Ford to Only sell two cars other than their pickup's/suv

[iamsuperdan]

5 hours ago, Classicgas said:

Useless. What can you carry in that?

That truck is perfect for 90% of the truck driving population. Most people that get trucks essentially want a car with a big trunk. They're not towing, they're not hauling heavy loads all the time. Most people want a carlike interior, and room for their mountain bikes, or supplies for doing yardwork, or trips to Ikea, or whatever.

I know so many people with trucks that don't use them as trucks. And in my line of work, I lease a ton of trucks to people that never use their trucks as intended.

Whenever I get a half ton, I always order the stubby 5.5ft box, as my lifestyle doesn't require something bigger. Yes, right now I'm driving a 3/4 ton Power Wagon, but other than the towing, I really don't need a truck this big.

 

PS. 2018 Ram Power Wagon with 16000km for sale. Inquire within.

 

[High octane]

1 hour ago, mikemodeler said:

Don't be surprised if in the next 5-7 years if there isn't some consolidation of vehicle manufacturers globally. Our big 3 enjoy selling SUVs and Pickups here in the US but cannot sell small cars, while in many parts of the rest of the world, small cars are top sellers.

In many parts of the world,, there is NO room for big cars. Go to Hawaii, or some of the Caribbean Islands and you'll see what I mean. Also in China the population is so large there's no room for big cars there either.

[Rob Hall]

Sounds like Ford's decisions may be driven by appeasing investors demanding more ROI...

https://jalopnik.com/three-thoughts-on-fords-decision-to-kill-its-small-cars-1825577563

https://jalopnik.com/a-car-for-every-purse-and-purpose-gives-way-to-maximize-1825595023

Edited April 27, 2018 by Rob Hall

[Oldmopars]

Well I guess I will be keeping my good old 85 Chevy K30 for many years to come. 8.6 MPG, but but it has only 17,000 original miles and did not cost me $80,000.

And yes, it is used as a truck should be.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

The way I see it, there are three things that are going to finally kill the US automobile industry.

1) Government. Passing arbitrary laws affecting things they have absolutely NO understanding of for decades.

2) Wall Street. The greed-for-unearned-wealth culture that is American investing now is just a bunch of clean-hands bean-counter-gamblers that force often illogical moves for the sake of today's bottom line, and (bad-word) the long term viability of a company.

3) Marketing. Allowing non-technical people to steer a manufacturing company, based on nebulous "market research" that's further based on opinions and wants of more non-technical people is just another ingredient in the recipe for disaster.

The car companies were BUILT by car-guys: tinkerers, machine-heads, racers, and enthusiasts ...not the government, or uninformed investors, or ignorant consumers.

Yet, these three groups have the final word now in how car companies are run.

No real surprise, when looked at from this perspective, that the car business seems to be confused, silly, and chasing its own tail most of the time.

 

[Motor City]

9 hours ago, Classicgas said:

Useless. What can you carry in that?

4 people and a small doghouse

[Jim N]

23 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

For the most part, consumers know nothing about cars. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Marketing has created whatever "demands" the consumers are credited (or blamed) for.

Neat little fun-to-drive cars that get great mileage aren't pushed.

"Lifestyle" is what's marketed, and the lifestyle people are buying into when they opt for tanklike trucks and SUVs is largely imaginary.

Showing tough guys driving trucks and cool-hip-hot-happening young people having great adventures in SUVs and crossovers implants a desire for that vision, and the boobs buy the vehicles thinking (well, not really thinking, but with a vague subliminal expectation) that's that's what comes with them. Just like cigarette advertising used to do. Smoking Marlboros made you an instant cowboy: tough, independent and self-reliant. Yeah, right.

Manufacturers make the fattest profits on trucks and SUVs, so those are the vehicles that are marketed most heavily.

Marketing works very well on a vast audience that would rather follow the Kardashians than actually THINK.

Bill,

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.  Advertising works when people are predisposed to purchase something.  Advertising will not create demand by itself.  The smoking example you cite is an example of this.  People who smoked or were thinking of taking up smoking may have been influenced by the Marloboro man.  People who were loyal to another brand or the nonsmokers couldn't have cared less about Marloboro's advertising.  The car companies or any other company for that matter will not spend the advertising dollars on items that are not selling.

Yes, the SUV's and the crossovers are big money makers for the car companies, but when cars were selling, the same was true about the big cars.  This same debate raged back then too.  The difference is that it was the big car versus the little car.  Americans preferred the bigger cars.  The only time this preference did not hold true was when gas prices spiked.  When gas prices moderated, people went back to their preference for the big cars.

There will always be people who will buy something to follow some celebrity or to keep up with a neighbor, but those people will not push the needle very far.  When Jennifer Anniston was the "it girl" and Friends was one of "the" shows on TV, Anniston would model a new hair style most every new season.  A fair number of women would rush to their hair salons to get this style.  The hair salons noted the uptick in sales and hair style requests, but it never lasted very long.  Usually within 3 - 6 months, the women were going back to their old hair styles.

Since this thread was started by Ford's CEO stating he will be cutting many car lines, we will see if he is correct in his assessment of the car market.  Several years ago, J.C. Penney hired a new CEO who changed the way the company priced its products.  He completely misread the Penney's customer, and in 18 - 24 months, he almost took the company down.  There are some retail analysts who believe the company may never come back from this person's debacle.

[martinfan5]

5 hours ago, High octane said:

In many parts of the world,, there is NO room for big cars. Go to Hawaii, or some of the Caribbean Islands and you'll see what I mean. Also in China the population is so large there's no room for big cars there either.

Add Japan to that list,  but for them its not having enough land , that is why small cars, aka Kei Cars rule the roads,   there is just no room there.  You have to prove that you have a spot to park a car before you are allowed to purchase a car.

 

[Aaronw]

On 4/26/2018 at 11:36 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

For the most part, consumers know nothing about cars. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Marketing has created whatever "demands" the consumers are credited (or blamed) for.

Neat little fun-to-drive cars that get great mileage aren't pushed.

"Lifestyle" is what's marketed, and the lifestyle people are buying into when they opt for tanklike trucks and SUVs is largely imaginary.

Showing tough guys driving trucks and cool-hip-hot-happening young people having great adventures in SUVs and crossovers implants a desire for that vision, and the boobs buy the vehicles thinking (well, not really thinking, but with a vague subliminal expectation) that's that's what comes with them. Just like cigarette advertising used to do. Smoking Marlboros made you an instant cowboy: tough, independent and self-reliant. Yeah, right.

Manufacturers make the fattest profits on trucks and SUVs, so those are the vehicles that are marketed most heavily.

Marketing works very well on a vast audience that would rather follow the Kardashians than actually THINK.

 

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that "the public" wants the kind of cars with kind of options that happen to coincide with the greatest profits for automakers? Surely marketing doesn't play any role in that...  

[peter31a]

And it's governments pushing the self driving car nonsense. Even Consumer Reports (the purveyors of the nanny state) are telling the state and federal governments to slow down on the push for autonomous cars as the technology isn't ready for prime time yet.

[Tom Geiger]

Bill Said:

For the most part, consumers know nothing about cars. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Marketing has created whatever "demands" the consumers are credited (or blamed) for.

 

A number of years ago my two daughters, then in their mid to late 20s, decided to buy themselves new cars.  When they approached me to help, they were proud that they had already decided exactly what to buy.  My older daughter wanted a Ford Fusion.  Daughter the younger was going to buy a Ford Focus.  I wondered how they came to these decisions and then it hit me... they both religiously watched  "American Idol"  which was sponsored by Ford!   And they were subject to repeated commercials AND the show's contestants singing and dancing in and around new Fords!  

I assisted Daughter number one in the process of the purchase of a  Ford Fusion.  Daughter the younger?  About that time  the Fiat 500 debuted and they hired Jennifer Lopez to drive the pearl white convertible in commercials... guess what we got? Yup, pearl white and all!     

So yes, average consumers who know nothing about cars are heavily influenced by advertising.

And just for the record, both cars worked out fine.  Neither car has ever had a repair outside of normal maintenance.  The Fiat that everyone warned me about now has 120,000 trouble free miles on it.

 

 

[oldcarfan]

Sedan sales are dying off. Even Honda and TOyota are seeing their Accord and Camry drop. People are just not buying them. Ford has two things they could do pretty easily. They are already doing one of them by making the Focus Active as a rival to the Subaru Crosstrek. They also have a Focus wagon in Europe that they could do the same thing to and sell to compete with the Outback. They could probably save the Fusion by doing the same thing. Butch it up, raise it an inch or two and people would buy it.

[Erik Smith]

13 hours ago, High octane said:

In many parts of the world,, there is NO room for big cars. Go to Hawaii, or some of the Caribbean Islands and you'll see what I mean. Also in China the population is so large there's no room for big cars there either.

I would add that in many parts of the world, your manliness isn’t tied to how long and high your truck is either...I’ve been to few countries and pretty much never see near the number of full size trucks any where but the US. I constantly see single dudes cruising around in one ton, 4x4, four door, long bed trucks that are lifted high enough to make loading a joke and towing pretty cumbersome - but, hey, how would anybody else know I’m a man?

Just got back from China - and they actually have a lot of room - just not in cities that have populations equal to 8 western states combined. One interesting thing about the car market - there are over 100 different auto makers in China...that’s insane...

I was surprised to hear the Ford news, but after listening to a few stories and reading up on it, their sedans just aren’t making money. NPR said 90% of Ford’s profits were from the F150 - I have to check that as it seems really, really high - but the gist is, cars don’t make money, trucks and SUVs do - so, as an obligation to stock holders, they are making adjustments to maximize profits.

The conversion to electric also is interesting - makes me think the big car companies can see the writing on the wall for oil...? Maybe? Prices spiking, government regulations, continued environmental degredation...

My family owns one SUV, one lifted wagon (Subaru Outback) and two old skool wagons (1993 Camry and 2000 Subaru), and we did have a couple sedans over the last 20 years, but SUVs and wagons are just a lot more practical...

[Ace-Garageguy]

50 minutes ago, Erik Smith said:

...The conversion to electric also is interesting - makes me think the big car companies can see the writing on the wall for oil...? Maybe? Prices spiking, government regulations, continued environmental degredation...

As far as oil goes, the writing has been on the wall in big red neon letters since the early 1970s, and anyone with a semblance of a functioning brain should have realized it was a finite resource when the first oil well was drilled in 1859.

But typical foot-dragging, head-in-the-sand humans have yet to get an electric grid in place that's capable of recharging the projected number of electric vehicles on the horizon, and many projections of electric vehicles' impact on the power grid are simply unrealistic.

The widespread ignorance and unfounded beliefs as to the benefits of all-electric vehicles is staggering...even among many so-called "experts".

Many studies are based on erroneous scenarios, and most consumers fail to realize that generating all the electricity necessary to recharge millions of cars will have to come from sources not currently available. Burning MORE coal and natural gas (which still releases carbon into the atmosphere), or building nuclear plants. Some hydro sources for electricity, like Hoover Dam, are drastically reduced now in the power they can generate, due to dramatically falling water levels.

There's a LOT of work to be done if electric vehicles are going to replace the current petro-fuelled fleet, and there's far more gibbering than actual progress towards making the necessary changes reality.

https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/study-electric-vehicle-charging-present-grid-challenges/

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/how-many-electric-cars-can-the-grid-take-depends-on-your-neighborhood/

Edited April 28, 2018 by Ace-Garageguy

[milo1303s]

There still making  the rustang don't worry your heads lol

 

[MrObsessive]

On 4/26/2018 at 2:55 PM, Bill J said:

I think, and it is just my opinion not based on any data from anywhere, that front wheel drive cars are the real problem. It can be a so called crossover, or a SUV or a passenger sedan, if it is front wheel drive it is a self destructive vehicle. I know that FWD has some advantages in certain conditions. Overall though, I think FWD is rough riding, steers weird and the biggest problem of all, FWD vehicles are too expensive to maintain and repair. You hardly ever see a FWD vehicle last very many years. Something breaks and they get scrapped.

I've ever only owned two front wheel drive cars in my over 40 years of driving, and if/when the time comes I want to get rid of my Challenger and get something else, I'll do my darndest to avoid another FWD car if at all possible! I don't totally hate them as obviously they serve a need and purpose----I just don't like the way many of them are styled. Wheels too close to the front of the door, the windshield rake that has the base of it hanging over the cowl, inside because of the wheel placement----it's cramped in the footwell area and as someone who wears a size 15 shoe, that's a no go.

Some of you know how I feel about trucks. Yes, they have their place, but it's just sad to see the public at large give up on cars and the carmakers pretty much saying in so many words..........you NEED to have this! I know tastes change just like tailfins were once all the rage in the '50's/early '60's, then you had the "opera window" fad in the '70's. Then minivans were once so popular. I guess I'm bummed about seeing waaaay too many two-box designs going down the road, and would once again like to see more variety.

The big question I have and no one is talking about is this...........what about the 13-15 year olds that are still living at home obviously and will be buying cars in the next 7-10 years which puts us in the mid to late '20's. Will they WANT to buy and drive what their parents are driving?? Hmmm....................food for thought.

Edited April 28, 2018 by MrObsessive

[SSNJim]

I gotta agree with Bill J's comment quoted in the above post, even though I can't think of a condition where FWD is an advantage.  I have never owned a FWD car as my daily driver, and never will. I have bought many for my wife, and have driven many more FWD, so I am quite familiar with them. I currently own a 2007 Mustang, the latest in a long line of RWD cars and trucks. As far as I am concerned, Ford quit making cars (Mustang excepted) when they switched to FWD/AWD.

I do think that the lack of RWD cars is fuelling the truck and truck-based SUV popularity. FWD cars are considered to be cheap and disposable. I know, some people have 1989 Honda Civics with eleventy-two bazillion miles, but they are the exception. My next car will likely be a Ranger or an F-series. No, I don't do any hauling or anything for which many buy a truck; it's just that they're RWD.

[High octane]

I like the FWD cars because they "pull" the car through the snow which helps a lot. I've been driving for over 50 years and I've never had any need for 4 wheel drive vehicles as they plow the snow where I live. I'm glad I got posi in my truck as I needed it this past winter to get out of my snow filled driveway in which the snow plows added a big heap in the apron.

[fumi]

21 hours ago, martinfan5 said:

Add Japan to that list,  but for them its not having enough land , that is why small cars, aka Kei Cars rule the roads,   there is just no room there.  You have to prove that you have a spot to park a car before you are allowed to purchase a car.

 

Try driving in the many rural roads that are barely wide enough for one car but has two way traffic with buses and big trucks coming towards you, and you will quickly appreciate the nimbleness of k-cars.

Big cars make zero sense in Japan other than perhaps in Hokkaido.  Gas is expensive and living with a big car is a nuance.

[oldcarfan]

A lot of people are complaining about this truck being too little. It's actually too large for its target market. Buyers have been asking for a smaller truck the size of an old school Ranger since Ford killed it off. Two years ago, I saw one of these new trucks parked here in Austin, (it had Mexico plates) and I parked beside it in my 1982 full-size F-100. They are about the same size.

[oldcarfan]

On 4/27/2018 at 9:43 AM, Rob Hall said:

Sounds like Ford's decisions may be driven by appeasing investors demanding more ROI...

That's exactly the problem. Investors are gutting the companies in search of short term profit with no thought to long term survival. Once the companies are sucked dry and bankrupt the investors will cut their losses and go off in search of new companies to drain.

 

[oldcarfan]

2 hours ago, SSNJim said:

"I gotta agree with Bill J's comment quoted in the above post, even though I can't think of a condition where FWD is an advantage.  I have never owned a FWD car as my daily driver, and never will."    I was stationed in Virginia for years while in the Navy. I drove front and rear wheel drive vehicles. People always talk about FWD as being better in the snow. That's not true. FWD will understeer in the snow and RWD will oversteer in the snow. Oversteer is easier to bring under control. Where FWD has an advantage is in the manufacturing process. The builder can put an engine and tranny together and slap it in as a unit much easier than a RWD one. It's easier to package.

 

[martinfan5]

4 hours ago, fumi said:

Try driving in the many rural roads that are barely wide enough for one car but has two way traffic with buses and big trucks coming towards you, and you will quickly appreciate the nimbleness of k-cars.

Big cars make zero sense in Japan other than perhaps in Hokkaido.  Gas is expensive and living with a big car is a nuance.

I completely understand the reason's why small cars make sense in Japan.

[SSNJim]

4 hours ago, oldcarfan said:

 I was stationed in Virginia for years while in the Navy. I drove front and rear wheel drive vehicles. People always talk about FWD as being better in the snow. That's not true. FWD will understeer in the snow and RWD will oversteer in the snow. Oversteer is easier to bring under control. Where FWD has an advantage is in the manufacturing process. The builder can put an engine and tranny together and slap it in as a unit much easier than a RWD one. It's easier to package.

Very true. I spent many years in VA and CT while in the Navy, and unfortunately still live in MD in the DC metropolitan area. If the snow's too bad to drive my Mustang, I won't drive the Escape either. I was trying to say that there are no driving conditions that I can think of that a FWD car has an advantage over a RWD car. "Process improvements" and "cost cutting" in manufacturing and production have ruined almost all quality products.

[slusher]

4 hours ago, oldcarfan said:

A lot of people are complaining about this truck being too little. It's actually too large for its target market. Buyers have been asking for a smaller truck the size of an old school Ranger since Ford killed it off. Two years ago, I saw one of these new trucks parked here in Austin, (it had Mexico plates) and I parked beside it in my 1982 full-size F-100. They are about the same size.

Ford, Chevy, and Dodge killed their small trucks because they believed it was affecting full size truck sales. Chevy had the lowest sales with the Colorado since they liked the S-10 better.