Goat modes

[Mark S.]

Gov't regs and corporate level decisions apply across all product lines, so I keep an open mind about product changes and offerings. The removal of options and colors on other models predicted the changes to the BS. That's why people read Ford Authority, for example, looking for future changes to their favoritevehicle.

I don't see how a corporate decision to equip one model with a higher-torque engine to support off-road operations applies to a decision to offer a higher-torque engine in a different model that is decidedly NOT meant for off-road use. But I agree with you regarding fuel economy standards; federal CAFE standards almost certainly impact engine choice decisions across all model lines.

Sponsored

 

[Bucko]

I recall reading somewhere the Mach-E being called a Mustang falls under the same- the "economy" of the Mach-E and the EcoBoost models offsets the Coyote-based performance V8 cars from the factory. Not entirely sure if that's accurate but logically it could make sense when dealing with relatively illogical bureaucratic red tape.

Far as Eco vs Normal mode: I don't really use Eco unless on a long highway drive and in cruise control. Not entirely sure its delivering better fuel economy when its on the gas accelerating up hills, passing, etc.

This makes good sense to me.

Now I wonder why Dodge did not do the same by introducing an EV car Challenger to save the Hemi equipped ones.

 

[BourbonRunner]

Gov't regs and corporate level decisions apply across all product lines, so I keep an open mind about product changes and offerings. The removal of options and colors on other models predicted the changes to the BS. That's why people read Ford Authority, for example, looking for future changes to their favoritevehicle.

When automakers have to pay literal hundreds of millions in "fines" to the government because they dont meet the seemingly arbitrary CAFE metric a team of bureaucrats (and fellow traveling activists) create, you had better believe that consumer choice is low on the totem pole. Making matters worse, the current admin has doubled the fines that manufacturers have to pay for lack of CAFE compliance. Couple that to ever-increasing governmental safety regs (not that its a bad thing but is a factor) and the cost increases to build, sell, buy. That has to get paid for somehow... and is reflected in the MSRP.

 

[BourbonRunner]

I don't see how a corporate decision to equip one model with a higher-torque engine to support off-road operations applies to a decision to offer a higher-torque engine in a different model that is decidedly NOT meant for off-road use. But I agree with you regarding fuel economy standards; federal CAFE standards almost certainly impact engine choice decisions across all model lines.

That's just it: the HiPo motor may be marketed to as you put it "support off road operations" but in reality the overwhelming majority of off road capable vehicles never get further off the pavement than a gravel driveway or parking lot. And that most consumers aren't going to pay attention to the power, they're going to shop by MPG. Ford knows this. Harsh reality is the off road chops are more a of a bonus what really matters.

They also know that if they sell too many of the hipo motors they'll screw their CAFE numbers and it will cost them more money. When they're losing around $60K per EV sold they're going to need every penny they can. So they offer low motor spec limited editions (Free Range, Heritage) to drive those sales knowing that the average consumer won't pay as much attention to the difference. We have to keep in mind, car enthusiasts are substantially minor segment of the consumer base and shrinking daily. After all, look at how few cars are sold in the US today with a clutch.

This makes good sense to me.

Now I wonder why Dodge did not do the same by introducing an EV car Challenger to save the Hemi equipped ones.

I think that Dodge (and Chryslantis) had some serious issues on their hands since Sergio Marchinonne died. Fiat was a flop in the US, Alfa is on life support, and the only thing sustaining USDM sales are Jeep and Ram. Chrysler has a minivan and the 300. I liked Sergio a lot but Stellantis is SOL without him at the helm.

From a financial and logistics standpoint, It's far easier for them to adopt non USDM platforms and brand engineer them than continue down the same path. Something, BTW Sergio said they'd not do. Retooling a factory is expensive. When its a "universal" platform it becomes a scale thing.

Also: Have to keep in mind the 300, Challenger, and Charger are based on Mercedes platforms from 1999 and 2002 (W220 and W211 respectively) that debuted as a 2005 model. Much as I like a FE-RWD setup, those things are ancient by automotive standards.

 

[Bucko]

Also: Have to keep in mind the 300, Challenger, and Charger are based on Mercedes platforms from 1999 and 2002 (W220 and W211 respectively) that debuted as a 2005 model. Much as I like a FE-RWD setup, those things are ancient by automotive standards.

While I agree with your logic, the Challenger/Charger Hemi's have (and now had) a huge following. Now that the Hemi engine will die, that cult following may hold onto their classic Hemi, but eventually will wither away, and the cars will become perhaps collectables.

Ford is doing the muscle car crowd a decent justice by keeping the Mustang 5.0 alive; some smart marketing thinking IMO.

 

[BourbonRunner]

While I agree with your logic, the Challenger/Charger Hemi's have (and now had) a huge following. Now that the Hemi engine will die, that cult following may hold onto their classic Hemi, but eventually will wither away, and the cars will become perhaps collectables.

Ford is doing the muscle car crowd a decent justice by keeping the Mustang 5.0 alive; some smart marketing thinking IMO.

No doubt. They have a distinctly strong enthusiast following and you're right- some will undoubtedly be collector items in the future.

Challengers notwithstanding, the 300 and Charger have consistently sold relatively well to consumer and fleets (although the fleet numbers skew it heavily).

Plus they're very profitable. When DaimlerChrysler created the vehicle they used tooling that was already designed by Mercedes for their W211/220 line factories and replicated it here. Just retooling costs tens of millions of dollars for every model change- and those lines have been in operation since MY2005. Nearly 20 years of production is an incredible run.

As a side bar: I had a rental spec Hemi Charger earlier this year for a week or so. That motor made an otherwise wallowing barge of a car an absolute blast to drive. I got piss poor MPG but didn't care because every opportunity I had to stomp on it, I did. Also had a little time in a Hemi Challenger back in May. Giant blind spots aside, it was an absolutely absurd vehicle. That in Hellcat form would certainly kill me.

 

[Mark S.]

That's just it: the HiPo motor may be marketed to as you put it "support off road operations" but in reality the overwhelming majority of off road capable vehicles never get further off the pavement than a gravel driveway or parking lot.

I'm not sure this is germane to my point. You can't market the car as more off-road capable if it isn't. Consumers who actually do the research will bash you if you try, and even people who don't care about more power care about honesty.

 

[BourbonRunner]

I'm not sure this is germane to my point. You can't market the car as more off-road capable if it isn't. Consumers who actually do the research will bash you if you try, and even people who don't care about more power care about honesty.

Okay, let me put it a different way:

The fact that Ford offers the 2.0L on the higher trims is more that they're counting on the lower trims making up the majority of the sales and thus adjusting their CAFE numbers for the better.

Has nothing to do with the off road ability of one trim vs another, more GOAT modes, better 4x4, etc is an added bonus and nod towards the off road enthusiast crowd. It drives those of us that will go off road **or love the idea of it and never will** into that specific model, same as Jeep with the Trailhawk trims.

But we have to remember that enthusiasts are in the minority and though they're throwing us a bone on the BL/HL we're not the ones keeping the lights on in Dearborn. I would bet that the lower spec trims combined sell over 3:1 over the BLs (and the nearly 6K Heritage Limiteds). Can't seem to find sales by trim ATM but I'd suspect that bears out.

Secondarily: American consumers are more concerned with fuel economy, safety and value over anything else.

 

[Mark S.]

Okay, let me put it a different way:

The fact that Ford offers the 2.0L on the higher trims is more that they're counting on the lower trims making up the majority of the sales and thus adjusting their CAFE numbers for the better.

I understand your position, I just disagree with it. CAFE standards are a factor, but I believe offering higher performance is MORE of a factor.

 

[BourbonRunner]

I understand your position, I just disagree with it. CAFE standards are a factor, but I believe offering higher performance is MORE of a factor.

Fair enough but it doesn't make it any less true. And this isn't my opinion, this is fact. The bean counters are always in control.

CAFE determine what is offered to market over the tiny enthusiast segment. We're talking big numbers here, far more than the modest increase in MSRP from one motor to the other.

To put this in real terms: 2022 CAFE standards upped the fines to $15 for each tenth of a mile per gallon over the limit and IIRC when that gets to certain metrics it scales up exponentially. Stellantis alone came up to almost $572 million in fines across all its brands.

These companies are for-profit enterprises. Millions in fines for going over the CAFE numbers is an attack on the bottom line. It is in then in the company's best interest to focus their energy on marketing and manufacturing, lower spec but higher MPG vehicles. Otherwise Uncle Sam will take their profits anyway.

Consider this: CAFE standards kick in at total fleet economy below 21 MPG combined.

The 2.0L in the Bronco Sport is rated for 21 MPG yet the 1.5L is 25 MPG. A Mustang GT is 15 MPG.

For every Mustang GT sold to avoid the sub-21 MPG fine, Ford only has to sell 2 1.5L Broncos or 1 Escape 1.5L. (27mpg combined).

But for them to get to the same position (21 MPG avg or greater) they have to sell at least 100 2.0L Broncos or EcoSport Mustangs for every GT sold.

Logically then It makes far more sense for Ford to offer the 1.5L in 4x as many Bronco trims, market it accordingly with "special" editions, and hope for the best in the same vehicle as the 2.0L to avoid the tax penalty.

 

[Barry S.]

Let me oversimplify. I bought my Bronco Sport Big Bend because it looked good. I do 95% of my driving on local paved roads or highways. I enjoy the offroad capability for occasional offroad when I take it on a vacation trip to beach or mountains. I'm comfortably retired and drive about 10k miles per year so mpg is sort of irrelevant to me although I am impressed that on my current vacation to the NC mountains , I'm getting 28 mpg on mountain roads.I don't drag race so the 1.5 is very satisfactory and the car drives very well. My Subaru Outback wife even enjoys driving it. All the other stuff is sort of irrelevant. Just a simple man's opinion.

Sponsored