Just went through and reported every damn political comment. This thread is turning into a shit show.
Sponsored
Just went through and reported every damn political comment. This thread is turning into a shit show.
Added Car & Driver and Motor Trend to my tweet.You guys should be tweeting at news outlets that cover auto news. It’s clear Ford doesn’t care. They will only care if it catches the news and starts impacting real things, like stock prices.
You can also file under UDAAP.....there is no way they can say this process has not been unfair, deceptive, or abusive.I think you have a good point, and how Ford has executed their allocation system is a good example of customers being harmed.
I have a question counselor. On what basis are you going to sue Ford? How have you been financially harmed? Nobody is forcing you to buy a Bronco and there are reasonable alternatives. I am not an attorney so you have forgotten more than I know about the laws that apply here. But I have another idea.
In this case, wouldn’t it be better to go after Ford on the basis of anti-consumerism? I work for a large company and all the training they drum into our heads is that we can’t establish practices that harm consumers. What Ford has done with the Bronco allocation system is pretty much that. Ford’s allocation system in effect is forcing people to abandon a lower price purchase largely toward a higher price purchase. Of course, the same logic I applied to your proposed action against Ford applies here too. In other words, who is forcing anyone to purchase a Bronco at a higher price. They can buy a Jeep, Defender, 4Runner, etc. Or they can wait their turn for a (Granger) Bronco. The fact is, we aren’t trying to buy something that we need like a drug, it’s something we want.
I like dealer purchases about as much as a root canal, but I don’t want to go to the Tesla system. Unlike others, I think the dealer system we have, in most cases, allows customers to shop around and get a good deal.
In my opinion, besides pressure through social media (this thread for example), I think a congress person from a largely rural state (maybe Iowa) should drag some Ford execs before Congress to explain why their allocation system doesn’t violate anti-consumer laws. I don’t think Ford wants the Bronco brand associated with such a negative perception. There was a poster (Tricia?) that made a good point that rural dealers are probably going to sell a disproportionate number of F-150’s, which puts them at a disadvantage in the Bronco allocation system Ford just published. I understand that large dealers have too big of a lobby to make any real change to dealer franchise laws, which probably protects Ford when they do stupid stuff like this. But maybe the threat of having to explain, in person, their allocation system in front of a Congressional committee will cause Ford big shots to re-think their allocation strategy on the Bronco.
Again, I’m NOT an attorney but this really reeks of an anti-consumer practice. Maybe an attorney with franchise law expertise can offer a free opinion.
One last thought, Mr. Levine’s tweet response was pretty ill conceived and not a good look. He needs a handler to read that crap before he hits the submit button. Or if a handler sent the tweet, I’d fire the handler.
Thanks Karen. This hasn't been political at all, unless you are talking corporate politics? The fact is that Ford has done a horrible job communicating with its customers. This whold thread could have been avoided if Ford (and Mr. Levine) had done a better job.Just went through and reported every damn political comment. This thread is turning into a shit show.
What are you talking about? 200 owners would state you’re wrong. Everyone had a choice. The dealerships did compete. Your anger is with Ford not the dealer system.And Granger is currently being punished (along with their customers) for doing that. Ford isn't allowing that competition.
That’s on Ford. They are the ones who built lots vehicles instead of customer orders.Because their allocations are set they make more money in current car market by not taking reservation holders and selling off dealer stock, making walkins compete for limited supply.
The political messages were removed by a moderator. There were like 10 in a row specifically digging into political leanings.Thanks Karen. This hasn't been political at all, unless you are talking corporate politics? The fact is that Ford has done a horrible job communicating with its customers. This whold thread could have been avoided if Ford (and Mr. Levine) had done a better job.
You are absolutely right. I'm angry at Ford for not letting the dealerships compete.What are you talking about? 200 owners would state you’re wrong. Everyone had a choice. The dealerships did compete. Your anger is with Ford not the dealer system.
I may be missing something ... the assumption everyone is making is that the sum of all dealer allocations for 2022 is less than or equal to 2022 production. Does anyone know for a fact or have a reasonable set of numbers that indicates this is true? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking someone with better perspective than many of us on here. In the event 2022 production exceeds total 2022 allocation then the issue is mitigated somewhat, not 100%, but not 5 years to clear existing orders?We should be good through 2023. We'll see how allocation plays out at that point.
Your numbers make sense. Ford will produce plenty of of Broncos next year. They are just choosing to not send them to reservation holders.I may be missing something ... the assumption everyone is making is that the sum of all dealer allocations for 2022 is less than or equal to 2022 production. Does anyone know for a fact or have a reasonable set of numbers that indicates this is true? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking someone with better perspective than many of us on here. In the event 2022 production exceeds total 2022 allocation then the issue is mitigated somewhat, not 100%, but not 5 years to clear existing orders?
In rough numbers, assuming 25,000 produced September to date, so 100,000 of the 125,000 converted reservations (dealer demos will free up to sell in this time frame), assuming enough MIC production to clear 5,000 - 7,000 remaining DM's (I think the 15,000 includes dealer demos - unsold and remaining on Ford books) and to produce 75,000 new vehicles in 2022 and in 2023 ... maybe existing orders get cleared by early-mid 2023? Peak production in August was about 375 per day, assuming 200 days per year that is about 75,000 vehicles per year.
Ford will adjust allocations, presumably in approximately the same ratio either plus or minus for the dealers. Allocations will match production.I may be missing something ... the assumption everyone is making is that the sum of all dealer allocations for 2022 is less than or equal to 2022 production. Does anyone know for a fact or have a reasonable set of numbers that indicates this is true? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking someone with better perspective than many of us on here. In the event 2022 production exceeds total 2022 allocation then the issue is mitigated somewhat, not 100%, but not 5 years to clear existing orders?
In rough numbers, assuming 25,000 produced September to date, so 100,000 of the 125,000 converted reservations (dealer demos will free up to sell in this time frame), assuming enough MIC production to clear 5,000 - 7,000 remaining DM's (I think the 15,000 includes dealer demos - unsold and remaining on Ford books) and to produce 75,000 new vehicles in 2022 and in 2023 ... maybe existing orders get cleared by early-mid 2023? Peak production in August was about 375 per day, assuming 200 days per year that is about 75,000 vehicles per year.
My point is we don't really know that ... if they produce more than what has been allocated across all dealers where does the excess go? My guess is they'll reallocate. I'm not saying the allocation scheme is fair or that I agree with it, just wondering if it's doomsday.Your numbers make sense. Ford will produce plenty of of Broncos next year. They are just choosing to not send them to reservation holders.
Are there dealers who are getting more allocation than orders?Ford will adjust allocations, presumably in approximately the same ratio either plus or minus for the dealers. Allocations will match production.
It is not that Ford cannot make enough in 2022 to fill all the reservation orders (or 2023 if commodities go missing again), it is that they are CHOOSING to give allocations to some dealers that exceed their orders. While those extra allocations are turned into dealer stock to see to anyone, those with reservation converted orders get pushed back later, in the extreme case of Granger, like three years later.
So the idea is that a dealer will choose to sell dealer stock to someone other than a reservation holder at that dealer (for a massive markup)? I'm sure many will go for the big markup ... maybe even my dealer who so far seems to be treating everyone consistently: MSPR + $1200 (what good is MSRP minus if you can't get it) and a $2,000 non-refundable deposit. I'd like to think if they have dealer stock close to what I want, I'd get a call ... maybe I'm smoking crack. Will the market support $5k+ markup a year from now (assuming some level of dealer stock at competing dealers)?Ford will adjust allocations, presumably in approximately the same ratio either plus or minus for the dealers. Allocations will match production.
It is not that Ford cannot make enough in 2022 to fill all the reservation orders (or 2023 if commodities go missing again), it is that they are CHOOSING to give allocations to some dealers that exceed their orders. While those extra allocations are turned into dealer stock to see to anyone, those with reservation converted orders get pushed back later, in the extreme case of Granger, like three years later.