GM Inside News Forum banner
61 - 76 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
I generally don't use the word "stupid", as you did in post #44, because the one using that word is generally the one it should apply to. Before using it, you should consider all angles & ask questions before planting your flag of superiority. You, as usual, didn't consider all angles or ask any questions, but you clearly demonstrated your strength, your impressive capability to run your mouth.
OK Janice, I'm not going to let you ruin another thread...you have a nice day ma'am
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,651 Posts
OK Janice, I'm not going to let you ruin another thread...you have a nice day ma'am
The problem is you consider yourself unaccountable for your actions - you ruin the thread - I'm reacting to your BS. Stop the BS, childish comments and "I'm always right" attitude and I'll not start in with you. I'm not turning the other cheek to your nonsense - I'll address it until you stop.

If you don't understand a comment a person makes, ask questions. Don't resort to putting people down.

GMI is a community and not a faceless, huge website with a mob of people commenting. Treat our community with respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
^^^whatever..anyway back to the topic at hand, perhaps Ford should've delayed the Bronco 2 years so we could've complained about another botched launch that resulted in a 2 year delay.

Me...I chalk this up to "pandemic complications" everything is screwed up (notice that I didn't say ****ed up...see improvements already 😀) nowadays...anyway they're going to fix/replace the affected roofs at no cost to the owner and at the end of the day the owners will eventually have a hardtop that's up to a year younger than the rest of the car. I really don't see a problem. It's not like the hood popped open while driving or anything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,651 Posts
^^^whatever..anyway back to the topic at hand, perhaps Ford should've delayed the Bronco 2 years so we could've complained about another botched launch that resulted in a 2 year delay.

Me...I chalk this up to "pandemic complications" everything is screwed up (notice that I didn't say ****ed up...see improvements already 😀) nowadays...anyway they're going to fix/replace the affected roofs at no cost to the owner and at the end of the day the owners will eventually have a hardtop that's a year younger than the rest of the car. I really don't see a problem. It's not like the hood popped open while driving or anything
Since you brush me off, I'll take you off ignore and will instead report your posts instead of commenting on them. I'd much prefer you simply stop with the attitude.

Since you can't see there is more to it, I'll fill you in. It is well known Ford, as does GM, makes most of their profits on full size pickup trucks due to the massive volume. There is no way the Bronco will ever rival that volume or the profit level of the F-Series. Every time Ford puts a chip in a Bronco they are theoretically taking a chip from an F-Series, they are giving up profits. Some of the F-Series buyers will wait, but a lot will not and go to GM/Ram/Toyota - those are profits lost forever. However, I have no doubts the Bronco will generate decent profits and is therefore an important launch, a launch that you want as much availability as possible as the first year or so is when you will have the most sales. So Ford needs to devote a lot of chips to the Bronco, therefore lowering their annual profits by leaving F Series demand unfulfilled.

That is the crux of my thinking. I also said that they probably had their launch date set years ago and can't just delay it until chip availability as I suspect there would be a whole cascade of issues.

I think it is an interesting dilemma and how Ford is handling it. And, this also applies to every other make. All makes have to decide how many chips they will allocate to their money makers vs. less profitable lines. The Bronco is more interesting for the very fact that it is what I expect to be a very popular new product line and puts Ford in somewhat of a pickle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
Truck buyers are notoriously loyal...if an F150 owner or a Ford guy wants to upgrade and there's no F150 stock, they're not going to just hop over to Nissan or Toyota to buy a truck. (because neither GM or Ram has serious inventory either).

Point being, Ford knows this...someone who's making the decisions at Ford knows this as well...because we know the course of action they took. They built Bronco units to satisfy pre-order demand to the sacrifice of a portion, NOT ALL, of F150 units. Because of this they have Broncos for the customers that pre-paid and they also have F150 inventory comparable to the other trucks on the market...stop acting as if they sacrificed all F150s to build the Bronco.

A 2 year delay would've been disastrous for Bronco, because 1....this pent up excitement would've settled down and 2. the EV movement is right around the corner, they now get the benefit of at least 6 years of Bronco sales in its current configuration as opposed to waiting to 2023 and maybe getting a shorter run in before they start transitioning to a mostly EV manufacturer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
A few weeks ago Ed and I exchanged a few thoughts on the timing of the Bronco launch. My thought was this Covid timeframe isn't the best time to launch a vehicle, especially with the chip shortage. Every chip they put in a Bronco must be coming out of another Ford, or that chip could have gone to making additional F Series - their cash cow. But, they probably had their Bronco launch target date set five years ago and can't just push it off 2 years until the shortage/Covid is behind us.
"Here's the thing".....................

"Sales" - Sells
"Manufacturing" - Manufactures
"Purchasing" (supply-chain) - Sources and delivers the products, goods, services
"Product Development" - Develops the product
"Engineering" - Engineers the product
"Marketing" - Markets the product

Everyone of these things run in some sort of order, many run in parallel, hiccups will cause a disruption, and we had a lot of those in the last year and a half, and Ford did, push the launch out ~6 months, for everyone to "Catch-Up" but when the Semi-Conductor Plant in Japan caught-fire, it was too late, the ball was already rolling down the hill, you've got to make do and improvise the best you can.

Outside of confusing a handful of people that weren't going to buy a Bronco anyway, staggering the Bronco and Bronco Sport was far from the worst thing in the word,


I generally don't use the word "stupid", as you did in post #44, because the one using that word is generally the one it should apply to. Before using it, you should consider all angles & ask questions before planting your flag of superiority. You, as usual, didn't consider all angles or ask any questions, but you clearly demonstrated your strength, your impressive capability to run your mouth.
He didn't call anyone stupid, he just said (in his opinion) that an indefinite/extended delay was wrong.
(I tried to explain why above.)

You're not going to read this, but that is an stupid suggestion.
You're not going to read this, but that is an illogical suggestion.
You're not going to read this, but that is an unintelligent suggestion.

Telling someone you think is wrong; it's hard to not be harsh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,651 Posts
"Here's the thing".....................

"Sales" - Sells
"Manufacturing" - Manufactures
"Purchasing" (supply-chain) - Sources and delivers the products, goods, services
"Product Development" - Develops the product
"Engineering" - Engineers the product
"Marketing" - Markets the product

Everyone of these things run in some sort of order, many run in parallel, hiccups will cause a disruption, and we had a lot of those in the last year and a half, and Ford did, push the launch out ~6 months, for everyone to "Catch-Up" but when the Semi-Conductor Plant in Japan caught-fire, it was too late, the ball was already rolling down the hill, you've got to make do and improvise the best you can.

Outside of confusing a handful of people that weren't going to buy a Bronco anyway, staggering the Bronco and Bronco Sport was far from the worst thing in the word,




He didn't call anyone stupid, he just said (in his opinion) that an indefinite/extended delay was wrong.
(I tried to explain why above.)

You're not going to read this, but that is an stupid suggestion.
You're not going to read this, but that is an illogical suggestion.
You're not going to read this, but that is an unintelligent suggestion.

Telling someone you think is wrong; it's hard to not be harsh.
It isn't hard to disagree without resorting to harshness at all. First, he never asked "why" - so saying "why do you think that" is a start. Then one can say "I disagree and this is why". That invites a good conversation that everyone can join in instead of going straight to bar fight.

I get why Ford made their choice to launch the Bronco now, they more or less had to - an unfortunate and unforeseeable situation. But, it doesn't change the fact that the timing isn't great, every chip that goes into a non-F Series product costs Ford profits. I disagree with his premise that everyone who wants a new F is simply waiting until they can get one. You can probably verify, but does Ford, in a normal world, normally run their F-Series plants at full capacity? If so then they can never catch up for lost sales. I'm not saying Ford did anything wrong, merely pointing out the ramifications of an unforeseeable circumstance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
He didn't call anyone stupid, he just said (in his opinion) that an indefinite/extended delay was wrong.
(I tried to explain why above.)

You're not going to read this, but that is an stupid suggestion.
You're not going to read this, but that is an illogical suggestion.
You're not going to read this, but that is an unintelligent suggestion.

Telling someone you think is wrong; it's hard to not be harsh.
Not only that...it was only 5 days ago this same person called my posts "drivel". You can't demean someone's posts one day and then 5 days later turn around and whine about that same person doing it back to you.

And then the threats to report me to the mods...like seriously are you a man or....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
It isn't hard to disagree without resorting to harshness at all. First, he never asked "why" - so saying "why do you think that" is a start. Then one can say "I disagree and this is why". That invites a good conversation that everyone can join in instead of going straight to bar fight.
Doesn't really matter why you think that, it is "illogical"..............

If you waited 2 years, half of your suppliers would go broke waiting, and instead of just having a limited supply of one or two components, you'd either have 1/2 of what you need, unless you paid those suppliers to not sell you their parts, or allowed them to use your capacity for other companies (meaning they would no-longer be ready when you need them)

Webasto literally built a new plant to supply these roofs! German auto supplier to open plant employing 400 in Plymouth Twp.

If Ford knew in November/December 2020 that the semi-conductor, plant was going to catch fire in March 2021, they would have did things different, ordered more components for the Ranger and made more of those, but you can't decide in April, that you want to make more Rangers in April, never-mind they would still need many of those same semi-conductors........ 2 weeks ago when I strolled the Ford lot, they had 20-30 F-150's and just a handful of every other model, you can bet Ford is hell-bent on not losing it's best-selling streak.

I get why Ford made their choice to launch the Bronco now, they more or less had to - an unfortunate and unforeseeable situation. But, it doesn't change the fact that the timing isn't great, every chip that goes into a non-F Series product costs Ford profits. I disagree with his premise that everyone who wants a new F is simply waiting until they can get one. You can probably verify, but does Ford, in a normal world, normally run their F-Series plants at full capacity? If so then they can never catch up for lost sales. I'm not saying Ford did anything wrong, merely pointing out the ramifications of an unforeseeable circumstance.
I believe Kansas City and Dearborn, have been running over 100% for much of the last decade, they can redirect some demand to F-250 that are made in Louisville. It will take a while, but they will catch-up............... The higher the price, the lower the demand:

64164
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,651 Posts
Doesn't really matter why you think that, it is "illogical"..............

If you waited 2 years, half of your suppliers would go broke waiting, and instead of just having a limited supply of one or two components, you'd either have 1/2 of what you need, unless you paid those suppliers to not sell you their parts, or allowed them to use your capacity for other companies (meaning they would no-longer be ready when you need them)

Webasto literally built a new plant to supply these roofs! German auto supplier to open plant employing 400 in Plymouth Twp.

If Ford knew in November/December 2020 that the semi-conductor, plant was going to catch fire in March 2021, they would have did things different, ordered more components for the Ranger and made more of those, but you can't decide in April, that you want to make more Rangers in April, never-mind they would still need many of those same semi-conductors........ 2 weeks ago when I strolled the Ford lot, they had 20-30 F-150's and just a handful of every other model, you can bet Ford is hell-bent on not losing it's best-selling streak.



I believe Kansas City and Dearborn, have been running over 100% for much of the last decade, they can redirect some demand to F-250 that are made in Louisville. It will take a while, but they will catch-up............... The higher the price, the lower the demand:

View attachment 64164
First, I said numerous times that the date was set long before Covid and not a stretch to see that I was inferring they can't simply push the Wrangler launch off two years. So, both you and Sdot are explaining that back to me while calling what I'm saying is stupid. So, by ignoring that I said that, the "stupid" comment is really just an opportunity to put yourself out as superior and therefore the usage is inflammatory. My first post on the topic contained "But, they probably had their Bronco launch target date set five years ago and can't just push it off 2 years until the shortage/Covid is behind us." There is never a need to use "stupid".

My overall comment is not stupid or unintelligent, for every Wrangler they sell they are losing money as they could've put that chip into an F Series, that is a fact. Every vehicle manufacturer is making the decision of what to build and what not to. I've no doubt that the decision is so important it goes all the way to the top. GM is doing that with their portfolio - every chip they put into something other than a Silverado/Sierra is money left on the table. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are all doing that with their top profit makers vs. balancing the rest of their vehicle portfolio. Are you telling me that each company is not making that decision? Are you telling me that the timing of the Wrangler launch is NOT unfortunate from the perspective of profitability? And mind you, I didn't say they necessarily could do anything about the timing of the Wrangler launch. Neither of you have addressed the core of my comment, but choose to address part of my comment, which is out of context without the other half of the comment.

Instead of calling it a stupid comment, one could say "you are right, but Ford, by ensuring a strong Bronco launch, is ensuring a strong revenue stream down the road which will more than offset the lost F-Series sales today. I'd agree to that. But I wont agree to anything when "stupid" is attached to it.

Or, another way of looking at it is this: we all want GMI to be a fun place to go - we all spend a lot of time on it and want it to thrive - it's a hobby for everyone. I do not say this to be mean, but, both you and Sdot have several people with both of you on their ignore list. The reason they've done that is because of how both of you interact with others and the above is a good example. When it gets to the point people are ignoring others it takes away from GMI and contributes** to GMI's decline. And I do appreciate your efforts (and mine) as we haven't "gone at it" in a long while. I think Sdot has a lot to offer, but, that gets eclipsed by the attitude.

For GMI to work, people need to be able to be free to discuss things. Once you start giving people hard times for their ideas they clam up. I've seen it happen at work with a manager who runs roughshod over their team and then the manager wonders why no one offers new ideas or tries to improve anything.

**Before anyone gets upset, I think the biggest reason for GMI's decline was the loss of NSAP and original content. When NSAP walked out the door, out went all of his inside contacts and unique news to bring people to GMI. When that stopped then GM stopped visiting our website, further taking away from our site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I hate to say it mbukanyau but GM still doesn't have an answer to the Bronco.

That being said, Ford doesn't have an answer to Webasto either. Henry's Mausoleum is likely Well Rotated right now. Being he was heavily invested in Owning every part of the Business's Needs. I suspect Ford is working on solutions to the Webasto Problem as we are Bashing the Launch. A Multi Billion Dollar Product, won't wait for a Small Supplier's issues.
GM will never have an answer for the New Bronco because they're a company run by virtue-signaling fools, more interested in crappy EV's no one wants. The "Blazer" is an absolute travesty of a use of a once great nameplate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,920 Posts
I wonder what the hard/soft take rate is; before (and after) this debacle?

I was trying to find Webasto Stock appears they are a private company.

We had a small recall a few years ago, it cost us $10 million it wasn't even our fault, and we actually engineered the solution for the casting company.

The good thing about this mess, not a lot of units sold yet, but you can bet Ford will hit them with penalties/fines for unfulfilled commitment(s).

Appears less than 5,000 sold so far and a lot of those are soft-tops.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,292 Posts
I guess I'm weird. When I saw they were replacing all of the tops, I thought this was a good thing. No patching, no denying, no dragging out............... just admitting that some were having problems, and replacing them all is a good thing. The least amount of inconvenience for the customers.

If this is the extent of major issues, I can imagine that the owners won't care at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
I guess I'm weird. When I saw they were replacing all of the tops, I thought this was a good thing. No patching, no denying, no dragging out............... just admitting that some were having problems, and replacing them all is a good thing. The least amount of inconvenience for the customers.

If this is the extent of major issues, I can imagine that the owners won't care at all.
Yep...if Ford was giving pushback...denying, etc then yeah I would say it's a huge problem, but they're owning up and replacing, only downside is the delay on the units that still haven't been built...that's a problem, but then again everyone is having order obligation problems as well due to COVID, chip shortage and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,807 Posts
The article I read a few days ago stated that ALL of the tops had this problem - cracking of the final finish. It's a design problem exacerbated by moisture. So the vendor had to change something to make the problem go away. Good thing they caught it early, but I'm surprised that it wasn't caught during initial testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1958carnut
61 - 76 of 76 Posts
Top