Kris Kolman

Once again I'm not claiming midsized trucks are going to take over, GM is going to make bank, or that Ford made a mistake... Just that the size difference argument smells bad. Just saying the whole 10% excuse from Ford was a marketing smoke screen that fails a certain bit of logic. One should be able to apply that to other areas of the market if it is a logical argument. But cars seems to say 10% seems about the right difference as one jumps up size classes.... Don't believe me, look at the numbers yourself. Fusion footprint is 192 x 73 for 14016 sqin, while the Focus is 179 x 72 = 12888 sqin which makes the Focus 8% smaller. I don't see anyone claiming the Focus is too close in size or looks the same as a Fusion. And the Explorer is only 5% smaller than an Expedition. All that this is saying is that the claims of the midsized trucks being too close in size to a fullsized fails if I try to apply it to other areas of the market. Maybe I'm not smart enough to realize the pickup truck market doesn't work like the rest of the market.

Not sure what you were looking at... Colorado is 212.7 inches long for short bed Crew Cab and 225.0 inches long bed version. Compare that to 230.03 inches for the Silverado 1500 short bed Crew Cab which stretches to 239.57 inches for the long bed version. And the equivalent F-150 is 231.9 inches and 243.9 inches for the long and short bed respectively. Which means you can get a Colorado almost 2 1/2 feet shorter than a F-150. And for some perspective on 6 inches of width means... That is the same width difference between a Focus and a Taurus, which is quite noticeable (even with the Taurus's bad usage of space). As such for as questionable the midsized pickup truck strategy and buissness case is we need to stop saying they are the same size. On average one of these midsized to fullsized truck size difference is about the same difference as the Focus to the Taurus. Numbers don't lie...

Just for note South Metro Fire district is the suburbs to the south of the city... One wonders if there are off the shelf storage systems for the PIU/Explorer based platform. I wonder if something along the lines of a Transit Connect with its large aftermarket could be a better platform. I would assume the communications equipment in the PIU are modular and could find room in the Transit Connect.

Just as counter point... I also live in the Denver area and Tundras are few and far between. I do see a lot of Tacomas and 4Runners, in fact noticed 6 Tundras parked all seemingly together at work on Thursday. Half-ton wise what I see are a good mix of Fords, Dodges, and Chevy's with a few GMCs sprinkled in. Now as a trend I do see more and more car-based CUVs on the road down here on the front range. And that makes sense in an urban setting and the fact that Denver is on the plains.. But up in the mountains and out camping there isn't nearly as much acceptance. I see a great many people buying used traditional SUVs, changing brands, or stepping up to either Tahoe/Expeditions or half-tons. In my conversations with people out there there is a lack of trust to tow a camper or get into the backcountry. Now these same people think we're somewhat nuts taking a definitely non-offroader Mountaineer into the backcountry... But honestly we don't push it, going to well traveled sites and trailheads, and some of these people are offroader snobs. But I don't mind as with most things people overindulge and think they need a Wrangler when honestly a Escape would do what's needed. Its no surprise to me that the people camping at 10,000 ft in a tent when it gets into the 30s at night are the ones wanting an offroad lifestyle vehicle.

We tent camp and as such aren't ready to jump up a large rig... Are looking at smaller rigs (i.e. pop-ups), but are new to this and enjoying "roughing it"... My memory after weekend camping three weeks ago at a state park/reservoir near Steamboat Springs, followed by a 10 day road trip out to Los Angeles and back. I'd say 60% of all of the towing rigs are 3/4-ton or larger trucks, mostly Fords and Dodges with a few Chevys mixed in. Of the remaining they were split between 1/2-ton trucks and a mix of SUVs. Not a real SUV trend other than it was rare for a FWD-based CUV towing anything other than a pop-up sized rig. GM BOF SUVs ruled for sure, but a good many Fords, Toyotas, and Jeeps... Of the 1/2-ton trucks I'd say GM has the majority market share, but Ford was just behind with Dodge and Toyota being a rare sight. Can't comment about the number of Ecoboosts (didn't pay attention), but I know from a couple of friends that it is a popular boating tow platform.

I have a bias'd opinion, but have doubts anything will ever be built... Look at what he has been doing with coastal Texas on the promise of a new satellite rocket launch site. This is about the most stupid place to locate a launch site due to the oil rigs and populated island nations just to the east. The federal requirements for rocket overflight are extremely restrictive, let alone opening up international complications. But south coastal Texas has a fairly depressed economy... Be wary that this mega-battery plant turns out to be nothing more than a publicity stunt where some unfortunate city is going to spend money and time and get nothing out it. Although he is good at being buddy, buddy with politicians who must think we are stupid as they read prepared remarks from his lawyers. So who knows... Maybe we get another A123 tax payer funded disaster...

Perhaps I've just gotten too untrusting... But has me thinking they get funded by running these tests. No point in them being around if everyone scores a 5 star, right? As such continue adding new difficult tests to justify their existence... Organizations are good at assuring their collective job security is all. Another example of the same... Remember going to Los Angeles area as a kid during a "bad air day" and remember the smell and the burning eyes. Lived there for 8 years as an adult and a "bad air day" might have been a problem if you were sick, but didn't compare (didn't even notice). And yet the number of "bad air" days has remained about the same at 100-150 days per year. How is that? Because the rules continue to change... Could it be they set the rules to get updated to get the answer they want so they justify their existence? Not saying air quality or crash survival aren't things that shouldn't continually improve... Just a part of me wonders...

As a non-automotive competitor to Musk it doesn't surprise me that this is another soap bubble thin adventure... Guy is a complete flip-flam artist and a blowhard. And yet he continues to wow the uninformed as his supporters continue to let good money follow bad... Like rats following the Pied Piper Didn't some NY financier say that one shouldn't think as Tesla as an automotive company, but a forward thinking internet company? Then Musk tries his "I'm going to share everything with the world" spin... Which some are speculating is a way to boost his personal battery interests. Note: I'm seeing that Telsa is showing up on the top shorted listings... You've been warned

The aritcle seems speclutive at best... And quite short term in its thinking... What is Lincoln going to be building/designing in 20 years? Where's the auto market equivelent of Nostradamus... Only thing that can be said is look at current projects and extrapolate where the next logical steps are. Follow this trajectory and extrapolate from there: - MKZ - midsized sedan - start of the revolution - MKC - compact CUV - new entry for growth part of the market - MKX - midsized CUV - critical redesign of the profit model - Navigator - fullsized SUV - redesign of flagship - MKS - fullsized sedan - close the loop and make the next marketing push - MKT - fullsized CUV - close the lineup gap and provide a marketing second punch

Another one bites the dust... My company when they spun us off as a joint-venture they moved us to the Denver area, and shortly after Nissan moved to Tennessee. I remember vividly the twin Nissan and Toyota HQs right off the 405, and now both complexes will be emptied and with it millions of tax revenue dried up. California the land of public unions and 100% pension plans for life for those fortunate to work for the state is that big sucking sound you hear from the west. Every company I know has either moved or reduced its presence in California. Lockheed up in Sunnyvale, XCOR out in Mohave, Boeing not replacing C17 production, etc... And those that take the chance to leave the state they find a far better world... One where the price of a reasonably sized home is within the reach of most employees. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140504/AUTO01/305040009/Toyota-moved-Texas-traditions-not-taxes

With all the talk of China it seems appropriate to be talking about "interesting times"... Which actually isn't a Chinese proverb, but actually was taken from a British foreign service letter back home from 1936 (no doubt interesting times). "I know a dead parrot when I see one"... "Ahh no its resting"

Styling wise the Galaxy is all-minivan, which seems a signifcant styling and design direction change for the Flex. Additionally unless the Galaxy gets bigger it is going to be pretty small compared to other minvans... Galaxy wheelbase/length/width=112/190/74 compared to Caravan wheelbase/length/width=121/202/77... The Galaxy would have to grow a foot longer and 3 inches wider to be comparible to NA minivans and the Flex (which is similar in size). That would add costs to the Galaxy which under the top hat is near identical to the S-Max. Perhaps the market increase by adding NA and the rest of the world balances the additional costs. But Ford still has a decision on if to go all-minivan (Galaxy) or anti-minvan (Flex) in the styling and design direction... Because I don't see a common top hat that can do both effectively. If Ford decides to keep the stylign and design directions divergent than the current split designs seems best (Galaxy as a bloated S-Max and the Flex as a over styled Explorer derivative).

I also don't get why a refresh that address the 'Gators obvious engine weakness will do harm... A couple years late, but better than wait another couple for the eventual F-150 realignment. The rest of the refresh is a minor nose and IP change to do its best and sell the new powertrain. Note: I wasn't including the 'Gator in my list because I focused on CUVs not all the utilities, as I ignored the Lexus LX.

One doesn't ignore what the competition is doing, but one doesn't blindly copy it either. So I mark it down that Lexus has now decided to offer 2 CUVs... But that doesn't change that Lincoln has 3 and as such should approach the problem differently. Lincoln needs to recognize and adjust to the differences in its position not just clone what Lexus is doing. Putting a couple of tiny 3 row seats is not the 7 seater solution... Shoving your passengers unfortunate to be there is counter productive to providing a luxury experience. And people when buying said car go back there themselves to "try it out" before putting the money down. Those buying a C/SUV have shown themselves not to be fairly discriminatory and 911 or Mustang sized kids seats hasn't been shown to be successful. To do a 7 seater right means a much larger wheelbase, and potentially wider platform (3rd row needs to fit between the rear track). One doesn't solve the MKT problem by bastardizing the MKX... And puts pressure on the MKT that you have in your showroom and you need time to fix. Do a good MKX and then solve the MKT separately is the long view and the better move. On top of this I don't believe Lincoln is going to feel much negative effect from a 5 seat MKX as the luxury car market has shown itself to be very willing to sacrifice size and utility for the personal experience. If one looks further into this the expansion to China and the typical new car sales bump will almost assuredly increase sales to make the MKX successful. Then come back in a couple years with an much updated and much better focused MKT based on the soon to be here Explorer.

Key is proportions... One can have similar design details which can reinforce brand recognition. But that becomes dangerous when one can't tell the higher priced model from the cheep model. Seem to remember BMW has been caught a couple of times with this and ended up having to pay for an expensive refresh early to protect their brand. The balance is that you want the entry level buyer to feel like he gained entry into the exclusive club, but having the VIPs happy in their private area and not threatened by the hoi polloi.

Ford and Lincoln won't be looking to the Lexus and RX to see what to do about the MKX. The MKX is one car in a family of CUVs and thankfully Lincoln resisted the 7-seat passenger temptation. Lexus has a single CUV in its lineup... And while we can agree the MKT is in dire need to updating it is Lincoln's 7 seat CUV. And when taken as a family the MKX fits a role as a classic personal luxury utility, with the emphasis on luxury not utility. Think of it this way... Entry Level Model - MKC and MKZ Second Level Model - MKX, MKS, and MKT Ideally the MKX is one of three vehicles of similar level in the showroom with the utility focus left to the MKT. This works as there is certinaly a market for a vehicle that sacrifies the additonal row for more personal luxury. And if one looks at the buy rates we see that is more pronounced in the luxury car market. As for the new look... I like it more than the current... But seems a bit too much deriviative of the smaller MKC. Actual propoertions on the road will be key, else i could see that becoming a problem. The luxury market has an element of "look at me" that could result in people being disappointed if others think they are driving the "cheep one".

Another item the extensive use of AL introduces is galvanic corrosion... Does anyone know how Ford has electrically isolated the steel frame and the AL cab?

If Lincoln were to build a smaller car a C-Max based vehicle seems the logical place... I would absolutely be interested in something along the lines of the BMW 2-Series Active Tourer. But in saying so I think the importance of such a vehicle is in overseas markets. As such a followup 2nd wave introduction after the MKC/MKZ/MKX would seem to work better. Ideally such a 2nd wave would have to include a new MKS to not be interpreted as a "small and cheap" marketing drive, but part of organic growth. When you include the need to improve the MKTs performance in North America the MKS and MKT need to take the development front seat.

Airlines have played with the idea of not painting planes for weight savings in relation of fuel costs. American wrongly is thought to have not painted its airplane because of fuel savings.. But in truth that was because their CEO liked the look of an unpainted airplane. Other airlines that have looked into it found out the costs to polish and strip the airplane regularly to keep the look exceeded the fuel saving. The American fuel cost justification was as such marketing myth, and the "New" American has quietly started painting its airplanes with silver paint to avoid the regular stripping. So yes an unpainted F150 would have less weight.. But you would have to put a sealer on top of the metal as AL does oxidize. The difference for a large plane like a 777 is ~450lb for a full paint job and ~50lb for just sealer.

The current "beast" is a GM Topkick frame in name alone... It is truly a custom built one-off vehicle as all Presidential limos have been for some time. As long as GM can design a frame as specified by the Secret Service their lack of Medium Duty production won't be a problem. My guess is that due to unique demands the frame material will be custom built out of house at a yard used to dealing with government oversight (i.e. raw material certification). On the power train front I have been wondering when we might be seeing train-type power trains in military type vehicles, and buses for us civilians, for some time. There are significant packaging benefits to place electrical motors on the drive wheels separated from the engine, which operates as a high power generator. Particularly when you consider the demands of survivability against explosives. The Army boys in Ann Arbor haven't cleared said technology for general production, but have been making progress and aren't far off. Since the "improved beast" will be a one off that receives a great amount of care and feeding it might be a good place to take a risk on this powertrain technology.

So should a car company drop everything except for their most profitable vehicles? Are the Fiesta, Taurus, C-Max, and Expedition failures and not worthy of follow-ups because none make lots of money? The question is will GM recoup its investment, and will Toyota do the same when they are forced to upgrade the Tacoma. I understand Ford having limited resources, can't compete in every market, and most make risk/reward based decisions. I can understand in that equation the small truck market is lower on the priority list. But the small truck, just like the supersports and minivan markets, aren't non-viable smaller markets just because Ford doesn't compete. Just like the minivan market there appears to be enough volume to support 2 nameplates at around 100k units per year. I'll agree with you that SUVs compete and are shopped against pickup trucks in all regards... But SUVs have their limitations in terms of hauling dirty stuff, or oversized stuff. I have run into those restrictions when I went and bought a dozen 2x6's to work on a deck for example. The argument as a consumer for a mid-sized truck is that you can get those rear seats at much lower price. So thanks for supporting me with that argument... For me the now defunct Ranger was severely hampered by the lack of a CrewCab configuration for today's market. The RegularCab truck in all classes is going the way of the dodo, RegularCab full-sized sales have collapsed as well. I see plenty of newer Tacomas up in the mountains and back in town and not a single one is a RegularCab... In fact I can't remember the last time that I saw a retail sold RegularCab truck of any size. Only ones that come to mind are commercial chassis cab heavy duties with a custom box on the back. When I priced out what a XLT F150 SuperCrew earlier in the year, and I didn't see one under $32k. While the high end Tacoma DoubleCab cames in around $28k. With that $4k in saving I could buy a dirt bike, and a small used camper. And if those cross-shopping with SUVs will be looking for the full doors and rear seats of a CrewCab, not the jumpseats of an ExtendedCab. But we are making the same arguments again... and again... Both sides have established our trenches and there is no need for me to hit reply

Diesels were never the one solution, nothing is... But this is disappointing as diesel has good potential to an "arrow in the quiver". With that being said I hope GM crapping all over themselves again doesn't kill the diesel market... That the commitment from the Germans and Chrysler can overcome GMs continual stupidity. Not that I thought the GM decision was smart in the first place... I have serious doubts of diesels in smaller cars. It doesn't make sense in that diesels have distinct dynamic driving disadvantage taking one of the advantages of small cars. I see smaller trucks and utilities (1/2-ton trucks and full-sized SUVs and Vans) as likely having the best chance of success with diesels. As such I see the Ram diesel and the Transit diesel as the key if we are to see an evolution of the market.

For as much talk of the "Ranger-mafia" most comments here are the same Anti-Ranger comments recycled again and again and... Just to return the vitriol... If Chevy is successful and Toyota continues to be successful will you guys STFU? But in attempt to rise above the mud pit I just waded in... I like V8-X don't know if I could buy a Chevy... Three generations of family working for Ford's makes it really hard. And it doesn't help that I don't particularly like the Chevy interiors when I rent them for work. But I will give the Colorado/Canyon a long look, as I did the Tahoe/Yukon/Acadia before we bought the Mountaineer. In saying that its now looking we might go another direction... As much as I love my little truck and want another one my lifestyle has gotten to evolving beyond it. We are more likely to keep the Mountaineer and replace the Volvo & Ranger with an Edge or similar as we drop down to 2 vehicles. This is not an indictment of a smaller truck, as I will never buy a full-sized truck for a multitude of reasons. But we want to replace the FWD Volvo with an AWD/4WD vehicle while the Mountaineer has proved itself to be more than capable as a truck replacement. With that in mind I think an Edge or similar would be a better fit as a "high" mileage vehicle for road trips. While the Mountaineer can continue to be our truck-like vehicle for outdoor activities for a bit... Giving time for the market to stabilize.

In a way I see Ford trying to adapt some aerospace techniques to optimize frame strength... Which often adds complication and cost, but comes with weight advantages. Engine nacelle pylons and wing ribs would seem to have similar design requirements. Here is what the upcoming Bombardier CSeries engine pylon looks like. The question will be balancing producability costs against strength and weight.

Good point about the MKZ using 2.3EB as an upgrade to the base configuration... The 2.0EB could be considered a bit low on power compared to the base Lexus ES and Acura TL engines. In addition Ford is likely looking at the 2.3EB in a Fusion ST, and maybe a Focus RS. 2.3EB rating is 275hp @ 5500 rpm and 300 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm compared to the 3.5V6 rating of 285 hp @ 6500 and 253 lbf @ 4000... I think driving wise the 2.3EB will seem to run out of breath earlier, but will have as good if not better leap off the line... I would think this could be compensated by gear selection.