Ford USA: Fusion, Focus, Fiesta, Taurus - So long!

[05XR8]

They also started offering cars in colors that aren't black.

It's a shame what became of a once great American company!

I can embrace what they are doing. Whether it's to save the company, cut jobs or greed(because they're, supposedly, not in the business to lose money) or D. All the above, scaling down to their core vehicles is fine.

I'd say it would be as if Chevy just sold Corvette & Sierra(?).

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm not sure I agree, but it I think we'll know one way or the other in a few years.

There's always an element of uncertainty, but to my knowledge the auto industry has never really done the undercutting thing with any success. Price wars only really work in certain industries - retail is fine* as overheads are relatively low regardless of volume, but manufacturing is more difficult since the margins are so much smaller.

It's certainly not impossible that a company could slash a few grand off a car to improve market share, but whether that would actually work or not is much less clear.

* Retail is fine until the price war forces retailers to squeeze their suppliers and those suppliers with much slimmer margins go out of business, anyway...

 

[Tornado]

GM/Chrysler/Ford were engaged in an on-again off-again price war with each other after the Korean War until the early 60s (when all three were sued over some of the specifics they had been doing); which put the final nail in all of the independent makes. That was back when you either drove an American car or were a communist, though.

Anyways screw the gov .

Yes, that was understood.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This shouldn't be massively surprising from the extent it was originally reported. However, now it seems pretty shocking in that sedans will completely disappear from a company like Ford. Yet the market for a couple years has been shifting, last year it was suggested there were many cars that could disappear from the GM sedan/passenger line up. Now it seems so far only the Sonic is dying. Chrysler killed off the Dart and 200 and focused more on their Sports cars, Trucks and SUVs. The Neon was suppose to return to the U.S. market this year, but considering it has yet to do so, it could be said FCA are evaluating if that's still viable in a market place that seems to be shunning such cars.

 

[Sick Lenny]

One thing that I see over and over again is the "high margins" made on crossovers. The margins are high because they can be sold for more money relative to production costs, presumably because consumers are more willing to pay more for them than they are for cars of roughly the same footprint.

This has me wondering something. Even the admission of 'high margins' has an appearance of 'overpriced' to me. Is there some sort of unspoken agreement between automakers to not cut those margins? It seems apparent that we will be inundated with crossovers to the point where they are a large majority of cars sold in the not-to-distant future. Will that not incentive somebody to cut those margins to increase market share in such a crowded field? It seems like it would only take one car maker doing this to cause the whole crossover 'high margins' thing to cascade down to 'normal margins' especially once cars are out of the picture as a relative bellwether of how expensive a crossover should be. Ford would seem especially susceptible to this without any cars to differentiate its crossovers with.

I mean it's just a thought experiment, but it's occurred to me a few times.

What you are describing is basic economics of capitalism/free market. As demand increases, prices go up because people are willing to pay more. Then as the market becomes saturated with product from all players, then competition between companies for a larger share of the market drives prices down (or drives what you get for the money up, but usually seeing a lower price tag is more effective).

It seems like they are going where Subaru has always been, very few models on 2-3 platforms. I am always surprised that all companies aren't like this with how saturated the market is with both companies and product.

It seems even Subaru is going this way as they are rumored to phase out the Legacy Sedan completely. I just traded my leased 16 Legacy in for a Sport Impreza hatchback and the manager was telling me this. He said sales have dropped off greatly on the model as people are going for the Outback since it was redesigned to look sportier and less station-wagon like.

It's a shame as I really loved my Legacy. Subaru even had the trunk space and hatch engineered brilliantly where you had such good clearance it was almost as good as a hatch, and folding the back seats down I could haul all kinds of big and long stuff from the hardware store no problem.

 

[homeforsummer]

What you are describing is basic economics of capitalism/free market. As demand increases, prices go up because people are willing to pay more. Then as the market becomes saturated with product from all players, then competition between companies for a larger share of the market drives prices down (or drives what you get for the money up, but usually seeing a lower price tag is more effective).

That's true, but it's a more general approach than is being discussed here - Cosmo is suggesting that one brand will chop a relatively large chunk off the price of one of its cars in order to improve market share, which for me seems fairly unlikely. A general easing of prices could be possible if the market does become saturated, but no manufacturer is going to want to slice a big healthy margin off some of its most profitable vehicles.

Moving upmarket though works quite well in the auto industry (if you can pull it off), because you can sell basically the same thing at a higher price with virtually no caveats. It's why Audi can charge more for an A3 than VW can for an otherwise very similar Golf, and why VW can charge more for that Golf than SEAT can for an otherwise very similar Leon.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That's true, but it's a more general approach than is being discussed here - Cosmo is suggesting that one brand will chop a relatively large chunk off the price of one of its cars in order to improve market share, which for me seems fairly unlikely. A general easing of prices could be possible if the market does become saturated, but no manufacturer is going to want to slice a big healthy margin off some of its most profitable vehicles.

I wouldn't say it couldn't happen. If a car is doing exceptionally poorly in the segment it competes in, I think that is quite possible. Maybe it doesn't happen so much in Europe, but the rebates I've seen (especially lease deals) on poor selling cars like the Chevy Cruz can be quite large (Subsequently you see a LOT of Chevy Cruz ubers). There's also the possibility that the margin gets squeezed the other way -- if one vehicle is perceived as noncompetitive or outdated, there's a good chance that it's replacement will have more resources put into it's production & development, but still sold at a competitive price, thus reducing the margin from the other direction. (Pontiac Solstice & Saturn Sky are a good example of this, though they were fresh products rather than replacements)

I suppose the bottom line is essentially what Sick Lenny wrote:

"competition between companies for a larger share of the market drives prices down (or drives what you get for the money up, but usually seeing a lower price tag is more effective)." Both scenarios are going to cut into those margins. My entire argument is that basing a long term strategy on the idea that these types of vehicles will continue to have high profit margins I think is a mistake.

Moving upmarket though works quite well in the auto industry (if you can pull it off), because you can sell basically the same thing at a higher price with virtually no caveats. It's why Audi can charge more for an A3 than VW can for an otherwise very similar Golf, and why VW can charge more for that Golf than SEAT can for an otherwise very similar Leon.

Yes, to a point. But not everyone can move upmarket. The Audi in your post can be upmarket specifically because VW and SEAT are below it. Could the Ford brand move upmarket? I'm not sure they really could in the US, because then what would Lincoln be for? But the fact that this new CEO is trying to cut $22.5B in costs before 2022 tells me that isn't Ford's goal anyway. Moving upmarket effectively requires investment, not cost cutting.

 

[Wolfe]

It seems even Subaru is going this way as they are rumored to phase out the Legacy Sedan completely. I just traded my leased 16 Legacy in for a Sport Impreza hatchback and the manager was telling me this. He said sales have dropped off greatly on the model as people are going for the Outback since it was redesigned to look sportier and less station-wagon like.

It's a shame as I really loved my Legacy. Subaru even had the trunk space and hatch engineered brilliantly where you had such good clearance it was almost as good as a hatch, and folding the back seats down I could haul all kinds of big and long stuff from the hardware store no problem.

I'm not surprised if the Outback is cannibalizing the Legacy. It seems Subaru made smart choices with the Outback, but in the process the Legacy got dragged along into a position where it can't make as much of a case for itself anymore. It's not the under-midsized economy sedan/wagon it used to be, or the enthusiast's alternative to the Impreza that the BL/BP Legacys are, and it's not an Outback -- plus the Outback already cannibalized the Legacy wagon in North America.

I just bought my second Legacy; the first was a great car and this one is even better. But it's the last Legacy I'll own (or the newest), because I've learned my '06 is one of the last years you could get one with a manual in North America, and even if that wasn't the case, the next generations are too big for my liking. The jump in size from my BL to the BM is too much.

 

[Joey D]

What you are describing is basic economics of capitalism/free market. As demand increases, prices go up because people are willing to pay more. Then as the market becomes saturated with product from all players, then competition between companies for a larger share of the market drives prices down (or drives what you get for the money up, but usually seeing a lower price tag is more effective).

There's another piece to the price of new cars though and that's credit. Car loans have moved from 3 years to, at times, upwards of 8 years. Companies can continue charging a high price because people will finance a car for a ridiculously long time. This means instead of a $500 car payment, they are paying $300 a month over a longer span. The auto maker doesn't really care either since they got the money from the lender for the full price of the car.

I get that it's the capitalism at play, but there's more to it than just demand. New car buyers, for the most part anyways, just look at the monthly payment, not the overall price of the car. If you could get a 10 year loan on a $100k car with little money down, people would buy those cars.

It's all a bubble that will eventually burst and like the housing market in 2008, the auto market will implode in on itself.

 

[homeforsummer]

I wouldn't say it couldn't happen. If a car is doing exceptionally poorly in the segment it competes in, I think that is quite possible. Maybe it doesn't happen so much in Europe, but the rebates I've seen (especially lease deals) on poor selling cars like the Chevy Cruz can be quite large (Subsequently you see a LOT of Chevy Cruz ubers). There's also the possibility that the margin gets squeezed the other way -- if one vehicle is perceived as noncompetitive or outdated, there's a good chance that it's replacement will have more resources put into it's production & development, but still sold at a competitive price, thus reducing the margin from the other direction. (Pontiac Solstice & Saturn Sky are a good example of this, though they were fresh products rather than replacements)

Is all that down to the manufacturer itself changing the MSRP though, or desperate third-party dealers slashing prices? Because in the latter case it's not the automaker's profits that get hit, it's the dealer's.

Yes, to a point. But not everyone can move upmarket. The Audi in your post can be upmarket specifically because VW and SEAT are below it. Could the Ford brand move upmarket? I'm not sure they really could in the US, because then what would Lincoln be for? But the fact that this new CEO is trying to cut $22.5B in costs before 2022 tells me that isn't Ford's goal anyway. Moving upmarket effectively requires investment, not cost cutting.

I should have been more specific, because "upmarket" is quite a broad term.

I know the situation is a little different in the US, but here in Europe, Volkswagen is perceived as a premium brand. It sells huge volumes and realistically it competes with non-premium brands like Ford, Opel, Renault, Peugeot etc, but in the eyes of the consumer it's higher up than the aforementioned even if there's no reason for it other than brand image.

That's the kind of upmarket I'm talking about. Ford doesn't need to move into Lincoln territory to move upmarket, it just needs to imbue its products with that intangible air of quality that lifts it above say, Chevy, in the eyes of the consumer. That's feasibly something you can do with an entire brand - think of how Kia and Hyundai's brand perception has changed over the years. While those companies have obviously poured a lot of money into that change in perception, Ford doesn't have such a low starting point in the first place.

That said, you have a good point about the US market specifically. The Big Three's volume brands market themselves in quite a blue-collar way, which makes sense when they make more money out of trucks than they do cars. It could actually be detrimental trying to make your brand seem more white collar given the average working American seems to distrust such things...

Though coming back to the original point, I still don't see a crossover price war happening. As long as these vehicles can be sold for proportionally more than the regular cars they're based on yet cost little more to produce (even if like Ford you're ditching those regular cars from the market) it doesn't make sense to gain market share by dropping price alone.

It'd make especially little sense for Ford, because if it wanted to improve its share of the market at lower margins then it might as well continue selling the Focus and Fiesta. As it is, it's sacrificing whatever market share it has with those cars because they're already low-margin vehicles.

 

[Scaff]

There's another piece to the price of new cars though and that's credit. Car loans have moved from 3 years to, at times, upwards of 8 years. Companies can continue charging a high price because people will finance a car for a ridiculously long time. This means instead of a $500 car payment, they are paying $300 a month over a longer span. The auto maker doesn't really care either since they got the money from the lender for the full price of the car.

I get that it's the capitalism at play, but there's more to it than just demand. New car buyers, for the most part anyways, just look at the monthly payment, not the overall price of the car. If you could get a 10 year loan on a $100k car with little money down, people would buy those cars.

It's all a bubble that will eventually burst and like the housing market in 2008, the auto market will implode in on itself.

Automotive finance is generally better backed than the subprime mortgage market was, so it's less likely.

Direct sales, retailers as supply agents, more aggressive PCP and subscription services. That's the future direction of automotive sales and 'ownership'.

In regard to the margin on metal mentioned earlier it's important to note that normally is only at the manufacturer end (the likes of a Fiesta in the UK will give a retailer around 1% at best); while the manufacturer figures don't normally include development costs.

 

[panzerlied327]

Ford made some of the greatest 4 door cars in history, they even kept the Panther body well after GM killed the B body. I hate this trend of Ford trying to be "global". Bad enough that GM turned Buick int rebadged Opels.

 

[RocZX]

Ford says U.S. consumers no longer want sedans. Jim Farley, Ford president of global markets, told The Detroit News on Thursday that doesn’t mean the Blue Oval won’t have affordable, fuel-efficient options.

“Affordability is really always a part of our brand promise,” Farley said in a telephone interview. “The price point that’s affordable to most Americans is still important. Our ambition is to grow (our lineup) and hit all the price points. The only thing that’s changing is how they’re going to look.”

With sedans such as the Fusions becoming scarcer at
With sedans such as the Fusions becoming scarcer at dealer lots, some fear there will be fewer affordable cars available.
CLARENCE TABB JR., THE DETROIT NEWS
Farley and others within Ford pointed to the all-new EcoSport compact SUV for one affordable option. The 2018 base model starts at $19,995. Ford has not announced pricing for the Focus Active or the as-yet unnamed small off-road SUV the company announced in March it would debut within two years, but those vehicles will fill gaps at the lower end of the price spectrum, the company has said.


Compare the EcoSport’s price to the 2018 Fiesta, which starts at $14,205, or the current Focus at $17,950. The Fusion and Taurus can be had for $22,215 and $27,690, respectively.

The SUVs and trucks that Ford sees as its bread-and-butter have higher starting prices: Ford’s smallest SUV, the Escape, starts at $23,940; the F-150 pickup starts at $27,705.

Absence of entry-level vehicles would hurt Ford in the long run, experts and dealers said. Low-priced vehicles get buyers in the door, and often get people in the “pipeline”: If your first vehicle is a Ford, there’s a good chance your next one will be, too. That’s raising some questions for Hovik and others.

Farley said the changes serve to refresh the lineup, not permanently eliminate vehicle options. Tastes change every 10 to 15 years, he said. The station wagon lost favor to the minivan, which eventually lost popularity to the sedan. Now, people want crossovers and SUVs, he said.


“They want the interior room, that command seating,” Farley said. “In the past, they’ve given up fuel economy, and that’s going away now.”

In addition to new SUVs, Farley said there will be more as-yet unannounced models that fill in gaps left by sedans in Ford’s future lineup. There’s a chance the Fusion could be redesigned with a new silhouette, The Detroit News previously reported.

“We have some really great ideas on how to give Fusion customers a great new product,” Farley said.

The company is confident that new transmissions, hybrid technology, vehicle design and overall increases in fuel economy will protect against spikes in gas prices.

“We will have a variety of models that will have sedan or better-than-sedan fuel economy going forward,” Farley said. “But they’re going to look and feel different.”


The company says sedans will be replaced by car-sized crossovers that look totally different from what Ford currently sells. Ford has room to experiment in that segment of the market, according to Stephanie Brinley, analyst with IHS Markit, a London-based automotive industry analysis company.

“They have a lot of room to work within that space,” Brinley said. “This could mean that you see things like a more graceful version of a (Honda) Crosstour. (The car segment) is still an important part of volume. Ford is not doing this hoping it sells fewer vehicles.”

The Dertoit News

Ford thinks that US doesn't want sedans, the Fiesta and Focus are hatchback why cancel them?
Ford really believe the person who goes into buy a Fiesta will buy a Ecosport.

I find this even dumber

The company says sedans will be replaced by car-sized crossovers that look totally different from what Ford currently sells.

Why remove the sedans and replace them with "car sized crossovers" if people want crossover for the interior space? Wouldn't the car-size crossovers have the same interior space as a sedan.

 

[Joey D]

The Dertoit News

Ford thinks that US doesn't want sedans, the Fiesta and Focus are hatchback why cancel them?
Ford really believe the person who goes into buy a Fiesta will buy a Ecosport.

I find this even dumber

Why remove the sedans and replace them with "car sized crossovers" if people want crossover for the interior space? Wouldn't the car-size crossovers have the same interior space as a sedan.

In the US, Ford sells twice as many Escapes as it does the Focus.

So if when the time comes for Focus owners to get a new car and they want another Focus they'll either go for the Escape or go to another brand that has a similar car. Say a quarter of those buyers get the Escape, that increases the sales on that model and Ford is better off since they're selling more vehicles at a higher profit margin. If no potentially Focus buyers get the Escape, Ford is still better off financially since they are only supporting one model instead of two, which means less expenses.

I know from the outside it seems like a dumb move, but from a business case it does make a certain amount of sense.

As for replacing cars with crossovers, it's just conforming to the market demand. New buyers for the most part want crossovers and SUVs. Changing cars into crossovers means they'll be more competitive in the market. Also, if they take an existing car platform and build a crossover out of it, the expenses won't be that much more and the sale price will be higher.

This of course all relies on the market staying the same for at least a few years.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I find this even dumber
Why remove the sedans and replace them with "car sized crossovers" if people want crossover for the interior space? Wouldn't the car-size crossovers have the same interior space as a sedan.

Seconded in that opinion. My other problem with that argument is that he's saying that is that there's already CUVs that fill out that need for "more interior space" anyway.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So Ford is reportedly planning to buy and rehab Michigan Central Station in Detroit.

I can't help but think this is an odd move considering the company is supposedly trying to aggressively cut spending. I can see this being at least a $50-$100M expense....for what purpose I'm not sure.

As an architect who studied in Michigan, however, it is a great development, and I hope it's done well. Several studios in my grad program focused specifically on rehabbing this very building. I doubt Ford will do anything quite as radical as some proposals I've seen....

 

[Joey D]

Where will hundreds of homeless people and junkies live now?

I always had fun exploring the old station though, it was cool taking pictures and just crawling around the rubble among the rats and grime.

 

[Scaff]

So Ford is reportedly planning to buy and rehab Michigan Central Station in Detroit.

I can't help but think this is an odd move considering the company is supposedly trying to aggressively cut spending. I can see this being at least a $50-$100M expense....for what purpose I'm not sure.

As an architect who studied in Michigan, however, it is a great development, and I hope it's done well. Several studios in my grad program focused specifically on rehabbing this very building. I doubt Ford will do anything quite as radical as some proposals I've seen....

Your own link and the source it pulled from both gave the answer as to the purpose.

"While we anticipate our presence over time will grow as our AV/EV teams move downtown, we have nothing further to announce at this time."
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20180428/news/659276/ford-begins-forging-a-corktown-campus

Autonomous and Electric vehicle development team locations.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Your own link and the source it pulled from both gave the answer as to the purpose.

"While we anticipate our presence over time will grow as our AV/EV teams move downtown, we have nothing further to announce at this time."
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20180428/news/659276/ford-begins-forging-a-corktown-campus

Autonomous and Electric vehicle development team locations.

I meant why would they choose to rehab an enormous derelict building at great expense (and ~5 years, I would estimate), as opposed to cheaper & faster options. I suppose it's an image thing, and their new CEO seems to have strong connections to Michigan.

 

[Scaff]

I meant why would they choose to rehab an enormous derelict building at great expense (and ~5 years, I would estimate), as opposed to cheaper & faster options. I suppose it's an image thing, and their new CEO seems to have strong connections to Michigan.

In the grand scheme of the overall budget for AV and EV development projects, that one building is a fraction.

Don't underestimate how much money every OEM is putting into these areas.

Image will play a part, as it's outing the car back in the city, but the costs in the grand scheme of things is not a real factor.

 

[RocZX]

In the US, Ford sells twice as many Escapes as it does the Focus.

How many of the sales are for a vehicle for personal use?
Dealership will upsell to try to make more money and will sell the vehicle they make a bigger profit on. When someone goes in unsure and they are looking at the Focus the sales person will try and sell them the Escape, if they are unsure and looking at Escape they will not try to sell them the Focus.
If Ford is losing money on hatchbacks and sedans then the profit the dealership will make on them is less then the profit on a crossover cause Ford will give a bigger discount to a dealership on the crossover then a hatchback/sedan.
This article from Automotive News estimates that Ford lose $800 millon each year on hatchbacks/sedan, they should look into why they losing money on the cars and try fix/change things rather then eliminating in them all together.

 

[Dopplegagger]

For the most part, America's love affair with the automobile is dead. Instead of longer, lower, wider, we have wider, fatter, taller. (And slower, clumsier, thirstier...) Trying to drive even a mildly sporty car these days is like being a cat trapped in a herd of pigs.

Then there's this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...to-give-up-on-cars/ar-AAwmUgT?ocid=spartanntp

So in a nutshell, Ford is putting all its efforts into hiding behind the chicken tax. What a lazy ___ company. Screw them! "Concentrate where Ford can win"... Please! In order to win, one has to COMPETE! And that's something Ford US has always half-assed. Unbelievable!

 

[Kent]

I'd say one thing very few here are addressing (if anyone) is emotion.

Emotion has a huge part in what cars we buy, whether it was our grandpappy being a Ford/ Chevy guy, or Kia/ Hyundai being stigmatized as cheap.

Regardless of what emotions are driving the choice, as with most emotional decisions, they are not logical and in turn, simply reducing prices to be competitive is rarely enough to make someone rethink their opinion of a brand producing what is often the most important material possession most of us have (short of phones or maybe computers).

A good example is how people respond to failures... If you love a brand, often it will take hundreds of thousands of recalls before admitting there may have been a screw up. Meanwhile, if you dislike a brand, just one breakdown is enough to confirm your deep distrust.

 

[Darla Starch]

How many of the sales are for a vehicle for personal use?
Dealership will upsell to try to make more money and will sell the vehicle they make a bigger profit on. When someone goes in unsure and they are looking at the Focus the sales person will try and sell them the Escape, if they are unsure and looking at Escape they will not try to sell them the Focus.
If Ford is losing money on hatchbacks and sedans then the profit the dealership will make on them is less then the profit on a crossover cause Ford will give a bigger discount to a dealership on the crossover then a hatchback/sedan.
This article from Automotive News estimates that Ford lose $800 millon each year on hatchbacks/sedan, they should look into why they losing money on the cars and try fix/change things rather then eliminating in them all together.

Can't lose money on cars if you don't make cars

 

[Samsonknight]

That's too bad. My point A to point B car is a 2010 Ford Fusion, and I absolutely love it. I've had it since Fall 2011, and it's still going strong.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

How many of the sales are for a vehicle for personal use?
Dealership will upsell to try to make more money and will sell the vehicle they make a bigger profit on. When someone goes in unsure and they are looking at the Focus the sales person will try and sell them the Escape, if they are unsure and looking at Escape they will not try to sell them the Focus.
If Ford is losing money on hatchbacks and sedans then the profit the dealership will make on them is less then the profit on a crossover cause Ford will give a bigger discount to a dealership on the crossover then a hatchback/sedan.
This article from Automotive News estimates that Ford lose $800 millon each year on hatchbacks/sedan, they should look into why they losing money on the cars and try fix/change things rather then eliminating in them all together.

Also:

Ford Taurus - 8 years old
Ford Fusion - 6 years old
Ford Focus - 7 years old
Ford Fiesta - 10 years (!!!) old (counting EU release)

I think it's a little disingenuous for Ford to say that their cars aren't selling well strictly because they are cars. I don't think they've put any effort into a mainstream car since the Fusion was released way back in 2012. Even still, they sold more than 300,000 of them in 2014, which compares pretty well with what the Escape has done in it's best year and more than double what the Edge (upon which it shares it's platform) has sold even in it's best year (2017 - 142,000). I can't help but feel the Fusion would sell well again if it was actually updated. It's hard for a potential buyer to get excited about a car that has such heavy saturation in the market (2.7M sold) when there are fresher looking options from basically everyone else. Despite all of that, and even down 20% YoY, the Fusion outsold the Edge in 2017 by some 60,000 units.

The Taurus has been a total disaster (IMO) since day 1. I think Ford totally missed the mark with that car, turning a nameplate previously capable of shifting upwards of 300k units/year into one that sold typically less than 70k in it's best years. In my opinion, it is too expensive for what it is.

The Fiesta is ancient, and the interior especially feels like it.

The Focus is a similar story to the Fusion. Sales have tapered off, but again, I think that could be explained by the fact that's simply outdated now.

 

[sems4arsenal]

As a Fiesta owner ...... "meh". I love the car but the transmission issues are an absolute farce.

 

[cdubbbs]

If Ferd could just make a car worth the price you pay, then this wouldn't be an issue. Dollar for dollar your money is better spent elsewhere. Blame the auto workers union and such, or Ford's board of directors. Either way, their vehicles are kinda crap by domestic standards. I've owned a few, never again.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

There is another thing I have to say about this, their strategy comes off as a bit thoughtless and lazy. Ford is just going off like "CUVs are the answer to our sales problem" without considering the possibility that maybe the reason people are not buying their cars as much is due to the problems with them. I've heard people give plenty of complaints for the cars such as the transmission problems with the Fiesta, the interior space of the Taurus, and the lack of rear leg room in the Focus for instance.

 

[cdubbbs]

There is another thing I have to say about this, their strategy comes off as a bit thoughtless and lazy. Ford is just going off like "CUVs are the answer to our sales problem" without considering the possibility that maybe the reason people are not buying their cars as much is due to the problems with them. I've heard people give plenty of complaints for the cars such as the transmission problems with the Fiesta, the interior space of the Taurus, and the lack of rear leg room in the Focus for instance.

The Ford Focus RS starts at just over $41k before you start adding anything. Really?!?! I want some of what Ford's sales division is smoking, there are a lot of other (read: much better) options from other manufacturers at that price point.