Ford to sell only two cars in North America

D2W said:........No they won't due as well at an autocross, but what is that .001% of all cars made are autocrossed. ........

Just a quick back on the napkin calc.  How many autocross events per weekend on average in the country.  Maybe 50 if we average all states and 12 months.  Sure California may have 4 or 5 per weekend even in January, but I'll bet even at the height of the season there are not even one per week for many States.  Plus for the northern half of the Nation there are zero per weekend from Nov though April so I feel 50 is being generous.  How many cars per event (I'm talking cars not drivers and there always seems to be10-30% shared cars?  Maybe 40 average.  For every 200 entrant Divisional there must be lots of small 20 small club events.  So 50 events x 52 weeks x 40 entrants is 104K cars per year competing.  What's the average # of events per person per year?  Say 5 so that 104k div 5 = 20.8k, let's be generous and say 21k cars per year competing.  There are 263.6million cars in the US according to Google so that;'s 21,000/263,600,000 = 0.0079% of vehicles compete.  Let's round up and double it, that's still only 0.016%  To me that says autocross is statistically irrelevant in any way as far as the car design and sales are concerned.  That was a long way of saying, yup, I pretty much agree with your sentiment as I feel I was very generous with some of my numbers. 

Nick Comstock said:

 I just hope other manufactures don't decide to follow Ford's lead in this direction. 

Oh, I'm 100% certain many will. 

iceracer said:

After nearly 40 yrs.as a Ford owner and at the same dealer and it is getting near to the time to be thinking of a new car.    Sadly it probably won't be Ford.

I'm truly sorry about that.

D2W said:

spitfirebill said:

I bet Henry Ford is spinning in his grave. 

No way, read your history, Ford was all about making money first and foremost.

He also refused to give up on a totally out-dated car.   

STM317 said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

Sales trends are easy to look at, and I'm sure they're a part of the equation but if there were similar data for profitability I'd guess that the contrast might be even more stark. Automakers aren't going to tell us what profit they make per model, but that's really the key isn't it? In other words, Ford sold 13k Foci/month in 2017 vs 25k Escapes and that seems like a large difference but if they make 5% more profit on each Escape than what they make on a Focus, then the gap between them becomes a gulf. Not only are they selling more of them, but they're making more off of each one that they sell too. And then, you start to wonder why you're bothering making a Focus at all when you could be cranking out more Escapes.

Very true, and you have no idea how skewed it is for trucks and larger SUV's.  I know but obviously can't share.

spitfirebill said:

D2W said:

spitfirebill said:

I bet Henry Ford is spinning in his grave. 

No way, read your history, Ford was all about making money first and foremost.

He also refused to give up on a totally out-dated car.   

He was also pretty much nuts by the end, but don't discount what his original vision was and what he did for the automobile (note automobile not car) industry and the working man before he lost the plot.

I really do understand the appeal of the crossover. Heck, I like my beater minivan for the higher seating position, roominess, and ground clearance on awful MI roads. I’ll admit it: in every way, except maybe center of gravity for corner carving, tall cars are “better” for driving around than low cars.

This is just the line between “crossover” and cars blurring into non-existence.

Adrian, are they going to keep the Continental? That's one I could see myself buying in a few years. Hell, I'm even emailing with a dealer over a leftover 17 MKZ, so I'm not the car makers worst nightmare anymore

Trans_Maro said:

Meh, can't say I'm shocked.

To me, a car is completely useless.

I can't understand all these homeowners who own two cars and work on their house.

Every day I see folks shoving lumber, drywall, fertilizer and assorted crap into a car or minivan and thinking that this is how it should be.

If you have two vehicles, one should be a truck, period.

I can't see owning a truck that I am going to use as a truck maybe 10 days a year at most.  And I have been a homeowner for 25 years.

The other side of that is that my minivan can hold more lumber or drywall than any SUV ever will.

I am so conflicted on this. 

On one hand, I'm not surprised. CUV's are everywhere, and for good reason. They are taller, roomier, and more comfortable in a lot of ways than small to midsize cars. Hell, we even bought one, a 2018 Mazda CX-5, a couple weeks ago. It replaced a 2010 Mazda 3 sedan and is better in every way. It's all of those things I just mentioned, and a welcome addition to our fleet. The thing even gets better gas mileage than my smaller Mazda 3 hatch, which blows my mind, but that's an exception to the norm (my car is a real pig for what it is, averaging 25-26mpg). It's also the only CUV I've driven or been in that has any trace of driving pleasure or handling prowess.

BUT....

Ford, as a "full line automaker", killing 99% of their cars? This seems extremely short-sighted. For one, gas prices are trending upward right now. It's likely not going to get better, either. Remember a few years ago when gas was $4+/gallon? Lots of companies were selling small cars like hotcakes, and Ford was at the front of it with the Fiesta. People were buying them left and right! Hell, we almost bought one! I don't see any of their CUV's squeaking out 40+ MPG anytime soon. From what I've heard, their EcoBoost engines are thirsty across the board, so not having a mileage miser in the fleet is plain ol' poor planning on their part. 

Then there's the whole "Not everyone likes CUV's" argument. It's true. There are still a good number of people that prefer regular cars. I'm one of them. I like the way cars drive better, and nothing is going to change my mind. I can see the Focus having issues selling due to the Powershift debacle, but they were due for a new model anyway. The Fusion still looks great years later, and is competitive in it's segment. It was due for a real refresh, but it was still selling. Why get rid of it? I totally get the purge of the Taurus; the Fusion was nearly the same size, and municipalities aren't buying them since they made a police package Explorer. Just seems dumb. Are they expecting all the CAFE and EPA regulations to be completely repealed? Even if they do (which is unlikely), they will all be back at some point. Again, short-sighted.

This decision will also increase the bottom line prices of their offerings; no more cheap and affordable entry level cars from Ford. The Ecosport is the closest you'll get to cheap, and that starts at $20k. Are they banking on the hearsay that young people don't have interest in driving? I don't get it. 

Another thing: The ripple effect of this decision may royally screw CAR enthusiasts forever. If other companies decide to do the same and ditch all their cars, what are future generations going to run at HPDE's? Not everyone wants/can afford a pony car, and you sure aren't seeing tippy pedestrian CUV's competing at autocrosses and the like. 

It will be interesting to see how the rest of the industry responds. Hopefully, there will be more pointing and laughing than "follow the leader". 

Duke said:

I can't see owning a truck that I am going to use as a truck maybe 10 days a year at most.  And I have been a homeowner for 25 years.

The other side of that is that my minivan can hold more lumber or drywall than any SUV ever will.

Why does everything have to be one extreme or the other in the internet? It's either "everyone should have a truck" or "nobody should ever own a truck". 

My wife and I are one of those families where one of our two main vehicles has been a pickup or truck-based SUV since the mid-90s. The reason that works for us is not just the occasional Home Depot trip, it's also hauling my various car projects around, trips to the dump, and towing our travel trailer. We need a vehicle that can do those things, so what would you have us do?

On the other hand, not everyone has those needs. Plenty of people can and do get by without a truck, they don't do as much DIY stuff as I do, they don't have trailers, etc. For those folks, there's no need for a big truck. But if that's what they WANT to drive, so be it.

mtn said:

Adrian, are they going to keep the Continental? That's one I could see myself buying in a few years. Hell, I'm even emailing with a dealer over a leftover 17 MKZ, so I'm not the car makers worst nightmare anymore

I can't, but look at the sales figures and make your own assumptions.

STM317 said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

Sales trends are easy to look at, and I'm sure they're a part of the equation but if there were similar data for profitability I'd guess that the contrast might be even more stark. Automakers aren't going to tell us what profit they make per model, but that's really the key isn't it? In other words, Ford sold 13k Foci/month in 2017 vs 25k Escapes and that seems like a large difference but if they make 5% more profit on each Escape than what they make on a Focus, then the gap between them becomes a gulf. Not only are they selling more of them, but they're making more off of each one that they sell too. And then, you start to wonder why you're bothering making a Focus at all when you could be cranking out more Escapes.

But here's the question - can they sell more escapes? If they make any profit at all on the Focus it seems silly to stop selling it. The people buying a Focus now are unlikely to say, oh well I'll buy an Escape. They're going to go to another manufacturer. In my opinion, at this point someone buying a sedan or hatchback is buying that aspect of it first, not a Ford first and then choosing the sedan second. I'm sure some people will stretch and buy the CUV but a lot (the vast majority, I think) will just go elsewhere.

I don't really understand why sedans were ever very popular. Given the choice between a sedan and a wagon of the same car, I will always choose the wagon. I've spent way too much time trying to shoehorn stuff into a trunk opening that doesn't want to fit anything bigger than a duffel bag. The sedan really seems like the most useless of vehicles.

Adrian_Thompson said:

mtn said:

Adrian, are they going to keep the Continental? That's one I could see myself buying in a few years. Hell, I'm even emailing with a dealer over a leftover 17 MKZ, so I'm not the car makers worst nightmare anymore

I can't, but look at the sales figures and make your own assumptions.

Adrian_Thompson said:

Especially now we've had 30 years of increasing popularity in SUV's the average buyer wants to get back up on the same eye level as the majority of other vehicles on the road. 

The problem is that this is an arms race that plateaus at the upper reasonable limits of height.  Once that is reached, nobody can see over anybody else any more; you're just higher than before.  Just like when every car has DRLs on all cars are once again equally visible, and vulnerable things like motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians no longer stand out against this higher background clutter.  Just like when the idiots in the front row of the concert stand up, so everybody at the show has to stand up and futilely try to see over them.

Nick Comstock said:

 I just hope other manufactures don't decide to follow Ford's lead in this direction. 

 

I think Ford is a bit of a follower in this situation.  FCA fired the first shot when they canceled the Dart and 200 without any replacement plans.  Ford is being more drastic.  I wonder if they want to discontinue the cars while they are still viable, instead of dragging them out until they are hopelessly outdated against the competition.  That way, the nameplates might actually have some goodwill if they ever bring them back.

I think GM is planning on discontinuing the Sonic, and I’ve heard the Spark, Malibu, and Impala are all in danger of disappearing in the next few years.

spitfirebill said:

I bet Henry Ford is spinning in his grave. 

Tom_Spangler said:

Duke said:

I can't see owning a truck that I am going to use as a truck maybe 10 days a year at most.  And I have been a homeowner for 25 years.

The other side of that is that my minivan can hold more lumber or drywall than any SUV ever will.

Why does everything have to be one extreme or the other in the internet? It's either "everyone should have a truck" or "nobody should ever own a truck". 

Nowhere did I say nobody should own a truck.  I pointed out 2 things that I see as glaring errors in his hypothesis that everyone should own a truck.  If you haul mulch or firewood or junkyard parts or whatever a couple weekends every month, or if you need to tow any kind of serious trailer on a regular basis, then by all means own a truck.  That's what they're for.

But speaking personally, a truck would actually serve me as a truck for approximately 2% of its service life.  For my needs that is an unreasonably low number to make it worth putting up with the inherent drawbacks of truckness.

Duke said:

Tom_Spangler said:

Duke said:

I can't see owning a truck that I am going to use as a truck maybe 10 days a year at most.  And I have been a homeowner for 25 years.

The other side of that is that my minivan can hold more lumber or drywall than any SUV ever will.

Why does everything have to be one extreme or the other in the internet? It's either "everyone should have a truck" or "nobody should ever own a truck". 

Nowhere did I say nobody should own a truck.  I pointed out 2 things that I see as glaring errors in his hypothesis that everyone should own a truck.  If you haul mulch or firewood or junkyard parts or whatever a couple weekends every month, or if you need to tow any kind of serious trailer on a regular basis, then by all means own a truck.  That's what they're for.

But speaking personally, a truck would actually serve me as a truck for approximately 2% of its service life.  For my needs that is an unreasonably low number to make it worth putting up with the inherent drawbacks of truckness.

Fair enough, but I will say that modern trucks have nowhere near the compromises of older ones. They are, in fact, damn nice places to spend time. No car offers as much stretch-out space and comfort as a modern full-size pickup, for instance. But, to each his/her own.

I was shocked at this news. I can't believe they're going to stop building the ....uh...what are the Ford cars besides the Mustang? Oh yeah, focus hatchback, the Taurus..do they still build that?...and the...wait, what's the midsized one called?

I'm a Ford fan, always have been. If their cars were the only ones not selling, I'd say it was a failure of Ford to design something that people wanted. But it's everyone's cars. So no one can design a car that people want to buy, or at least that people prefer to a CUV.  Why? Because the smart guy engineers have greatly reduced the down side to a CUV verses the upside. Few customers will buy a car with 1/2 the usable room if the MPG and comfort level is the same. Why would you? Driving dynamics I suppose, but modern CUV/SUVs are fast approaching that bar too. I'd be willing to bet there are stock CUVs out there that can beat an early 90's civic in stock trim around an autocross course.  Remember the GRM minivan test? Maybe it's time to redo it with a CUV.  Factor in that most drivers never reach the limits where that difference is evident. 

Even one of our own members said that he replaced a '10 hatchback car with a '17 CUV and it was better in every way.    In the next paragraph he said he prefers cars, and yet he still bought the CUV. Why is that?

The other big point that people have pointed out - this is only for the NA market. Ford still makes cars and will market them where people will buy them. Why would they continue to produce an market something in the US that fewer and fewer people want to buy? As someone who makes retail products, I'd love to know how to force people to buy what I sold instead of what they wanted.  I suspect that the person who goes to the Ford lot looking for a Focus (Not a FoST, mind you) can probably be sold an Escape and will probably be perfectly happy with it.  I would also bet even money that Ford has plans to price some of these where they are attainable as "first new cars." I don't think you'll see the CUV/car defacto price gap continue. Besides, my first new car was a Mustang GT. I don't think a $3-4k gap is insurmountable in todays markets given the prevalence of long loans and the lack of financial acumen in people buying a first new car. 

Gas prices? Not a factor. The gap between the models is too small, and that's what the hybrids and electrics are for. I'd also bet they know the CAFE numbers and have plans already in place for new models to have higher mpg anyway.

dculberson said:

But here's the question - can they sell more escapes? If they make any profit at all on the Focus it seems silly to stop selling it. The people buying a Focus now are unlikely to say, oh well I'll buy an Escape. They're going to go to another manufacturer. In my opinion, at this point someone buying a sedan or hatchback is buying that aspect of it first, not a Ford first and then choosing the sedan second. I'm sure some people will stretch and buy the CUV but a lot (the vast majority, I think) will just go elsewhere.

That's a reasonable question. Without knowing specific numbers regarding profitability, it's hard to say if they're better off selling whatever Foci (?) they can, or not. It seems like the Focus Active that will remain on sale in the US might cover the part of the market that doesn't jump up to an Escape. I know where the trends are though.

2017 US sales:

Escape- 308,296 for an average of 25,691/month

Focus- 158,385 for an average of 13,199/month

Ford has sold over 300k Escapes each year since at least 2014 (that's where the data set that I saw began). Meanwhile, Focus sales have dropped each year over the same timeframe from 220k in 2014 to being on pace to sell just 140k this year. And what percentage of those Foci are actually sedans vs the more popular hatch?

Really, it's just like what happened to small trucks 10 years ago. They used to sell millions of small trucks each year. Then GM stopped the Colorado/Canyon. Ford quit the Ranger. Nissan hasn't updated the Frontier in forever. Tacoma sales remained mostly steady throughout that time, and actually increased a bit when GM and Ford stopped, but not enough to suggest that every small truck buyer just switched brands. That indicates that the market for small trucks was shrinking. Some buyers wanted a small truck, and switched to Toyota, but others bought vehicles in new segments. I'd expect something similar here. Buyers that want sedans will buy from the remaining available sedans or small hatchbacks, while others will switch market segments to other types of vehicles.

Very well said Adrian.  I hate the news, hence my sarcastic comment earlier about an Escape Raptor.  However, I don't see it as Fords' "fault", it's Americans and they're need to have an SUV/CUV.  Hope that trend dies a horrible death.

In other news Toyota is bringing us a new Corolla hatchback. I'm excited about that. 

Not that I'll buy one.

Didn't the announcement just say they weren't going to continue developing those platforms? If a product is low volume and low margin but still has the same development costs as a high volume/high margin product, of course it's liable to get dropped. Even if Ford is selling lots of sedans - which they're not - if they're not profitable in the grand scheme of things they don't make sense.

Enthusiasts claim that wagons are better than tall vehicles, or that hatchbacks are only worthwhile if they're low. But the market says something different, and it's not just due to gas prices. SUV/CUVs have real attributes with very few drawbacks that make people choose them over cars. What we're seeing is the evolution of vehicular packaging.

Silver lining for track day enthusiasts... More room between the floorpan and road for a massive downforce producing tunneled under-body-kit. 

Thought...

As an example, the Chevy Sonic and the Chevy Traxx/ Buick Encore are the same chassis.

What if the Sonic was just offered with a height adjustable suspension?  Would people keep the setting at high or low?  

Sample photo:

In similar fashion, there used to always be a lower, regular Subaru Legacy wagon and a lifted Subaru Outback.   Seems that Subaru sells a lot less of the low version.  Actually, Im not sure if they still offer the low version.  

I predict an offering of aftermarket lowering kits and the new "slammed" will be the old ride height.  

The Ford Taurus had already become a SUV disguised as a sedan.