TTAC Data Dive: Ford Monthly Sales From 2003-Present

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: July 21st, 2009

ttac data dive ford monthly sales from 2003 present

Ford got a whole lotta love around here yesterday for agreeing to hook up TTAC’s staff with better press fleet access. Though the move shows that Ford is more willing to face the truth than its Detroit competition, the announcement generated perhaps a bit more optimism about the firm’s fortunes than the data warrants. One commenter got so carried away by the good vibes that he opined “the Ford brand pretty much has a good car in every segment there is, with the exception of the minivan.” Not quite. Let’s turn to our XLS spreadsheets of Ford monthly sales since 2003, shall we? [Thanks to bumpy ii for the spreadsheet]

Ford has never come close to selling the 500 in old Taurus volumes. In fact, one of Ford’s oldest products, the Crown Victoria/Towncar/Grand Marquis, has been about as competitive sales-wise as the 500/Taurus (and has to be more profitable). Only time will tell if the refreshed Taurus will be the full-size sedan hit that has eluded Ford since the Taurus name was discontinued. There’s no sign of a turnaround yet.

Similarly, the Flex is off to a slow start. Though its sales show steady growth, Ford’s stab at the alterna-MPV segment is miles away from the kind of volume that the saggy Windstar used to push. The question facing the Flex is whether its sales will keep ramping up or top out at 5-6 thousand units per month for a year or so and then fall away, as was the case with Freestyle/Taurus X.

On the SUV front, the Escape is the name of the game. Although far longer in tooth than the Edge CUV, the Escape is proving the more resilient model. Edge was slaughtered by rising gas prices last summer, and has been slow to recover. Escape sales took less of a hit, and bounced back faster and stronger. Not that anything has made up for the giant sucking sound that used to be Explorer and Expedition sales.

Focus sales haven’t been the same since the Fusion was introduced. Sure, there have been a few good months, but demand has been especially inconsistent since the latest North America-only “restyle.” The Fusion did add sales in a segment that Ford had largely abandoned, but wasn’t a consistent 15k/month+ seller . . . until the recent refresh. It’s safe to say (for now, anyway) that the new Fusion is a legitimate hit. Only the F-150 outsells it, and only the Escape comes close.

Mercury and Lincoln are a wasteland. Full stop. A few thousand Fusion rebadges per month, the Mariner and the MKX are the only models that register. Sure, they represent extra profit, but the rebadge game can’t last forever. On the other hand, Volvo does have unique product and is doing even worse. The premium game hasn’t been good to Ford.

On the other hand, Ford has the skeleton of a solid product lineup for its Ford brand. If Fusion stays in demand, adding the Fiesta and the Euro Focus could give Ford the most promising American small-car lineup in, well, forever? Meanwhile, if the F-150 stays solid and the Ranger finally gets a major update, Ford could be remarkably well positioned. There are lots of “ifs” to all of this, but if you’re looking for optimism in Detroit, Ford is easily as good as it gets.

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 33 comments

Rnc on Jul 22, 2009

Not smart to issue debt, smart to finance with loans from banks, which can and will be refinanced over and over again. GM used debt issuance (bonds, very unflexable, lots of owners) to pay for unfunded liabilities, Ford used loans (banks, flexable, terms and rates can be changed and changed again, very few orginizations to deal with and they have an incentive to help you when things go bad) to reorganize/modernize for company (alot of these monies were used to keep it going, but not the orginal intent of). This was the stroke of genuis (or luck) on thier part not the debt raised but what kind of debt, they could have issued debt at that time period and wouldn't have had any problem doing it, if they had, they would have been part of the bail out. For decades Japanese and European companies used bank debt over bond issuances and in US business schools this was mocked (basically a control thing, issue debt you still control your destiney, loans the banks have you), there was a reason for them doing that, it was flexability.

Like Reply
Th009 on Jul 22, 2009

Corporate bank debt will typically have covenants (based on balance sheet metrics, operating profit etc) as well; if you do not meet the covenants, the bank can call the loan. Bonds or bank loans, either way a company has debt it has to service and manage.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Thankfully I don't have to deal with GDI issues in my Frontier. These cleaners should do well for me if I win.
Theflyersfan Serious answer time...Honda used to stand for excellence in auto engineering. Their first main claim to fame was the CVCC (we don't need a catalytic converter!) engine and it sent from there. Their suspensions, their VTEC engines, slick manual transmissions, even a stowing minivan seat, all theirs. But I think they've been coasting a bit lately. Yes, the Civic Type-R has a powerful small engine, but the Honda of old would have found a way to get more revs out of it and make it feel like an i-VTEC engine of old instead of any old turbo engine that can be found in a multitude of performance small cars. Their 1.5L turbo-4...well...have they ever figured out the oil dilution problems? Very un-Honda-like. Paint issues that still linger. Cheaper feeling interior trim. All things that fly in the face of what Honda once was. The only thing that they seem to have kept have been the sales staff that treat you with utter contempt for daring to walk into their inner sanctum and wanting a deal on something that isn't a bare-bones CR-V. So Honda, beat the rest of your Japanese and Korean rivals, and plug-in hybridize everything. If you want a relatively (in an engineering way) easy way to get ahead of the curve, raise the CAFE score, and have a major point to advertise, and be able to sell to those who can't plug in easily, sell them on something that will get, for example, 35% better mileage, plug in when you get a chance, and drives like a Honda. Bring back some of the engineering skills that Honda once stood for. And then start introducing a portfolio of EVs once people are more comfortable with the idea of plugging in. People seeing that they can easily use an EV for their daily errands with the gas engine never starting will eventually sell them on a future EV because that range anxiety will be lessened. The all EV leap is still a bridge too far, especially as recent sales numbers have shown. Baby steps. That's how you win people over.
Theflyersfan If this saves (or delays) an expensive carbon brushing off of the valves down the road, I'll take a case. I understand that can be a very expensive bit of scheduled maintenance.
Zipper69 A Mini should have 2 doors and 4 cylinders and tires the size of dinner plates.All else is puffery.
Theflyersfan Just in time for the weekend!!! Usual suspects A: All EVs are evil golf carts, spewing nothing but virtue signaling about saving the earth, all the while hacking the limbs off of small kids in Africa, money losing pits of despair that no buyer would ever need and anyone that buys one is a raging moron with no brains and the automakers who make them want to go bankrupt.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Usual suspects B: All EVs are powered by unicorns and lollypops with no pollution, drive like dreams, all drivers don't mind stopping for hours on end, eating trays of fast food at every rest stop waiting for charges, save the world by using no gas and batteries are friendly to everyone, bugs included. Everyone should torch their ICE cars now and buy a Tesla or Bolt post haste.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Or those in the middle: Maybe one of these days, when the charging infrastructure is better, or there are more options that don't cost as much, one will be considered as part of a rational decision based on driving needs, purchasing costs environmental impact, total cost of ownership, and ease of charging.(Source: many on this site who don't jump on TTAC the split second an EV article appears and lives to trash everyone who is a fan of EVs.)