Wow. Major losses. No wonder Toyota now is #2.

They loose the equivalent of one mustang sale per MINUTE!

 

uhhh... ??? Care to elaborate?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/.../earns_ford_34

 

Oh, okay - you were just converting their annual monetary losses into "Mustangs per Minute" - that make sense now.

At first, I thought you were talking about a serious inventory-control problem, and that they were literally *losing* one car per minute!

Not confused anymore...

 

I heard on the radio that Ford lost an average $1900 per vehicle sold. Truck and SUV sales have been way down... gee I wonder why?

 

Yep - the trucks and SUVs are real cash cows for the automakers, on a profit-per-vehicle basis, and they can sell as many of the big ones as they want to without worrying about their CAFE fuel-economy ratings, since anything with a GVWR of 8500 pounds or more (Hummer, Excursion, Suburban, F250/F350 etcetera) is exempt from the CAFE standards.

 

Ahhh I get it now. Thanks.

Seems they're not making a lot of vehicles that people actually want to buy. Care for a Taurus... Oops a Ford 500 anyone? (It's a rolling yawn that gets 19mpg city).

 

im sorta surprised, I see new ford trucks and mustangs all over town. Atleast 10 or more a day!

 

Ditto. I still see like 100 Accords a day though...

 

With the exception of the Mustang and the trucks, there is nothing "gotta have" in Ford's lineup. Ford has just added another nail to the coffin with the fugly 2008 Focus re-design. The geniuses killed both hatchback models and the station wagon, leaving us with 2 Escort-Era looking sedan/coupe which are ugly and overstyled. A total clusterf*ck if you ask me.

The Ford 500 sedan was one of the most anticipated and overhyped "Taurus"replacements in recent memory and the car turned out to be a flop of monumental proportions. Big, bloated, underpowered and hum-drum. Copying the Audi A6 was not enough to give this poor car any sort of credibility. Where is the European Ford Mondeo, Bill?

The Thunderbird is gone and so does the Focus SVT a pretty decent MINI contender that was killed after 2 short years.

I could go on and on. Ford also needs to let go of Jaguar and Land Rover, both money losing operations. Lincoln and Mercury are the other money losing, with out direction duds.

The Ford GT was a bright star in anotherwise dark and cold night. Too bad the GT was only meant to be a limited production car for the privieleged few who could fork out the $150K+ price tag.

Ford doesn't have any homeruns right now, with the exception of the Mustang, which is already starting to get stale and will suffer once GM releases the all new Chevy Camaro in 2009.

Speaking of the "General", I think they are the only ones in Detroit making real progress. GM is in much better shape than both Ford and DCX, IMHO.

 

Porsche makes $3200 per car.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1011875/...cle/index.html

 

The article says Porsche makes $28,000 profit per car. BMW makes $3,200

 

One of the articles I read used that headline to show the equivalent in Mustangs ... I thought it was pretty funny.

NOT TRUE

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/25/p...er-car-report/

Stuttgart. Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Stuttgart, refutes the calculation of the B&D-Forecast forecast institute as unserious. In a study the institute asserts that with each of the 96,794 sports cars Porsche sold in the 2005/2006 financial year, Porsche earned an average of €21,799 Euros. The calculation is misleading because it does not take into account the extensive one-off and extraordinary effects which impacted the pre-tax result of the Porsche Group in the 2005/06 financial year and which have nothing to do with the original Porsche business.

Thus €203 million Euros of the pre-tax result comes from the participation in Volkswagen AG. This figure is largely purely an accounting one, which Porsche must include in its statement of earnings, even though not a single Euro flows to the sports car manufacturer. What is more, income from hedging transactions in connection with the VW participation resulted in a considerable three-figure amount in millions. This equally had just as little with the actual vehicle business. Furthermore, with the disposal of CTS Fahrzeug-Dachsysteme GmbH, the sports car manufacturer realized a book profit of €80.7 million Euros. This amount also cannot be allocated to the vehicle business.

In other words ... BS. Those aren't per car profits but other business.

 

Agree 100%

GMs current line-up is phenomenal for the most part. '08 looks to be even better.

DCX had a few good years, but seems to be sliding a bit. I think the release of the new vans shorty will give them some more momentum.

Fords line-up is a joke....nothing else to say.

 

Eh... still. I figured MyPocketRocket mixed up the Porsche and BMW figures in the post.

 

I think this is the Bob Lutz effect. Follow his career, he is a serious 'car guy' and most of what he gets behind are exciting, fun, if not successful products.
1963-1971 GM (Europe) (Opel GT...)
1971-1974 BWM (2002..)
1974-1986 Ford Europe (Euro escort, RS200, Sierra, Scorpio)
1986-1998 Chrysler (PT Cruiser, Viper, Prowler)
2001- GM (GTO, Saturn Sky & Aura, Pontiac G8)

 

Once again, agree 100%

He has a lot of haters, but I think he's done amazing things.

 

When the Mustang and the GT500 came out, there was a lot of buzz about the re-emergence of the marque.

Unfortunately, the Mustang rides on a prehistoric suspension and the GT500 has received mixed reviews. I know a few people who rushed out and bought the initial new then sold them - there is something missing with this car.........

I would also add that the new Edge crossover looks to be another bomb and the Fusion is a warmed over Mazda 6 - a car that was relevant about 5 years ago.

The word flop doesn't even begin to describe the 500 and the Freelander - absolutely horrible.

Additionally, while the General manages to sell Tahoes, Suburbans and their kin, the Expedition has faded quietly into obscurity.

When the Challenger, the Camaro and the new GTO debut the Mustang will take a beating.

 

You know, I think the Freelander is not such a bad car. It actually is a rebadged Volvo station wagon. However, the mistake Ford made was to try to pass it up and market it as yet another SUV, not a station wagon or something allong the lines of an Audi A6 or Volvo Crosscountry thingie. Also the Freelander is very expensive. Why buy the Ford version when you can get the better looking Volvo one?

I saw an Edge the other day. Not bad, but how many more damn crossovers (Which is the new politically correct word to describe SUVs in desguise) does this market need?

 

The Freelander is horribly underpowered - and is heavy to boot.

The Edge is receiving lukewarm reviews - overpriced and overweight seem to be the common themes.

The problem with Ford is that they seem to be about four years behind the curve with everything. They're following trends instead of setting them and they are following slowly to boot.

 

Actually, the Freestyle (the Freelander was a Land Rover) is NOT a re-badged Volvo station wagon.

It's mechanically identical to the Ford Five-Hundred. Both ride on a modified Volvo chassis, but the cars are not similar at all. Different engines, trannies, everything.

Also, the Freestyle is VERY inexpensive. I believe they start around $25,000, while the Volvo V70 is at least $10-15k more.

Of course, the two vehicles have essentially nothing in common (maybe 10% similar) so it's not relevant.

 

The saddest thing I heard from the Detroit Auto Show was when one of the "experts" was aked if he saw anything from U.S. automakers at the show that might create some energy in the marketplace. He said...."no."

 

The Edge LOOKS good, and offers some unique features for the class (like a panoramic glass roof, etc.) Supposedly it just doesnt drive as nice as some of the current competition, and def not as good as the new GM crossovers (Outlook, Acadia, Enclave) which are by far the best in the class right now.

The Fusion isnt really a warmed over Mazda6. I've drien both and they feel like different cars. The Fusion's platform was updated, it's not simply a re-badged Mazda. The Fusion is larger, has a much better interior, better build quality, etc.

I wouldnt say the 500/Freestyle were flops. They both had excellent fit and finish. I've driven both, and they feel well-made and have decent quality, modern interiors. The problem with them was the power and the styling. Both are getting Fords new (265 hp I believe?) V6 in the spring/summer, along with a facelift. This should help it some. Its a good car, just WAY too mundane to create any waves for Ford.

Have you driven a new Tahoe? EXCELLENT vehicle. The GM900 suvs are SO far ahead of the rest of the class it's laughable. And I agree with you about the Expedition as well.

And yep, the new Camaro will be MUCH better than the Mustang.

 

Yet at that same Detroit Auto show, the 2007 Car AND Truck/Suv of the year (picked by a small group of "experts") were BOTH Domestic vehicles.

Also, the new Caddy CTS has been getting PLENTY of attention on auto forums. This year it seemed to me that GM owned the show. What did Honda debut? The ugly new Accord.

Not sure where that guy was coming from..

 

That was my bad. The Freelander also stunk.......