Mustang and Focus lone Ford car survivors

[Dick LeRoux]

"too bad International Harvester discontinued the Scout back in 1980, they would sell like hotcakes today"

I've driven many thousands of miles in the IH Scout and to be honest, it was a POS. Terrible ride, cable actuated clutch that was prone to breaking / snapping without warning, poor interior heat in winter climes, and all around poor fit & finish. However, the same could be said for many marquees back in 1969.

[WinM1895]

This talk of Ford ending car production reminds me of them discontinuing production of the Ford Ranger back in 2011. The reason Ford gave for ending production was that its compact pickup didn't sell well enough to be profitable. Rediculous!! The reason the Ranger no longer sold well is that they didn't spend any money to update it. Poor fuel economy because they didn't update it's powertrain technology. It carried on for many years mostly unchanged, like the Model T. If designs remain the same for too many years, customers look elsewhere for something new.

Ford ignored the Ranger for years, introduced in March 1982 as a 1983 model, once the Super Cab was introduced in 1986, that was about it. Engines, grilles were changed, but they basically looked the same from then on.

Ford wanted to close the Twin Cities (MN) assembly plant, because it was outmoded, the only vehicle being assembled there was the Ranger. Ranger was basically only selling to fleets, so when it was cancelled, the plant was closed.

[8E45E]

That's NOT EXACTLY what they said. The Ranger cost almost as much to produce as the full size trucks, but Ford couldn't ask as much for the smaller truck. So... cut out the small numbers and go with the market leader. It's a bean counter move, but I understood it.

Ford also stated their full-size truck line was getting just as good fuel mileage as the Ranger did, which eliminated that selling feature as well.

Craig

[53k]

Ford is bringing back the Ranger. See https://www.ford.com/trucks/ranger/2019/
Actually, it looks pretty good compared to the GM Canyon and Colorado. It's pretty hard to find either on dealer lots. They just don't sell well (at least in these parts) and they cost almost as much as the full size GM trucks.

[8E45E]

Ford is bringing back the Ranger. See https://www.ford.com/trucks/ranger/2019/
Actually, it looks pretty good compared to the GM Canyon and Colorado. It's pretty hard to find either on dealer lots. They just don't sell well (at least in these parts) and they cost almost as much as the full size GM trucks.

Yes they are: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...ghlight=ranger

Sales of the Canyorado along with the Tacoma and Frontier are enough to convince Ford there is a big enough market here in North America to offer the Ranger once again.

Craig

[WinM1895]

Bronco is also being reintroduced. Last offered in 1996.

[Hallabutt]

I would like to include some of my comments that I made in the AACA forum:

Let me say that I agreed with the govt's assessment that GM was too big to allow to fail. This is not based on politics, or ideology, it is strictly based on economics. GM took the govt loans, paid their obligation early, and moved on.



Ford got universal kudos for not needing to accept the "bailout," but what did it really cost them. While they were able to secure loans on their own, to stay the course they also were forced to sell Jaguar/Landrover to Tata motors. Alan Mullally, company president, stated that it was time to return to their own luxury marque Lincoln. The selling price was, I believe, around two Billion dollars. This was after Ford had sunk millions into the Coventry plant, to both modernize it, and to attack the quality flaws that had become implicit with the marque. So how did that work out for Ford, not very well. Tata returned management to Coventry, and returned the company to profitability. Enough profit, in fact, to cover all of the purchase price in several years. Ford's emphasis on Lincoln fell flat. While the Towncar served the company well domestically, there was no international marque recognition. By giving up on their only global, luxury marque was a huge mistake. We live in a world economy, and Ford chose not to play.



Personally I think that Ford made another huge mistake, when the chose to drop the full framed, rear wheeled drive, Crown Victoria based, line of cars. They had been the mainstay for police, taxi and limousine service for two decades. None of their offerings have made them a player in any of these markets.

Why do I think that this makes any difference, because except for their line of trucks, none of what Ford is able to sell has any profit margin. Higher priced luxury type cars include a huge profit margin, when compared to economy models. Economy models require volume, the likes of which Ford has not been able achieve. Luxury cars can achieve up to about a 50% margin, but Ford has never been able to reclaim any part of that market. Outside of maybe the upper Midwest the market that Ford is leaving, is dominated by the Japanese, Korean and German offerings.

[BobPalma]

Let me say that I agreed with the govt's assessment that GM was too big to allow to fail. This is not based on politics, or ideology, it is strictly based on economics. GM took the govt loans, paid their obligation early, and moved on.

With all due respects, Bill; that is a horribly over-simplistic assessment of the General Motors and Chrysler bail-outs.

I'll not spend hours researching documentation to that effect because it certainly is / was political. People who believe it is the government's business -even "job"- to "save" people and companies from their own arrogance / mismanagement / greed at future taxpayer expense by running up the national debt, most certainly for political reasons, will never be convinced otherwise, facts be damned.

The country paid an enormous price, both fiscally and morally, for the General Motors' "bailout," in that conventional bankruptcy law was abrogated for political reasons under the nonsensical banner of "too big to fail." Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't, as many investors who lost money on stocks and bonds as a result of that fiscal dance can testify. We aren't a nation of laws if "the government" won't abide by established financial laws....and it did not in those cases, preferring a cleverly-orchestrated end-run around those laws that stiffed investors in the short run and yet-unborn taxpayers in the long run. Period.

The right to fail is as important as the right to succeed in this country, although I am realistic enough to acknowledge that we are ever so slowly descending into the chaotic abyss where "kinda being" socialists is like "kinda being" pregnant. Either you is or you isn't, as Pogo might say.

See also: Venezula.

Now I'll take another blood pressure med and get ready for an enjoyable several days in South Bend. BP

[Hawklover]

This is perhaps the greatest book I have ever read concerning the automotive industry.....Walter made his home in Great Neck Long Island.....the Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, was Walters actual estate......beautiful and amazing!

Hope it's CHRYSLER by Vincent Curcio. Fantastic book about a man who rose from a wiper at a local railroad to the presidency of a railway company. While there, he foresaw the coming of the automobile age, and joined David Buick - eventually becoming a captain of industry in 2 different realms.

[bob40]

Shooting from the hip with no research done(it's late and I'm feeling lazy) don't trucks/suv's/utv's/ have different fuel economy standards that the cars will have a harder time making in the future?

[Hawklover]

The country will be no more soon, the far left ideologues and their ilk have taken what the framers gave to us, and made excrement of it.....glad I have very little in front of me and most in back of me, and as I fade to black I can remember when America was truly the top of the world.

With all due respects, Mike; that is a horribly over-simplistic assessment of the General Motors and Chrysler bail-outs.

I'll not spend hours researching documentation to that effect because it certainly is / was political. People who believe it is the government's business -even "job"- to "save" people and companies from their own arrogance / mismanagement / greed at future taxpayer expense by running up the national debt, most certainly for political reasons, will never be convinced otherwise, facts be damned.

The country paid an enormous price, both fiscally and morally, for the General Motors' "bailout," in that conventional bankruptcy law was abrogated for political reasons under the nonsensical banner of "too big to fail." Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't, as many investors who lost money on stocks and bonds as a result of that fiscal dance can testify. We aren't a nation of laws if "the government" won't abide by established financial laws....and it did not in those cases, preferring a cleverly-orchestrated end-run around those laws that stiffed investors in the short run and yet-unborn taxpayers in the long run. Period.

The right to fail is as important as the right to succeed in this country, although I am realistic enough to acknowledge that we are ever so slowly descending into the chaotic abyss where "kinda being" socialists is like "kinda being" pregnant. Either you is or you isn't, as Pogo might say.

See also: Venezula.

Now I'll take another blood pressure med and get ready for an enjoyable several days in South Bend. BP

[BobPalma]

Shooting from the hip with no research done(it's late and I'm feeling lazy) don't trucks/suv's/utv's/ have different fuel economy standards that the cars will have a harder time making in the future?

True, Bob, but the real factor driving the "anti-car" market is the utility and driving position of today's smaller SUVs that get excellent gas mileage.

Ford's second-best selling product after the F-150 truck line is the Escape. If someone is considering a "car" and drives an Escape, they'll buy the Escape. My wife and I owned a 2008 pre-"bankruptcy" Impala we bought new and she was tired of not being able to see out the back of it due to the seating position and wide C-pillars.

We ordered a new Ford Escape SE in 2016 and she loves it; just plain loves it. It's got 22,700 miles on it now and delivers a solid 30 MPG overall and the driving position is high and produces excellent visibility. What's not to like with an overall MPG in that area?

That's been the death of conventional passenger cars; useful, economical, more driver-friendly small SUVs. BP

[8E45E]

After owning F150 Crew Cabs for a decade, I will honestly say, I will NEVER go back to having a car for a daily driver. As Jeff stated in Post 22 about ground clearance, plus the advantage of 4WD in snow and on icy roads have convinced me; especially since all the conveniences and comforts that only cars once offered are common on light trucks and SUV's.

A number of years ago, my neighbor who only drove all-wheel drive vans for his work rather angrily stated to me one cold winter day that 'all-wheel drive' or 4WD should be 'law' in snow county. He was frustrated with only two or three cars being able to get through a green light at an intersection when the road was icy as they would waste time spinning their wheels to get traction. Now with industry trends to either 4WD or all-wheel drive, it appears he'll get his wish!!

Craig

[WinM1895]

We ordered a new Ford Escape SE in 2016 and she loves it; just plain loves it. It's got 22,700 miles on it now and delivers a solid 30 MPG overall and the driving position is high and produces excellent visibility. What's not to like with an overall MPG in that area?

What engine does it have, one of the Eco-Boosts or the 2.5L?

[skyway]

I was under the impression that then "new" Escapes (and many other much touted 4 cyls.) were not delivering mpg as promised.
Was I mistaken, or have they improved.
Is that 30 mpg overall, more city or highway or half & half?
Not doubting, just asking.