Kris Kolman

Interesting... But I would think an C-Beam would have much better packaging advantages without giving up too much in return. In the end Boxed, I, C could all be made to work... Just a matter of optimizing the plate material and thickness, combined with doublers where needed. I'm certain there are plenty of areas to be optimized... A fully boxed frame can be beat if your willing to put in the work and complicate the design.

Its pretty obvious that the 2.3EB is a replacement for the 3.5NA, just as the 2.0EB was a replacement for the 3.0V6. EcoBoost is not just about replacing V8s with V6s, but in terms of volume it is arguably more importantly about replacing V6s with I4s. Also its pretty obvious Ford didn't put the money into developing the 2.3EB just to put it in the low volume MKC. The business case falls apart as you don't have the volume to amortize the development costs. People won't notice if the sister Lincoln and Fords are sharing lower level engines, as long as the top engine choice is a Lincoln exclusive. And like the MKZ people didn't care that the 3.7V6 is in plebeian Ford models as long as it wasn't in the Fusion. So with that in mind consider the following: Fusion engines: 2.5I4 FWD only, 1.6EB FWD only, 2.0EB FWD/AWD MKZ engines: 2.0EB FWD/AWD and exclusive 3.7V6 FWD/AWD Escape engines: 2.5I4 FWD only, 1.6EB FWD/AWD, 2.0EB FWD/AWD MKC engines: 2.0EB FWD/AWD and exclusive 2.3EB FWD/AWD Proposed Edge engines: 2.0EB with FWD only and 2.3EB with FWD/AWD MKX engines: 2.3EB FWD/AWD and exclusive 3.7 FWD/AWD

+1

I like the styling direction... Along the lines that I was proposing months ago. First off avoid the temptation to put in a useless 3rd Row. Secondly keep the existing "chunky" body lines, but evolve them to emphasis "sport" over "utility". All to be able to differentiate it from the utilitarian Escape and family focused Explorer. Was a bit worried about the grill getting too generic, but I've got to say this is a nice surprise. It balances the steeper raked front end, assuring it still looks like a SUV. I haven't found the dimensions, but I would guess the footprint is similar to the existing model's 184" length and 87" width. This would further differentiate the Edge from the Escape in person, ~6" difference in both length and width. And for what it matters while the side profile is arguably similar to the MKC it will once again be bigger, by ~4 inches, which foretells the upcoming MKX comparison. I agree that an all 4-cylinder EB lineup seems to be likely... Ford seems all in with EcoBoost, and might leave the V6 for the MKX as they did with the Fusion/MKZ. That being said the 2.0EB and 2.3EB combined with a slight reduction in weight should be a nice mix. With the carry-over 2.0EB would be able to add AWD, and the 2,3EB would match the 3.5NA performance. Add on that the 1.6EB for international markets along with a couple diesels.

Press in India seem to think this Ka is a replacement for the locally producted Figo, both are based on the Mk5 Fiesta... Also a sedan is soon to follow. http://indianautosblog.com/2013/11/2015-ford-figo-sedan-103700 http://indianautosblog.com/2013/11/2015-ford-figo-sedan-spied-103141

Did they somewhat confirm a MK-Explorer? Navigator and MKX prototypes have been seen driving around, making the MKT even more needing of an update.

Because the PI/PU market is not one that responds well to change every handful of years... You don't seem to be understanding the government procurement process is one that does not favor change, but consistency. Its one thing to force a change after decades and another after a handful of years. Government procurement process creates a wholy different market dynamic than the retail market. Too many of you are equating the two...

As the article inferred, and Detroit has proven, in business if one isn't changing and evolving one is slowly dying. As an engineer I think Ford shouldn't be afraid of changing the Mustang, but relishing in the challenge. As such I'm looking forward to seeing how Ford evolves the Mustang into the future, and don't fear the idea.

I think someone said it right... Its different to be different... But like the death-throws AMC, Aztec, and Edsell before it doesn't matter how good the car is if it is this ugly. One has to wonder how this got thru... I mean you simply can't defend not moving the licence plate up to take up the massive nothingness in the rear. That alone tells me a lot of what is going on in Chrysler's design studio. And it isn't good...

Said well... After overcoming a bout of insanity Volvo brings back its station wagons... Guess the Chinese are starting to learn what defines Volvo... They might survive afterall.

On that we agree... Makes no sense as this latest Durango has become my favorite looking SUV on the market.

One has to wonder if the utilities are being split between the C-Segment and smaller and CD-Segment and larger. As it seems the two small Transits, B/C-Max, EcoSport, and Escape seem to be continuing the previous Fiesta/Focus grill thyme, mini-slit above a gaping lower maw. While the Edge and I'm guessing S-Max and Galaxy seems to be more aligned with the Taurus and Explorer, electric razor conservative grill.

Sorry... Double post

I work with the federal government... I don't think people understand that these large fleets have much, much different market conditions than the rest of us. The federal or large city law enforcement fleet is a unique entity. One where the equipment installed within the car often approach the cost of the vehicle they are mounted in, and in some special cases many times more. That with the size of fleets and the constant use they have to invest in maintenance garages which lots of platform specific equipment. And finally the way the congressional authorization process works there is an incentive to drive the vehicles into the ground vs. replacing them when they start showing a bit of wear. Although not entirely applicable it should never be forgotten that some pilots are flying planes and helicopters that their grandfathers flew (B-52s and H-1s). A little closer example is that the Special Service and FBI are still rolling around with Suburbans about to be 2 generations old. Ford has dedicated a lot of resources, far more than any other company, focusing on the law enforcement market. As such Ford knows the specific PI/PU details better than me... But my experience says 3 or so years is far too quick of a model change over without major blow back.

Sorry I wasn't clear... As a continuation of my original thoughts... I was thinking the E-Series bones are not out of date for a commercial vehicle. That one could retain the same stampings and frame, but adapt a slightly modified SuperDuty powertrain, IP, wiring, etc to those bones. I would also go so far as to add a new nose, rename, and relaunch it as the Transit SuperDuty. But to continue your thought... I do wonder though if a better option might be to abandon the E-Series all together and reimagine the class 3 & 4 E-Series into a dedicated international truck in the mold of the Izuzu Elf. I have doubts that such a vehicle could be based on the 1-ton Transit, which seems to have been designed with limited growth to keep weight down.

What is the third fog light in the middle? Fog lights like nipples should come in pairs

Maybe so, but in terms of overall company wide product mix the Durango only needs to sell enough to pay for the bespoke top hat and interior bits. When you add Durango sales to the GC it takes production of the platform to approximately 200k. Without it they would be down to 150k, which would be problematic for the Jefferson North utilization, which only builds only the GC and Durango. That and when one looks at the Dodge lineup the lack of utilities, still the strongest market in NA outside of pickups, is striking. Dodge is down to only the the 7-seat Durango and minivan-like crossover Journey. Dodge needs the Durango to be considered a full-lineup brand.

Dodge is selling 2x as many Durango as Ford is selling Flex's and around the same profit margins. So while they aren't on the best sales list they are a nice profit for Dodge and nice production volume to help the GC.

The Durango rumor never made a bit of sense as Dodge suffered in the time between cancellation of the old BOF model and introduction of the Grand Cherokee based version. There is just too much volume and profit for 7 seat passenger SUVs. I have always thought the Grand Waganeer was coming... But that a refresh of the Grand Cherokee/Durango and introduction of the Cherokee (Liberty replacement) would both come first.

Hold on second... That is entirely simplistic of you two. I have been very open about the fact that the business decision is complicated and not in the Ranger's favor. That I am one of what appears to be a small minority... But complicated means there are positives and negatives to the decision. It also means that changes in the market have the possibility of changing the equation. It is simplistic of you to suggest that a decision made 3-4 years ago based on market and resources at time don't change over time. All I have been saying it that there are negatives to not having a small truck in the lineup and its not ideal for me personally. I have also been pointing out the myths that are the basis of general talking points used to shoot down my comments. You haven't heard me use the words "Ford will be sorry" or anything like that... Because I understand Ford doesn't need to be in every market (i.e. minvans). But as a loyal buyer who's family has worked for Ford for 3 generations it introduces a problem for me personally.

And thus all the cars move to the "Aston Martin" grill... Not a bad thing, and fits in with the Mustang and Taurus. Does it extend to the utilities?

Lets just ignore the article that started this thread... Another case of auto writer BS I makes sense for the Taurus to move to the same platform as the Fusion if one ignores the potential problems with the PI being abandoned on the vine. As we've said the PI has been warmly embraced by law enforcement and I'm sure they are going to highly resistance to change. Police agencies when making the change have made a big investment in support equipment and training of which most would need to be changed again with another platform change. Maybe this is easily solved by a combination of maintaining the Explorer and somekind of Lincoln livery car. But considering the high number of PIs sold and the importance Ford places in the law enforcement market changes to the Taurus are more difficult than most. Outside of the PI production issure I agree there is room for a Taurus type full-size car based on the Fusion platform. There have been quite a few comments from auto writers that rear seat head room is tight in both the Fusion and MKZ due to a sacrifice for styling. I would also expect the Edge when it arrives to be widened ~2 inches to better match the current vehicle and get separation from the Escape which itself was widened 1 inch from the Focus. So a more conservative, upright styling to address the rear seat head room in combination with an increase in width would increased the rear seat comfort greatly. All that is missing is the 3.5L Ecoboost SHO and some additional truck volume and I think said vehicle would be drop in replacement for the Taurus (smaller size compensated by more ideal packaging). As said this type of vehicle would likely have a good reception and export potential in China filling a whole in Ford's lineup... Maybe Oceania as well as the Falcon is retired.

It makes sense that this is a powertrain mule that matches up the V6 Ecoboost and latest F-150 transmission up with the Expy and Gator rear end. As said the body lines seem too strait to be a fankenmule, and its clear by now that the MCE was abandoned in favor of the F-150 platform merge. The interesting part about it is that is a good indication that the Expy and Gator will continue to utilize the IRS. Which makes sense as the IRS is the enabler for the fold-flat 3rd row.

Once again... Go read up on the T6 Ranger... From the Aussi Ranger spec sheet I pulled all engines share the same chassis, and as such the 2.5L I4 is rated to the same payload rating as the 3.2L DI. There is a difference between standard 4x2, hi-rise 4x2, and 4x4 versions but no difference between the rating for the various engines. There will of course be a significant difference in performance between the engines, but Ford decided to rate all engines the same overall capability. What this tells me is that unlike the old Ranger which had the cheaper Mazda transmission the T6 I4's must be using the DI engine transmission.

Just for note... I reference everyone to the pickuptrucks.com aritcle... People are watching: http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/02/where-have-ford-ranger-buyers-gone.html And while definitive... As the Dakota, Ranger, and current Colorado/Canyon were pulled from the market Tacoma sales have increased. So there might be something to the idea that small pickup truck buyers are exactly that, and aren't likely to move to another type of vehicle. One thing is that in the current environment we are seeing people hold onto their vehicles longer than in the past. This would be even more in place for Ranger buyers who would have to debate joining the Toyota enemy or buy a used Ranger as they wait to see what Ford, GM, or Chrysler do. And also I don't think a 10% or greater improvement is a small difference in fuel economy... The old Ranger best was 28 mpg on the highway, which is 5 mpg better than the best the F-150. The T6 Ranger uses the same 2.5L I4 engine and with a 6-speed should get get within 1 mpg of that. But in order to perform a fair comparison to the base V6 F-150 the Ranger would have to jump up to an Ecoboost. Based on the Escape and F-150 experience we would expect a 1 mpg loss if the Ranger traded in the 2.5L NA for the 2.0L Ecoboost. This would put the T6 Ranger 2.0L Ecoboost around 26 mpg... Hardly insignificant as some have suggested as that is a 13% improvement over the equivalent V6 F-150. And if we could possibly get the 2.2L DI I would expect another 2-4 mph improvement, which would be a ~25% improvement over the equivalent F-150. But I'm certain people will think I'm pulling things out of a dark place again...