The difference is you may actually be able to purchase and take possession of a Toyota or Jeep. Unlike a bronco.With a little research, you can find Ford dealers offering the same. Mine for example sells at MSRP on all vehicles.
Sponsored
The difference is you may actually be able to purchase and take possession of a Toyota or Jeep. Unlike a bronco.With a little research, you can find Ford dealers offering the same. Mine for example sells at MSRP on all vehicles.
So, while your cherry picked example is the most extreme case, I can see where it would not be the most efficient method. Couple points though; Ford invented the Bronco specific allocation formula in part to get the Bronco's out to more geographical locations, at least that was one of the claims. So they were not choosing the most efficient path regardless and it was outside their 'normal' allocation formulas of the past. The motivations for its addition after the fact appeared to have been designed to favor dealers over the res holders.I explained this already, and was the point of the first post I made. Building strictly in order of reservation timestamp is extremely inefficient. It has nothing to do with the dealers themselves, it has everything to do with commodities and location. You might have back to back builds on different sides of the country, one of those builds would have to wait until it can go on a train to a distribution port near the final destination. There is way more nuance to vehicle production and delivery than you're making it out to be, which is why the allocation is formulated the way it is.
Here's one for you...build the damn things in order of timestamps and ship to the dealership where the reservation was held until all the reservations have been filled. If the big dealers hold most of the reservations then they shouldn't bitch about that plan, correct?Big dealers sell majority of Fords vehicles, they also most likely have most of the reservations since they sell majority of vehicles and serve the most customers. The formula may screw over some reservation holders but it also may not. Not sure how this formula automatically screws over reservation holders since most reservation holders are probably at those big dealers.
I have a reservation at a tiny little rural dealer that had I think 2 allocations last year and I was number 3 on the list. It makes literally no business sense to start allocating more to dealers that sell less. The fact that they have 2021 Bronco allocations on there will help bump up some of the small dealers that did a good job converting orders last year.
I get being unhappy, but I also haven't seen a single post of someone laying out a better formula that actually makes business sense. Reservations are still going to be held up by constraints so as they crank out soft tops and easy to make vehicles they have to go somewhere and sending them to dealers that reach a lot of customers makes sense.
That's the one thing people didn't want to hear when the line started getting long. They kept lining up anyway to save money. Now, the reality of the line moving very slow has finally hit. Things that are good don't always come without some pain.Well, this thread started with the best example. Even you said this current allocation formula will hurt dealers like Granger. I also remember Ford saying that no dealer stock would be produced until all reservations were built. That's a good example of a change that hurt reservation holder.
True and the reason a certain dealer isn't up at 1:30 worrying. They sell Jeeps also.The difference is you may actually be able to purchase and take possession of a Toyota or Jeep. Unlike a bronco.
I get that I guess I'm just tired of a lot of people complaining about this allocation method assuming that it is automatically hurting reservation holders at small dealerships. If you think about it simply from a numbers standpoint, if a dealer has historically sold more cars then it will most likely have more reservations. If it has historically sold less cars it's probably in a lower population area that has less reservations. If that holds true, which on average it will, then this allocation shouldn't necessarily hurt reservation holders at small dealers anymore than at big dealers.Thats not what I'm advocating for. It makes perfect sense to build what they can with priority given to existing orders but in this case it appears that I may not have my order built in a timely manner unless I work with a big dealer. The gripe is FMC came out with this reservation system and made a promise that they later rescinded to build existing orders prior to delivering dealer stock to the extent possible. The fact is, there will be many unhappy reservation holders working through smaller dealers unless there is a representation of fairness.
The new formula gives almost no weight to the number of reservations. All that hard work by Granger, while it helped with MY21 allocations, will have very little impact on MY22 allocations. What benefit is it to Granger to have a lot of Bronco orders if that isn't factored into the allocations?...
As I said, Granger is the outlier, and because of their tenacity, they will get far more Broncos than they would have under any traditional allocation formula. They probably have more Bronco orders than their average throughput over the last 3 years combined. ...
Cool, then they can make it really simple and base the allocation formula 100% on the number of converted reservation orders a dealer holds....since you are saying that it basically is the same thing. Then reservation holders are happy....but of course big dealers would be furious again. So, why would that be if what you say is true?If you think about it simply from a numbers standpoint, if a dealer has historically sold more cars then it will most likely have more reservations. If it has historically sold less cars it's probably in a lower population area that has less reservations.
It screws any dealer (and their customers) that is trying to increase their volume by going after the Bronco market.There will be outliers of course like Granger and such, but on average I don't see how this screws anyone over anymore than anyone else.
because a lot of the orders are different, if Ford can spend the week just to build base Broncos with automatic tran they can build more of them then if they spent it trying to build orders plus with MSRP price locked in ever month they losing money because its costing more and more to build a Bronco.Interesting theory, but please explain how is it faster to build a dealer stock Bronco compared to one that is ordered.
I'm aware of that, and you did. The MIC top situation forced Ford's hand on the stock issue, but you're right in they did say that. Tough position to be in.I'm truly not arguing with you. You asked me to support my point, I believe I did.
Somewhat, since they do include the 2021 Bronco Allocations (which were based on orders converted if I remember correctly) then those high volume Bronco dealers will get a bump in allocations from that.It screws any dealer (and their customers) that is trying to increase their volume by going after the Bronco market.