Sherminator98
-
Posts
27,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
183
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Sherminator98
-
-
48 minutes ago, rmc523 said:
I'm still skeptical on sales volumes for these products. I think you could easily fit at least 3 products there - Fathom, "Escape EV", and "Corsair EV" without some sort of expansion.
That said, we're also basing that on existing processes......so maybe the "giga" approach allows for more production (to your point with Fremont), or less up front as Ford ramps things up??
Yeah they shouldn't have a problem, but if the Fathom and Escape EV are "successful" of selling say a 100K units a year per nameplate, things might get crowded there quick, using ICE manufacturing metrics.
-
https://fordauthority.com/2026/08/heres-what-happened-to-ford-motor-company-atp-in-july-2026/
QuoteAccording to new data from Cox Automotive, Ford Motor Company - including both the Ford and Lincoln brands - closed out July 2026 with an ATP of $58,957, which is 2.44 percent higher than June's $57,550, as well as 3.2 percent greater than July 2025's $56,956. By comparison, the overall market ended last month with an ATP of $49,855 - which is only 0.2 percent higher than June's $49,758, and 1.9 percent more than a year ago, when it was $48,916.
QuoteIn terms of individual brands, Ford's ATP closed out last month at $58,373, which represents a 2.7 percent increase over June's ATP of $56,817, as well as 3.4 percent higher than July 2025, when it was $56,434. Lincoln came in at $77,714, which is a significant 6.4 percent higher than June's ATP of $73,063, as well as 13 percent more than July 2025's $68,791.
-
-
1 hour ago, twintornados said:
So, the purported UEV based Lincoln will be called.....
Still a few years out for that...plus I think it might be just an additional product.
Given that Louisville is the only plant making the UEV (so far), you'd think they'll hit some sort of manufacturing cap at some point, but then again, Tesla's Fremont plant apparently can make 650K units a year, but I have no idea if LAP is roughly the same size or not or what Ford plans are long term for the UEV production wise are.
-
7 hours ago, akirby said:
EVs eliminate all those concerns except torque steer so RWD is a better choice. If KIA chose FWD then there must be some synergy with fwd ICE vehicles otherwise it makes no sense. On a clean sheet dedicated EV platform I can't think of any advantage to FWD.
Torque steer is from uneven length axle shafts found in traverse transaxles on ICE products. IIRC 40 years ago this was an issue because of the lack of transmission/engine management. Its been mitigated to a point due to the use of AWD and controlling torque output from the powertrain.
Looking at the E-GMP platform on Hyundai's page, shows the motors in the middle of the "axle" so torque steer wouldn't be an issue, because both drive shafts should be almost identical in length on both sides.
Though I do have questions on how you squeeze 7 motors in an EV like the Mach E 1400..do they stack together? How does the odd man work? LOL
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a33368022/ford-mustang-mach-e-1400-revealed/
-
1
-
-
-
On 8/15/2026 at 9:44 PM, Bob Rosadini said:
Back to the subject of an inline 6. Just thinking about the 300 6 which always gets included in the "Best Engine" articles or so it seems. Hagerty just had a piece about "best value" pickups that currently sell in $15g range and of course F-150 with a 300 made the list.
Recognizing the length of it is a negative, What would it take to upgrade it with current technology? Fuel system and all the associated electronics that did not exist in the 70's. Hmn maybe forget about that stuff🤔
I think history has shown that engines that where developed in the 1960-70s aren't good candidates just to slap things on them to make them perform like a more modern engine. If that was really the case, I'd think you'd see more manufactures doing it-new engine architectures get influenced by past designs, but a direct application often doesn't work
The biggest thing I tell is that the manufacturing tolerances for new engines (for better or worse) are far more tighter tolerance-wise then old engines and the ability to have a digital twin (a digital example) for developmental/engineering work is a huge help for future development work.If Ford did an I6, I'd expect it to be the new MPC I4 with two additional cylinders added and it would be roughly a 3.5L I6...but I guess they would be able to adjust the displacement vs stroke differences.
Doing the math-the 2.3L is 643mm long, which works out to about 160mm per cylinder or 946mm if you add two cylinders...but I'm also assuming my math is off because that is including the belts/accessories and multiplying it 2x when it doesn't need to be.
The 5.0L V8 is 800mm long, so maybe using a 15% reduction in length, a 3.5L I6 would be slightly shorter then the V8 or roughly the same size?
-
4 hours ago, twintornados said:
Curious why Kia / Hyundai can come out with a cheap FWD based EV, but FoMoCo cannot.
Because they are coming out with a truck first...then hopefully other things on it.
-
1
-
-
The front reminds me a of a duckbill
Also getting vibes of this in it
-
41 minutes ago, rmc523 said:
I don't see why the lack of an Explorer redesign would necessarily mean an additional product (or two) couldn't go there?
I'd think the question would be more is there capacity for Explorer, Aviator, "Mach G" and a Lincoln counterpart?
I'm looking at this way-the current CD6 Explorer is going to get another refresh soon before 2030 and end of production is around the 2032 timeframe.
I don't see Ford spending a huge sum of money to come out with a short CD6 that doesn't include the current Explorer/Aviator updates with it.
Then the timeframe of it taking another 6 years to come out (2032) gives me pause considering how much of a shitshow product planning has been for Ford since the Maverick launch with 2-3 major programs killed off because of market/compliance changes...who knows what will wind up happening between now and then, and then say CAFE is reintroduced post 2028 or 2032 with a phase in period, the time to sell that product might not make it worthwhile to do so.
I might be forward planning more then Ford does, but unless someone presents to me (if I was running Ford) a good plan to mitigate all that, I'd be leery of spending the money on it.
-
I like the new grill treatment, but it being in Piano black gives me concerns about durability to holding up against bugs and rocks long term and still looking good.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, akirby said:
Here's another option. With cd6 spawning a mustang CUV - move Nautilus to that platform and build it in Chicago. Maybe even replace Aviator.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
The current Explorer is supposed to stay in production till 2032 I want to say, so we are still 6-7 years out and who knows what is going to change between now and then.
If a significantly updated Explorer was supposed to come out in 2030 or so, I'd say a Mustang CUV might be possible, but IMO I don't think it is.
If anything I can see another Ford badged C2 Utility with the Nautilus coming about instead, esp if it winds up in Mexico -
9 minutes ago, Motorpsychology said:
Reminiscent of Dark Taupe from 1986-87. I couldn't find a Lincoln from that era online, but it was available. The generic term was "purple-brown."
That was great color back then...I also loved the two tone Red/grey combo on the Taurus
-
From the link:
QuoteFord remains on schedule to begin rolling out the Fathom midsize electric trucks in 2027, with prototype builds assembled with production parts beginning in the first quarter of the year.
-
-
On 8/10/2026 at 6:26 PM, bzcat said:
Here is the news on VW Amarok:
https://www.gearpatrol.com/cars/volkswagen-mulls-midsize-pickup-fighter-in-america/
Basically, VWoA is having a total rethink on what it means to a relevant car company in the US and it means selling a pickup truck. Hyundai-Kia is preparing to enter the midsize truck market. Stellantis is working on a new Dakota to supplement Gladiator. Mitsubishi is under Nissan ownership and will be getting a rebadged Frontier as well. Mazda and Subaru are the only one left but they are functionally just brands under the Toyota group. So if VW doesn't respond, it will be the only mainstream auto company group that doesn't sell midsize pickup trucks in the US. On its own, VW can't make the math work but with Ford, it can offer Amarok in the US if Ford has the capacity... which it will when the second T6 plant comes online.
Just rough math here... Michigan can build 250~300K T6 and let say Tennessee can start with 150K and ramp up to 250~300K as well. Last year Ford sold 150K Bronco and 70K Ranger in the US so total 220K but Ranger was probably held back to make sure there is enough Bronco volume. We got to add another 15K each for Bronco and Ranger exports to Canada, Mexico, Middle East etc. Lincoln SUV probably can sell 30K without a blink. Everest can chip in another 75K (4Runner is selling at 100K annual clip without any competition...). Now the fun part... if Ford had two T6 lines, it can probably drastically increase Bronco exports - let's pencil in 20K more exports, and scale up Ranger domestic sales - let's push that 70K to 100K. Plus let say 50K VW Amarok. So to recap:
Bronco 150K US sales
Bronco 35K Non-US exports
Ranger 100K US sales
Ranger 35K Canada/Mexico
Everest 75K US/Canada/Mexico
Lincoln 30K Worldwide
Amarok 50K US/Canada only
Total 475K
And circling back on the Ford Pro van... I'm starting to think maybe it will be Transit City? Seems like a much cheaper replacement for eTransit. Total speculation on my part of course but check the specs - it uses LFP battery supplied by CATL... which Ford is ramping up to build with CATL in Michigan mainly for UEV in Louisville but could easily also supply the battery for this van in Ohio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JMC_E-Fushun
Edit: saw the discussion on Mach 4 being RWD or AWD... S650 is not provisioned for AWD so my guess is RWD-only is right. Ford is doing this to prolong the S650 life and avoid the difficult decision of moving Mustang to a new platform and shutting down Flat Rock. Doesn't seem like they want to spend massive amount of money to totally reengineer the aging platform. Although in theory, it's not impossible to do... Ford has the 10 speed auto that is already designed for AWD. Just a matter of investments.
More fuel for the fire:
Report: Volkswagen plans U.S. Overhaul with new pickup truck, Chattanooga plant in focusQuoteThe source said Volkswagen is considering whether to develop the pickup independently or work with another automaker, with a decision expected in the coming months.
Ford is viewed as a potential partner because the companies already have an existing relationship, including shared vehicle platforms and pickup expertise.
-
Yeah I'd expect an email from Ford about this shortly from their from the road website.
-
8 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
I'm trying to stick to my goal of not doing anymore Borg style design analysis so I'll just say I'll reserve judgement until we see it uncovered, but it's looking a little... plump.
I think the issue with EVs these days is that they are "thick" i.e. have a high beltline. When I think plump, its normally something shorter and rounder lol
The Fathom, going by the patent drawings and the mules seems to be a more aerodynamic Maverick in my eyes.
-
16 minutes ago, twintornados said:
From what I remember of what was previously said, the issue is in the paint shop with not enough height. When Flat Rock was first built, it was a casting plant for Ford and closed in 1981. Then it was "sold" to Mazda for a joint venture to built Mazda6 and Probe and later Cougar....well before the current CUV demand and since it was "only" building coupes and sedans, the height issue was no issue at all....
So I'll put this out there-
The Edison plant was built in the late 1940s and was able to build Ranger Pickup trucks at the end of its run without any major modifications to the plant itself.There was changes to the paint shop, but I don't remember or recall it being a huge modification, and it was due to going from single stage paint to basecoat/clear coat paint system.
I think the real limiting factor is the paint shop and Ford doesn't want to spend the money rebuilding the paintshop to accept taller vehicles.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:
By comparison, a covered fathom would probably have the same issue with styling the escape did. Just too round and bulbous to appeal to a lot of buyers.
I wouldn't call the Fathom round or bulbous LOL
I'd assume the UEV Utility would be similar to the R2 in general shape-boxy but aerodynamic.
-
1 hour ago, T-dubz said:
I really hope the suv doesn’t look like the fathom. I think the front end design is a big question mark going off what we can see in the spy photos. The general shape just doesn’t look that appealing. All could change though once it’s actually revealed.
with all of Farley’s praise for the xiaomi, I really hope the suv looks something like the YU7.
That would be a good start styling wise for a Mach E replacement IMO
-
3
-
-
38 minutes ago, blazerdude20 said:
I wonder if Ford would build another plant and just close Flat Rock. With the plant height limiting production options for years, might be best to start over.
I don't even think Ford would even have enough time to do that this point.
Blue Oval City was started in 2021 and production was supposed to start in 2025 (apparently)Rebuilding Flat Rock, would require shutting the plant down and that doesn't seem like its happening with the Mustang Sedan launch.
The only outside thing I can think of is apparently it had a second production line, but I have no idea how that is intertwined with the rest of the plant
Only other left field thing I can think of is OHAP-They are getting some sort of van and it points to a C class product. Given that Lincolns don't sell in huge numbers, could they possibly make say 100-150K Corsairs and Nautiluses there? When it was building the Quest and Villager, it made about 50-75K units a year with the Econoline/E series. OHAP also made the Escape/Mainer for a time, but it would be hard to break those numbers out from KCAP
-
4 minutes ago, akirby said:
They'll approve it if US jobs are promised. Question is where to build it? Finally update Flat Rock?That is basically the only other option in North America. Guess we will know for sure come 2028 when the UAW contract is renegotiated
-
So this begs the question, what is actually happening in 2030 that will allow them to make them in the US or is this just a fancy way of them being built at the Mach E plant?
Lincoln Corsair is back for 2027
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
That is the unknown-maybe LAP can produce a lot more vehicles then it can now with the UEV platform vs the C2.
NUMMI produced anywhere from 357,809 to 428,633 units of ICE vehicles
LAP can do about 200-300K units, but the overall building is much smaller then the NUMMI by about 2 million square feet.