By on December 3, 2014

2015-ford-f-150-front-side-view-in-snow

Things are rough for Ford on Truck Mountain, with ground lost for the fourth consecutive month in November in a market-share situation that isn’t about to improve any time soon.

Automotive News reports sales fell 2 percent last month compared to the same time in 2013, with its market share in the United States diving to 14.3 percent from 15.3 percent in November 2013. The 2014 average holds at 15 percent, compared to 2013’s 15.9 percent through the first 11 months, while Ford experienced declines year over year every month this year except July.

One of the hardest-hit models was the F-150, which is undergoing its transition to aluminum, and affecting market share in so doing. 2015 models began shipping the week prior to Thanksgiving, with a handful arriving garages thus far. Vice president for U.S. marketing John Felice says inventory of the outgoing model remains sufficient, but adds that the company is maintaining a “delicate balance” with incentives until enough of the new trucks arrive on the lot. Overall inventory is at 79 days, down from 88 in October, and 89 in November 2013.

Throughout the range, every car model posted a decline in November except for the Mustang, whose sales jumped 62 percent that month, and the Police Interceptor Sedan. SUV sales fared better, with a 15 percent increase, while Lincoln posted a 21 percent boost, linked completely to the success of the MKC. Finally, the Transit reclaimed Flower Shop Lane this month, moving 373 more units over the Chevrolet Express.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

44 Comments on “Ford: Market Share Declines Will Continue Near-Term...”


  • avatar
    petezeiss

    Shouldn’t all 1/2 ton pickups, as life-style vehicles for most buyers, have hit a saturation point by now so a one or two percent fluctuation in market share as brands jockey around would be normal, not a “dive”?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Fullsize don’t account for even 15% of the market, if it weren’t for extremely high prices manufactures are imposing to pay for nominal gains in fuel economy, All 3 makers could surpass 1 million sales a year.

      As we saw with Ram in November, the market has a lot it can serve, but without low prices, it isn’t going to flourish.

      • 0 avatar
        petezeiss

        Well, yeah, you can sell anything if the price is low enough. But under present pricing circumstances, the pickup market seems to be a zero-sum game past the present cumulative share for all brands, no? So, saturation.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      The “new truck” demographic’s purchasing power differ from a pure macro view of the economy. Where/when non factory blue collar guys do relatively well, truck sales increase. Here in Cali, we’re now back to tearing down 5000 sqft 5 year old McMansions that noone bought, to replace them with 7500 sqft ones, because the old ones lacked a Tesla charger and didn’t look sufficiently like an Apple product. So truck buyer fortunes are up a bit.

      In North Dakota, I’m pretty sure even the laziest truck salesman in the state makes above the de facto minimum wage up there of $100K/year.

      At some point, Yellen will run out of ever stupider bankster wannabes to hand money to so they can fund expanding the size of homes intended for divorced empty nester boomers. Now too old to handle stairs. And all those Tesla Chargers may drop oil demand a bit. Then, the overall half ton market will shrink.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    hopefully the shine is starting to wear off on all the problematic, and unefficient ecoboosts they’re putting in everything.

    • 0 avatar
      petezeiss

      I’m stone ignorant here so this is not snark, but do you personally know anyone dissatisfied with a recent F-150 purchase due to Ecoboost problems?

      Seems that when it comes to trucks TTAC transfers its GM-hate to Ford. Is Ecoboost the main reason?

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I know someone that wasn’t happy with the gas mileage.

        However, I think the lower than expected fuel economy has more to do with adding aftermarket offroad tires, a brush bar, cab mounted lights, etc.

        The no replacement for displacement and diesel truck jihad are united in one thing: their hate for the Ford ecoboost engines in trucks. Consumers like them enough to buy them more often than the V8s Ford offers.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Not any longer, having a failure at highway speed with vehicles behind you at highway speed kinda wears off the love.

        Ford has the 5.0 V8, the 5.4 forever has a bad rep due to plug problems, and they’ve proven they cannot make the 6.2l as efficient as GMs 6.2l. So then there’s ecoboost, promising V6 fuel economy with V8 power, unfortunately they leave out the Engines Land Rover like reliability. And even more unfortunately the fuel economy isn’t being reported as decent.
        The old Truck looks pretty good, the lack of development on the 6.2 is saddening, but here comes round two for ecoboost F150. A V6 with the displacement of a 4 cyclinder that must move a fullsize truck.

        • 0 avatar
          petezeiss

          “the Engines Land Rover like reliability.”

          Is that a documented, well known fact or a Hummer Projection?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I’d prefer you looked it up over assuming what I say is true/false.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            A cursory scan makes it look like Ecoboost sucks and will continue to do so because physics.

            Even after the stumbling issue was/is solved, no way a little engine in a heavy vehicle will be able to stay off boost enough to deliver the advertised FE. Sound right?

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            According to Truedelta, Ecoboost reliability is about average, and improving year-on-year (2011 is slightly worse than average, later years are slightly better than average).

            Ecoboost reliability doesn’t seem like a major issue, and it certainly hasn’t affected sales.
            Predictions of an Ecoboost apocalypse have been wrong until now. Of course that may change once these trucks migrate to their third or fourth owners and oil changes become just a distant memory (never mind synthetic oil!).

            I could be interpreting this wrong. Could be that Hummer is giving Land Rover kudos for their greatly improved reliability scores (ever since they dropped the Buick-designed aluminum V8 10+ years ago).

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            So they’ll run OK but only deliver the FE of the bigger engine they were meant to obsolete?

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            Petezeiss,

            Motor Trend found that the new Ecoboost delivers better fuel economy and power than the Chevy V8, so that’s one datapoint.

            On the other hand, there’s a couple of regulars here that swear up and down that Ecoboost delivers poor fuel economy, although they won’t admit to having owned one or driven one.

            I suspect that a lot of this is just good-ole Ford vs. Chevy vs. Ram banter. Same as ever.

          • 0 avatar
            petezeiss

            Thanks, hh.

            I’m interested because a small turbo that performs as advertised would make me look at pickups again. I’ve never stopped loving them, just got sick of $100+ tankfulls back in ’08.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I’ve driven it, the power is great, driving it with a heavy foot, as I do with everything when doing short (<1 hour) runs, I achieved 13.9 MPG, admittedly better than my DD, but worse than any other modern 1/2 I've driven with the same driving style.
            I would certainly hope a V6 achieved better MPG than a V8, but personal experience says otherwise.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @heavy handle – agreed.
            I know a few guys with 3.5 EB engines. One is a building contractor and the other pulls wrenches for the railroad. The contractor fellow is admittedly a lead foot and says mpg is on par with any V8 he has ever driven but he loves the power which in his mind is all that matters.
            The other bought it to replace his Cummins Ram. It is his daily driver and once a month pulls a 10k camper trailer. He says towing mpg is on par with other V8’s and empty mpg is superior to any V8 he has driven.
            Both have not reported any problems.

            I had an EB 3.5 loaner last winter for 9 days. That was through some bad weather. 1 blizzard followed by a weird rain shower then another blizzard then -25C weather. No hick-ups or any other issue. It was as hard on fuel as any other truck I have driven BUT I did deliberately run it harder than I would drive my own truck.

          • 0 avatar
            CCH

            the engine reliability thing is nonsense, i put 70k hard miles on a 2011 EB F150, the engine never once even gave a hint of a problem however i did have some minor issues with some of the fit and finish on the truck, that seems to happen on Ford products regardless of model. For the fuel economy my average came out to 15.6 mpg, that included a lot of city driving and some towing, the tundra (5l v8) i had before that and the 250(6.2l v8) im driving this minute both average in the 12-13 mpg range with the same kind of driving, the F150 eb is by far the most fun to drive of the 3, hope that helps!

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          I haven’t heard the 5.0 has spark plug issues. Not even an interwebs meme. The 5.4 is the main culprit, but the fixes are cheap and easy now, thanks to the aftermarket (repair kits).

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I meant it to read,
            Ford has the 5.0l(proven, reliable, loved){on the other hand}, the 5.4l…

          • 0 avatar
            Wheeljack

            Ford hasn’t used the old (proven, reliable, loved) “Windsor” 5.0L in an F-series truck since 1996. The newer 5.0L truck engine is of course derived from the Mustang engine, and only started being used in the F-150 in 2011, so it has a long way to go to build up a reputation like the old Windsor 5.0L.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      It’s not.

      The 3.5EB killed the 6.2L. If the shine was wearing off, that, or introducing a smaller V6 turbo in the F150, wouldn’t have happened.

    • 0 avatar
      DinosaurWine

      Keep hoping. I’ve got one, it does pretty well on fuel and absolutely spanks GM’s volume engine in power while making similar fuel economy. The Ford 5.0 is OK but I felt like I had to rev the nuts off of it to get it to move.

      Sorry, but CAFE fines and high gas prices killed the Ford 6.2, and aside from you not many people are willing to stomach 14 mpg on the highway. Also, having done the math, at $3.50/gallon I could afford to buy a whole new EcoBoost long block with my fuel savings alone after 200,000 miles, so the “long term reliability” argument is pretty moot.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Ford will continue to be very proud of the old ’14s, so don’t expect huge rebate just yet. Or at all. Huge rebates on the ’15s? Keep holding your breath!

    The long changeover and retool means ’15 production will come up 90,000 F-150s short. And no reason to rebate the hell out of them.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Yup Ford will be keeping the discounts low for at least the next few months, and with the short supply of the new trucks the sales are likely to be down a bit. However in the long run they will be doing better on profit per truck than those that are offering 20% off or $10K plus discounts.

  • avatar
    frozenman

    That 2015 will be a nice looking unit when they get around to fixing the god awful grill/headlamps, IMHO of course.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    Too much eco-junk, and not enough NA engines. Prices are too high too.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Apparently the people who actually buy new trucks disagree. Ford never expected the ecoboost to sell as well as it is but that is what a huge chunk of the buyers actually buy, and without the need for massive discounts that the other guys are offering on their trucks.

  • avatar
    Fordson

    Going to take a flyer here…

    From what I have seen, the 3.5 Ecoboost is more powerful than say a Chevy 5.3L V8. Comparable dynos show an advantage of 305+ to 320 hp and 325+ to around 355 lb/ft or torque in the Ford’s favor, also the powerband is much broader at the low end.

    When you put your foot in them, the Ford is faster (performs more work = horsepower).

    So when people put their foot in them, they may get worse fuel economy.

    That is because it takes more fuel to perform more work. No free lunch.

    I would imagine that if these two trucks lined up and drove at equal speeds, equal rates of acceleration, deceleration etc. they would probably get the same mileage, however, if driven hard the Ford will get worse mileage…but it would also go faster.

    Why is this a surprise to anyone here?

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      And a broader powerband at the low end is what you want in a truck. The only thing the eco-boost v6 needs to prove to me is that it can go the long haul (years & miles) without major/expensive engine repairs. They just haven’t been out long enough to say either way.

      Performance wise they flat out spank any of the NA V8 1/2 ton trucks offered by the other manufacturers, especially when towing. With that comes the ability to return better fuel economy when not being put to work. What’s not to like?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Fordson – the EB 3.5 that I drove did not seem to respond well to heavy handed (footed) inputs. There is a 1.5 mile 7% grade I drive almost every day. If you mash the peddle to the floor on the EB 3.5 it will easily rev beyond 4k but the sweet spot in the power band is bellow 4k. I found that I could get better acceleration up that hill by rolling on the power and preventing a downshift. In some respects the EB 3.5 power delivery felt very similar to my 5.4 V8 except there was much more power. Even briefly lifting on the gas to cause an upshift then reapplying the gas felt better than foot meet floor.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Lou_BC, I currently have parked at my house a 2014 all-black 4-dr 4×4 EB F150 Platinum.

        No, I did not go bonkers and trade my Tundra 5.7.

        What it is: the truck belongs to Nguyen, my assistant who asked me to take him to the airport in El Paso, TX, and then park the truck at my house because his wife works and he doesn’t want his truck to be left unattended at his house in Tularosa, 40 miles north of me while she is away working.

        So after he drove us to the airport, I drove it home and parked it.

        The bottom line? I didn’t care for it. Given the choice I’d still buy my 5.7L V8 Tundra all over again.

        When I step on the gas pedal of my Tundra, the truck moves NOW. With the EB, from a dead stop it accelerates very fast through the gears, but at speed, like going from 55mph to 85mph on US54, acceleration gradually builds, even if you tromp the gas pedal.

        Just my two cents. I have no dog in this fight. I hope the Tundra 5.7 will still be available for MY2016. No EB for me.

      • 0 avatar
        Fordson

        Lou_BC – that sounds a lot like transmission shift map tuning to me. Also there is the fact that you had the truck for 9 days. Now, I would hope that would be enough time for the adaptive tranny mapping to learn your driving style, but maybe not – I don’t know how the guy who had it before you drove it.

        When the 10-speed comes out, that will be a major improvement.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @highdesertcat – if I had to replace my truck at this point in time I’d try to get an F150 SuperCrew with 2,300 lb max cargo and a 5.0. Everything I’ve read says the 5.0 has a bit more “oomph” off the line. I prefer that kind of power off-roading or in poor conditions.

    I’m interested in the Colorado diesel when that comes out. I bought a full sized truck because we were planning on getting a camper trailer that was at the limits for most small trucks. Plans have changed and I’d be more interested in a more off road capable tent trailer.

    The competition in the pickup segment is great for truck buyers that can look beyond badge loyalty.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States