To be fair, Jim Farley is the biggest car guy you'll find in a CEO position. He owns things like a gt40, just raced at Daytona, beating out some professional racing drivers. Races all the time, knows his stuff about cars. Give him time, the only vehicles we know he had a hand in for sure are the mach-e and maverick, both winners. But he wasn't even had time to implement his vision for the company.
Crown vics are still around. Nobody saved their Tempos or Escorts, but there is a suprising amount of Merkurs out there. Alot of Tbirds too. All I currently own is 80s and 90s Fords and Jeeps, and honestly I am very nervous about driving a new car day to day. I worry that it will yell at me everytime I do something it doesnt approve of. But I am still excited to have air conditioning. We dont even have it in our home either.
This, exactly. Whenever I even THINK about not getting the Mav I ordered, so I go looking at other trucks, I run into exactly what Ron here noted -- even standing on my tip toes I still can't reach well into the bed, and I'm too damned old to be climbing into one. The seats require running boards to access -- I'm not climbing UP into any vehicle. I'm a fit geezer, but there's some things we just don't want to do anymore. It's why I drive an old school Ford Ranger and not a new one. I need to be able to toss a bag of mulch or twelve into the back of the truck, and not have to pull out a stepladder to unload them. I need to not have to search for the ground with my foot every time I disembark, it's just there, without me falling or lowering myself down to it. You don't quit wanting to drive and use trucks because you get old, but the emphasis of the last years on BIG trucks -- even the so called mid-sized are freaking huge in comparison -- left a corner of the truck market out of the running. Lost track of how many people on here have commented on this being their retirement truck. 90% or more of the people I personally know who have bought a Maverick or Santa Cruz in the last year or two have gray or white hair.
I know what you mean. In the ā80ās and ā90ās, Iāve owned a total of four different Aerostar minivans. The first was a car conversion van, two regular Aerostar vans, and another conversion van. I needed the extra seating to haul my four children and wife around.
What purpose would a focus serve in a world where the maverick exists? It would have little to no price advantage over a Maverick. It would be more cramped and less practical. It would be less fuel efficient and versatile. It would use the same platform, with similar suspension, powertrains, and weight, so it wouldn't perform any better. It wouldn't be any safer. Aside from people who prefer sedans for their form factor, I genuinely don't see the benefit of any small sedan or hatchback over the maverick. It destroys all of them, the civic and Corolla look like jokes in comparison.
The only way bringing back cars would be a good idea for ford, would be if they all had the, and, aspect to their sales pitch. The maverick isn't just a small truck. It's a small truck, and it's affordable, and it's a hybrid. All those ands elevate the product to legendary, gotta have it, status. Kinda like how the mach-e is an EV, and it's fast, and looks cool, and has the mustang name. Or the bronco sport is practical, and capable off-road, and cool looking.
Which is why I propose instead of bringing a c2 focus to America, offer a c2 based fox body inspired mustang hatchback. Use the awd rear biased setup from the focus RS, give it the 2.0 and 2.3 turbo. Lean into the 80s nostalgia with the fox body and turbo callbacks. Something that looks like that official s650 mustang design proposal below.
Then, instead of just having a hatchback, you have a hatchback that looks cool, and it's fast and fun to drive, and it has an iconic name, and it has neat retro touches. Appealing to consumers who want an affordable, practical car, and enthusiasts who want to see the return of affordable, small, back to basics performance cars. All why offering something no-one else in the market offers, so you don't have to get into race to the bottom dealership pricing tactics while trying to compete. You have people beating down your door begging to buy your product at sticker price.
Put a civic and a focus side by side, that person is gonna buy the civic 8/10 times at least. You tell someone they can own a mustang that looks that cool for basically the same price, while offering similar levels of practicality, the civic doesn't stand a chance.
I'd add the ridiculously small subcompact SUVs like the CHR, HRV, Corolla cross etc to your list. Just don't see the point of them when you can get the Maverick for the same price.
Not everyone wants a truck, some people want a compact SUV.
I would drop my Tremor order in a heartbeat for a AWD Maverick based van even without the diff and lift. There is nothing like driving to the beach opening the doors and crawling into the bed for a relaxing mid day nap. Especially for $30,000 and under.
When you come up with the demographics and psychographics, there isn't just one of each. The primary audience for the maverick audience for the maverick likely wasn't laid out by age, but by socioeconomic classification. People with less disposable income who want a product that provides excellent value for a decent price. It just so happens that many of the people who fall under that category are young people. That doesn't mean when an older individual buys the product that ford got their target buyer analysis wrong. It just means a lot of people with differing demographic qualities fall under the target audience of "thrifty buyers". It makes sense to develop your product to tailor to the needs to younger people above all else. These's a saying "You can see an old man a young man's car, but you can't sell a young man and old man's car".
