Dealer Allocation
4/29/05 | 06:24 AM
#41
Cobra Member
Joined: November 1, 2004
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
the should build and deliver the car in the order they were placed.. dealer should ge t2 promo cars 1 v6 , 1 gt . and every car should be ordered just like years past and you would not have a problem getting your car.. thats just my piont of view.
4/29/05 | 06:50 AM
#42
Mach 1 Member
Joined: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Originally posted by TomServo92+April 28, 2005, 9:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TomServo92 @ April 28, 2005, 9:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-moc1976@April 28, 2005, 6:16 PM
It's not that hard is not the same as easy.
It's not that hard is not the same as easy.
pk2112 said it right, if I want to come here to vent about this stupid allocation system than its a healthy way to do that. I also agree, that Ford didn't do enough homework on this car. With this substantial re-design they should have done more work to determine what the allocation mix should have been. Then people wouldn't be waiting so long for their cars.
What exactly do you mean by "allocation mix"? Are you referring to the V8-to-V6 ratio (which is determined by CAFE)? Or are you referring to dealer allocations (which is determined by dealer sales of all Ford models not just the Mustang)? Or are you referring to allocation of parts for popular options like IUP (which I would agree was marketing short-sightedness)?
[/b][/quote]
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
4/29/05 | 07:17 AM
#43
V6 Member
Joined: April 26, 2005
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
In a perfect world, Ford's production system would work on a "First In-First Out" basis. This puts the consumer in charge of their own destiny as far as who they choose to do business with at the dealership level. The logical extension of this argument is that Ford's customer is not the end user of the vehicle, but their dealer network. Advertising and marketing at the factory level would suggest that you and I are "Ford" customers; the reality is that we are customers of X,Y, or Z Ford dealership.
The fact is that the current system is not equipped to handle extreme situations like the intro of the Mustang. In the everyday world, it works just fine. Consider what the situation would be if you walked in to your Ford dealer and ordered a.....Ranger, because you couldn't find one you liked on the lot. Odds are a search will be done first, then an order as a last resort. Do you think that that Ranger would take 4-6 months to arrive? I am illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but that is what the situation calls for.
The current system most likely will not be changed, because its shortcomings are only revealed by an intro like this which does not happen very often. Actually this system, in the example of the Mustang, could be called anti-market because it effectively takes away the consumer's ability to choose who they will do business with (i.e. consumers are forced to the larger dealerships either to order a vehicle, or purchase from stock at inflated prices). The allocation system based on the "turn and earn" edict becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the smaller dealers will only be able to get product when supply catches up with demand. When that happens, to state the obvious, the game is up and the cars sit on the various lots and discounting begins. The question in the case of the Mustang is-when will this happen?
I am now treating this whole situation like the weather; I can complain about it, but there isn't much I can do about it. Despite all the blustery rhetoric on not only this, but other websites, I would imagine that 99% of us who have endured this wait will end up with an '05 or '06 Mustang in our garages, despite threats to defect to another manufacturer.
Time to step off of the soap box. Good luck to all.
The fact is that the current system is not equipped to handle extreme situations like the intro of the Mustang. In the everyday world, it works just fine. Consider what the situation would be if you walked in to your Ford dealer and ordered a.....Ranger, because you couldn't find one you liked on the lot. Odds are a search will be done first, then an order as a last resort. Do you think that that Ranger would take 4-6 months to arrive? I am illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but that is what the situation calls for.
The current system most likely will not be changed, because its shortcomings are only revealed by an intro like this which does not happen very often. Actually this system, in the example of the Mustang, could be called anti-market because it effectively takes away the consumer's ability to choose who they will do business with (i.e. consumers are forced to the larger dealerships either to order a vehicle, or purchase from stock at inflated prices). The allocation system based on the "turn and earn" edict becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the smaller dealers will only be able to get product when supply catches up with demand. When that happens, to state the obvious, the game is up and the cars sit on the various lots and discounting begins. The question in the case of the Mustang is-when will this happen?
I am now treating this whole situation like the weather; I can complain about it, but there isn't much I can do about it. Despite all the blustery rhetoric on not only this, but other websites, I would imagine that 99% of us who have endured this wait will end up with an '05 or '06 Mustang in our garages, despite threats to defect to another manufacturer.
Time to step off of the soap box. Good luck to all.
4/29/05 | 09:03 AM
#44
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 28
From: Conroe, TX
Originally posted by moc1976@April 29, 2005, 6:53 AM
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
4/29/05 | 09:05 AM
#45
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 28
From: Conroe, TX
Originally posted by pk2112@April 29, 2005, 7:20 AM
In a perfect world, Ford's production system would work on a "First In-First Out" basis. This puts the consumer in charge of their own destiny as far as who they choose to do business with at the dealership level. The logical extension of this argument is that Ford's customer is not the end user of the vehicle, but their dealer network. Advertising and marketing at the factory level would suggest that you and I are "Ford" customers; the reality is that we are customers of X,Y, or Z Ford dealership.
The fact is that the current system is not equipped to handle extreme situations like the intro of the Mustang. In the everyday world, it works just fine. Consider what the situation would be if you walked in to your Ford dealer and ordered a.....Ranger, because you couldn't find one you liked on the lot. Odds are a search will be done first, then an order as a last resort. Do you think that that Ranger would take 4-6 months to arrive? I am illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but that is what the situation calls for.
The current system most likely will not be changed, because its shortcomings are only revealed by an intro like this which does not happen very often. Actually this system, in the example of the Mustang, could be called anti-market because it effectively takes away the consumer's ability to choose who they will do business with (i.e. consumers are forced to the larger dealerships either to order a vehicle, or purchase from stock at inflated prices). The allocation system based on the "turn and earn" edict becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the smaller dealers will only be able to get product when supply catches up with demand. When that happens, to state the obvious, the game is up and the cars sit on the various lots and discounting begins. The question in the case of the Mustang is-when will this happen?
I am now treating this whole situation like the weather; I can complain about it, but there isn't much I can do about it. Despite all the blustery rhetoric on not only this, but other websites, I would imagine that 99% of us who have endured this wait will end up with an '05 or '06 Mustang in our garages, despite threats to defect to another manufacturer.
Time to step off of the soap box. Good luck to all.
In a perfect world, Ford's production system would work on a "First In-First Out" basis. This puts the consumer in charge of their own destiny as far as who they choose to do business with at the dealership level. The logical extension of this argument is that Ford's customer is not the end user of the vehicle, but their dealer network. Advertising and marketing at the factory level would suggest that you and I are "Ford" customers; the reality is that we are customers of X,Y, or Z Ford dealership.
The fact is that the current system is not equipped to handle extreme situations like the intro of the Mustang. In the everyday world, it works just fine. Consider what the situation would be if you walked in to your Ford dealer and ordered a.....Ranger, because you couldn't find one you liked on the lot. Odds are a search will be done first, then an order as a last resort. Do you think that that Ranger would take 4-6 months to arrive? I am illustrating absurdity by being absurd, but that is what the situation calls for.
The current system most likely will not be changed, because its shortcomings are only revealed by an intro like this which does not happen very often. Actually this system, in the example of the Mustang, could be called anti-market because it effectively takes away the consumer's ability to choose who they will do business with (i.e. consumers are forced to the larger dealerships either to order a vehicle, or purchase from stock at inflated prices). The allocation system based on the "turn and earn" edict becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the smaller dealers will only be able to get product when supply catches up with demand. When that happens, to state the obvious, the game is up and the cars sit on the various lots and discounting begins. The question in the case of the Mustang is-when will this happen?
I am now treating this whole situation like the weather; I can complain about it, but there isn't much I can do about it. Despite all the blustery rhetoric on not only this, but other websites, I would imagine that 99% of us who have endured this wait will end up with an '05 or '06 Mustang in our garages, despite threats to defect to another manufacturer.
Time to step off of the soap box. Good luck to all.
4/29/05 | 09:11 AM
#46
Mach 1 Member
Joined: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Originally posted by TomServo92+April 29, 2005, 9:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TomServo92 @ April 29, 2005, 9:06 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-moc1976@April 29, 2005, 6:53 AM
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
[/b][/quote]
Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem. I may sound like a politician, but you sound like Mr. Obvious to me. So, everybody has the same system, so it must be OK. Good reasoning.
And you don't answer my questions either, so why should I bother with yours. I guess in your world everything is either easy or hard, there's nothing in between.
4/29/05 | 09:36 AM
#47
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 28
From: Conroe, TX
Originally posted by moc1976+April 29, 2005, 9:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moc1976 @ April 29, 2005, 9:14 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Like I said, you sound more like a politician.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
Originally posted by TomServo92@April 29, 2005, 9:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-moc1976
<!--QuoteBegin-moc1976
@April 29, 2005, 6:53 AM
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Like I said, you sound more like a politician.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
And you don't answer my questions either, so why should I bother with yours. I guess in your world everything is either easy or hard, there's nothing in between.
[/b][/quote]
They have the same system because, like I said above, it works 99% of the time. That's why 99% of time, people don't complain about it. So now your statement "Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem." makes alot more sense doesn't it? As for being Mr. Obvious, sometimes you have to be that or people just don't comprehend what you're trying to say.
As for your question, you said changing the allocation system "isn't hard". It's funny but I don't see any statement regarding levels of difficulty in that wording. You didn't start talking about the gray areas in between "hard" and "easy" until I called you on it.
As for answering my questions, I really don't care. As I said, I never expected an answer anyway.
I think this topic has been beat to death. Why don't we just end it now, OK?
4/29/05 | 09:55 AM
#48
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio, TX
Lets keep this simple, if you want a Mustang, go to a place that typically has a higher demand for them, in the warmer states, and go to a dealership that sells a lot of cars. Sounds fairly simple to me. Don't go to a small town dealership in the snow belt and expect to have your car in 4-6 weeks. It's not gonna happen. If I lived where it snowed a lot, I definitely wouldn't have bought a Mustang, but since it never snows here, I bought one.
4/29/05 | 10:08 AM
#49
Mach 1 Member
Joined: March 9, 2005
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Originally posted by TomServo92+April 29, 2005, 9:39 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TomServo92 @ April 29, 2005, 9:39 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Like I said, you sound more like a politician.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem. I may sound like a politician, but you sound like Mr. Obvious to me. So, everybody has the same system, so it must be OK. Good reasoning.
And you don't answer my questions either, so why should I bother with yours. I guess in your world everything is either easy or hard, there's nothing in between.
Originally posted by moc1976@April 29, 2005, 9:14 AM
Originally posted by TomServo92@April 29, 2005, 9:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-moc1976
<!--QuoteBegin-moc1976
@April 29, 2005, 6:53 AM
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Like I said, you sound more like a politician.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem. I may sound like a politician, but you sound like Mr. Obvious to me. So, everybody has the same system, so it must be OK. Good reasoning.
And you don't answer my questions either, so why should I bother with yours. I guess in your world everything is either easy or hard, there's nothing in between.
As for your question, you said changing the allocation system "isn't hard". It's funny but I don't see any statement regarding levels of difficulty in that wording. You didn't start talking about the gray areas in between "hard" and "easy" until I called you on it.
As for answering my questions, I really don't care. As I said, I never expected an answer anyway.
I think this topic has been beat to death. Why don't we just end it now, OK?
[/b][/quote]
Mark,
Do you have a car on order ? or have you taken delivery of youre ordered car ? or do you have nothing at stake here ? I have been waiting to spend my hard earned money on this car since jan, many others are waiting as well, let them rant, the allocation process blows, period !!!
4/29/05 | 10:48 AM
#50
Mach 1 Member
Joined: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Scott, I was wondering the same thing. From the looks of it Mark (I'm Marc) has a Mazda 6 and I don't see any information on an ordered 05 Mustang. So, why is he so concerend about us complaining about the process?
I do have a car on order. I found a dealer that accepted X-plan, most were not, thats why I ordered from them. If I could have ordered from a large dealer that was accepting X-plan I would have. But guess what, they knew they had leverage and could make more money by selling at MSRP or above. So, a system that promotes this behavior is flawed. I don't care if every car mfg. uses it or not, its still a bad system. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to travel to a state that doesn't see snow to get a car, what are the Ford dealers around here for? I guess it snows here, so we should only order 4x4s or expect our dealers to have them.
So Mark, yeah, we can end it. This thread is being used for people to discuss the Dealer Allocation topic. Most of us that have posted about it, think it stinks because of our long wait. I appreciate your feedback on why you accept it. But there's no need for you to get personal in your posts like when you said "It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had." or saying that I sound like a politician. I apologize for responding to those posts with personal jabs as well, so I hope we can just agree to disagree and move on.
I do have a car on order. I found a dealer that accepted X-plan, most were not, thats why I ordered from them. If I could have ordered from a large dealer that was accepting X-plan I would have. But guess what, they knew they had leverage and could make more money by selling at MSRP or above. So, a system that promotes this behavior is flawed. I don't care if every car mfg. uses it or not, its still a bad system. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to travel to a state that doesn't see snow to get a car, what are the Ford dealers around here for? I guess it snows here, so we should only order 4x4s or expect our dealers to have them.
So Mark, yeah, we can end it. This thread is being used for people to discuss the Dealer Allocation topic. Most of us that have posted about it, think it stinks because of our long wait. I appreciate your feedback on why you accept it. But there's no need for you to get personal in your posts like when you said "It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had." or saying that I sound like a politician. I apologize for responding to those posts with personal jabs as well, so I hope we can just agree to disagree and move on.
4/29/05 | 10:50 AM
#51
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 28
From: Conroe, TX
Originally posted by mmoonshot+April 29, 2005, 10:11 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mmoonshot @ April 29, 2005, 10:11 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Like I said, you sound more like a politician.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem. I may sound like a politician, but you sound like Mr. Obvious to me. So, everybody has the same system, so it must be OK. Good reasoning.
And you don't answer my questions either, so why should I bother with yours. I guess in your world everything is either easy or hard, there's nothing in between.
They have the same system because, like I said above, it works 99% of the time. That's why 99% of time, people don't complain about it. So now your statement "Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem." makes alot more sense doesn't it? As for being Mr. Obvious, sometimes you have to be that or people just don't comprehend what you're trying to say.
As for your question, you said changing the allocation system "isn't hard". It's funny but I don't see any statement regarding levels of difficulty in that wording. You didn't start talking about the gray areas in between "hard" and "easy" until I called you on it.
As for answering my questions, I really don't care. As I said, I never expected an answer anyway.
I think this topic has been beat to death. Why don't we just end it now, OK?
Originally posted by TomServo92@April 29, 2005, 9:39 AM
Originally posted by moc1976@April 29, 2005, 9:14 AM
Originally posted by TomServo92@April 29, 2005, 9:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-moc1976
<!--QuoteBegin-moc1976
@April 29, 2005, 6:53 AM
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Oh, I'm sure, you want to see a pay check stub? And there is a difference between something being not hard and easy. There is some middle ground there. Are you telling me that everything in life is either hard or easy? Think there's some other options there. I'll repeat what I've said, it wouldn't be hard, but it might be a little expensive and certainly not easy. Ford doesn't want to do it since they could really care less, as long as what they are building is being sold, either into dealer stock or for a retail order.
I don't think either one of us are changing our minds here, so I'm not going into any more detail on what I meant by allocation mix, it will just lead to more senseless discussion. That's great if you think the current system works, but I think most people would disagree with you.
Like I said, you sound more like a politician.
It's funny that the only time people complain about the system not working is when they aren't getting what they want. Like I said before, it isn't a perfect system but the entire auto industry does it so there must be something to it or it would have already been changed by someone.
It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had.
Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem. I may sound like a politician, but you sound like Mr. Obvious to me. So, everybody has the same system, so it must be OK. Good reasoning.
And you don't answer my questions either, so why should I bother with yours. I guess in your world everything is either easy or hard, there's nothing in between.
They have the same system because, like I said above, it works 99% of the time. That's why 99% of time, people don't complain about it. So now your statement "Duh, why would people complain about something if there is no problem." makes alot more sense doesn't it? As for being Mr. Obvious, sometimes you have to be that or people just don't comprehend what you're trying to say.
As for your question, you said changing the allocation system "isn't hard". It's funny but I don't see any statement regarding levels of difficulty in that wording. You didn't start talking about the gray areas in between "hard" and "easy" until I called you on it.
As for answering my questions, I really don't care. As I said, I never expected an answer anyway.
I think this topic has been beat to death. Why don't we just end it now, OK?
Do you have a car on order ? or have you taken delivery of youre ordered car ? or do you have nothing at stake here ? I have been waiting to spend my hard earned money on this car since jan, many others are waiting as well, let them rant, the allocation process blows, period !!!
[/b][/quote]
Nope, I'm waiting on an '06. I knew this was going to happen so I made my purchase plans accordingly. I set my expectations based on the reality of the situation.
I've never told anyone they can't rant or be upset. I'm just trying to give my viewpoint on the situation just as your and others are doing. Last time I checked, having an '05 on order wasn't a requirement to post in this forum.
4/29/05 | 10:58 AM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Joined: March 9, 2005
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Originally posted by moc1976@April 29, 2005, 10:51 AM
Scott, I was wondering the same thing. From the looks of it Mark (I'm Marc) has a Mazda 6 and I don't see any information on an ordered 05 Mustang. So, why is he so concerend about us complaining about the process?
I do have a car on order. I found a dealer that accepted X-plan, most were not, thats why I ordered from them. If I could have ordered from a large dealer that was accepting X-plan I would have. But guess what, they knew they had leverage and could make more money by selling at MSRP or above. So, a system that promotes this behavior is flawed. I don't care if every car mfg. uses it or not, its still a bad system. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to travel to a state that doesn't see snow to get a car, what are the Ford dealers around here for? I guess it snows here, so we should only order 4x4s or expect our dealers to have them.
So Mark, yeah, we can end it. This thread is being used for people to discuss the Dealer Allocation topic. Most of us that have posted about it, think it stinks because of our long wait. I appreciate your feedback on why you accept it. But there's no need for you to get personal in your posts like when you said "It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had." or saying that I sound like a politician. I apologize for responding to those posts with personal jabs as well, so I hope we can just agree to disagree and move on.
Scott, I was wondering the same thing. From the looks of it Mark (I'm Marc) has a Mazda 6 and I don't see any information on an ordered 05 Mustang. So, why is he so concerend about us complaining about the process?
I do have a car on order. I found a dealer that accepted X-plan, most were not, thats why I ordered from them. If I could have ordered from a large dealer that was accepting X-plan I would have. But guess what, they knew they had leverage and could make more money by selling at MSRP or above. So, a system that promotes this behavior is flawed. I don't care if every car mfg. uses it or not, its still a bad system. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to travel to a state that doesn't see snow to get a car, what are the Ford dealers around here for? I guess it snows here, so we should only order 4x4s or expect our dealers to have them.
So Mark, yeah, we can end it. This thread is being used for people to discuss the Dealer Allocation topic. Most of us that have posted about it, think it stinks because of our long wait. I appreciate your feedback on why you accept it. But there's no need for you to get personal in your posts like when you said "It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had." or saying that I sound like a politician. I apologize for responding to those posts with personal jabs as well, so I hope we can just agree to disagree and move on.
He has nothing at stake :nono: I wouldnt reply to him any longer, just alot of hot air, I see youre order has been scheduled, congrats, it will not be to much longer hang in there, checked mine just a few minutes ago, still C/U oh well.
4/29/05 | 11:06 AM
#53
Bullitt Member
Joined: February 12, 2005
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Originally posted by WERKED 66@April 29, 2005, 7:27 AM
the should build and deliver the car in the order they were placed.. dealer should ge t2 promo cars 1 v6 , 1 gt . and every car should be ordered just like years past and you would not have a problem getting your car.. thats just my piont of view.
the should build and deliver the car in the order they were placed.. dealer should ge t2 promo cars 1 v6 , 1 gt . and every car should be ordered just like years past and you would not have a problem getting your car.. thats just my piont of view.
Amen!
4/29/05 | 11:13 AM
#54
V6 Member
Joined: April 26, 2005
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
By no means am I suggesting that the system is infallible. While I do have a much greater understanding of the allocation system than I did two months ago, I do believe there is room for improvement. As it stands, the system is "anti-market" in that it effectively diminishes a consumer's choice to patronize a dealership of their choice, since that dealership is at the mercy of the factory with regard to the allocation. Making choice a scarce commodity by definition drives up the price of the product. Keep in mind, once again, that this situation only arises during a popular introduction. After some thought, a possible suggestion would be some sort of a hybrid approach in allocation and production. First of all, advance planning and study of all possible scenarios of a new model introduction should be reconsidered. Whether or not this is the current case, there could be multiple situations contemplated by the factory with an implementation strategy for each one-call them "below anticipated demand, equilibrium, and above anticipated demand". Each should have triggers that automatically increase or decrease procurement and production based on the condition of the order banks. Ford effectively closed the barn door after the horse was out (no pun intended) by deciding to increase production a little too late in the game. As far as the current situation in concerned, Ford might consider allowing a "maximum age" for a retail order (regardless of its source) in the system before it is automatically serialized and sent to the line. This way, smaller dealers can at least get in the game by having aged orders "sprinkled" into production. Larger dealers would still have the advantage of time by being the first in line based on allocation. Granted, I don't have a solution for fraudulent ordering by unscrupulous dealers filling the order banks, but it is something to think about.
Think of all this as a contingency plan to supplement the current system in times of a popular introduction. Ford may already have some of these ideas in use or on the books; but, if they do, I don't see it. This whole thing would make a great case study for an advanced degree college course.
Think of all this as a contingency plan to supplement the current system in times of a popular introduction. Ford may already have some of these ideas in use or on the books; but, if they do, I don't see it. This whole thing would make a great case study for an advanced degree college course.
4/29/05 | 11:41 AM
#55
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: November 25, 2004
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
From: Lehigh Valley, PA
Just wondering how Ford managed back in 1965. From the History of the Mustang article Mustang History Thread, Ford sold 559,451 Mustangs for the '65 model year (409,260 coupes, 77,079 2+2 fastbacks and 73,112 convertibles).
Ford expects to make 192,000 units this year with GTs making up 30% of the mix. I can answer my own question on why the shortage, Ford only allocated supply for 30% GTs and orders are far greater. But did they have a better handle on it back in 1965 and were able to anticipate and scale up to the demand; keeping in mind there were far many more engine choices (5 right?) as well as a plethora of colors one could choose from? The final combinations of options people could put together to individualize their cars was amazing. How did Ford do it?
Ford expects to make 192,000 units this year with GTs making up 30% of the mix. I can answer my own question on why the shortage, Ford only allocated supply for 30% GTs and orders are far greater. But did they have a better handle on it back in 1965 and were able to anticipate and scale up to the demand; keeping in mind there were far many more engine choices (5 right?) as well as a plethora of colors one could choose from? The final combinations of options people could put together to individualize their cars was amazing. How did Ford do it?
4/29/05 | 11:58 AM
#56
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio, TX
Originally posted by blackhat97@April 29, 2005, 11:44 AM
Just wondering how Ford managed back in 1965. From the History of the Mustang article Mustang History Thread, Ford sold 559,451 Mustangs for the '65 model year (409,260 coupes, 77,079 2+2 fastbacks and 73,112 convertibles).
Ford expects to make 192,000 units this year with GTs making up 30% of the mix. I can answer my own question on why the shortage, Ford only allocated supply for 30% GTs and orders are far greater. But did they have a better handle on it back in 1965 and were able to anticipate and scale up to the demand; keeping in mind there were far many more engine choices (5 right?) as well as a plethora of colors one could choose from? The final combinations of options people could put together to individualize their cars was amazing. How did Ford do it?
Just wondering how Ford managed back in 1965. From the History of the Mustang article Mustang History Thread, Ford sold 559,451 Mustangs for the '65 model year (409,260 coupes, 77,079 2+2 fastbacks and 73,112 convertibles).
Ford expects to make 192,000 units this year with GTs making up 30% of the mix. I can answer my own question on why the shortage, Ford only allocated supply for 30% GTs and orders are far greater. But did they have a better handle on it back in 1965 and were able to anticipate and scale up to the demand; keeping in mind there were far many more engine choices (5 right?) as well as a plethora of colors one could choose from? The final combinations of options people could put together to individualize their cars was amazing. How did Ford do it?
1996 49,541 GTs 135,980 total 36.4%
1997 29,877 108,344 27.6%
1998 45,813 175,522 26.1%
1999 33,333 133,907 24.9%
2000 52,545 215,693 24.4%
2003 41,756 155,370 26.9%
4/29/05 | 12:06 PM
#57
Team Mustang Source
Joined: October 14, 2004
Posts: 393
Likes: 1
From: Sask. Canada
What I think might be one solution to the Allocation Problem.
Go to a Dealer that sells a LOT of Trucks, and has allocations
for Mustangs. Your order goes in as priority 10 that day,
Ford Accepts the order that day.
Your Salesman bugs the Regional Rep. every time he sees him.
FORD is a Truck driven company so if any Dealer pressure can be
exerted then these are the Guys that can.
This is, I hope is the strategy that will work for me.
Although it hasn't yet.
The allocation system stinks, but then again it does work (baddly).
Go to a Dealer that sells a LOT of Trucks, and has allocations
for Mustangs. Your order goes in as priority 10 that day,
Ford Accepts the order that day.
Your Salesman bugs the Regional Rep. every time he sees him.
FORD is a Truck driven company so if any Dealer pressure can be
exerted then these are the Guys that can.
This is, I hope is the strategy that will work for me.
Although it hasn't yet.
The allocation system stinks, but then again it does work (baddly).
4/29/05 | 12:29 PM
#58
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 28
From: Conroe, TX
Originally posted by moc1976@April 29, 2005, 10:51 AM
Scott, I was wondering the same thing. From the looks of it Mark (I'm Marc) has a Mazda 6 and I don't see any information on an ordered 05 Mustang. So, why is he so concerend about us complaining about the process?
I do have a car on order. I found a dealer that accepted X-plan, most were not, thats why I ordered from them. If I could have ordered from a large dealer that was accepting X-plan I would have. But guess what, they knew they had leverage and could make more money by selling at MSRP or above. So, a system that promotes this behavior is flawed. I don't care if every car mfg. uses it or not, its still a bad system. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to travel to a state that doesn't see snow to get a car, what are the Ford dealers around here for? I guess it snows here, so we should only order 4x4s or expect our dealers to have them.
So Mark, yeah, we can end it. This thread is being used for people to discuss the Dealer Allocation topic. Most of us that have posted about it, think it stinks because of our long wait. I appreciate your feedback on why you accept it. But there's no need for you to get personal in your posts like when you said "It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had." or saying that I sound like a politician. I apologize for responding to those posts with personal jabs as well, so I hope we can just agree to disagree and move on.
Scott, I was wondering the same thing. From the looks of it Mark (I'm Marc) has a Mazda 6 and I don't see any information on an ordered 05 Mustang. So, why is he so concerend about us complaining about the process?
I do have a car on order. I found a dealer that accepted X-plan, most were not, thats why I ordered from them. If I could have ordered from a large dealer that was accepting X-plan I would have. But guess what, they knew they had leverage and could make more money by selling at MSRP or above. So, a system that promotes this behavior is flawed. I don't care if every car mfg. uses it or not, its still a bad system. And I'm sorry, I'm not going to travel to a state that doesn't see snow to get a car, what are the Ford dealers around here for? I guess it snows here, so we should only order 4x4s or expect our dealers to have them.
So Mark, yeah, we can end it. This thread is being used for people to discuss the Dealer Allocation topic. Most of us that have posted about it, think it stinks because of our long wait. I appreciate your feedback on why you accept it. But there's no need for you to get personal in your posts like when you said "It's also OK by me if you don't want to elaborate on allocation mix. I wasn't expecting any detailed information from you anyway based on past debates we've had." or saying that I sound like a politician. I apologize for responding to those posts with personal jabs as well, so I hope we can just agree to disagree and move on.
Believe it or not I do understand the frustration of waiting which is why I choose to wait for an '06. But like I've said, the system in place exists for a reason. Yeah, it shows it's weaknesses in a situation like this where demand far exceeds supply but I don't see it changing. It serves the auto industry well in normal situations. There's no need to overhaul a system just because it doesn't work in 1% of the cases.
I agree on disagreeing and just moving on.
4/29/05 | 12:34 PM
#59
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,973
Likes: 28
From: Conroe, TX
Originally posted by mmoonshot@April 29, 2005, 11:01 AM
Marc,
He has nothing at stake :nono: I wouldnt reply to him any longer, just alot of hot air, I see youre order has been scheduled, congrats, it will not be to much longer hang in there, checked mine just a few minutes ago, still C/U oh well.
Marc,
He has nothing at stake :nono: I wouldnt reply to him any longer, just alot of hot air, I see youre order has been scheduled, congrats, it will not be to much longer hang in there, checked mine just a few minutes ago, still C/U oh well.
4/29/05 | 12:40 PM
#60
GT Member
Joined: May 15, 2004
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
This may sound really mean, but does anybody here really think that Ford "The Company" gets up everyday and says "Well who are we screw over today? Humm have a ton of Mustang orders, but big woop." This compay (and all car compaies) has flaults to be sure and are doing there best to have as many Mustangs as they can out as soon as they can. If they didn't care they would have not uped the production of the car. Simple fact here people supply and demand the car is in demand high demand and there are only so many Mustangs to be built period. Sorry and I know people will light me up with complains since I have already have my 05 Stang. I feel like Brad here I ordered my 05 Stang on April 10 of 2004. I was the second person in my area to contact my dealer and he ordered his cars according to that "Retail wise" I got my car in October. I feel bad for people but if you ordered in Jan you man get left out. My local dealer has 9 GT orders right now that are all retail and has deposits on them. He will be lucky to get 2 before the models swtich over to 06. He told his customers that they will continue down that order when he starts his 06 order. In total to date my dealer recieved 6 GT and my end up with a grand total of 8. Wow supply and demand. If they made 100000000 of them then they would be common and would not be worth the money they are and would not have the hertage. If want that then get at Taurus...