By on October 27, 2015

2016 Ford F-150 Limited

Ford Motor Company said Tuesday that the company posted its most profitable third quarter driven by pickup sales in North America.

According to Ford CEO Mark Fields, F-150 transaction prices were up $2,800 for the third quarter in 2015 compared to the same period last year and dealers were reporting full stocks of trucks, up from this year’s shortage.

Fields stopped short of saying the new F-150 was more profitable than the outgoing generation, but said the truck was contributing — not taking away from — the company’s record profit. Representatives said high-margin cars such as the Edge, Mustang and Explorer also contributed to pre-tax profit of $2.7 billion last quarter.

Automotive News reported that Ford’s U.S. sales increased 11 percent in the third quarter, beating the industry’s 6.2 percent average.

The company reported a $1.9 billion net income for the three months ending in September, more than double last year’s result from the same period. Global revenue was up 9 percent for the automaker

Ford’s operating margins in North America rose to 11.3 percent — much higher than 7.3 percent for the third quarter last year — and helped carry losses in other worldwide markets. Worldwide, the company said its market share increased 0.3 percent to 7.6 percent.

The automaker narrowed its losses worldwide in South America, Europe and Middle East and Africa. Ford posted a small gain in Asia, which it said would deliver a better-than-expected year, despite an economic slowdown in China.

The company said it expects a slower fourth quarter this year and would adjust its overall profitability this year from 8.5 to 9.5 percent.

Representatives from Ford said contract negotiations would be reflected in fourth quarter financials, including one-time “ratification” bonuses that the company may pay workers, like Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and General Motors.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

69 Comments on “Ford Posts Most Profitable Quarter in North America, Driven By Truck Sales...”


  • avatar

    BIG vehicles with BIGGER ENGINES and AUTOMATIC Transmissions.

    Why am I not surprised?

    This is MURICA.

    Either cater to MURICAN’ needs or suffer sales decline.

    Keep your globalist nonsense out of ma’ borders.

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      Is that your explanation for the reason why Ford’s results were lower than expectations?

      • 0 avatar

        The reason EVERYONE’s sales are lower is because a large portion of this country is neck deep in debt (read: most of the country) and Ford ain’t cheap.

        So unless Santander is handing out 144-month car loans at 20% interest…

      • 0 avatar
        Higheriq

        Wall Street has three classifications: 1. lower than expectations, 2. met expectations, and 3. exceeded expectations.

        In Ford’s case, “lower than expectations” amounted to one penny on earnings per share. One whole penny.

    • 0 avatar
      johnhowington

      hogwash.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Well the contradictory aspect of your claims relative to the high sales is just how many of the trucks have V6s (ecoboost 2.7, 3.5, NA 3.5) rather than V8s.

      But in general I agree, if it isn’t hurting their pocketbook daily (high gas prices), Americans as a general rule of thumb buy the biggest, most powerful vehicle available to them. Not going to lie, I’m seriously coming around to the idea of a crew-cab fullsize pickup truck as my next vehicle. And yes most of its use percent-wise will be commuting to and from work with a bed full of air, sue me :)

      • 0 avatar
        Firestorm 500

        It’s your money. Get whatever you want.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Well over 1/2 of F150 pickup’s sold have V6 engines in them.

        Other than physical dimensions full sized crewcab trucks are extremely versatile. I like the smaller trucks but they just don’t have the room in the back for a family unless your kids are under 10 years old.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          My oldest kid is 9 years old… and weighs less than 15 pounds.
          My next oldest kid is 8 years old… and weighs about 55 pounds.
          My youngest kid is 1.5 years old… and weighs about 8 pounds.
          — They all walk on four paws. And only the middle kid ever takes a ride in my car or trucks on any kind of a regular basis.

          Guess what.
          A) I don’t need or want crew cab.
          B) I don’t need or want full sized.
          My ideal is an extended cab that’s lower, shorter and narrower than even the current Colorado/Canyon.
          I’m driving a practically-new ’97 Ranger regular cab with just over 21,000 miles on it. You’d be surprised how well that little 2.3L four does; giving me over 21mpg city/mixed driving and very probably over 27mpg highway if I drive it the way I normally drive. It’s enough for my needs but lacks the extended cab that I want.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            If the ranger was in production when I purchased my truck, I would not be driving a F150. Honestly, I think the Canyon and Colorado is a sweet spot when it comes to versatility and size. I’m not going to be towing a 28′-32′ boat in the near future (though I hope I’m incorrect).

            That ranger platform is the most utilitarian tool for the job, and that’s what makes it so charming.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I get the Ranger love too. The new one might be a bit big for you Vulpine since it’s about the same size as the Canyorado. Maybe you should take a sawz-all to a Transit Connect.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @bball40dtw: “I get the Ranger love too. The new one might be a bit big for you Vulpine since it’s about the same size as the Canyorado. Maybe you should take a sawz-all to a Transit Connect.”

            Based on some pretty strong rumors, there could be three or four different vehicles coming in at that smaller size; one from Hyundai, one (or maybe two) from FCA and a possible one from GM as either a Chevy, GMC or both. FCA’s version would be either the Ram 700 (name based on actual payload capacity, not gross weight figures) or the Fiat Strada which has a crossover look but an open bed. The Chevy/GM version would be the Montana/Tornado and the Hyundai is the Santa Cruz. Again, these are only rumors, but they have been seen on US soil at least for the FCA and Hyundai and the FCA models have been apparently getting road tested in Michigan. There’s also rumor that FCA may choose a Mitsubishi platform that would be a bit bigger but perhaps more aerodynamic looking than even the Chevy Colorado. Any one of these could appear in showrooms in the next couple of years.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’ve seen the FCA and Hyundai small pickups in my travels around the Detroit area. Hyundai has a large facility in Ann Arbor that is a global engineering center and FCA has all kinds of weird stuff running around. I don’t take too much away from seeing something around here because in the last few years I have seen the following: Alfa Giulietta, Focus wagon, Fusion wagon, Ford B-Max, Ford Ranger, Hyundai pickup, Hyundai Equus L, Ford Everest, Buick Envision, stretched Fusion, stretched Jeep Renegade, weird Lotus thing, next Expedition, new Volt, my neighbor’s CT6, my other neighbors probably Fusion ST, next Caravan, and a bunch of other goofy stuff that I don’t know what to make of.

            It would be nice to have those smaller trucks as an option, even if they don’t sell in huge numbers.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Oh, I won’t argue your observations, bball, but how many of them have any rumor mill working around them? The Hyundai, the Ford Ranger and the different FCA trucklets have that rumor mill, making them seem a little more viable than those other concepts.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It depends. Some things are for sure, like a Buick CUV, Expedition, Volt, CT6, stretched Renegade, Caravan, etc. Some things I know we aren’t getting, like the B-Max, Focus/Fusion wagon, or MiTo. The trucks fall in between. Also, I haven’t seen a Bronco around, but it’s happening. But that is because it’s not simply a Ford Everest/Ranger SUV.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Vulpine – I’ve owned a Reg cab Ranger 4×4, a Ranger extended cab 4×4, a reg cab F250 4×4, and now a F150 crew.
            The Ranger extended cab is useless if you plan on carrying a family of 4 safely. The jump seats are way too small for baby seats or high back boosters. The reg cab Ranger can only safely fit one in a car seat. The reg cab F250 could fit 2 passengers much more easily than the Ranger.

            I looked closely at both the new Colorado and the last gen Tacoma. If I set the front seat to where I’m happy there is marginal room in the rear. My boys are currently 5’5″ 120 lb and 5’7″ 140lb both with size 8 1/2 feet. I’ve sat them in both the Tacoma and Colorado. Add to that a 78lb chocolate lab and a 12lb rat dog and these trucks just don’t cut it.

            I routinely use my truck for carrying the entire family. It is the vehicle of choice for camping and any night driving. I’d rather play critter tag with the F150 than with my Sienna. in bad weather the F150 is also the preferred vehicle.

            If I was single I’d buy a smaller truck or if my kids were no longer at home.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Don’t worry about it. You’re just the type that has to be swimming upstream constantly. If you were in Switzerland or something, you’d be pining away for some heavy American iron (or aluminum). An F-150 crew cab for example. So why fight it? Adapt to your environment, and you’ll live a better, stress free life.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            bball,
            I do think the Ranger is the better of the Ford pickups. For several reasons.

            First, I has exceed Ford’s expectations in sales and popularity.

            Second, Ford is commanding an inflated price for them, sort of Toyota style. You are paying too much for a Ranger. The BT50 is your best bet if you want value for money with the “Ranger”.

            Third, I do think Ford should of used the Ranger chassis as the basis for the new F-150 and more or less made an enlarged Ranger.

            Ford should offer the 3.2 in the new F-150 (not the Lion V6). Ford should of also made a more gradual move into aluminium, ie, bed, doors, etc. with the Ranger platform as the basis.

            Ford could of produced a very competitive pickup far cheaper. As for payload the Ranger chassis will accept a load of around 3 400lbs.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – 3 400 lbs load? Ranger?? On what lawless island??? Your payload limits are left up the truck maker’s sense of humour!

            But of course you’re talking a regular-cab stripper Ranger, 4 cyl gas engine and a stripped of the bed too, cab-chassis of course. Meaning the weight of the missing bed got added to its *payload*.

            So what’s new?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            That’s fully my point, Lou_BC; I DON’T plan on carrying a family of four, whether it be safely or not. The back seats will be covered in hair shed from a dog if there’s any passengers at all in the back. I want the space to carry THINGS, not people. Things that I don’t want to leave out in the weather during the winter, like my bowling balls going back and forth from league and tournaments. Things like Christmas gifts when I go shopping without the wife. And things like my battery-powered tools when I need to help someone with a minor construction or landscaping project. I simply do not need the seats as anything more than a shelf to separate lightweight items from heavier items to avoid damaging them.

            The added room behind the seats also makes it easier for longer-legged drivers, as you so clearly point out. Since I have no people to carry in a back seat, the extended cab is the ideal configuration for me with the suicide-style half-doors far more practical than the front-hinged style on the Ram and GM full-sized extended cabs. (I know why they went that way, but they could have kept the suicide doors and made little difference with the B-pillar still supporting the roof. It’s a matter of practical design.)

            I may occasionally–very, very rarely–carry a third person in my vehicles. When I do, the trip is very short and extreme comfort for that third person is not a priority.

            Again, I neither need nor want a large truck; though I fully understand that some do. I never had a large family; I never will have a large family. So the excuse that you need it for a large family falls flat on my ears, as it does on the ears of so many people I know. Maybe, if I had a Great Dane or two German Shepard Dogs I’d have a practical use for a crew cab. But I don’t and I won’t, so I don’t need one.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Denver, I’m a fox, not a sheep. All my life I’ve been swimming upstream and perhaps surprising to you, I’ve been very well satisfied by doing so. I’ve helped the world to change by being at the forefront of that change and adding my input. I’ve also seen how business itself has changed, with a few notable exceptions, for the worse; products and brands that used to be American and global icons gone, or so degraded as to have no practical value any more.

            If something is different from the ‘norm’, there’s a very good chance that I’ve been involved in that change one way or another.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – You prefer the environment adapts to YOU, and that’s fine and all, and good luck with that. But meanwhile I’ll just keep enjoying what’s offered and not look back.

            I will say rarely is anything I buy, 100% the way I would prefer it done. So I modify it, or can be 99% happy enough.

            End of day, they’re just products. I’ve got better things to obsess about.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “End of day, they’re just products. I’ve got better things to obsess about.”

            Obsessing over straw-manning me and those like me is not healthy. I strongly recommend seeking help before you become the sterotypical little old man yelling, “Get off of my lawn!” to the kids.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Vulpine – Don’t ask if you’re gonna blast anyone with solutions you don’t like. Sometimes it’s easier to make small adjustments in one’s self than trying to change an industry. Or take one that’s is for sale to the guy with the sawzall and blowtorch.

            Thing is, OEMs don’t like the American tiny pickup buyer. There’s not much money in it to begin with, and if anything’s an inch too short or too long/wide for you guys, no sale. It’s a lose/lose situation for the OEM.

            So suck it up.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @DM: “Vulpine – Don’t ask if you’re gonna blast anyone with solutions you don’t like.”
            — Who’s asking? I’ve been DEMANDING a smaller, truly smaller, truck for over 10 years now.

            “Sometimes it’s easier to make small adjustments in one’s self than trying to change an industry.”
            — Which is why I’m letting the Federal regulations do it for me.

            “Thing is, OEMs don’t like the American tiny pickup buyer.”
            — Of course not. They wouldn’t get the HUGE profits they make off of the full sized trucks. But…

            “There’s not much money in it to begin with, and if anything’s an inch too short or too long/wide for you guys, no sale.”
            — There’s apparently more money in it than you believe, as small trucks in another form have taken over the automotive market… or at least, what they call trucks.

            “It’s a lose/lose situation for the OEM.”
            — Nope. It’s a win-win as they get to pull more people into an open-bed vehicle that offers more profit than a closed-body vehicle in today’s market. Despite all your whinging about the so-called mini-truck mafia, for some strange reason smaller trucks ARE coming to the US. the GM C-twins are proving it as is Hyundai’s Santa Cruz. It’s just a matter of time.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I’m doing some very strange/creative cross-shopping: new Outback 2.5i Premium ($26-27kish), new 4Runner Trail ($33-34kish), new/lightly used quad cab short/bed truck (Ford,Ram,Chevy,Nissan, Toyota) for anywhere from $28-35k.

          I like to go dirt road exploring, camping with my SO and dogs, canoeing, I do long drives to see family in all sorts of weather conditions, I occasionally need to tow a trailer to transport a motorcycle. In the not so distant future I foresee adding child ferrying to that list. Any of the above options would accomplish just about anything on that list of activities, it’s more a question of which one does which activities best, and what do I weigh more in my decision.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I think the 4Runner is the right answer for you.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            You’re probably right. As fate would have it, I was handed the keys to a nice red SR5 to drive home from Chicago on Sunday. Man, what a nice highway cruiser compared to my ’96! Nice and soft suspension compared to my very taut third gen, albeit more nose dive to deal with as well with the new truck. Really good NVH too, relative to my noisy-as-hell ’12 Civic and 20 year old 4Runner anyways. It just felt so “right” to sit in and drive. It was refreshing to drive a 4Runner that was so relaxing on the highway compared to my own truck, where I’m constantly in a state of paranoia feeling for new vibrations, sounds, and smells. My average over the 3 hour interstate drive was 20.3 mpg, that’s right in line with what my old one gets, but with a lot more weight and 100 more hp. Having said all that, I have so many memories associate with my old one that it will be nearly impossible to let go I think. I may do the completely illogical and end up with a new 4Runner and keeping my old one, we’ll see. I’m also sitting on my hands at the moment waiting whether I will be house-shopping next spring, I’d rather not mess with my credit or debt/income ratio by making a $35k purchase shortly before buying a home.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I shall wait patiently for the Bronco.

            Or get bored with my C-Max before the Bronco comes out and buy a Mustang.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I’d definitely consider a modern Bronco if they sold one, with a roll-down window equipped tailgate please!

            Xterras are just a bit small for my needs, if they could just stick it in the copier set to 130% enlargement and kept all the mechanicals except for rear leaf springs the same, that’d be my perfect truck I think.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Is buying a used 4Runner even worth it? I can’t imagine that a two year old 4Runner has lost much value.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Re: buying lightly used 4Runners

            Definitely not, it is laughably close to the price that can be negotiated on a new one. I’d only consider a 2014+ for the improved interior and better bumper angles, and the cheapest of those are ex-rental SR5s that are advertised at $30k with 30k+ miles. Horrible deal seeing as a brand new 2016 SR5 can be had for about $32k after negotiation, a Trail for $33k.

          • 0 avatar
            BobinPgh

            Vulpine, if you are “swimming upstream” it’s a lot easier when you tuck yourself into a Speedo. Just ask Thom.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @BobinPgh: I’m fine in my fur, Bob. I would suggest reading an article titled Woodland Wizards from a 1983 outdoor magazine, but I haven’t been able to find a copy for my own collection. Let’s just say foxes know how to get things done–even when they’re seemingly impossible.

      • 0 avatar
        IHateCars

        I’m with ya, Dude. Join the club until we have to be driven in transpo-pods.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    So, Al is a win?

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Well it isn’t hurting Ford. Plus, things they learned about Al will end up on the SuperDuty, Expedition/Navigator and Explorer/Aviator and probably other vehicles. By 2020, Ford will probably have sold around 3+ million aluminum bodied vehicles. It’s not like they lack scale for this changeover.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I hope they worked through Al corrosion issues in their development work. Hate to see too many eggs in one basket and an unplanned oopsie occur on the 2015s down the line.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        GM and Fiat are swarming the aluminum fastener suppliers. So GM’s patented aluminum joining processes are turning out to be bull sh*t.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I think the CT6 uses that bullsh*t aluminum joining process. Smells like success already.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          They are still using self piercing rivets and fasteners on the CT6, along with some aluminum spot and laser welding. I can’t figure out why JdN is trying to make it seem like something else.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            I wonder where their laser joining application is?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Probably running the fricking laser beams on the shark’s heads inside the RenCen.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            From diagrams, it looks like some of the aluminum seams they are laser welding are on the roof from A to C pillar. When they are joining aluminum and steel, it appears they are most often using rivets. They also have almost 600 feet of structural adhesive in the CT6.

            It’s almost like the CT6’s unibody structure has an aluminum shell over steel and bones.

            http://www.sae.org/servlets/dlymags/dailymag/articleImage.jsp?imgsrc=http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/13986_21538_ACT.jpg&alttxt=Cadillac-CT6-Structure.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Interesting. Where do you pull these diagrams?

            Edit: I now see the link. I am daft.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If it helps, I added it later, so you may have not refreshed the page.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    What, no posts on how Ford is doomed because of its dependency on fullsize truck profits?

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      It’s not morning yet in Australia. The usual suspect will be choking on his Vegemite toast soon enough.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Why post on something so obvious and understood?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      APaGttH,
      Sorry I just awoke.

      This article if it is true still doesn’t sway me to thinking Ford has made the best possible move by going to aluminium.

      1. Nowhere does it state that the sales are due to the aluminium F-150.

      2. SuperDuty sales have kept pace proportionally with GM’s S twins in increasing sales numbers. This has a negative impact on F-150 numbers.

      3. Many of the aluminium F-150 sales were higher end pickups.

      I wonder how many have taken this into account?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Big Al from Oz –

        1. “Fields stopped short of saying the new F-150 was more profitable than the outgoing generation, but said the truck was contributing — not taking away from — the company’s record profit.”

        “NOT TAKING AWAY FROM”
        2.
        I’ve mentioned this before but if you look at capacities there isn’t much difference in capacity between a F250 and F150 with HD cargo package. Fleets loyal to Ford would obviously go to F250’s over F150’s. It WAS well documented that Ford left F150 fleet spec trucks to later in the year.

        Citation required………..

        3. that is just good business. Why sell low margin fleet spec trucks first?

        I wonder if you take anything else into account?

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Lou,
          Selling a much larger proportion of SuperDutys alone by Ford will increase the average transaction price.

          This doesn’t take into account the original mid to high end aluminium wonder trucks sold also lifting the average transaction price.

          This isn’t a hard concept, is it???

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Also, Lou,
          Ford’s average transaction price is only Ford’s improvement.

          GMC have a couple of grand higher average transaction price.

          Chev is only a grand lower or so. This is by a company selling lots more 1/2 ton pickups.

          Ram is a few grand lower than Ford.

          Ram is near $40k in the US.

          So as I stated SuperDutys improving at a rate with the GM pickups and Ford’s number flat means that the SuperDutys must of improved over 25% and the F-150 has dropped by a similar amount.

          So, the so called still have a preference for steel over aluminium.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            No GM and Chrysler are down in transaction price since they are selling more fleet models to take up the slack of the F150 that wasn’t available until the middle of the quarter and even then they were not as many available.

            Fact is a lot of fleet trucks are sold to gov’ts and they put out a bid for a 1/2 ton truck and are going with the lowest bid they get for a 1/2 ton they won’t even look at a bid that substitutes 3/4 ton trucks.

            Ford is just following through on making the net profit their most important thing and not worrying about the number of sales.

            The quarter we are in now is the first quarter where the aluminum F150 will be at full capacity and available in all configurations, though from my understanding they are planning on limiting fleet sales for the foreseeable future.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Scoutdude,
            Re-read what I wrote, please. I stated;

            1. GMC’s average transaction price for pickups is above Ford’s F Series.

            2. Chev is a little lower.

            3. Ram is at the bottom at just under $40k.

            Here’s a cut and paste, you can get to the actual article yourself. The cut and paste below;

            “Data collected by The Wall Street Journal indicate that the average transaction prices in 2015 for the Ford F-150, GMC Sierra 1500, and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 are all above $40,000, and 22% of pickup trucks are selling for more than $50,000. That’s up from just 9% of pickups being purchased for $50,000 or more in 2010.”

            …………………………………………

            Also, I stated the SuperDuty has kept pace with the GM twins in it’s improved numbers. GM pickups have increased by near on 20%. Ford has more or less remained static.

            So, this equates to far less aluminium F-150s being moved. This is why I think there is much spin regarding the F-150 by Ford.

            You guys can blow wind up each other asses regarding the aluminium F-150, but it doesn’t take much digging to see that the numbers aren’t matching Ford’s hype and spin.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            I see no where in your quote that says anything about a particular brand’s transaction price going up.

            Transaction price is not the only thing that Ford has going for it. F series sales are continuing to climb with the increased availability of the F150 over the last few months while the GM trucks are more or less flat.

            Ford is selling way more retail F150s while a lot of the gains that GM has seen are in the fleet dept due to the limited availability of fleet spec F150s.

            F150
            Jun 55k
            Jul 66k
            Aug 71k
            Sep 69K

            Silverado
            Jun 51k
            Jul 56k
            Aug 55k
            Sep 54k

            Sierra
            Jun 19k
            Jul 20k
            Aug 21k
            Sep 20k

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Big Al from Oz “So as I stated SuperDutys improving at a rate with the GM pickups and Ford’s number flat means that the SuperDutys must of improved over 25% and the F-150 has dropped by a similar amount.”

            Unless you can post evidence supporting your claims you are the only one blowing smoke.

            Like that famous Wendy’s commercial used to say “where’s the beef?”

            (in this case, where is your proof?)

            In 2014 Ford sold roughly 250,000 HD’s and in 2015 by midyear they have sold approximately 120,000 HD’s. These numbers were from tables posted on pickuptrucksdotcom.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – Figure F-150s will pick up the fleet slack, when the Super duty goes through its changeover. Then it’ll be a ‘wash’. Even Steven. But the way you were shouting “Ford is Hurting!!!” from the rooftops, I’m surprised they’re still in business.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I can believe that. The F-150 is quite popular, and I think it set the bar a bit higher for domestic trucks than what GM and FCA have met.

    My friend and I went to one particular Ford dealership, and all they had were F-150s and Roush Mustangs. (The salesman wasn’t at all interested in even *trying* to sell him the CPO Fusion Energi that he’d made an appointment for.)

  • avatar
    zip89105

    Funny as hell because Ford stock tanked today and lost 5%.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff Semenak: Why Arizona Drivers? Are there THAT many crossing into Ontario? I’m confused??!?
  • Jeff S: Politicians use to promise a chicken in every pot now it is pot in every chicken.
  • Lynchenstein: There’s a little more to unpack here. What company and what vehicle?
  • Crosley: Alcohol has medicinal benefits (wine and your heart, etc) but I’m not going to pretend that’s...
  • DenverMike: Consequences? The pot related consequences aren’t even worth mentioning compared to alcohol and all...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber