scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
#31
06-20-2007, 09:52 PM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
Also of note: my sales rep seemed convinced that the assembly plant in MO would be shutting down for two weeks this summer; I believe she said for inventory and upgrades. Obviously this would delay production and delivery of new vehicles. I know when I worked at a flourescent lamp plant a few years back, we shut down for two weeks during the summer to bring in new equipment, so this sounds plausible to me. Has anyone else heard anything about the assembly line shutting down temporarily?
The Ranger plant here in St. Paul usually had a two week shut down in the summer like clockwork. They were also shutting it for an extra week or two later in the year in addition to that for the last couple of years due to the low Ranger sales. Unfortunately Ford's closing the plant for good at the end of this year
Sounds like you might have ordered it right at the switchover to the new model year.
Last edited by chesterakl; 06-20-2007 at 10:00 PM.
#32
06-21-2007, 09:02 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
Six weeks and counting here
Let's hope that eight is the magic number!
On the dealer training thought, my brother-in-law just told me about a co-worker of his that went to the dealership and inquired about an FEH. They told him that unless you are only driving in the city it isn't worth it!
Let's hope that eight is the magic number!
On the dealer training thought, my brother-in-law just told me about a co-worker of his that went to the dealership and inquired about an FEH. They told him that unless you are only driving in the city it isn't worth it!
#33
06-21-2007, 02:38 PM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
One learns about the capabilities of this vehicle thru websites such as this. Keep it coming.
#35
06-25-2007, 12:13 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
Ford employees have (or used to have) a 'WheresMyFord' website (sorry -- it's a website that is only reachable internal to Ford) so that they could key in their VIN number and it would tell them where the car was in the build queue.
When a car is ordered the VIN number is issued (long before the car is built). There's a number of phases it goes through, then it's "blended" and scheduled for build. I think the build date is not actually known until after it's "blended".
Blending is done by the computer... basically it figures out all the parts that will be needed to build the car (based on the options you picked) and looks at production line constraints. Vehicles with certain options cannot be built in sequential order -- for example there must be at least 2 cars that do NOT have a moonroof between every one car that DOES have a moonroof, and this is due to what the installers have to do to get the moonroof installed. The other factor is whether there's a constrained part. The 'nav' package was a hugely constrained part on the '05 model year. My FEH didn't have one so it was built pretty quickly. Had I ordered one it would have delayed my order by several months!!!
Since the computer 'blending' is the part of the order phase that calculates when the car can actually be scheduled for build on the assembly line, that's when the build date becomes known -- before that happens the dealer can only give you a vague average idea of how long you have to wait. I don't think the dealer has access to the system that lets them see the car progress through the scheduling, building, & delivery process (I was able to see where my car was in the process because I had 5 different friends who all worked for Ford and they were all happy to check it for me.)
Once it's built there's another wait while it's scheduled for shipping to your dealer and of course the transit time.
As for the profit margin... there is none. Ford sort of takes a loss on this car (as they do with all fuel efficient cars) -- well sort of. The truth is Ford doesn't so much take a loss (it only looks like a loss if you look at one individual car - but cars are priced on what they need to make happen with the entire fleet of vehicles they build in a year), the federal CAFE standards *force* the car companies to play pricing games in order to incent buyers to get fuel efficient cars. The sad truth is that _most_ Americans want gas guzzlers. If all cars were priced so that the automaker made an equal profit, gas guzzlers would be cheaper and economy cars would be a lot more expensive. As a result, just about everyone would buy a more financially attractive gas guzzler and they wouldn't sell very many fuel efficient cars at all.
So the automakers generally take a loss on fuel efficient cars which they are happy to do because it incents people to buy them. When someone buys one, they help drive down the automakers CAFE average for the year, which allows them to sell a gas guzzler to someone else without blowing their average and being forced to pay big fines. The profit margin on the gas guzzler is larger than the loss they take on the fuel efficient cars so in the end it's worth it for them to take the loss on your hybrid.
If this seems silly to you, blame your representatives in congress and senate. What (in my opinion) should have happened is that the economic penalty for buying a new gas guzzler should be charged directly to the consumer in a plain and obvious way... in other words the government should put a deliberate "gas guzzler" penalty into the car (either as an added tax, or in the annual cost of the plates or tags, etc.) and a rebate on the economy car. If consumers saw this in a more obvious way two things would happen... #1 they'd think carefully as to whether they want to pay the hefty fee vs collecting a rebate and #2 they'd resent their representatives in government for imposing the fees and telling consumers that they're effectively being fined if they want to drive a big car or truck. Well... your representatives at the federal level have absolutely no intention of looking like the bad guys, so they set up the CAFE standards to make the auto industry look like the bad guys all the while the federal representatives in government look like they're being our advocates by beating the evil automakers into submission. The REAL bad guys are the consumers who buy the gas guzzlers.
The reason the CAFE standards are a bad way to incent consumers to do the "right thing" is because now that the cost of gas is forcing more consumers to rethink the economy of their vehicles, the automakers are really in a bind because substantially more consumers want to buy the cars that are sold at a loss and not very many cars are being sold that make up for the loss by providing a large profit. So the automakers are foced to push harder to convince consumers to buy... you guessed it... the big profitable gas guzzlers. The auto industry is writhing in pain because the normally buying trends are out of whack and they're all losing money.
If the gas guzzler penalties were imposed directly on the consumers (instead of forcing the auto-industry to play pricing games) then all cars could be sold at a reasonable profit to the manufacturers, who would in turn be happy to sell you ANY car -- not just the gas guzzlers -- because all cars would be profitable.
The next time you pull into a filling station, please remember to nod thankfully to that person at the next pump filling up their Ford Escursion or Lincoln Navigator.... because THEY subsidized the price of your car.
When a car is ordered the VIN number is issued (long before the car is built). There's a number of phases it goes through, then it's "blended" and scheduled for build. I think the build date is not actually known until after it's "blended".
Blending is done by the computer... basically it figures out all the parts that will be needed to build the car (based on the options you picked) and looks at production line constraints. Vehicles with certain options cannot be built in sequential order -- for example there must be at least 2 cars that do NOT have a moonroof between every one car that DOES have a moonroof, and this is due to what the installers have to do to get the moonroof installed. The other factor is whether there's a constrained part. The 'nav' package was a hugely constrained part on the '05 model year. My FEH didn't have one so it was built pretty quickly. Had I ordered one it would have delayed my order by several months!!!
Since the computer 'blending' is the part of the order phase that calculates when the car can actually be scheduled for build on the assembly line, that's when the build date becomes known -- before that happens the dealer can only give you a vague average idea of how long you have to wait. I don't think the dealer has access to the system that lets them see the car progress through the scheduling, building, & delivery process (I was able to see where my car was in the process because I had 5 different friends who all worked for Ford and they were all happy to check it for me.)
Once it's built there's another wait while it's scheduled for shipping to your dealer and of course the transit time.
As for the profit margin... there is none. Ford sort of takes a loss on this car (as they do with all fuel efficient cars) -- well sort of. The truth is Ford doesn't so much take a loss (it only looks like a loss if you look at one individual car - but cars are priced on what they need to make happen with the entire fleet of vehicles they build in a year), the federal CAFE standards *force* the car companies to play pricing games in order to incent buyers to get fuel efficient cars. The sad truth is that _most_ Americans want gas guzzlers. If all cars were priced so that the automaker made an equal profit, gas guzzlers would be cheaper and economy cars would be a lot more expensive. As a result, just about everyone would buy a more financially attractive gas guzzler and they wouldn't sell very many fuel efficient cars at all.
So the automakers generally take a loss on fuel efficient cars which they are happy to do because it incents people to buy them. When someone buys one, they help drive down the automakers CAFE average for the year, which allows them to sell a gas guzzler to someone else without blowing their average and being forced to pay big fines. The profit margin on the gas guzzler is larger than the loss they take on the fuel efficient cars so in the end it's worth it for them to take the loss on your hybrid.
If this seems silly to you, blame your representatives in congress and senate. What (in my opinion) should have happened is that the economic penalty for buying a new gas guzzler should be charged directly to the consumer in a plain and obvious way... in other words the government should put a deliberate "gas guzzler" penalty into the car (either as an added tax, or in the annual cost of the plates or tags, etc.) and a rebate on the economy car. If consumers saw this in a more obvious way two things would happen... #1 they'd think carefully as to whether they want to pay the hefty fee vs collecting a rebate and #2 they'd resent their representatives in government for imposing the fees and telling consumers that they're effectively being fined if they want to drive a big car or truck. Well... your representatives at the federal level have absolutely no intention of looking like the bad guys, so they set up the CAFE standards to make the auto industry look like the bad guys all the while the federal representatives in government look like they're being our advocates by beating the evil automakers into submission. The REAL bad guys are the consumers who buy the gas guzzlers.
The reason the CAFE standards are a bad way to incent consumers to do the "right thing" is because now that the cost of gas is forcing more consumers to rethink the economy of their vehicles, the automakers are really in a bind because substantially more consumers want to buy the cars that are sold at a loss and not very many cars are being sold that make up for the loss by providing a large profit. So the automakers are foced to push harder to convince consumers to buy... you guessed it... the big profitable gas guzzlers. The auto industry is writhing in pain because the normally buying trends are out of whack and they're all losing money.
If the gas guzzler penalties were imposed directly on the consumers (instead of forcing the auto-industry to play pricing games) then all cars could be sold at a reasonable profit to the manufacturers, who would in turn be happy to sell you ANY car -- not just the gas guzzlers -- because all cars would be profitable.
The next time you pull into a filling station, please remember to nod thankfully to that person at the next pump filling up their Ford Escursion or Lincoln Navigator.... because THEY subsidized the price of your car.
#36
06-25-2007, 03:59 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
As for the profit margin... there is none. Ford sort of takes a loss on this car (as they do with all fuel efficient cars) -- well sort of. The truth is Ford doesn't so much take a loss (it only looks like a loss if you look at one individual car - but cars are priced on what they need to make happen with the entire fleet of vehicles they build in a year), the federal CAFE standards *force* the car companies to play pricing games in order to incent buyers to get fuel efficient cars. The sad truth is that _most_ Americans want gas guzzlers. If all cars were priced so that the automaker made an equal profit, gas guzzlers would be cheaper and economy cars would be a lot more expensive. As a result, just about everyone would buy a more financially attractive gas guzzler and they wouldn't sell very many fuel efficient cars at all.
So the automakers generally take a loss on fuel efficient cars which they are happy to do because it incents people to buy them. When someone buys one, they help drive down the automakers CAFE average for the year, which allows them to sell a gas guzzler to someone else without blowing their average and being forced to pay big fines. The profit margin on the gas guzzler is larger than the loss they take on the fuel efficient cars so in the end it's worth it for them to take the loss on your hybrid.
If this seems silly to you, blame your representatives in congress and senate. What (in my opinion) should have happened is that the economic penalty for buying a new gas guzzler should be charged directly to the consumer in a plain and obvious way... in other words the government should put a deliberate "gas guzzler" penalty into the car (either as an added tax, or in the annual cost of the plates or tags, etc.) and a rebate on the economy car. If consumers saw this in a more obvious way two things would happen... #1 they'd think carefully as to whether they want to pay the hefty fee vs collecting a rebate and #2 they'd resent their representatives in government for imposing the fees and telling consumers that they're effectively being fined if they want to drive a big car or truck. Well... your representatives at the federal level have absolutely no intention of looking like the bad guys, so they set up the CAFE standards to make the auto industry look like the bad guys all the while the federal representatives in government look like they're being our advocates by beating the evil automakers into submission. The REAL bad guys are the consumers who buy the gas guzzlers.
The reason the CAFE standards are a bad way to incent consumers to do the "right thing" is because now that the cost of gas is forcing more consumers to rethink the economy of their vehicles, the automakers are really in a bind because substantially more consumers want to buy the cars that are sold at a loss and not very many cars are being sold that make up for the loss by providing a large profit. So the automakers are foced to push harder to convince consumers to buy... you guessed it... the big profitable gas guzzlers. The auto industry is writhing in pain because the normally buying trends are out of whack and they're all losing money.
If the gas guzzler penalties were imposed directly on the consumers (instead of forcing the auto-industry to play pricing games) then all cars could be sold at a reasonable profit to the manufacturers, who would in turn be happy to sell you ANY car -- not just the gas guzzlers -- because all cars would be profitable.
The next time you pull into a filling station, please remember to nod thankfully to that person at the next pump filling up their Ford Escursion or Lincoln Navigator.... because THEY subsidized the price of your car.
So the automakers generally take a loss on fuel efficient cars which they are happy to do because it incents people to buy them. When someone buys one, they help drive down the automakers CAFE average for the year, which allows them to sell a gas guzzler to someone else without blowing their average and being forced to pay big fines. The profit margin on the gas guzzler is larger than the loss they take on the fuel efficient cars so in the end it's worth it for them to take the loss on your hybrid.
If this seems silly to you, blame your representatives in congress and senate. What (in my opinion) should have happened is that the economic penalty for buying a new gas guzzler should be charged directly to the consumer in a plain and obvious way... in other words the government should put a deliberate "gas guzzler" penalty into the car (either as an added tax, or in the annual cost of the plates or tags, etc.) and a rebate on the economy car. If consumers saw this in a more obvious way two things would happen... #1 they'd think carefully as to whether they want to pay the hefty fee vs collecting a rebate and #2 they'd resent their representatives in government for imposing the fees and telling consumers that they're effectively being fined if they want to drive a big car or truck. Well... your representatives at the federal level have absolutely no intention of looking like the bad guys, so they set up the CAFE standards to make the auto industry look like the bad guys all the while the federal representatives in government look like they're being our advocates by beating the evil automakers into submission. The REAL bad guys are the consumers who buy the gas guzzlers.
The reason the CAFE standards are a bad way to incent consumers to do the "right thing" is because now that the cost of gas is forcing more consumers to rethink the economy of their vehicles, the automakers are really in a bind because substantially more consumers want to buy the cars that are sold at a loss and not very many cars are being sold that make up for the loss by providing a large profit. So the automakers are foced to push harder to convince consumers to buy... you guessed it... the big profitable gas guzzlers. The auto industry is writhing in pain because the normally buying trends are out of whack and they're all losing money.
If the gas guzzler penalties were imposed directly on the consumers (instead of forcing the auto-industry to play pricing games) then all cars could be sold at a reasonable profit to the manufacturers, who would in turn be happy to sell you ANY car -- not just the gas guzzlers -- because all cars would be profitable.
The next time you pull into a filling station, please remember to nod thankfully to that person at the next pump filling up their Ford Escursion or Lincoln Navigator.... because THEY subsidized the price of your car.
Don't get me wrong. I drive a FEH, and this was my first north american car. One of the reasons I purchased it was to reward Ford for the effort in giving me a fuel efficient 4WD vehicle. If they really put their heart into it, I'm sure they could do it and make money at it instead of it being simply to bring their fleet average down.
In Canada, they recently announced a tax to be phased in the next few years that will tax guzzlers. Car companies here cried blue murder, so the manufacturers won't be happy no matter what. CAFE is a blunt instrument, but that and the guzzler tax will bring them to the 21st century kicking and screaming all they way, but they will come. When they do, I'll buy more of them
Cheers,
rcomeau
#37
06-25-2007, 06:12 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
So the automakers generally take a loss on fuel efficient cars which they are happy to do because it incents people to buy them. When someone buys one, they help drive down the automakers CAFE average for the year, which allows them to sell a gas guzzler to someone else without blowing their average and being forced to pay big fines. The profit margin on the gas guzzler is larger than the loss they take on the fuel efficient cars so in the end it's worth it for them to take the loss on your hybrid.
If this seems silly to you, blame your representatives in congress and senate. What (in my opinion) should have happened is that the economic penalty for buying a new gas guzzler should be charged directly to the consumer in a plain and obvious way... in other words the government should put a deliberate "gas guzzler" penalty into the car (either as an added tax, or in the annual cost of the plates or tags, etc.) and a rebate on the economy car. If consumers saw this in a more obvious way two things would happen... #1 they'd think carefully as to whether they want to pay the hefty fee vs collecting a rebate and #2 they'd resent their representatives in government for imposing the fees and telling consumers that they're effectively being fined if they want to drive a big car or truck. Well... your representatives at the federal level have absolutely no intention of looking like the bad guys, so they set up the CAFE standards to make the auto industry look like the bad guys all the while the federal representatives in government look like they're being our advocates by beating the evil automakers into submission. The REAL bad guys are the consumers who buy the gas guzzlers.
If this seems silly to you, blame your representatives in congress and senate. What (in my opinion) should have happened is that the economic penalty for buying a new gas guzzler should be charged directly to the consumer in a plain and obvious way... in other words the government should put a deliberate "gas guzzler" penalty into the car (either as an added tax, or in the annual cost of the plates or tags, etc.) and a rebate on the economy car. If consumers saw this in a more obvious way two things would happen... #1 they'd think carefully as to whether they want to pay the hefty fee vs collecting a rebate and #2 they'd resent their representatives in government for imposing the fees and telling consumers that they're effectively being fined if they want to drive a big car or truck. Well... your representatives at the federal level have absolutely no intention of looking like the bad guys, so they set up the CAFE standards to make the auto industry look like the bad guys all the while the federal representatives in government look like they're being our advocates by beating the evil automakers into submission. The REAL bad guys are the consumers who buy the gas guzzlers.
Seems to me they just need to apply whatever that "charge" is to a few more vehicles
Last edited by chesterakl; 06-25-2007 at 06:26 AM.
#38
06-25-2007, 06:38 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
This is off topic but...
VW would be losing even more money in the U.S. than it already does if it were not for the 5000+ lb, gas guzzling Toureg.
Toyota does not make money on fuel efficient cars. Revenue in the U.S. is from dull, dependable sedans that few consumers outside the U.S. buy. Profit is from gas guzzlers, same as GM, Ford and Chrysler. One significant difference is that Toyota does not have legacy obligations (generally estimated at $1800 per vehicle) to support an army of former employees, to keep a promise made many years ago. Another is relatively new and highly efficient operations with ever more innovative manufacturing practices. Another factor is that they are not beholden to suppliers in the traditional American way. It all adds up, making Toyota the leader that they are today. And I am thrilled that they continue to pour that money into R&D for the future.
For my own self, I too wanted to support Ford and the people in Kansas City. I was surprised when I found out how much pollution my old Prius "really" created considering overseas shipping and inland transportation.
Again apologies for the thread jack
VW would be losing even more money in the U.S. than it already does if it were not for the 5000+ lb, gas guzzling Toureg.
Toyota does not make money on fuel efficient cars. Revenue in the U.S. is from dull, dependable sedans that few consumers outside the U.S. buy. Profit is from gas guzzlers, same as GM, Ford and Chrysler. One significant difference is that Toyota does not have legacy obligations (generally estimated at $1800 per vehicle) to support an army of former employees, to keep a promise made many years ago. Another is relatively new and highly efficient operations with ever more innovative manufacturing practices. Another factor is that they are not beholden to suppliers in the traditional American way. It all adds up, making Toyota the leader that they are today. And I am thrilled that they continue to pour that money into R&D for the future.
For my own self, I too wanted to support Ford and the people in Kansas City. I was surprised when I found out how much pollution my old Prius "really" created considering overseas shipping and inland transportation.
Again apologies for the thread jack
#39
06-25-2007, 06:51 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
That's right, it was a Shelby. That tax is being phased out anyway.
While Tcampb01's post was kind of long, I am glad to see it and basically agree with the whole darn thing. The key is consumer demand. It's cultural, I think. Every time I go to Eastern Canada it cracks me up to see what kind of cars people drive. Decisions seem to be made based on real needs and common sense. It's Canada, but you don't see a lot of 4WD/AWD. I get the impression that few people buy a pick up unless they really need it. Very few Chrysler 300s but Calibers everywhere. Honda and Toyota? 20 Civics for every Accord and 20 Corolla/Matrix for every Camry.
I am optimistic that we are going through a change toward more efficiency now, due mainly to recent increases in the cost of fuel. Many believe that a Federal $1.50 per gallon gas tax would create a sea change in American society.
While Tcampb01's post was kind of long, I am glad to see it and basically agree with the whole darn thing. The key is consumer demand. It's cultural, I think. Every time I go to Eastern Canada it cracks me up to see what kind of cars people drive. Decisions seem to be made based on real needs and common sense. It's Canada, but you don't see a lot of 4WD/AWD. I get the impression that few people buy a pick up unless they really need it. Very few Chrysler 300s but Calibers everywhere. Honda and Toyota? 20 Civics for every Accord and 20 Corolla/Matrix for every Camry.
I am optimistic that we are going through a change toward more efficiency now, due mainly to recent increases in the cost of fuel. Many believe that a Federal $1.50 per gallon gas tax would create a sea change in American society.
#40
06-25-2007, 09:18 AM
Re: scarce? or just weak dealers in my area?
Interesting point. My question is why companies like Toyota and VW seem to make profits despite the fact that most of their car sales (as far as I know) are for fuel efficient cars? My impression is that north american manufacturers would rather sell the guzzlers because they are easier and cheaper to make (both in R&D and manufacturing) and put the bare minimum effort in R&D for better manufacturing and fuel efficiency.
This is a somewhat simplisitc view of the problem - I am trying to keep the post short.
Point is, the amount of debt attached to the price of each vehicle they make is not insignificant. It's at least $1500 per vehicle and one person in this thread already commented that it's really closer to $1800 per vehicle.
The news isn't all bad. Saturn has a program where you can go to a Saturn dealership, drive their cars, and then hop out and drive their competitions cars. They want you to compare the sticker prices of some of the imports, compare what features you are getting for your money, and then compare the quality and ride of the car to show that they're actually giving you a pretty good deal.
The abiltiy to manufacture cars that save on gas isn't the problem. The problem is they fear that those cars wont sell.
When they survey random people in shopping malls and ask them if they care about the environment, the reliance on foreign oil, etc. and then ask if they think that more people should buy eco friendly and fuel efficient cars then they give the politically correct "yes" answer. But when those same consumers step into the auto showroom to pick out their next car they immediately begin to rationalize why, in their *particular* case they have special needs and they need to buy something big with lots of acceleration (completely contrary to how they responded to the survey).
