Ford to stop selling most of their cars in North America

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Well, small CUVs don't have a huge MPG penalty compared to sedans. It may drive people into FWD ones instead of AWD, but right now the majority of the customer base would rather have the utility of the CUV over the small hit in fuel economy. Part of what Ford is banking on is that gas prices won't take a huge leap before they've electrified a lot of the CUV models within the next couple of years. Then they can point customers to hybrids or full electric versions when gas price do jump. It is a risk, but maybe not as huge as some make it out to be...
 
Well, small CUVs don't have a huge MPG penalty compared to sedans. It may drive people into FWD ones instead of AWD, but right now the majority of the customer base would rather have the utility of the CUV over the small hit in fuel economy. Part of what Ford is banking on is that gas prices won't take a huge leap before they've electrified a lot of the CUV models within the next couple of years. Then they can point customers to hybrids or full electric versions when gas price do jump. It is a risk, but maybe not as huge as some make it out to be...

This. As you state, small CUVs get pretty darn good gas mileage.

Further, Ford isn't going to stop making high-mileage cars, but rather will stop selling them here. The Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo, and Ka will still be produced and sold abroad. If gas spikes like it did several years ago Ford can always start selling these products in the NA market.

The US market has spoken: they simply don't want small cars, and are growing increasingly weary of sedans of any size.

James
 
The US market has spoken: they simply don't want small cars, and are growing increasingly weary of sedans of any size.

Also, from what I've been lead to believe, it's the [apparent] size of the CUV / SUV that also influences the want. The larger size is perceived as being "safer", regardless of other numbers, factors, physics, mechanics, etc.. (of which many consumers seem to be completely oblivious!)

And a few of the conspirasists will argue that big government want you to buy an SUV:
larger frontal area / heavier vehicle = more gas = more tax
larger tires = more $$ = more tax
larger / safer feeling vehicle = more confidence = go faster = $$ speeding tickets..
(of course, there is also the higher CG = less safe = drive slower)


My favorite argument, here, for an SUV is that they want the SUV for "winter driving". Montreal QC sees snow every year, we have a million dollar snow removal budget, and the streets & highways are pretty clean compared to what they could be. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago, a 2 wheel drive car was good enough to get around, and rarely did you get stuck.. and now you want an SUV "just in case"?!


I remember many many years ago, when I lived in Vancouver, and was walking around after a snow storm, a pick-up had plowed into a snow bank. As I walked by, I heard the driver say tote h tow truck: "But I have 4-wheel drive.." Yeah, I thought, you may have 4 wheel drive, but that's useless when you need to stop!!
 
Most of these newer pickups should be illegal and removed from the road. They keep building them taller and yet put the headlights the same place on the body. A modern pickup has headlights around roof level of a small car, even though an 18 wheeler has them around the same height as a car's. Add that the new headlights are about 3x as bright and there's no way this should be legal.

It's a height war. No one can see much from a normal car anymore.
 
So, in replacing my 2000 2.4 liter Hyundai Elantra Wagon, I wanted to get a CAR that would have similar or better cargo space , similar or better MPG. Of course, in recent years, wagon versions of cars have mostly died out. I wanted my replacement car to work much better in snowy conditions than the FWD Elantra. I chose to get a Subaru Outback (2.5 liter), AWD, longevity. I didn’t get it for off-road, don’t ever intend to other than the inevitable less-than-ideal driving across launch sites.

It’s due more to red tape and bending the rules that my car is classed as a “truck”. And that graph earlier in the thread tends to show that too. Would be interesting to see a similar graph showing “real trucks” (Pick-up type), rather than throwing in cars technically classed as “trucks”.

Car change day: Elantra on left, Outback on right. It ain’t a “truck”.

glevpIg.jpg
I would be wary of that outback. Look up the oil consumption issues. You better have oil in your car where ever you go because that light might just randomly come on and its almost ran dry. My family has spent literally hundreds on oil for that thing and they have "tried" to fix it without giving us a new engine. Some people are on their second or even third engine because of the oil problems getting so bad that the head gasket failed.
 
I've been around TSD & stage rally long enough to never trust a Subaru myself. I've seen way too many head gasket and oiling failures...
 
Is any car truely reliable, problem free, and is as advertised?

Is the cost of the car just the cost & assembly, or is there a miriad of other variables at play?

Is there innovation? Or is that stifled in some way?

Do we, the public dictate the trends, or do they (the manufacturers) dictate the trends?
 
There's no such thing as completely problem free. However, when you look at most any modern evaluation of reliability or comparison of popular models, these days, the gripes and the areas where there are differences are typically in infotainment systems or other non-essential (to function) types of systems. If a particular model has more issues with, say, bluetooth pairing, or voice command recognition, evaluators are considering that a "reliability" issue. To me, that's silly, since it has no bearing on the vehicle's actual functional drivability. What that does underscore, however, is that those are things that remain for evaluators to quibble about. The take away from that is that most all modern production vehicles, which have all passed myriad validation test requirements, are all pretty damn dependable. Sure, there are niggling little issues here and there, but they are quire minor normally. And manufacturers are generally quite prompt at issuing recalls and such when things pop up. Sure, its more because they're required to by the gov't, rather than a sense of the right thing. But it still happens.

That's why it makes it pretty noteworthy when a manufacturer actually has repeat, established mechanical issues. A company like Subaru is quite a bit different than GM or Toyota in terms of scale and available resources. So, maybe they don't have the engineers to throw at a repeat problem, or it takes more time to deep-dive into a long-term issue. Or maybe they don't have the personel to support more elaborate testing in the first place. Its hard to say. But there is definitely a repeat pattern in several of the issues that they've had over the years. Its such that I would be reluctant to trust them myself. Toyota can simply throw a lot of resources at a problem, lean hard on their suppliers (who, in Japan, treat Toyota as God, essentially), and spend the money on getting to the bottom of things. OTOH, Toyota also has some of the most stringent, severe test requirements in the industry. To that end, they are probably the most over-engineered in the business, but that means that their products can enjoy incredible reliability and long life. I suspect Honda is close, though I've never worked with them. Ford and GM also have fairly severe requirements in testing, but not like Toyota. But they're still pretty well tested.

With regards to innovation and trends, they walk a balance between customers demanding features, tech, advancements, federal regulations putting strict guidelines on what can be done, and (of course) their shareholders demanding maximized profits. That makes for a difficult environment. Ultimately, though, you don't profit if you don't sell cars. And you don't sell cars if they don't meet federal regulations. But even then, you don't sell cars if you don't build what the customer wants. And even if you do, if the other guy does it better - or has an touchscreen system that works better - you still don't sell. So, it all trickles down from the customer demands, but there's a lot of variation in how that's perceived and how its implemented. Right now, it seems that customers are mostly preferring cars with higher seating positions, AWD availability and useful cargo room - but they want car-like ride, performance and economy. That's they're favoring CUVs. These things are essentially the same as the old station wagons that these customers hate, just taller with an AWD option. But they don't realize that...
 
Headquartered in Japan.

Why is that relevant?. If you want to support your national economy, buy a car that is built domestically using domestically sourced parts and domestic labour - and preferably a company that is committed to reinvesting profits in domestic operations. Where the suits and the engineers live is barely relevant. Dodge and Chrysler are Italian by that measure.

Ford might me headquarters in the US, but it’s a public company with shareholders and operations worldwide. It’s not like they’re handing out their profits only to US citizens - indeed, they probably move most of it offshore to avoid taxes anyway...
 
I went to buy a washing machine the other day and noticed they had one that looked simple with controls like the ones I remember not to long ago that lasted and the boards don't burn out and the things junk. I told the guy its for my cabin so ill take the simple one. It was 100 more than the hi tech one as he said there's a demand for the old style for that reason. they even had a display to show the in side with relays and timers. you can fix it with a volt meter and they sell and stock all the parts. I wish they offered a simple 4x4 like jeep cj or samurai with a all mech features many be a simple diesel I like simple. Make the same model year after year. I don't think there is enough simple demand though.
 
Larry, Mahindra builds what you want: the Roxor (https://www.roxoroffroad.com/). They've been building CJs since the 1940s under license. The catch is its marketed as a side-by-side and not license-able in NY. But it is, essentially, an CJ7 with a turbo diesel and no windshield. These things are manufactured in India, but assembled in Detroit.

Unfortunately, something that dirt-simple would not pass muster in the US, though that's probably more safety related than emissions; I'm sure come up with a certified engine if they chose to. But I have to believe that it won't be long before someone figures out how to pass one off as a vintage Jeep for registration purposes...
 
Where the suits and the engineers live is barely relevant.

I see. The thousands of people who research, plan, innovate, design, develop, test, engineer, run, and grow the business (all nicely-paying jobs, BTW) are irrelevant. The only good job is a blue collar job.

Do you feel the same way about Apple and every other tech company who use zero domestic labour?
 
I went to buy a washing machine the other day and noticed they had one that looked simple with controls like the ones I remember not to long ago that lasted and the boards don't burn out and the things junk. I told the guy its for my cabin so ill take the simple one.

there was a time when it was a miracle for a car to make 50,000 miles and washing machines lasted forever.
the roles have been reversed.
 
The video points out that by "cars" it is meant "most sedans." And nothing "went wrong," they will simply make what's most in demand and most profitable - SUVS, pickups, etc. - and leave the small, less profitable stuff to others. So, they'll still be making a large variety of what can generically be called "cars."
 
Back
Top