Last night, Ford announced that it beat earnings expectations like a TEMU snare drum. Will the automaker be rewarded with a big increase in its stock price today? Almost certainly not. Ford, in particular, and the auto industry, as a whole, see 2025 as a difficult year with perhaps more chutes than ladders.
Speaking of games, I play Ultimate Frisbee poorly but enthusiastically. If you’ve never played Ultimate, it’s basically soccer if soccer was invented by golden retrievers. I bring this up in The Morning Dump because, as I’ve grown older, I’ve had to change a few things about my life to keep playing. When I was younger I could spend hours a week running around the field, jumping and colliding, and I wouldn’t get hurt. Other than a little yoga, I did no real cross-training.
Now I have to spend my off days stretching, lifting weights, icing ankles, and doing all sorts of exercise just to play the same amount of time I did before. The auto industry is, in this way, a lot like me. If it wants to keep existing it’s going to have to change.
Volvo is another automaker in the same boat. The company had a record year of sales in 2024 and, yet, the leadership is warning of a complex 2025. Audi? Yup. Audi continues to be a problem. Though maybe it can provide a solution for Porsche. Now that it’s official that Nissan isn’t going to team up with Honda, that brings Foxconn back in play.
2025 started weird, and it’s only going to get weirder.
For Ford, 2025 Is A Year Of Headwinds
In many ways, Ford had a strong 2024. Sales were up for the year, and the company had a big Q4. The Blue Oval was expected to report earnings per share of about 33 cents and, instead, Ford hit 39 cents. Ford’s commercial arm, Ford Pro, continues to be a strong profit center for the automaker.
So why did the earnings call not feel triumphant? Why is the market responding negatively this morning?
If you listen to enough earnings calls or read enough earnings transcripts, you start to understand what companies are saying, even if it’s a little indirect. In its call last night, Ford’s CFO said there would be “headwinds.”
Our full year outlook assumes headwinds related to market factors. We’re planning for lower industry pricing of roughly 2%, driven by higher incentive spending throughout the year.
For Ford, we expect this will be partially offset by top-line growth from upcoming launches. We expect these headwinds to be partially offset by about $1 billion of net cost reductions, primarily coming from lower warranty expense and material costs. Our team is aggressively working to deliver more than $1 billion, which would likely lift us to the higher end of our guidance range. And we expect the majority of these savings to occur in the second half of the year.
“Headwinds” is just businesspeople-speak for “different ways we expect to get hurt.” For Ford, there are three distinct headwinds, and these are mostly applicable across the industry:
- As alluded to above, consumers are basically tapped out with what they’re going to be able to spend on cars, meaning that the only way to maintain or grow sales is to cut costs. In this case, Ford sees incentive spending as the offset.
- The EV business is still a loser. Ford wants to keep losses stable, which means losing about $5-$5.5 billion. This is an “investment” if you’re moving towards a profitable model line, but pricing just isn’t there. There were too many new entrants at the same time and Tesla, with its huge advantage, sucker-punched everyone.
- This is slightly more specific to Ford, at least in scope, but warranty costs are a huge drag on Ford. The company is working hard, it says, to stem these issues and expects to save $1 billion next year from a decline in warranty work. That would be nice.
This is to say nothing of the potential disruption from tariffs, which is also on every automaker’s mind.
For all this, I’m actually a bit bullish on Ford. Losing money on every Mach-E and Lightning is going to suck, but Ford has the right idea going forward, which is basically: Cheaper, smaller battery EVs for some people. Multi-energy platforms (hello EREV) for other people, and ICE-powered trucks or HEVs for everyone else.
Here’s how CEO Jim Farley put it:
We’re deep in the development of our next generation of vehicles that we believe will be affordable, high volume and great for our business. On the U.S. retail side, the sweet spot that has emerged is small- and medium-sized trucks and utilities. These vehicles use case fits perfectly for EVs, daily commuters, well suited as a second vehicle in the household.
They require smaller, much lower cost batteries. These vehicles can be offered at lower prices to help adoption of EVs for the customers who really appreciate their lower operating costs. But for larger retail electric utilities, the economics are unresolvable. These customers have very demanding use cases for an electric vehicle.
They tow, they go off road, they take long road trips. These vehicles have worse aerodynamics and they’re very heavy, which means very large and expensive batteries. Retail customers have shown that they will not pay any premium for these large EVs, making them a really tough business case given the expense in the batteries. For Ford, our commercial customers do show potential for large EVs.
Ford has adopted the Skunkworks moniker for its smaller EVs, at least in the development phase, and this feels like the right strategy. In the Q&A portion of this call, Farley mentioned something else interesting:
Well, we’re really confident of our EV strategy because, believe it or not, most things that are happening are kind of playing to our strength. We believe that if the EPA or the California waiver is pulled, if there’s some change to the CO2 regime in the U.S. starting from ’27. By the way, the next two years, nothing happens, so it will be ’27 and beyond.
Ohhhhh boy. If California loses its waiver from the EPA to enforce its essential EV mandate, then does this also remove the need for automakers to pay Tesla the credits it relies on to remain profitable? Does Farley think this is going to happen? Would Elon Musk allow President Trump to do this?
While this wouldn’t necessarily impact Europe, where automakers also have to buy credits from Tesla, it’s an interesting thought.
Volvo Says 2025 Is Going To Be Tough For It, As Well
Profits were down for Volvo in Q4 despite the company having its biggest year of sales ever. Why? The company’s leadership keeps telling everyone it’s going to be a tough year.
“We’re going to see more turbulence,” Volvo CEO Jim Rowan told Reuters after the Swedish-based automaker posted a lower fourth-quarter profit. “We’re going to see more hyper competition, China will remain very, very competitive and we’ll start to see more competition in Europe.”
Majority-owned by China’ Geely, Volvo faces similar challenges to other major automakers, with a weakening market in Europe, new rivals in China where an electric vehicle price war has been raging for more than two years, and lower-than-expected demand for EVs in Europe and the United States.
European and U.S. tariffs on Chinese-made EVs are also a large worry for Volvo, which is moving more production out of China but faces tariffs in the meantime.
Volvo, being part of the larger Geely Universe, invested in both Polestar and Lynk & Co. as part of a plan to utilize the company’s Chinese production capacity to expand. That’s not quite worked out for the automaker and Volvo gave up its shares in Polestar last year. This year? Lynk & Co. is also getting the boot, with Volvo saying they’ll still work together:
Following today’s shareholder approval for the divestment of its entire shareholding in Lynk & Co, Volvo Cars underlines its commitment to its ongoing commercial partnership with Lynk & Co in Europe.
In September 2024, both companies formed a retail partnership, which Lynk & Co will leverage with a select number of Volvo Cars retailers in seven European markets through a wholesale model. This wholesale model allows customers to buy Lynk & Co cars directly from one of the chosen Volvo Cars retailers.
Chaos!
Is Porsche Going To Make A New ICE Macan?
Porsche’s big bet on the future was making its best-selling model, the crossover Macan, EV-only. Was that a good idea? Unclear.
There’s an article in Manager Magazine today that talks about how much trouble Audi CEO Gernot Döllner is having with the company, that includes a lot of bitchy details like this (translated):
In Ingolstadt, tempers flare when Döllner wants to reduce complexity but keeps making new demands about what the models should be able to do. Budgets are often not increased, and the projects are sometimes barely financially viable given the extra requests. Döllner, even those who actually support him, warn that he must accept other opinions sometimes. “He needs people who tell him the truth,” says one member of the supervisory board.
Audi needs a hard reset so I don’t have a strong sense of how much this is just internal resistance to necessary change. That’s interesting, but what I really want to talk about is the ICE Macan. We didn’t get an ICE Macan for this generation, largely because the model would have a hard time passing muster because of regulations. At the same time, its historic platform-mate the Q5 did get an ICE option.
You thinking what I’m thinking? From that article:
The combustion engine had to be redesigned. And the helper was quickly found: Audi. The Ingolstadt-based company has the Q5 on offer, and Porsche has been using the SUV’s platform since the Macan was launched in 2014 to keep its profitability high. Döllner’s predecessor Duesmann had not stopped the combustion version of the Q5: last summer, a renewed version of the successful model came onto the market.
The final decision on whether Porsche’s Macan will get a successor with a gasoline engine has not yet been made, say those involved in Stuttgart. But there is agreement: the model should be on sale in early 2028.
That sounds very possible.
Why I Think Foxconn Is Going To End Up With Nissan After All
Nissan today officially walked away from its potential partnership with Honda, surprising absolutely no one. The company just couldn’t square itself as a minority partner with Honda. This whole charade is hilarious to me, as the main reason why Nissan and Honda were even considering it is because the Japanese government (and probably some folks at Nissan) were loathe to become consumed by Taiwanese megacompany Foxconn.
What’s going to happen?
Nissan Motor’s decision to halt merger talks with Honda Motor could re-open the door to Taiwan’s Foxconn, the contract manufacturing giant with designs on moving into the electric vehicle business.
There are a couple of scenarios for how Foxconn might approach Nissan now that the Japanese automaker is possible to be a free agent again. It could wait for the slumping Nissan to determine that it could use a sponsor as it restructures its operations. If it hears any murmurs along these lines, it could propose its plan to make a strategic investment in Nissan.
Another option is to fast-track an acquisition, including via an unsolicited takeover bid.
Can Nissan, uh, Nissan this up? Absolutely. Foxconn, like Honda or any other rational partner, is likely going to want to see Nissan do a much more thorough restructuring prior to any kind of investment.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
According to Apple Music, I was in the 95th percentile of listeners to British musician Self Esteem in 2024. Did I really listen to that much Self Esteem last year? I guess I did. Here’s “Focus is Power” off her upcoming album.
The Big Question
Bearish or bullish on Ford? How are we feeling?
Top photo: F Armstrong Photo/stock.adobe.com
I think Ford will be just fine. What Nissan needs to do is find someone who needs what they have. The problem here is I can’t think of any brands off the top of my head who really need what Nissan has. Maybe a Chinese brand I’m unfamiliar with? I don’t know, but if they need to feel wanted, aka “equal,” in the relationship, they might have to look slightly outside of the legacy-type players. I can also see this ending up in a Daimler-Chrysler situation where the other brand just stabs a straw into Nissan and sucks them dry like a corporate Capri Sun.
I drink your milkshake!
-literally all legacy OEMs to Nissan
Funny thing is Ford seems to have given up in France. They used to have a corner, helped by most Ford auto boxes being made, and made well, in Bordeaux, then they pulled out a decade ago, and their dealerships and sales have been slipping since.
Suppose they see it as a tiny market for them, with Ford not having the resonance it has in the UK or Germany, but still strange to give up what used to be profitable for them. Now they are a specialist — Transit vans and cars which can run on E85 ethanol rich and cheap fuel found all over the country.
Transits depend on monthly price wars with other van makers.
I’m bullish on Ford. I saw that their stock was down a bit this morning, so I bought a few more shares. They’re not facing anything different than any of the other auto makers and I think they’re making good decisions about product mix right now. Warrantee costs are of course a concern, but they seem to be an issue for everyone. Like Toyota, GM or Honda, Ford has a loyal following and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Long time Ford stock holder here. Beware – it seems to be a value trap…..I did the same thing, and its just not moving….anywhere. The dividend is ok but…
I know it doesn’t do much most of the time, but I’ve done pretty well buying it around 10 and selling when it hits 14 or 15. I don’t have a problem holding for awhile as long as the dividend keeps flowing. It’s generally better than interest on a savings account.
Ultimate? I’m impressed. I quit before I turned 21. Like soccer with more sprinting and a corner kicks worth of collisions a couple times a minute.
Nissan’s management must be delusional.
They’re not doing well and need to join forces with somebody, but insist on going into it as equals? If they were worthy of that, they wouldn’t need the tie up in the first place.
So on to second option – get bought out by somebody else. Whoever that is, their first step needs to be wiping out Nissan’s current management, because, duh!
Play the tape forward dudes – the path forward isn’t going to end well for you, because you’ve earned it by getting yourselves into this position.
Bullish on Ford long term. Despite their issues they keep getting one very important thing right: making products people want to buy.
Indeed. The product portfolio is great. Even the Mach-E.
The Mach E Rally has my heart
You want a rally car without external door handles?
‘Nothing says Rally like burning alive in a oxygen independent fire because your rescuers had no goddamn door handle to grab!’
My burning heart wants what my burning heart wants (which is white turbo-fan wheels and rally-shocks on a factory car). When these things depreciate into the 20’s (which they will), it will be quite a compelling choice.
This is how you end up paying child support, or at least owing child support.
My wife is super cool when it comes to the car stuff… She will likely inherit the Maverick when the time comes for the heavily depreciated M-E-Rally
Well I’m glad you got that sorted. I still think all cars should have mechanical exterior and interior door handles if they’re going to have doors in the first place, but fair enough.
Better handleless doors that open than doors welded shut. Those Duke boys were damn lucky the General by the grace of God never caught fire.
Eh, if I were stuck with electric door handles I’d just remove the doors, like with the Jeep Recon.
Welcome to Fantasy Island!
Glad. I plan on buying my first new, 4 wheel, vehicle this year so I’m all for increased incentive spending.
Seems to be a one step forward, two steps back cycle for domestic automakers. I’m thinking 2025 is a step back year for Ford and friends.
Ford and Friends, sounds like a poorly produced public access morning talk show for the local Detroit market.
It’s actually what they call the monthly beer and wings night for the Ontario Premier and a select handful of property developers.
Ford will be fine. It’s the supply base that has been bleeding since the first round of Trump tariffs, and then COVID, and then inflation, and then the second round of Trump tariffs.
Do not underestimate Ford’s ability to shoot itself in the dick.
Not only will it shoot itself in the dick whenever possible, it will insert the barrel in it’s ass first and line it up perfectly so it’ll go through every inch of dick when they pull the trigger, resulting in something that looks like a hotdog that was cooked in the microwave for 10 minutes, or maybe a blooming meat flower.
-Ford Investor.
That’s an odd way to spell GM
Beat me to it
¿Porque no los dos?
It would be nice if Ford brought the Heavy Duty Ranger here, but I’m not holding my breath.
If Ford can get their quality issues worked out, they’ll be wildly successful.
the biggest IF ever.
It’s something they’ve never really done before I admit
For decades Ford has been alternating between shit and holy shit levels of quality. IF they pull it off, it will be a totally new world for them and their dealers. I expect half of the service techs will be out of a job, at least for a few years before Ford gets back to their roots.
At One Ford, Quality is Job One.
And other lies we tell ourselves.
One Ford is old. That was Alan Mulally’s effort, and it was successful to the point people still refer to it. Or it just means the organization is chock-full of lifers who’ve been plodding along for 35 years.
Anyway, now, it’s the Ford+ Plan, which the plus apparently refers to the increase in warranty costs
The big thing to remember about Ford and other established companies is that the stock prices aren’t really how they are judged. They are judged by dividends.
When Ford makes a ton of money, they hand out more dividends as profit sharing with their stockholders. What they are saying is a warning to their stock owners that they don’t think 2025 dividends will be as big as 2024s. Their share price might go down a bit as people decide to sell stock to get a better REI, but others will snatch up the shares when the stock droops a bit because the dividend/cost ratio will be good if the stock is a bit cheaper than it is now.
It’s a different world than Tesla and Rivian and the like. In that case, you are buying into a small company with the hope it will become bigger and you can sell your stock for more than you bought it for.
It’s more like a savings account at a bank. Only with more risk, but not nearly the risk of picking a Fisker over a Telsa would have been back 10+ years ago to invest in.
Oh boy. Way to get everyone embroiled in a regional hot war if Foxconn takes over Nissan. Taiwan drags in Japan and Korea who will drag in the US kicking and screaming. Not like Japan or Korea have any love lost for each other, but considering they both like China even less, that could get ugly.
It’s fine, the US will just annex all of the involved countries, since that seems to be our answer to everything now.
“Ohhhhh boy. If California loses its waiver from the EPA to enforce its essential EV mandate, then does this also remove the need for automakers to pay Tesla the credits it relies on to remain profitable?”
Wait, what? This seems like it should be a bigger story.
Just a matter of time.
I think this falls into a category where either nothing happens (since such a change inevitably has to get through the courts) or else the huge thing happens…but there’s not necessarily a point to dwell on the what-if unless it actually happens.
Kind of like planning for tomorrow based on whether or not nukes start flying. (Exaggerated example off the top of my head)
I guarantee Ford saves on warranty costs is not by making sure vehicles are built better and don’t break as often, but by reducing warranty labor times on repairs. As a former OEM tech i saw this all the time. A job that paid one hour would pay 0.7 6 months later and 0.5 a year later.
By a year later, the repair should be a lot quicker because techs have had so much practice. /S/
I didn’t know they did that actually. I figured they’d just disallow more warranty claims.
Why not both?
-A Ford Executive, probably
Hey there Jimmy-boy, you say you can’t make money on gigantic, overluxed EV trucks?
Maybe you should try building cars sometimes. Worked pretty well for, I don’t know, 100 years?
Disagree. Nobody can make money on cars. But they can print money with a cheap to build small SUV.
Because they still sell normal cars in the UK, I looked up the price of a Golf vs a T-Roc. They are basically the exact same size with the T-Roc just being taller and just a hair wider. And the T-Roc sells for 2,000 pounds more than the Golf. There’s no way that a T-Roc cost 2000 pounds more to make, so a goodly portion of that additional money is going into VWs pockets.
Add that in America today, a Golf has to get 20% better gas mileage than a T-Roc to avoid CAFE taxes, explains why VW doesn’t sell normal Golfs in the US anymore, only GTIs and above. While they sell a ton of Taos (which are somewhat similar to a T-Roc).
If “nobody can make money on cars,” how does Honda, Acura, VW, BMW, Mercedes, Mazda, Toyota, Renault, Citroen, Seat, Mitsubishi, Cadillac, Buick…..it might be easier to ask why it is that only Chrysler, Chevy, and Ford seem unable to make them. Nearly every other automotive company on the planet can do it, why do we pretend that because 3 of them stopped trying, that it’s impossible?
There are two ways to make money. Sell a lot at a little profit, or a little at a lot of profit.
As I showed with the T-Roc vs the Golf, the profit margins on SUVs are higher than similar vehicles. And looking it up, T-Rocs outsell Golfs in Europe.
Now VW might make money on cars in Europe, but they make MORE on SUVs. In each brand you list, their top seller is an SUV. And SUVs are more profitable by unit sold.
In the US, cars died, unless we are talking low volume vehicles, because the math works better for SUVs because of silly fuel economy laws. But even in Europe, inexpensive cars are starting to go away because consumers are willing to pay 10% more for an SUV that costs at most 5% more to make.
Shoot, even Porsche and Lamborghini sell more SUVs than Cars. And without these SUVs, both brands might have gone under.
I get what you’re talking about in terms of investing where the profits are, but we’re talking about completely different things. A lot of people talk about how no one sells cars, and it’s just a lie, it’s blatantly untrue. So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying that SUVs drive more profits, there’s something absolutely wrong about saying no one makes money on cars. It’s factually incorrect. There’s no way around it, almost every car company on earth can sell cars and illustrates it by building and selling cars(and most of them in America!). It’s just not true to say otherwise. And you never said that nobody makes cars, so I’m not going to miss quote you, but there is a sentiment here that it is an impossible thing, and that is blatantly untrue.
There’s no way that you can look at the volume of sedans that Honda and Toyota are selling and say that it’s not happening. They’re not as popular as they used to be, that’s absolutely true, but plenty of company sell plenty of cars. It’s only the big three who have given up. Period.
Let’s start with US owned brands
Ford sells the Mustang
Chevy sells the Malibu and Corvette, Caddy sells the CT4 and CT5
Dodge sells the Charger
Telsa sells the Model 3 and Model S
That’s it. Only the Model 3 sells well
Going to Asian brands, they do have more cars to sell. But if you look it up, they generally sell 3 SUVs to every 2 cars of the same size class. The Camry and Civic are the only cars over 200k in sales, which isn’t impressive given the Rav4 and CR-V are over 400k.
Cars are turning into a luxury purchase. Corvettes, Mustangs, CT4, CT5, and the new Charger are all either luxury cars or sports cars.
For the masses, SUVs are winning. I hate this, but it’s reality. Today’s vehicles are so expensive that having a “jack of all trades” vehicle makes more sense.
Do they? Or do they make massive profits on crossovers and keep their cars around for brand loyalty reasons?
I mean, Porsche and Ferrari had to give in and start making crossovers because they couldn’t make enough on cars alone.
You can certainly debate whether killing the cars completely was the right move, but nobody these days is making money with a purely car-based lineup.
It’s a great question and why I’m completely not touching the subject of profits whatsoever. It grinds my gears when people pretend that cars don’t sell. They’re not as popular as they used to be, and they aren’t the profit drivers, but it’s factually incorrect to say that they don’t sell, that they don’t sell in numbers, or the companies don’t build them. You can’t look at the sales volume of cars for that long list of companies that I mentioned, who sells them in the US, and say that those numbers don’t exist. It’s just not how math works.
Again, zero conversation about profit margins. That’s just a different conversation.
A bit bullish on Ford they seem to be headed in the right direction, but man are new truck prices insane to me. I was casually shopping new F150s in 2021, and that exact same spec truck now has a $12k higher MSRP and it’s missing PPoB since you now have to get the Powerboost for that.
Based on the vehicles I see around me Ford should be fine. The Bronco sport seems to be a hit, no end of Mavericks and F150s around. The larger SUVs are pretty common too. They don’t seem to currently have any misses in their lineup.
Agree. I work with a guy that rents all the time and seeks out Explorers when he rents. Says they are a great vehicle.
I don’t know how long Fords last (I’ve heard bad things about some ecoboosts), but they don’t seem to have any misses today.
Either all the cop “Interceptors” or all civilian Explorers should be banned. I hate playing the identification game every time, even if I know most of the tells by now.
I grew up when every middle class person had Buick, Olds, Caddy, or Pontiac that was basically the same vehicle as a Chevy Caprice. To make it worse, the next size down (mid-sized cars) like the Chevy Malibu was basically a 7/8th scale replica of the Caprice.
It was basically impossible to spot a “plain brown wrapper” police car.
Unless you were behind them. The trick was that no civilian models of any of those cars had a rear sway bar, but the police package did.
Huh. Yeah, that sounds much more difficult to discern.
Where I am in PA, I think a solid 90% of every cop car I’ve seen in my life has been a Crown Victoria, Taurus, or Explorer/Interceptor. Maybe a few Durangos now, but still.
My local yokels have a ton of white F150s now. But they have so many stickers on them that they are easy to spot. But if they pull off the stickers, they would blend in so much.
But if it isn’t a F150, it’s a Tahoe. It’s getting to the point where if I see a Tahoe around, it’s a cop, not a 4’11 single mom with a single kid.
I don’t see many Explorers of any sort around here.
I forget where I was recently, but there was a bump in the road car dealership with about 30 ex-cop cars for sale, all Taurus and Chargers. Just like the rest of America, the police departments have switched to SUVs and Trucks.
In their defense (which I hate to use in this context, but please bear with me), apparently the SUVs are a lot more comfortable to enter, exit, and sit in with all the gear they’re carrying.
Years ago, I saw a local deputy I sort of knew that had a brand new Charger (they had just come out). Asked how he liked it. He LOATHED it. Sure it was faster and handled better, but it was so much harder to get in and out of the older Crown Vic. He said that unlike the TV Shows, 99% of his time is getting in and out of the car and going slow, and the Crown Vic was so much better at that.
After getting a Charger years later as a rental, I know what he was complaining about. It’s not an easy vehicle to get in and out of for some reason.
I’ve told people my next car will almost certainly be a Crossover or a Van. I’ve had back fusion recently and getting in and out of a car is problematic right now. Hopefully when I am fully recovered, I can get a Miata RF, but I’m not feeling hopeful that that will be an option.
Can I tell you about our lord and savior, Scion xB?
If I had the money I would want to test drive a MX-50 Turbo. But I have to admit, I can see the weird appeal of a Rav4 Prime. This seems to be a potential for a sleeper given that Rav4s are so common and this sports 1/3 more power than the average one.
But given the lack of fundage and having screws loose in my back as well as my head, and the fact that disability insurance is refusing to pay me right now, I might as well be looking at a Urinal or Uras or Uranus, whatever the hell that thing is called.
As for Scion xB, I have bad memories of them. My son has had (and still has) issues with addiction. He had a Scion xB for a while and I can’t see one without thinking of him blasting his way through rock bottom in that thing.
Urus….but I get what you mean.
And, I’m sorry to hear that. Only mentioned it because I’d heard they’re an excellent vehicle to “step into” height-wise.
The Scion Xb seems to be a decent car if it wasn’t for a history there. However, I would suspect the shorter wheel base and lower budget suspension would not do my screwy back any favors.
Realistically, a mid-sized SUV with a comfy ride and a low resale price is likely where reality will end up being between the back and the back pocket.
I think Ford will be fine. Most of their current lineup is pretty decent. They seem to be the best at making work trucks, which there will always be a need for. The Maverick was an incredibly good call. The F150 and Superduties are both good. etc.
Toyota has opened my family’s eyes (we grew up as a Ford family, mostly), but I wonder if we’d be notably better or worse off with some of their newer offerings. Our last/latest were a 2010 and 2012 Flex that both fell to the Slurpee of death.
Ford will be fine, but why they haven’t brought the Puma and Puma ST stateside yet, Jim?
Them bringing the Ecosport over didn’t go so hot… Neither did the Merkurs.
European Fords have never done super amazing, as they’re smaller and styled for a different market.
The focus did fairly well.
Until they installed an automatic transmission that was made of glass, hope and broken promises.
Ecosport was Brazillian, not European. I think the Puma would do well here against the Trax and others.
If the Ecosport 1.0L was available with a manual I would have bought one, I loved the full size spare it came with.
Those were such bad engines, longevity-wise.
Agreed, still would have bought it at the time.
Brother, Youabian’t wrong.
Yes to the Puma!
Had one last two times in Europe. Last one was a hybrid w/ 1.0L ecoboost. Averaged mid 40s with lots of city driving.
It’s size is equivalent to my wife’s Crosstrek, but without AWD.
Not on a platform they’re going to federalize. Never coming here
The ford Global B platform has been federalized, since 2011, so, what’s the excuse?
I didn’t realize it was still the B. Anyway – they’re not bringing it here. Probably mostly due to the fact they can’t figure out how to make it generate, versus lose, revenue in the U.S.
Hopefully the increased Ford incentives will be applied directly to the Raptor R.
More seriously though, I think Ford will be OK. The F Series trucks provide a floor under their sales and profitability that other automakers would kill for. I continue to think their EV push is too aggressive to be supported by current sales conditions, but I recognize that’s tough to plan for with changing administrations and regulations, not to mention their competitors are almost all losing money too.
Mmmmmm. Raptor R. I get giddy every time I see one.
I think it’s the only domestic vehicle that still commands over sticker apart from the ZR1 which isn’t even really on sale yet.
I mean, Siennas are made domestically.
Several of Self Esteem’s album covers catch the eye. I will give the albums a listen.
A merger/acquisition of Foxconn and Nissan would give both executive suites exactly what they deserve. Too bad for Nissan’s customers, though.
Nissan’s position seems like hubris at this point, but maybe their clout in places like Africa is sufficient that it makes some sense? I’m curious how much more leverage the Japanese government can put on them. Its not like this would be first time in their history that Nissan was part of a gov’t leveraged takeover, but they were the big dog when they merged with Prince.
Not sure why Nissan would think being acquired by Foxconn would go better. They tend to leave a wake of distruction and failed promises to anyone they partner with that isn’t Apple.
Every new Z will be personalized with a custom message of help and despair scrawled onto an anodized metal plate inside the glovebox.
“It’s that level of personalization and customization that our clients have come to expect from the Z cars over the years,” stated the muffled industry observer Carlos Ghosn from inside of Lars Ulrich’s drum case in Malmo, Sweden, on Thursday.
I’m sure the dozens of people shopping for the new Z will be thrilled.
At one point there were prospective customers for the Z, but they were met with dealers who thought they had Ken Miles’ 1966 GT40 in the showroom.