Current commodity lists

[Used2jeep]

My big questions is (even more so since I Didn't go thru all 5 pages)
I've been hearing rumors the sasquatch delay is going to be due to wheels.

And if that's true, then maybe Ford dumps the ugly Squatch wheels and opts for something else...

Like maybe some Outlaw II's

Or wagon wheels or D window...

Sponsored

 

[Mattwings]

CAFE Corporate average fuel economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy

Now its a safe bet that a Sasquatch will get much worse mileage than a standard Bronco, 35" tires take fuel to sling around and 4.7 gears aren't going to help either.


Look at the Ranger Tremor package, drops mileage from 20 city/24 highway to 19 city and 19 highway,

I’m glad I only went regular BL w/33s, 4.46 and 2.7. Like a fuel miser! I am all about CAFE!

 

[Used2jeep]

I'd guess there's a limit on all the above, but my bet is Fuel economy causing the main limit with tires being my second guess. We fight getting 20" tires on F-150 all the time due to constraints, you wouldn't think tires would be an issue, but they continually are.

Blame @618TRVLWILD . JUST KIDDING!!

 

[618TRVLWILD]

Blame @618TRVLWILD . JUST KIDDING!!

All about that rubber baby! That's imported. Our rubber compound was also stuck in Texas after the snow storm! I'm not sure we do the OE f150 tires. I think we do some!

 

[Carolina Jim]

can you elaborate how CAFE impacts the commodity constraint?

its not really a commodity issue....CAFE is directed on a manufacturer's FLEET output:

10 Wildtracks + 1 Fusion eats more gas than 10 Fusions + 1 Wildtrack

 

[Rubisquatch]

its not really a commodity issue....CAFE is directed on a manufacturer's FLEET output:

10 Wildtracks + 1 Fusion eats more gas than 10 Fusions + 1 Wildtrack

Yes, thanks and I get this too about fleet but @XCR440 suggested (and he’s a dealer regularly on here so has some cred) that Sasquatch would be delayed mostly due to commodity constraints so I’m trying to ask what part of Sasquatch package he thinks will cause the delay - wheeels, tires, lockers, etc (and he replied with CAFE) and that’s the part which I don’t understand - how can the CAFE standards cause a commodity delay? Do you have any idea how CAFE standards cause a commodity delay?

Although he did suggest tires as likely a secondary cause.

 

[Bronc-O]

Yes, thanks and I get this too about fleet but @XCR440 suggested (and he’s a dealer regularly on here so has some cred) that Sasquatch would be delayed mostly due to commodity constraints so I’m trying to ask what part of Sasquatch package he thinks will cause the delay - wheeels, tires, lockers, etc (and he replied with CAFE) and that’s the part which I don’t understand - how can the CAFE standards cause a commodity delay? Do you have any idea how CAFE standards cause a commodity delay?

Although he did suggest tires as likely a secondary cause.

Ford has to stay under a certain percentage to meet regulations. In this case, if they had 2000 2.7 engines available, using all of them may push Ford over the CAFE limit. They would need to hold some of them and blend them in at a later date. Say, use 800 now and blend the other 1200 over several months.

 

[Rubisquatch]

Ford has to stay under a certain percentage to meet regulations. In this case, if they had 2000 2.7 engines available, using all of them may push Ford over the CAFE limit. They would need to hold some of them and blend them in at a later date. Say, use 800 now and blend the other 1200 over several months.

Thanks, this makes a little more sense.

 

[Razorbak86]

All about that rubber baby!

Ahem... that is LITERALLY what she said.

 

[618TRVLWILD]

Ahem... that is LITERALLY what she said.

Damnit... totally walked into that one!!

 

[XCR440]

Yes, thanks and I get this too about fleet but @XCR440 suggested (and he’s a dealer regularly on here so has some cred) that Sasquatch would be delayed mostly due to commodity constraints so I’m trying to ask what part of Sasquatch package he thinks will cause the delay - wheeels, tires, lockers, etc (and he replied with CAFE) and that’s the part which I don’t understand - how can the CAFE standards cause a commodity delay? Do you have any idea how CAFE standards cause a commodity delay?

Although he did suggest tires as likely a secondary cause.

I think delay is the wrong term, there will be no delay on Sasquatch, it will be available right away just like other options, Modular top will be a delay. What Sasquatch can do is delay YOUR order because they have more orders for it than they can build so they'll schedule the Sasquatchs they can for that week, then if they're out when your order comes up, they'll skip it for one without.

Now on to CAFE

First, I'm not expert, so this is just my understanding of CAFE. Second, there are lots of other things involved, so this is a basic idea of CAFE, I know there's a lot of math and variables involved, but this is my understanding.

Cafe has a target, was 35, Obama raised it to go up to 54 MPG by 2025, Trump rescinded that increase and I have no idea what the "fleet" target is right now. Off of that target different lines get different targets, so if 35 was the target, full sized pickups might be given a 20 MPG target and economy cars a 50 mpg target. So just because its lower than the fleet average, something might still be a positive toward a fleet average. I was told that F-150 is a positive in Ford's CAFE ratings. This also means that even though Ford sells a ton of F-150's and a handful of MachE, they can still hit their target.

Now within each line I believe they average the sales and use that number. This can happen in more than on way. Mustang GT comes with 3.31, 3.55 or 3.73 gears, yet all are rated for the same fuel economy rating. Look at F-150, a 3.31 geared XL Regular cab 4x4 and a Platinum Crew 4x4 with 3.55's will have the same rating even though real world will be far apart. Now I don't know if they use an average, biggest seller, best economy or what way they rate them, I'm guessing best economy, a few years ago 5.3L 4x4 Silverado's came standard with 3.08 gears for EPA ratings, but I only saw one truck ever that didn't have 3.42 or better (which real world got better mileage since 3.08 with the low torque 5.3L wouldn't hold 6th gear).

Also its a fleet average, so each one will have a target, but if F-150 exceeds its target and Bronco is below it they can average each other out and still be OK. I'm betting Bronco will be a negative, but it will still have a number Ford will have to hit to keep it close enough that other lines can offset it.

Now within each line different things can get different fuel economy ratings, different drivelines, and now even the Ranger Tremor which is just tires, etc. These different ratings get averaged to get that lines CAFE rating (I believe weighted by production volume). So for example (these are fake numbers, I have no idea what ratings will be) if a Bronco 2.3L auto gets .5 MPG better than Ford's target for rating and a Sasquatch 2.7L is 5 mpg less than its target, you'd have to build 10 2.3L's to offset the one 2.7L Sas. This is why I think Sasquatch will be limited.

If anyone knows more about CAFE, I'd be happy to learn, my knowledge is just enough to be dangerous. So again this is just my interpretation of CAFE.

 

[Used2jeep]

I think delay is the wrong term, there will be no delay on Sasquatch, it will be available right away just like other options, Modular top will be a delay. What Sasquatch can do is delay YOUR order because they have more orders for it than they can build.

First, I'm not expert, so this is just my understanding of CAFE. Second, there are lots of other things involved, so this is a basic idea of CAFE, I know there's a lot of math and variables involved, but this is my understanding.

Cafe has a target, was 35, Obama raised it to go up to 54 MPG by 2025, Trump rescinded that increase and I have no idea what the "fleet" target is right now. Off of that target different lines get different targets, so if 35 was the target, full sized pickups might be given a 20 MPG target and economy cars a 50 mpg target. So just because its lower than the fleet average, something might still be a positive toward a fleet average. I was told that F-150 is a positive in Ford's CAFE ratings. This also means that even though Ford sells a ton of F-150's and a handful of MachE, they can still hit their target.

Now within each line I believe they average the sales and use that number. This can happen in more than on way. Mustang GT comes with 3.31, 3.55 or 3.73 gears, yet all are rated for the same fuel economy rating. Look at F-150, a 3.31 geared XL Regular cab 4x4 and a Platinum Crew 4x4 with 3.55's will have the same rating even though real world will be far apart. Now I don't know if they use an average, biggest seller, best economy or what way they rate them, I'm guessing best economy, a few years ago 5.3L 4x4 Silverado's came standard with 3.08 gears for EPA ratings, but I only saw one truck ever that didn't have 3.42 or better (which real world got better mileage since 3.08 with the low torque 5.3L wouldn't hold 6th gear).

Also its a fleet average, so each one will have a target, but if F-150 exceeds its target and Bronco is below it they can average each other out and still be OK. I'm betting Bronco will be a negative, but it will still have a number Ford will have to hit to keep it close enough that other lines can offset it.

Now within each line different things can get different fuel economy ratings, different drivelines, and now even the Ranger Tremor which is just tires, etc. These different ratings get averaged to get that lines CAFE rating (I believe weighted by production volume). So for example (these are fake numbers, I have no idea what ratings will be) if a Bronco 2.3L auto gets .5 MPG better than Ford's target for rating and a Sasquatch 2.7L is 5 mpg less than its target, you'd have to build 10 2.3L's to offset the one 2.7L Sas. This is why I think Sasquatch will be limited.

If anyone knows more about CAFE, I'd be happy to learn, my knowledge is just enough to be dangerous. So again this is just my interpretation of CAFE.

Thanks Nathan for the input.

 

[Gamecock]

I think delay is the wrong term, there will be no delay on Sasquatch, it will be available right away just like other options, Modular top will be a delay. What Sasquatch can do is delay YOUR order because they have more orders for it than they can build so they'll schedule the Sasquatchs they can for that week, then if they're out when your order comes up, they'll skip it for one without.

Now on to CAFE

First, I'm not expert, so this is just my understanding of CAFE. Second, there are lots of other things involved, so this is a basic idea of CAFE, I know there's a lot of math and variables involved, but this is my understanding.

Cafe has a target, was 35, Obama raised it to go up to 54 MPG by 2025, Trump rescinded that increase and I have no idea what the "fleet" target is right now. Off of that target different lines get different targets, so if 35 was the target, full sized pickups might be given a 20 MPG target and economy cars a 50 mpg target. So just because its lower than the fleet average, something might still be a positive toward a fleet average. I was told that F-150 is a positive in Ford's CAFE ratings. This also means that even though Ford sells a ton of F-150's and a handful of MachE, they can still hit their target.

Now within each line I believe they average the sales and use that number. This can happen in more than on way. Mustang GT comes with 3.31, 3.55 or 3.73 gears, yet all are rated for the same fuel economy rating. Look at F-150, a 3.31 geared XL Regular cab 4x4 and a Platinum Crew 4x4 with 3.55's will have the same rating even though real world will be far apart. Now I don't know if they use an average, biggest seller, best economy or what way they rate them, I'm guessing best economy, a few years ago 5.3L 4x4 Silverado's came standard with 3.08 gears for EPA ratings, but I only saw one truck ever that didn't have 3.42 or better (which real world got better mileage since 3.08 with the low torque 5.3L wouldn't hold 6th gear).

Also its a fleet average, so each one will have a target, but if F-150 exceeds its target and Bronco is below it they can average each other out and still be OK. I'm betting Bronco will be a negative, but it will still have a number Ford will have to hit to keep it close enough that other lines can offset it.

Now within each line different things can get different fuel economy ratings, different drivelines, and now even the Ranger Tremor which is just tires, etc. These different ratings get averaged to get that lines CAFE rating (I believe weighted by production volume). So for example (these are fake numbers, I have no idea what ratings will be) if a Bronco 2.3L auto gets .5 MPG better than Ford's target for rating and a Sasquatch 2.7L is 5 mpg less than its target, you'd have to build 10 2.3L's to offset the one 2.7L Sas. This is why I think Sasquatch will be limited.

If anyone knows more about CAFE, I'd be happy to learn, my knowledge is just enough to be dangerous. So again this is just my interpretation of CAFE.

Is there a real world example of a manufacturer limiting option packages due specifically to CAFE standards? Not special packages where they say they are only going to build 15,000 of a certain special edition, but within a line...a manufacturer just throttling those options in a model to keep CAFE compliant? I see your point with it, but it is hard to see Ford limiting the number of Sasquatch vehicles based for that reason...rather than manipulation of CAFE numbers somewhere else in the fleet, or through offsetting credits they have. They have pushed Sasquatch hard, and I have no doubt they were surprised by the take rate, but I would think happily surprised and will work to meet the demand in full for the package as much as they can with suppliers. Maybe not though.

Does Jeep have to limit Rubicon numbers as an overall number of Jeeps sold to maintain CAFE compliance? It is high demand, and fuel mileage sucking...and worse overall mileage than Bronco (estimated). How do they offset all of those? Any examples that are close in real world?

 

[XCR440]

Is there a real world example of a manufacturer limiting option packages due specifically to CAFE standards? Not special packages where they say they are only going to build 15,000 of a certain special edition, but within a line...a manufacturer just throttling those options in a model to keep CAFE compliant? I see your point with it, but it is hard to see Ford limiting the number of Sasquatch vehicles based for that reason...rather than manipulation of CAFE numbers somewhere else in the fleet, or through offsetting credits they have. They have pushed Sasquatch hard, and I have no doubt they were surprised by the take rate, but I would think happily surprised and will work to meet the demand in full for the package as much as they can with suppliers. Maybe not though.

Does Jeep have to limit Rubicon numbers as an overall number of Jeeps sold to maintain CAFE compliance? It is high demand, and fuel mileage sucking...and worse overall mileage than Bronco (estimated). How do they offset all of those? Any examples that are close in real world?

Try to find a Silverado 1500 with a 6.2L. Great engine, real world mileage is as good or better than 5.3L, yet it's limited to a couple of models and even then you'll be hard pressed to find one on the lots. Manufacturers will never tell why they limit things, but this has always been the speculation on the 6.2L since they make plenty of them for other lines, and with the 5.3L's performance so far behind the competition, its shocking they don't push more 6.2L's. This year they did lower the price of their diesel to try to use that to make up for not having a volume engine that makes torque., which further makes me belive that CAFE is a driving factor in their production mix.

As to Chrysler, I think they just buy Teslas credits to make up for not hitting their numbers. Also remember Wranger doesn't have a Sasquatch option, Rubicon is like Badlands and likely squeaks in under the same rating as Sahara.

 

[lakesinai]

Our Ecommitment packet for this month (allocation), had a small note for Bronco

It was listed as "early trends", so could end up differently, but based on my orders I can see these options having issues and this warning coming true when scheduling starts.

Most Restricted commodities:
Wildtrak
2.7L
Full Time 4x4 (advanced 4x4)
Level 2 and 4 equipment groups (mid and lux)
Sasquatch
front locker
Modular front bumper

It also had the recommended order of a 4 door Big bend 2.3L auto with soft top.


They also announced some new Bronco SPORT packages coming out for Big Bend and Outer Banks to get the option package without the moonroof to help with commodity issues, so gives me hope they'll do some things on Bronco if the commodities make scheduling a complete nightmare (33s on OBX would help several of my orders).

I agree on 33in tires on the OBX. I'm already pricing out various versions of 275/70R18 or 285/70 or 65R18 tires to get an inch higher and an inch wider for beach sand driving.

Sponsored