CarSpyShots
Quick Member Login:
Forgot password?
Forum Statistics:
Forum Members:
Total Threads:
Total Posts:


There are users
currently browsing forums.
  FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-29-2017, 01:04 PM
Crash Crash is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 62Lincoln View Post
I don't disagree with much of your post, but this bit here is factually incorrect. In 2017, F150 sales are up 7.4% April YTD at 276k units.Meanwhile, Chevy has lost sales at a rate of 5.8% April YTD, while Ram has gainied 5.8% April YTD. Chevy is in real danger of losing second place in 2017 to Ram.

From 2013 to 2016, F150 sales increased from 679k units to 821k units. The F150 has not lost market share. Period. The F150 is kicking the competition's ass.

For all Ford might have done wrong, the one thing they have done and continue to do right is to take care of the crown jewel, the F150.
I quickly ran the numbers @ Good Car / Bad Car
F150 (2013 vs. 2016) 679,496 / 820799; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 37.5% to 36.9%
GM (2013 vs. 2016) 664803 / 796756; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 36.7% vs. 35.9%
RAM (2013 vs. 2016) 355,673 vs. 489418; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 19.6% vs. 22%
Toyota (2013 vs. 2016) 112,732 vs 115,489; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 6.2% vs. 5.2%

So, F150 HAS lost share; albeit not a lot. Each share point in 2016 is worth about 22,200 trucks.

I was going to include Titan, but, why bother.

F150 while a great product, for the innovation that went into it - it should not be losing share to RAM - which is the same basic truck it's been for the last 10 years (with some updates). So, F150 isn't a product problem - it's a marketing problem. That fall square on Fields shoulders.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-29-2017, 05:03 PM
swizzle's Avatar
swizzle swizzle is online now
Raconteur
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 24,204
Default

Given how ancient the Ram is, everything on it is pretty much amortized therefore it can be steeply discounted to drives sales numbers. It would be interesting to know the true production cost. The invoice literally means nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-30-2017, 12:53 AM
62Lincoln 62Lincoln is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
I quickly ran the numbers @ Good Car / Bad Car
F150 (2013 vs. 2016) 679,496 / 820799; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 37.5% to 36.9%
GM (2013 vs. 2016) 664803 / 796756; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 36.7% vs. 35.9%
RAM (2013 vs. 2016) 355,673 vs. 489418; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 19.6% vs. 22%
Toyota (2013 vs. 2016) 112,732 vs 115,489; 2013 share vs. 2016 share 6.2% vs. 5.2%

So, F150 HAS lost share; albeit not a lot. Each share point in 2016 is worth about 22,200 trucks.

I was going to include Titan, but, why bother.

F150 while a great product, for the innovation that went into it - it should not be losing share to RAM - which is the same basic truck it's been for the last 10 years (with some updates). So, F150 isn't a product problem - it's a marketing problem. That fall square on Fields shoulders.
The market calculation is more complicated than what you present. But in pursuit of brevity:

Quote:
the fullsize truck segment got a new leader in 2016: Ford. Having lagged behind GM in 2015 - 36% vs. 38% - Ford edged ahead of GM in 2016 to the tune of 37% market share vs. 35%.

That's what happens when the Ford F-series grows 5% in a year, and GM's equivalent models see a 3% decline. FCA did just as well as Ford on an absolute unit growth basis, growing approximately 40,000 units from 2015, and given the smaller base, this naturally translated to a larger 9% growth rate.
The entire analysis is here: https://seekingalpha.com/article/403...a-vs-toyota-vs
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-30-2017, 01:05 AM
Crash Crash is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,958
Default

Share is a calculation of one products sales against the entire category.

So, Ford/ (Ford + GM + Dodge + Toyota). Did this for 2013 vs 2016. I can assure you the math is solid.

The article you reference included canyon, Tacoma, Ridgeline, etc... those are midsized trucks.
; my analysis is full sized. Ford (erroneously- another Fields miss) does not compete in the mid-sized category. And including these products dilutes the results. However, even the article you referenced shows that Fords share of truck sales declined from 31% in2015 to 30% in 2016; in 2016 in the article you referenced, each share point is about 26,000 units... 26,000 units at a weighted average of $30k each (likely more than that) is a PILE of cash, $780,000,000 to be precise.

Look at the math apples to apples; Ford lost share in the full sized truck category. AGAIN, I'm NOT saying the F150 is a bad product; I'm saying it didn't meet the results it should have. Any honest Ford manager would agree with me... there is zero reason Ram should have grown share at the expense of F150 - beyond poor marketing.

Last edited by Crash; 05-30-2017 at 12:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-30-2017, 12:37 PM
Swallow Doretti Swallow Doretti is offline
CSS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swizzle View Post
Fields was a mediocre leader.

He took all the momentum that Mulally created and squandered it.
He was also lousy at communicating the company's value proposition, which is why the much-hated Ray Day was fired along with Fields.
__________________
2015 Hyundai Sonata Limited Ultimate
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-31-2017, 04:12 AM
Naga Royal Guard's Avatar
Naga Royal Guard Naga Royal Guard is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,108
Default

As far as trucks go.

8 in a V means you sit down to pee.
__________________
You dont know what its like,
You dont know what its like.
To want to dickslap with somebody,
To want to dickslap with somebody.
The way I want to dickslap with you.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-01-2017, 12:43 PM
boston boston is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,107
Default

So Fields got ousted trying to oust a more popular person who was promoted. Given Stock price is so down v when Fields took over it was inevitable.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-01-2017, 05:50 PM
Crash Crash is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,958
Default

Fields tried to oust Mullualy?

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Allan retired on his own accord...he announced it a like a year or so prior to it happening.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-01-2017, 09:09 PM
Swallow Doretti Swallow Doretti is offline
CSS Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
Fields tried to oust Mullualy?

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Allan retired on his own accord...he announced it a like a year or so prior to it happening.
He means Joe Hinnrichs, who everyone at Ford loves (and who is one of two people in line to replace Hackett as CEO--the other is Farley).
__________________
2015 Hyundai Sonata Limited Ultimate
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-20-2017, 05:51 PM
pjl35's Avatar
pjl35 pjl35 is offline
CSS Oldtimer
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,275
Default

Next-gen Focus will be built in and exported from China:

http://hill.cm/m5FqT6f
__________________
"In three words, I can sum up everything I have learned about life; it goes on." -- Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Black Falcon Media Group Oy