Are we Witnessing the Last Years of Ford Australia?

[whynot]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

But the world has apparently gone mad, and Australia is following as fast as it can.

It is easy to forget that the sole purpose of an automobile manufacturer is to make money for their shareholders. The more money the better. Not necessarily to win car races. Not necessarily to build vehicles we love. Not to support local jobs. Not necessarily to save the planet. Nor to pander to self-appointed “thought leaders”, “futurists”, or whatever self-promoting agenda that is popular this month with the elites.

For example, Toyota Japan reliably generates mountains of free cash (revenue $USD 312B, net income after tax $USD24.3B), with their Australian operations generating $342M after tax. Toyota have continued to develop their ICE technology, have had a solid history on PHEV technology, working on hydrogen, and eschewed EV to a large degree. Yet, according to the elites, thought leaders, et al, Toyota is going down the wrong path to the point that it is risking its financial future. But you cannot argue with the profit Toyota is making.

Love him or hate him or both, a person who is really focused on making money is Mr Musk. His global mission is to vacuum every stray dollar, sterling, euro, yen, and yuan renminbi out of consumers pocket into his own, so he can become Dear Leader of Mars. Musk’s approach to building cars is completely different, focusing entirely on EV technology. It has taken some painful development, but Tesla is starting to generate a nice free cash flow. Doing so against significant headwinds from big financers (who have tried a number of times to short the stock to destruction), unions (look at the shenanigans in Sweden), Marxist green eco-terrorist (sabotaging infrastructure that supplies Tesla plants in Germany), even the Biden Administration’s open hostility (well, that plan worked out great for the DNC). Despite all of this, Tesla has free cash flow and has a portfolio of technology (e.g. batteries, electric motors, AI) finding applications in related fields.

Ford Australia have bet the farm on the 4WD. So far, it has kept them afloat. But when the T6 Ranger was introduced into the Australia market, it was sneeringly panned by motoring journalists, left leaning journalists in general, the elites, etc. Too big. Too Americanised. Too thirsty on fuel, etc, etc. Yet the initial T6 platform has evolved to keep an entire operations going.

Three different car manufacturers making a profit. Three completely different approaches. Three companies who are told time and again that they are building “the wrong vehicle”.

Getting back to your initial concerns about having an EV forced down your throat in the future, I wouldn’t be as worried about that today as I was a few years back. One of the nice things about living in a democracy is that the (often silent) majority gets to have their say in the end. Look at what is happening politically, not only in America, but in Canada, Europe, and even more recently in the UK. Something as definitely snapped in western democracies the last few months, and the progressive elites know it. As people finally see the real hip-pocket price of certain environmental policies, the political support for such policies evaporates.

Are Ford of Australia facing an uncertain future? You bet they are. Look no further than the BYD Shark 6. That said, I am as clueless as anyone else on future market trends. But I do know that open and fair market competition of capitalist societies in Western democracies results in innovation, lower costs, and better products. Such an environment will force Ford (and other manufacturers) to innovate to survive, to the benefit of consumers. All one has to do is to ensure a fair playing field.

Whether our government continue to favour our open market economy or panders to certain hostile geo-political forces is a question that has to be answered before trying to figure out FoA’s future.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

I say Stage 5 emissions until Modi and Xi lift their games on a LOT of issues regarding that subject.

India and China are already at Euro6 equivalent. Thailand is, or will soon move to Euro6 equivalent. With Europe and North America already there, staying at Euro5 will mean we get fewer and fewer choices of new cars.

think what you want about climate change and Australia's part in reducing CO2 emissions, but do you really want us to remain the dumping ground for last gen cars that nobody else wants?

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by simon varley

India and China are already at Euro6 equivalent. Thailand is, or will soon move to Euro6 equivalent. With Europe and North America already there, staying at Euro5 will mean we get fewer and fewer choices of new cars.

think what you want about climate change and Australia's part in reducing CO2 emissions, but do you really want us to remain the dumping ground for last gen cars that nobody else wants?

If Vehicles cost less, Yes.

If “better quality” fuel (to comply) costs more, Yes

[whynot]

Originally Posted by simon varley

With Europe and North America already there, staying at Euro5 will mean we get fewer and fewer choices of new cars.

My understanding is that the move to Euro6 fuel supply is a little more complex that what is being portrayed in the media. For example, the Europeans are allowed to add Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) to their fuel to increase its octane rating and help emission reduction.

Whereas in Australia MTBE is banned due to possible long term health impacts via contamination of Australia's extensive groundwater supply.

Australia under Euro6 will be perhaps the only fuel supply market with low sulphur and no MTBE additive requirements. Technically, quite achievable, it just adds cost to the fuel.

So, European engine suppliers making statements about Euro5 preventing them from selling Euro6 engines are only telling part of the story. Whereas it appears (and I could stand corrected here) that the present levels of sulphur in Australia's fuel supply is perfectly OK for most Euro6 engines.

[jpd80]

The US removed MTBE from its fuels in 2006,
a case could be made for aligning fuel and
emission standards with them instead of EU

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by whynot

Whereas it appears (and I could stand corrected here) that the present levels of sulphur in Australia's fuel supply is perfectly OK for most Euro6 engines.

this is old, but valid

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/si...eport_2016.pdf

three way catalysts, oxygen sensors and NOx traps are all sensitive to
sulphur

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

If Vehicles cost less, Yes.

If “better quality” fuel (to comply) costs more, Yes

if anyone was still developing Euro5 cars, then you might have a point. Case in point the new Puma.

I didn't realise that as well as low sulphur fuel coming in now, we actually move to Euro6d next December with ADR79/05 ADR111/00 and ADR 112/00

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Just saw that the Northern Hemisphere has 70% of the world’s land mass and 90% of man made emissions.
The Southern hemisphere has 30% of the world’s land mass and 10% of man made emissions……

When it comes to exhaust emissions, we are literally a tiny freckle on the elephant’s bum

I sometimes wonder if the accelerated warming in the arctic is a result of the much greater concentration of greenhouse emissions in the northern hemi, given that the air in the two hemispheres doesn't mix a great deal. There's probably a number of feedback loops that spread the effect further and in complex ways though.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

If Vehicles cost less, Yes.



If “better quality” fuel (to comply) costs more, Yes

Welcome to the reason 99% of people buy EVs. Because they're cheaper to own and operate.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

I sometimes wonder if the accelerated warming in the arctic is a result of the much greater concentration of greenhouse emissions in the northern hemi, given that the air in the two hemispheres doesn't mix a great deal. There's probably a number of feedback loops that spread the effect further and in complex ways though.

I suspect that broadly that's true. In addition the arctic permafrost melts and releases methane which further accelerates the process. Typically in the southern hemisphere we have very little of that.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by kypez

Welcome to the reason 99% of people buy EVs. Because they're cheaper to own and operate.

Nope.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

If Vehicles cost less, Yes.

If “better quality” fuel (to comply) costs more, Yes

I agree,

Every time we introduce the next level emissions standards, light vehicle diesel engines get worse fuel economy, less reliable and way more expensive to fix.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

Nope.

You literally can't say Nope. I've attended EV conferences, been on panels and research. 99% of people vote with their wallet. They want EVs because they're cheaper than petrol/diesel to own and operate. It's as simple as that.

Just like you want policies that allow for cheap cars and cheap fuel, they buy wanting the same.

A very small minority actually buy for environmental reasons.

[jpd80]

The people who want EVs are free to buy them, all the regulations coming for ICE emissions
and penalties is intended to dissuade people from continuing to buy them.

If the change to BEVs will get quicker then let that process be driven by buyers not new laws.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The people who want EVs are free to buy them, all the regulations coming
ICE emissions and penalties is intended to dissuade people from continuing
to buy them.

The last thing we need is heavy handed government intervention because it thinks
the switch to BEVs isn’t going fast enough…..let the public make up their own mind.

Problem with the public is that many don't appreciate macro economics and they can't see beyond their nose. Older population doesn't help here either and many really believe the fake FB and WhatsApp forwards they receive. The level of intelligence is low.

If things go pear shaped, as most are predicting, the same public that were against EVs will be the ones jumping up and down that the govt should've helped them access them sooner.

Sometimes change needs to be forced. Govts did it indirectly with dual cab utes and the tax system.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by kypez

Sometimes change needs to be forced. Govts did it indirectly with dual cab utes and the tax system.

Funny how that's perfectly fine but when they do the same thing with EVs it's a big problem

[Rastas]

Anyway back to the main Topic ....... I give Ford Australia operating till about 2030 , by then even the mines wont save them - Ford USA get a few extra years but it's looking grim for them also as it is for all Legacy Autos world wide ...... it was a fun ride whilst it lasted for Ford - loved them as a kid and young Adult - but have honestly not thought too much of them post Falcon and currently happy to see the Ranger/Everest Company go the way of the Dodo - oh and Yes I am looking forward to buy a 1000 plus horsepower/ 30 speakers/ nappa leathered/ zero gravity vented seats/ 2000km plus range PHEV/ that will soon take under 10mins to fully charge for less than anything Ford or any of the other Legacy Autos have that even comes remotely close in comparison.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Rastas

Anyway back to the main Topic ....... I give Ford Australia operating till about 2030 , by then even the mines wont save them - Ford USA get a few extra years but it's looking grim for them also as it is for all Legacy Autos world wide ...... it was a fun ride whilst it lasted for Ford - loved them as a kid and young Adult - but have honestly not thought too much of them post Falcon and currently happy to see the Ranger/Everest Company go the way of the Dodo - oh and Yes I am looking forward to buy a 1000 plus horsepower/ 30 speakers/ nappa leathered/ zero gravity vented seats/ 2000km plus range PHEV/ that will soon take under 10mins to fully charge for less than anything Ford or any of the other Legacy Autos have that even comes remotely close in comparison.

We’ll have a Chinese CP Government by then.

[CyberWasp]

Who knows what the future brings for them.

I just see them squandering the position they have climbed up into.

Strike while the fire is hot.

No Maverick, Bronco, Explorer, ect ect.....just the chirp of crickets.

They have a dealer network that any of the Chinese Companies would die for and all they do is, well nothing to capatalise on their position.

[XD 351 Ute]

Originally Posted by kypez

Older population doesn't help here either and many really believe the fake FB and WhatsApp forwards they receive. The level of intelligence is low.

Any clues as to when this lower intelligence kicks in? I'm on the wrong side of 50, so want to be prepared for it!

As to the thread topic, yes, I think so. As a number of people have said, interest was lost once our Australian cars stopped being produced.

There's nothing out there that Ford or anyone makes, that I would consider, even if I could afford it.

Ed

[Sprintey]

If Ford brings the Maverick, Explorer, Bronco, Expedition etc - it's much better future for them. Give the choice and let the market decide.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by XD 351 Ute

Any clues as to when this lower intelligence kicks in? I'm on the wrong side of 50, so want to be prepared for it!



As to the thread topic, yes, I think so. As a number of people have said, interest was lost once our Australian cars stopped being produced.



There's nothing out there that Ford or anyone makes, that I would consider, even if I could afford it.



Ed

When you take FB and WhatsApp forwards as the truth, that's when you know you're there. Old thinking isn't attained only by age.

I wish Ford had cars that I wanted as well. A F150 Lightning would've been great as a factory option.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

If Ford brings the Maverick, Explorer, Bronco, Expedition etc - it's much better future for them. Give the choice and let the market decide.

Costs a lot of money if the market decides they don't want that product. As much as I love some of the cars you've mentioned, these would be niche products in Australia.

[Sprintey]

I reckon Explorer and Maverick would do quite well.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

I reckon Explorer and Maverick would do quite well.

Explorer, I'll give you that. Maverick might eat into Ranger so whilst it sells, would it open the doors to new customers?

Also, would they build them in Thailand or do the $20k premium LHD to RHD conversions?

I'd love an Expedition for the record.

[Sprintey]

That's the hard bit - GM failed on the Arcadia, but it was wrong-wheel drive and too big for wrong wheel drive. Explorer, especially ST is a much better car.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

That's the hard bit - GM failed on the Arcadia, but it was wrong-wheel drive and too big for wrong wheel drive. Explorer, especially ST is a much better car.

Isn't Explorer also FWD biased? Not like the older RWD biased ones we got all those years ago (I'm taking your comment to be FWD vs RWD or did you mean something else?).

[Sprintey]

Back in 2011 when Jeep landed the new Grand Cherokee, AUD was parity or beyond with USD, they priced it low 40's from memory and it was a very compelling value prospect. That would be the way to get sales, however USD is on a rampage at present, AUD is in the bin so it's a different market before conversion cost. There's probably not much inertia to do so.

As products they would work in Australia. Maybe a separate Australian assembly line given AUD is now worth peanuts

[Sprintey]

New Explorer motor points north-south so it's a RWD/AWD architecture again.

It's got a lot of Territory in the concept.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

New Explorer motor points north-south so it's a RWD/AWD architecture again.



It's got a lot of Territory in the concept.

Ah good. They last gen I drove torque steered like a pig