make all sorts of great looking vehicles without a trunk lid. ****, a trunk lid is bad for aerodynamics, that's why the Model 3 looks like an egg.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,893 Posts
Discussion Starter #169
^....it is electrification that is bringing customers back to the sedan/fastback sedan. The industry knows this but it will take some longer to get there than others. Tesla is clearly leading the way with the Model 3, and that momentum accelerates next year with the base Model 3 being available. Nissan will most certainly be next following their Infiniti sedan ev, with Honda still toying with hydrogen. On the luxury side, MB has a new EQS to launch in 2020 along with Jaguar with an electric version of the XJ.

As the sedan 'shares' the segments with crossovers/suvs, there will always be consumers on both sides, with EVs pulling ahead of ICE sedans in a very short time. The challenge a 'crossover' profile has is that it either requires higher ground clearance, which is a negative for aerodynamics and stability for no good reason, or requires a higher cabin, which is also a negative for aerodynamics. But at this stage, compact/midsize SUVs are necessary especially for a couple of my younger nieces who can't really fit into sedans 'comfortably' anymore. The benefit of the suv is the ability to step up into the seat and step down out, and no sitting down and trying to get back up, along with needing a higher roof. For a little perspective, neither can fit in my 3-series. So there is a demographic that will 'need' an suv or suv that looks like a car, so maybe that's the demographic Ford is looking at.

And looking at the MACH 1, the current Mustang has a great profile, so as long as Ford does not break that, and then give it a performance EV platform, without confusing the Mustang brand, trying to be like Porsche with the Cayenne. Mustang needs to remain Mustang. But a Mustang Grand Coupe(4-door fast back) like BMW does could work. But NO to any type of crosover/SUVish thing for a Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
Actually the Crossover is ideal for BEVs because of the space the battery compartment takes up below the seats. That displacement can be offset by a taller and higher positioned passenger compartment, it's another reason Ford is no longer investing in sedans and why all volume EVs moving forward are utilities. The truth is the BEV killed the sedan.

And Wings is absolutely right, the Model 3 is a cheaper Tesla, has nothing to do with the fact it's a sedan because there are no competitors or even a Tesla utility. Tesla is going to be caught with it's pants down if they don't get Model Y here before everybody else gets here first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,943 Posts
Tesla sedans have attractive silouhettes and proportions. Hard to argue against the fact that for many, they are aspirational. I personally would only buy a BEV as a 2nd vehicle not a primary family vehicle. That changes things significantly. I mean, if I already have a CUV with an ICE or even a hybrid, do I really want to purchase another BEV CUV? Many will, no doubt, but not all. Or maybe Ford will prove me wrong, and most won’t miss the sedan.

I recently saw a graph plotting the vectored expectations of vehicle propulsion systems that will be sold. So by 2030;
1. ICE = 32%
2. Hybrid = 45%
3. BEV = 23%

So that means that ICE will still be part of 77% of all vehicles sold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,609 Posts
I've been on this forum for years. Many including myself have stated our opinion that Ford was screwing things up. Many - they know who they are - have defended Ford, insisting that they are just on the verge of great things.

Well ... I understand the complaints. Those who dared to question Ford's moves over the years were proven right.

Ford doesn't have a history of aggressive product development outside of F-series. Even the favored Mustang lagged for years with a solid rear axle well into the 21st century. So why should everyone suddenly have blind faith that Ford is now on the right track?
I'm not arguing that the product lull we're in doesn't suck. I'm just trying to make the point that now that we're in it, they can't just instantly come out with a new product tomorrow because they need a product today. Some help arrives at the tail end of this year with Edge/Nautilus and eventually Ranger, and bigger help arrives next year with the 4 key utilities arriving (Escape, Explorer, Corsair, Aviator).

Ford (and Detroit in general) historically had a longer than industry average product churn which partly lead to their near demise. Much of that came from the simple fact that they were poorly managed companies that responded to immediate conditions instead of planning longterm. In many ways Mullally's Ford was Ford responding in epic fashion to immediate needs, but not necessarily preparing Ford for a sustainable future. Ford is stuck in a perpetual cycle of rebirth every 10 years. We are going through another one now but the conditions are far less dire since they are still profitable. But this is probably the first time Ford has been largely alone in its misery. I'm both confident and skeptical in Ford's future knowing that this will happen again and again. But when it comes to products, at least right now, Ford's churn is not that far off from the industry. It's just the timing of everything, we went from the boom time of the Mullally years to the drought of the Fields years which simply corresponds with the product lifecycles. And Fields was also grappling with OneFord that wasn't completely successful, and the fact Fields couldn't make decisions ultimately meant Ford lost its footing almost completely. So instead of gradually phasing to a new decade, Ford basically has to start over and bank on what it has been working on.
I've said it a few times, but my problem with OneFord is this - and the blame can be on both Mulally and Fields, with the latter taking more since he should've been the one implementing it....

Not all that differently from the current plan, OneFord drove to reduce platforms by merging similar worldwide products onto single platforms and consolidate manufacturing sites as applicable. That sounds great on paper, but then you wind up with what we have now - global products, but ones that may not be ideal for particular markets. I always thought the plan was to consolidate to those core products, and then compliment them with additional region-appropriate models based upon those core architectures. That's what the new plan is (I think, anyway). That way you don't get stuck with a product that various markets don't like.

This Ford focused decision making is clear by the recent reports that China consumers wanted a larger screen in an EV. Duhhhh....like that took rocket science, which indicates Ford was just trying to save money trying to use their tiny screens and blind to what the industry is offering. And seriously, they had to halt design of Fords first full EV because it was boring? The question is how did a boring design make it that far to begin with? Ford reminds me of a stubborn old man, who tries to continue to do things the way he always did, regardless of what's happening around him. Ford clearly does not take into account what the competition is doing and tries to design in a vacuum.

What's the best selling EV style? A sedan (Model 3)

What's the newest affordable model from a popular "the newest coolest thing" brand? Coincidentally a sedan (Model 3). It'd be just as popular if it were a crossover.

What's the next best selling EV style? a 5-door hatch (Leaf)

So? What's your point? There are like 3 affordable models out there right now. Model 3, Bolt, and Leaf. Obviously when there's no crossover option, sedan/hatch sales will be greater than crossover sales.

What's the slowest selling EV style? An SUV

What are the EV SUV options? Model X? Oh, the one that starts close to 80k and goes up into the mid 100k? Obviously it will be slower selling.

So if an automaker has the global manufacturing power, what EV style should they make at the highest volume to benefit from scale and offer quicker profitability?

1. Sedan
2. 5-door hatch (4-door fast back)

Automakers gambling on these Frankenstein car/crossover/suv things are missing their higher volume profitability, with ultra-low volume overpriced Frankencars. For one they are asking the consumer for too many changes at once. Adopt an EV drivetrain, along with a blended body style that does not match anything familiar to them.

It just seems so much less costly, and much more profitable to put the EV drivetrain under 'familiar' vehicle styles that offers the consumer the greatest benefit from the EV drivetrain. Which would be the sedan or 5-door hatch(fastback). Which is why if the new EV based on a Mustang is not a Next Gen Mustang EV, it will fail. What a waste it would be for an EV based on a Mustang to not be designed to take advantage of all the performance advantages an EV drivetrain can offer. Especially if it's called a MACH 1. Seriously.
So suddenly because it's an EV, it'll be high volume AND highly profitable? The same EVs that aren't profitable now?

So by Bloggin math:

sedan (struggles to make profits) + EV (no profits currently) somehow = mega profits?

Gotcha...

---

There is to be an EV Mustang in addition to "Mach 1".

^....it is electrification that is bringing customers back to the sedan/fastback sedan. The industry knows this but it will take some longer to get there than others. Tesla is clearly leading the way with the Model 3, and that momentum accelerates next year with the base Model 3 being available. Nissan will most certainly be next following their Infiniti sedan ev, with Honda still toying with hydrogen. On the luxury side, MB has a new EQS to launch in 2020 along with Jaguar with an electric version of the XJ.

As the sedan 'shares' the segments with crossovers/suvs, there will always be consumers on both sides, with EVs pulling ahead of ICE sedans in a very short time. The challenge a 'crossover' profile has is that it either requires higher ground clearance, which is a negative for aerodynamics and stability for no good reason, or requires a higher cabin, which is also a negative for aerodynamics. But at this stage, compact/midsize SUVs are necessary especially for a couple of my younger nieces who can't really fit into sedans 'comfortably' anymore. The benefit of the suv is the ability to step up into the seat and step down out, and no sitting down and trying to get back up, along with needing a higher roof. For a little perspective, neither can fit in my 3-series. So there is a demographic that will 'need' an suv or suv that looks like a car, so maybe that's the demographic Ford is looking at.

And looking at the MACH 1, the current Mustang has a great profile, so as long as Ford does not break that, and then give it a performance EV platform, without confusing the Mustang brand, trying to be like Porsche with the Cayenne. Mustang needs to remain Mustang. But a Mustang Grand Coupe(4-door fast back) like BMW does could work. But NO to any type of crosover/SUVish thing for a Mustang.
And what was the first model of MB's EQ sub-brand? A CROSSOVER.

Mustang is staying Mustang. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Mustang is suddenly going to morph into an Expedition.

They're pulling styling cues from Mustang for a new low-slung crossover model....it otherwise has nothing to do with Mustang (aside from the EV tech underneath, of course).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
I've said it a few times, but my problem with OneFord is this...
Ford's first attempt at a world car was the Escort, which was only half-hearted, and seemed OK.
The second was the Contour. That was not sized, styled, or priced for US consumption and it showed.
So, this is not really new issue, but it now seems to be spread out among way too many products, and what helps in one market, makes it a hard sell in another.


They used to say if it played in Peoria, you'd have a hit.
Now, if it doesn't play in Peking, it might not make it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,013 Posts
I think it's something more basic. Did we notice that Ford just this month announced a New team tasked with surveying the consumer about what they actually want in a vehicle, like they already do with the F-150? All along Ford has been deciding what the consumer wants, and it's been hit and miss. But their recent announcement about the NEW team makes it clear why Ford products other than F-150 continue to struggle. With Ford blaming the customer for not wanting what Ford wanted to sell the customer. Ford made cars for the European market and just expected the NA customer want them too. Now making cars designed for the Chinese market, and NA and Europe are expected to want it. Ford has been vocal about designing Lincoln models specifically for the Chinese market as if that's a benefit for NA. It's just eye opening that Ford is just now thinking of asking the NA customer what they want.

This Ford focused decision making is clear by the recent reports that China consumers wanted a larger screen in an EV. Duhhhh....like that took rocket science, which indicates Ford was just trying to save money trying to use their tiny screens and blind to what the industry is offering. And seriously, they had to halt design of Fords first full EV because it was boring? The question is how did a boring design make it that far to begin with? Ford reminds me of a stubborn old man, who tries to continue to do things the way he always did, regardless of what's happening around him. Ford clearly does not take into account what the competition is doing and tries to design in a vacuum.

What's the best selling EV style? A sedan (Model 3)

What's the next best selling EV style? a 5-door hatch (Leaf)

What's the slowest selling EV style? An SUV

So if an automaker has the global manufacturing power, what EV style should they make at the highest volume to benefit from scale and offer quicker profitability?

1. Sedan
2. 5-door hatch (4-door fast back)

Automakers gambling on these Frankenstein car/crossover/suv things are missing their higher volume profitability, with ultra-low volume overpriced Frankencars. For one they are asking the consumer for too many changes at once. Adopt an EV drivetrain, along with a blended body style that does not match anything familiar to them.

It just seems so much less costly, and much more profitable to put the EV drivetrain under 'familiar' vehicle styles that offers the consumer the greatest benefit from the EV drivetrain. Which would be the sedan or 5-door hatch(fastback). Which is why if the new EV based on a Mustang is not a Next Gen Mustang EV, it will fail. What a waste it would be for an EV based on a Mustang to not be designed to take advantage of all the performance advantages an EV drivetrain can offer. Especially if it's called a MACH 1. Seriously.

The EV sedans are selling better than the EV Crossovers, because there are not EV crossover for sale, yet.

And the Tesla Model X is not a crossover, is some kind of Minivan with ridiculous falcon-wings doors...

This will change when the EQC be available... and the Audi Q e-Tron, and the Ford Mach1, and the BMW i-next.... and... and....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,013 Posts

...and the VW ID Crossover and the VW EV retro bus, and the DS DS3 Crossback E-Tense, and the almost inevitable EV Lincoln crossover based on the Mach1, and, and...and... Every automaker will have an EV crossover in the next 24 to 36 months. Tesla will need to run “for the lunch” .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,013 Posts
Money made every second of the day,

Toyota (TM) makes $563.92 (£430.10)
Ford (F) makes $227.05
Volkswagen (VOW.DE) makes $119.73
Renault (RNL.F) makes $138.04
Ferrari (RACE) makes $28.10

...and Tesla how much money does it burn every second of the day? 98,20$ , in the first 6 months of 2018
 
161 - 180 of 190 Posts
Top