Random Thoughts on B&P

[Montana Bronco]

You don’t seem to get what I am saying about the other Ford build and price pages and your calling us the idiots. Ford doesn’t offer a manual transmission for the 2.7, so you would think they would build it into the price like they do with the F150. Dear Lord it’s like talking to a brick wall.

I never called you an idiot.

2.7 is an upgrade that you have to pay for. It is not a free upgrade.
Automatic transmission is an upgrade that you have to pay for. It is not a free upgrade.

I still can’t believe that anyone thought they were getting one, or both, for free. But the multiple threads on this forum full of conspiracy theories about the hidden motives of Ford management (I.e. this thread included) have been hilarious.

But what do I know ? I’m just a ski patroller and fly fishing guide who is very happy with the new car Ford is building for me. This will be my 4th Bronco and I love the fact that Ford is bringing it back. Even more in love with the fact that a manual transmission is available.

Sponsored

 

[KH_59]

Automatic transmission is, and always has been, a $1595 option, just like in the Mustang.

The B&P problem was that when your ordered the automatic in combination with the 2.7, it looked like the engine was only an extra $300.

 

[Dwolen]

Just chiming back in here. I’ve seen the phrase conspiracy theory used more than a few times. This is not a conspiracy theory. That can be saved for (the real) Area 51, the assassination of Kennedy or MLK Jr. etc.

Again, no one is disputing the pricing. We thought it was wrong. But when the company lays dormant for months and doesn’t correct it, then does so un-announced in the middle of the night, that is where my problem lies.

Like @North7 said, it’s either gross incompetence or very well calculated corporate greed.

If this set of circumstances doesn’t bother you, then great. Hopefully we all start ordering in a few weeks and everything carries on smoothly. But what this should do is be a potential warning sign

 

[Rickey498]

I never called you an idiot.

2.7 is an upgrade that you have to pay for. It is not a free upgrade.
Automatic transmission is an upgrade that you have to pay for. It is not a free upgrade.

I still can’t believe that anyone thought they were getting one, or both, for free. But the multiple threads on this forum full of conspiracy theories about the hidden motives of Ford management (I.e. this thread included) have been hilarious.

But what do I know ? I’m just a ski patroller and fly fishing guide who is very happy with the new car Ford is building for me. This will be my 4th Bronco and I love the fact that Ford is bringing it back. Even more in love with the fact that a manual transmission is available.

I’ll say it again and hopefully for the last time. On every other build page Ford does the price of the transmission is built into the engine price. They don’t show the transmission being 1600 dollars they just show you paying for an upgraded engine. So why would I think clicking on the 2.7 that doesn’t offer a manual would be any different. Now had they changed this in the first week I’d be singing a different tune, but they let this go on for two months. There have been 50 different post about it on here, and Facebook. Two months they waited to jack up the price. You can keep making excuses for Ford, but they messed up and they have already lost several reservations because of it. I really want the 2.7, but I don’t know if it worth the 1600 extra dollars. The other thing that is really pissing me off is the on transmission they had to develop is the manual and I’m sure it’s not a 1600 more expensive to make then the manual. This is just a money grab by Ford.

 

[Rickey498]

I can’t believe anyone actually thought the automatic transmission is free. Or the upgraded transfer case being free either. Can’t fix stupid.

You said you didn’t call us idiots, but what does the phrase can’t fix stupid insinuate?

 

[Vigor]

You said you didn’t call us idiots, but what does the phrase can’t fix stupid insinuate?

Don't let him get under your skin. This is not worth arguing about. Hey guess what?

Order banks open in less than 3 weeks!

 

[Rickey498]

Don't let him get under your skin. This is not worth arguing about. Hey guess what?

Order banks open in less than 3 weeks!

Hopefully they don’t start charging extra for the power steering. ?

 

[Rydfree]

You said you didn’t call us idiots, but what does the phrase can’t fix stupid insinuate?

He called us stupid and not idiots ?

 

[Rydfree]

For what it's worth , we are not idiots nor stupid for believing what a Ford Bronco product specialist told us when asked specifically as late as Dec 4th .

Defending it after that quite possibly makes you the ........

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...o-bronco-photos-and-q-a-answers-updated.9679/

 

[RBF 1401]

Oh no you di'n't!

Average = Mean. If you believe that IQ can be accurately measured in whole numbers only, then it's very likely that 50% are below and 50% above the mean. It doesn't take your so-called outliers out of the equation, because it's a calculation before you assume a normal distribution and calculate the standard deviation.

With a population of ~300 million or >7 billion, how much of an effect could outliers have on the mean?

Using the median would almost certainly result in <50% below the median intelligence. Due to the high population value, it is statistically nigh impossible that only one person out of either ~300M or >7B has the median IQ. Why would it matter if only one person had the median IQ? If the population is even and the two most centric values on the ordered list are of differing values, then you take the average of those two values. In that case, then 50% of the population is below the median IQ. This would be true also if the two most centric values represent a million people's IQ value on one side and only one person's IQ value on the other side.

Even if everyone on this forum had a 200 IQ value(we do!), it wouldn't affect the mean IQ value of the United States let alone the world.

Dang you guys! I was trying to not think about math for two weeks!

You realize your arguments all hinged around the fact that the first comment used the ambiguous term "average".

Maybe he meant the mode, in which case, all bets are off, it could be possibly tons more than 50% are below "average". Or maybe nobody is below that.

So technically it was really "50% have an IQ below the 'best measure of central tendency" without him specifying which measure of central tendency he was using. For the comment to be true in all cases he had to be talking about the median.

Which as one of you just pointed out, the statement is true for the median, but not necessarily true for the mean.

I'm just sad I can't figure out how to work in the difference between the Geometric mean and the Arithmetic mean into this chat (since Arithmetic Mean is the one people assume when you say to take an "Average" or find the "Mean" and nobody seems to know a Geometric Mean even exists).????

 

[Squatch]

Dang you guys! I was trying to not think about math for two weeks!

You realize your arguments all hinged around the fact that the first comment used the ambiguous term "average".

Maybe he meant the mode, in which case, all bets are off, it could be possibly tons more than 50% are below "average". Or maybe nobody is below that.

So technically it was really "50% have an IQ below the 'best measure of central tendency" without him specifying which measure of central tendency he was using. For the comment to be true in all cases he had to be talking about the median.

Which as one of you just pointed out, the statement is true for the median, but not necessarily true for the mean.

I'm just sad I can't figure out how to work in the difference between the Geometric mean and the Arithmetic mean into this chat (since Arithmetic Mean is the one people assume when you say to take an "Average" or find the "Mean" and nobody seems to know a Geometric Mean even exists).????

The great thing about a population's IQ is that you don't have to worry about the geometric mean. It's not appropriate to use here and neither is the harmonic mean as long as we're bringing Pythagoras into this.

Now that I'm sober, I am pretty sure it's virtually guaranteed to be true for the mean as we give out IQ values in whole numbers and an arithmetic mean will most likely not give us a whole number, but have some decimal value. It's virtually guaranteed to be false for the median as the median will be a whole number--which at least one person will have--in all but the improbable case that I mentioned where the population is even and the two most centric values differ and the median is n + 0.5, but new babies are born all the time so even then it could, at best, only oscillate between true and false with the birth rate.

Arithmetic Mean = Good
Median = Bad

 

[croyco]

Full transparency, I still have my reservation and am likely to follow through to order but would like to share.

Here is my issue/concern and thoughts with the whole B&P situation.

B&P opened on 10/23. Almost immediately it was noted and brought to Ford’s attention that there were some potential errors to it. Rather than immediately go in and correct it, those errors were allowed to stay. Then almost two months later it was changed to correct the errors.

Yes, we all should know auto transmission doesn’t come free. Yes we know the B&P is just a tool. But it goes deeper than that.

This wasn’t an innocent oversight by Ford. If it was, the changes would have been made immediately in October when it was brought to their attention. Or Ford would have announced “a revised B&P will be released on or around....”

Instead this change (finally) occurred just days before Christmas, a week and a half before New Years and a few mere weeks before orders are set to open.

Funny how Ford won’t let you save the configuration and instead says “print it out”. See, they didn’t want us going back in to the B&P. They wanted us to print it and then stare at it on paper. This way they can slip in the corrections without much fanfare. Hence the ironic timing of the “correction”.

This is a tactic to allow buyers to get into a buyers mindset where mentally you feel you need that Sasquatch package. Or need that higher model. Then when you go to place the actual order, the extra cost becomes insignificant because mentally you already can see yourself wheeling around on those 35s or in that upgraded model. The wrench in Ford’s plan was when it became noticible to so many customers on December 20th.

That and only that is why Ford came back with “we are working to correct it”. It’s not because it takes additional weeks to correct the B&P, it’s because the HQ is figuring out damage control on the outrage.

I agree totally. Don't tell me a billion dollar company can't develop pricing tool that is correct.

 

[TellurideBronco]

Talking about IQ....May be, just may be, Ford needs to hire a few programmers with an IQ north of 130.

I agree totally. Don't tell me a billion dollar company can't develop pricing tool that is correct.

 

[Aman]

I mean seriously they should be charging extra for the manual automatic were already developed and are standard in every other vehicle.

Please don't start shit about the manual transmission because you are upset about the automatic. It's a stupid complaint that undermines your argument.

Sponsored