Ford to stop selling cars
04-26-2018, 08:38 AM
#11
Also note that Ford isn't selling these cars in the USA, Canada and Mexico. It will still sell them (or versions of them, if they are already sold there) in the rest of the world...
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/fo...202423926.html
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/fo...202423926.html
04-26-2018, 08:53 AM
#12
Makes alot of sense, focus on the vehicles you're doing well with, drop the nameplates that aren't that have no market presence. Make new buyers happy with the products they're succeeding in, if there some unforeseen shift back towards sedans they can introduce a new sedan to more fanfare.
You guys keep talking as if SUVs are those quarter ton based SUVs, when there are CUVs etc. With the introduction of the even smaller cuvs, mpgs are getting closer and closer, and eventually I'm sure we will see even more hybrids etc. Many of you don't even drive the ultra efficient fit, versa, etc type cars, and many people who buy said cars are looking more at the sticker than they are at the mpg. And many of us managed to drive enthusiast cars through our cup ramen days so I don't see why we find it hard to believe that a consumer would prefer something with more utility. People have more hobbies, prefer to drive with more people, don't want to look like an idiot taking driveways at ridiculous angles, actually want to have a conversation with the person who just helped them load their smorgasdorfgerg desk into their backseat.
You guys keep talking as if SUVs are those quarter ton based SUVs, when there are CUVs etc. With the introduction of the even smaller cuvs, mpgs are getting closer and closer, and eventually I'm sure we will see even more hybrids etc. Many of you don't even drive the ultra efficient fit, versa, etc type cars, and many people who buy said cars are looking more at the sticker than they are at the mpg. And many of us managed to drive enthusiast cars through our cup ramen days so I don't see why we find it hard to believe that a consumer would prefer something with more utility. People have more hobbies, prefer to drive with more people, don't want to look like an idiot taking driveways at ridiculous angles, actually want to have a conversation with the person who just helped them load their smorgasdorfgerg desk into their backseat.
04-26-2018, 10:20 AM
#13
You used, "not that fuel intensive" compared to sedans. In most cases you are talking 20-40% more fuel.
We had a recent case here where a Ford explorer, which was stopped at a stop sign, flipped over when struck from behind by a car fleeing police, killing both occupants. This was a car sitting still, flipped when rear ended, and speeds in the chase were not insane. Yes, this is just an anecdote, and yes a heavier vehicle can demolish a tin can when the two collide, but accidents happen at weird angles, and people turning sharply to avoid contact. SUV's and crossover are more prone to roll and there is no getting around that.
From a 2014 article in Consumer Reports:
A vehicle rollover is among the worst things that can happen to you on the road. Although rollovers occur in only about 3 percent of all serious crashes, they account for about 30 percent of people killed while riding in a passenger vehicle. Rollovers needn't be so deadly. Rollover-avoidance technologies, better vehicle design, enhanced safety systems, stronger government regulations, and increased use of safety belts could cut the number killed and injured by half or more. This primer will explain how rollovers happen, and how the government's rollover tests work.How rollovers happen. Given the right circumstances, any vehicle can roll over. However, taller, narrower vehicles such as SUVs, pickups, and vans are more susceptible than traditional cars are because they have a higher center of gravity and thus are more top-heavy. Sideways forces that develop when a vehicle rounds a curve shifts the center of gravity to one side, which can have a dramatic effect on the vehicle's balance. The lateral forces increase with speed and also with rapid changes of direction--for example, when a driver makes too sharp a turn one way and then overcorrects the other way. Those transitions can set up a pendulum effect, with larger and larger swings and an eventual loss of control.
Many years ago my aunt rolled a Dodge Stratus sedan, so sedan rollovers can happen, but she liked to take cloverleafs at 70 and she went off the side. I have only seen a few rollovers during the gawker slowdown that occurs at accident scenes and I don't recall any that were cars. We have perhaps a higher number of trucks and suv's here due to our crappy Minnesota winters, and when people drive those things too fast during a storm, start to spin and get the car whipping back and forth, one car rollovers in the ditch are not uncommon. I see a couple upside-down SUV's in the ditch every winter.
We had a recent case here where a Ford explorer, which was stopped at a stop sign, flipped over when struck from behind by a car fleeing police, killing both occupants. This was a car sitting still, flipped when rear ended, and speeds in the chase were not insane. Yes, this is just an anecdote, and yes a heavier vehicle can demolish a tin can when the two collide, but accidents happen at weird angles, and people turning sharply to avoid contact. SUV's and crossover are more prone to roll and there is no getting around that.
From a 2014 article in Consumer Reports:
A vehicle rollover is among the worst things that can happen to you on the road. Although rollovers occur in only about 3 percent of all serious crashes, they account for about 30 percent of people killed while riding in a passenger vehicle. Rollovers needn't be so deadly. Rollover-avoidance technologies, better vehicle design, enhanced safety systems, stronger government regulations, and increased use of safety belts could cut the number killed and injured by half or more. This primer will explain how rollovers happen, and how the government's rollover tests work.How rollovers happen. Given the right circumstances, any vehicle can roll over. However, taller, narrower vehicles such as SUVs, pickups, and vans are more susceptible than traditional cars are because they have a higher center of gravity and thus are more top-heavy. Sideways forces that develop when a vehicle rounds a curve shifts the center of gravity to one side, which can have a dramatic effect on the vehicle's balance. The lateral forces increase with speed and also with rapid changes of direction--for example, when a driver makes too sharp a turn one way and then overcorrects the other way. Those transitions can set up a pendulum effect, with larger and larger swings and an eventual loss of control.
Many years ago my aunt rolled a Dodge Stratus sedan, so sedan rollovers can happen, but she liked to take cloverleafs at 70 and she went off the side. I have only seen a few rollovers during the gawker slowdown that occurs at accident scenes and I don't recall any that were cars. We have perhaps a higher number of trucks and suv's here due to our crappy Minnesota winters, and when people drive those things too fast during a storm, start to spin and get the car whipping back and forth, one car rollovers in the ditch are not uncommon. I see a couple upside-down SUV's in the ditch every winter.
BTW, the Rav 4 has an MPG of 23/30 city/highway and starts at $24k. A Mazda CX-5 has an MPG of 25/31 city/highway and starts at $24k. The point here is that rational consumers are clearly willing to pay a small mpg tax to reap the benefits and features CUVs/SUVs have over sedans.
As to SUV safety, I rather not get into anecdotes but here's some helpful reading based on statistics. https://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle-Sho...ollover/Causes
And yes, anyone would understand that a taller vehicle is more susceptible to a rollover. I'm sure everyone has taken jr high physics. It's more vital to understand why rollovers occur not necessarily how. Are we just going to stop making taller cars because they're more prone to rollovers? Should we make semi-trucks shorter and wider instead? No. Driver behavior should be looked at. We can put more safety features in the car but at the end of the day nearly 85% of all rollover-related fatalities are the result of single-vehicle crashes (see link above). Your anecdote about the Dodge sedan agrees with this point. You even point out that you see more SUV rollovers when people drive too fast.
It's not just the physics of the car, it's almost entirely driver behavior.
04-26-2018, 10:54 AM
#14
Well let's see. The Honda CRV has an MPG of 28/34 city/highway and starts at around $24k. The Ford Fusion has an MPG of 23/34 city/highway and starts at $22.2k. And the Ford Taurus has an MPG of 18/27 city/highway and starts at $27.7k. I wonder why consumers are flocking to CUVs/SUVs when sedans that are at the same or similar price points offer a lot less cargo room, ride height, passenger room and overall practicality, and at the same time price and mpg are less than "20-40%" apart. Ford's announcement shouldn't be that surprising now.
BTW, the Rav 4 has an MPG of 23/30 city/highway and starts at $24k. A Mazda CX-5 has an MPG of 25/31 city/highway and starts at $24k. The point here is that rational consumers are clearly willing to pay a small mpg tax to reap the benefits and features CUVs/SUVs have over sedans.
As to SUV safety, I rather not get into anecdotes but here's some helpful reading based on statistics. https://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle-Sho...ollover/Causes
And yes, anyone would understand that a taller vehicle is more susceptible to a rollover. I'm sure everyone has taken jr high physics. It's more vital to understand why rollovers occur not necessarily how. Are we just going to stop making taller cars because they're more prone to rollovers? Should we make semi-trucks shorter and wider instead? No. Driver behavior should be looked at. We can put more safety features in the car but at the end of the day nearly 85% of all rollover-related fatalities are the result of single-vehicle crashes (see link above). Your anecdote about the Dodge sedan agrees with this point. You even point out that you see more SUV rollovers when people drive too fast.
It's not just the physics of the car, it's almost entirely driver behavior.
BTW, the Rav 4 has an MPG of 23/30 city/highway and starts at $24k. A Mazda CX-5 has an MPG of 25/31 city/highway and starts at $24k. The point here is that rational consumers are clearly willing to pay a small mpg tax to reap the benefits and features CUVs/SUVs have over sedans.
As to SUV safety, I rather not get into anecdotes but here's some helpful reading based on statistics. https://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle-Sho...ollover/Causes
And yes, anyone would understand that a taller vehicle is more susceptible to a rollover. I'm sure everyone has taken jr high physics. It's more vital to understand why rollovers occur not necessarily how. Are we just going to stop making taller cars because they're more prone to rollovers? Should we make semi-trucks shorter and wider instead? No. Driver behavior should be looked at. We can put more safety features in the car but at the end of the day nearly 85% of all rollover-related fatalities are the result of single-vehicle crashes (see link above). Your anecdote about the Dodge sedan agrees with this point. You even point out that you see more SUV rollovers when people drive too fast.
It's not just the physics of the car, it's almost entirely driver behavior.
Secondly, fuel economy. You are fairly selective by picking a couple of the more efficient SUV's and measuring them against large sedans. What if I measure large sedans against large SUV's? Say the 16 mpg of a Tahoe against the Ford Taurus? Or I measure the mileage of a Honda Civic against the CRV? You are comparing apples to doorstops.
Sure the mileage of small SUV's aint bad and it is attractive enough for the average buyer. Nobody is arguing that. I also get why people like things that haul lots of stuff. But are they safer? Data does not show they are because they maybe better at protecting people in some accidents and more prone to roll over and kill people. Is there no significant mileage penalty? When comparing an economy minded CUV against an economy minded car, or large SUV versus a large car? Of course there is a penalty. If I compare a 41 mpg small sedan against a 34 mpg small SUV guess what, thats over 20% difference. When I compare that 27 mpg Taurus versus a 16 mpg Tahoe, guess what, it is about 40% difference. That is what I was referring to.
Last edited by vader1; 04-26-2018 at 10:56 AM.
The following users liked this post:
WolfpackS2k (04-27-2018)
04-26-2018, 11:10 AM
#16
You argue against your own point. You said they are safer. The data shows, and really think about the MATH of the whole point, rollover accidents make up 3% of fatal accidents yet get 30% of the fatalities. Think about that again. A small fraction of the fatal accidents, yet about a third of total deaths. Now understand that you are agreeing that SUV/TRUCKS/CUV's are more prone to roll over,( they are MUCH more prone to roll over) and then you still argue they are safer. And now you want to say it is driving behavior. Pick one. Is it behavior in SUV's or the high center of gravity? Switching your argument midstream from "they are safer" to "well they would be safer but people drive them too fast" is not sound.
Secondly, fuel economy. You are fairly selective by picking a couple of the more efficient SUV's and measuring them against large sedans. What if I measure large sedans against large SUV's? Say the 16 mpg of a Tahoe against the Ford Taurus? Or I measure the mileage of a Honda Civic against the CRV? You are comparing apples to doorstops.
Sure the mileage of small SUV's aint bad and it is attractive enough for the average buyer. Nobody is arguing that. I also get why people like things that haul lots of stuff. But are they safer? Data does not show they are because they maybe better at protecting people in some accidents and more prone to roll over and kill people. Is there no significant mileage penalty? When comparing an economy minded CUV against an economy minded car, or large SUV versus a large car? Of course there is a penalty. If I compare a 41 mpg small sedan against a 34 mpg small SUV guess what, thats over 20% difference. When I compare that 27 mpg Taurus versus a 16 mpg Tahoe, guess what, it is about 40% difference. That is what I was referring to.
Secondly, fuel economy. You are fairly selective by picking a couple of the more efficient SUV's and measuring them against large sedans. What if I measure large sedans against large SUV's? Say the 16 mpg of a Tahoe against the Ford Taurus? Or I measure the mileage of a Honda Civic against the CRV? You are comparing apples to doorstops.
Sure the mileage of small SUV's aint bad and it is attractive enough for the average buyer. Nobody is arguing that. I also get why people like things that haul lots of stuff. But are they safer? Data does not show they are because they maybe better at protecting people in some accidents and more prone to roll over and kill people. Is there no significant mileage penalty? When comparing an economy minded CUV against an economy minded car, or large SUV versus a large car? Of course there is a penalty. If I compare a 41 mpg small sedan against a 34 mpg small SUV guess what, thats over 20% difference. When I compare that 27 mpg Taurus versus a 16 mpg Tahoe, guess what, it is about 40% difference. That is what I was referring to.
Rollovers are dangerous incidents and have a higher fatality rate than other kinds of crashes. Of the nearly 9.1 million passenger car, SUV, pickup and van crashes in 2010, only 2.1% involved a rollover.
However, rollovers accounted for nearly 35% of all deaths from passenger vehicle crashes. In 2010 alone, more than 7,600 people died in rollover crashes. The majority of them (69%) were not wearing safety belts.
However, rollovers accounted for nearly 35% of all deaths from passenger vehicle crashes. In 2010 alone, more than 7,600 people died in rollover crashes. The majority of them (69%) were not wearing safety belts.
I'd argue with the rest of your response (comparing a $48k Tahoe to a $28k Taurus? LMAO really?) but this debate has run its course and is clearly off-topic.
04-26-2018, 11:26 AM
#17
04-26-2018, 12:17 PM
#18
Well that makes more sense. They could just go through the certification process and bring them back to market here. That still would take some time, and they would have to be taking into consideration safety requirements for our markets in the design that might not be required elsewhere, side impact beams and so forth.
04-26-2018, 01:16 PM
#19
Site Moderator
They could do this, but the hiatus could cost them brand loyalty. When someone who's a Ford buyer needs a new car (not truck) and there's nothing available, they'll likely go to a different brand. If they have a good experience, they may very well not come back into the Ford fold.
Time will tell, but I think this is a mistake by Ford.
04-26-2018, 03:11 PM
#20
That's precisely what happened when they killed off the Crown Vic (and variants) and the Taurus at the same time and replaced all of them with the 500. They then killed off the 500 nameplate and switched it to the Taurus. A lot of older shoppers are creatures of habit and simply go in to buy the newer version of what they have/had.
Time will tell, but I think this is a mistake by Ford.
Time will tell, but I think this is a mistake by Ford.
I guess this is a bad anecdote though - they're in the market and strongly considering a CR-V or RDX due to ride height (more about ease of getting in at their age than visibility) and the ability to go off-road the one time a year they go fly fishing.