Harley Lover

One distinction is that Ford have (apparently) put considerable effort into the interior of the passenger version, something which no one could accuse the current vehicle of having. Other than that, you've got a point!

Sales to the government would be considered fleet, wouldn't they? If that's correct, fleet sales at GM were not 79% in July, so that would seem to answer the question.

I forget where I read it, but a Ford insider poo pooed the Evos talk, saying "we know what a Mustang is, and we won't mess it up." I tend to believe that, if for no other reason than I don't get the impression that this car will be a clean sheet chassis, but rather a further development of the current chassis. If that is true, there are limits to what Ford can do the car in terms of dimensions and weight. I do expect them to move the look forward, but I don't expect them to abandon what makes a Mustang look like a Mustang.

From my latest print copy of Automotive News, here's an excerpt:

I would guess that the TC is riding on some version of the Focus chassis, thus it might make more sense for it to be built at MAP or perhaps LAP (alongside the Escape). Question for those in the know: is the new TC chassis close enough to the C-Max that Ford could consider the hybrid drivetrains/chassis for it? IMO the passenger version of this vehicle paired with the hybrid drivetrain might make some decent inroads in the family market - there is simply no family van alternative in terms of superior mileage/hybrid drivetrain. Edit: Sorry silversvt, you beat me to the punch!

Or maybe no sweetheart deals for the Malibu, so the buyers jumped to the Cruze (lower price)?

Funny how Mercedes, BMW, and VW have been roaring successes in the "Southern US." Sounds like Toyota was displaying some good ol' fashioned xenophobia. And I guess Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Honda, and EVEN Toyota made a mistake building in the "Southern US." Damn, if only they had chosen Canada!

It was announced one year ago: http://money.cnn.com...ybrid/index.htm

Nice article, I wish Ford would develop some capability for their larger vehicles (Flex, Explorer), but I guess that's not in the cards. At least we know (although not mentioned in this article) that they are hard at work with Toyota on capability for the F150. http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/08/ford-amps-up-investment-in-electric-vehicles/

Ford has compared:

Here, here. Big thumbs up. Richard, I disagree with your decision to publicize the pm. If you really wanted this to be a teaching moment, why not post some of his offending posts that were in the 'public domain'? He didn't attack you in public, and chose to take it private, which is what mods on most forums want. I disagree vehemently with the tone and language of his pm, but nonetheless I believe it should have remained in the private realm. This quote from you above: ...tells me that this was less a teaching moment and more a personal response. Sorry to disagree here.

I empathize with the CAW's dilemma, but at the end of the day, it is not Ford's obligation to pay Canadian auto workers more than any other worker in their system. I trust that Ford will held them to the same standards as the UAW, and do what might become necessary to equalize the costs.

x2 The IIHS cannot ever claim the moral high road when its funding comes from " group of for-profit insurance companies".

Dimensions per Ford's website: Escape Focus C-Max WB 105.9 104.3 104.3 L 178.1 171.6 173.6 H 66.3 57.7 63.9 Tr-F/R 61.5/61.6 61.2/60.8 60.5/60.4

A good point - reminds me of the old say, there's lies, damn lies, and accounting (or something like that LOL). I'm only accepting the VW figures at face value, but I won't argue that the figures are not derived from GAAP, and are probably suspect. I also fully believe that they are undercutting pricing in Europe to weaken and kill competition. The criticism that they are using "China profits" in Europe is irrelevant to me, as they are a multinational and can do what they please with their profits. They rolled the dice in China and (at least for now) appear to be reaping the rewards of their China strategy. I tend to echo the sentiment I've read here that I wish Ford would be a very careful in entering that market (China). I guess they don't have a choice if they intend to be a global competitor.

I'm no VW apologist, but that statement is not correct. In 2011, VW made a profit of $15.1 billion dollars, which I think made them the most profitable car company on the planet. So to say that they are putting market share ahead of profit is not correct. They seem to be accomplishing the difficult balancing act of growing and also maintaining profitability. The auto biz being what it is, they will eventually lose their focus, but for now, they are clicking on all cylinders.

exacerbates

I agree. I hate to say it, but I suspect it will be in the $35-40,000 range, probably closer to 40.

Please don't soil this concept with the E-assist moniker. The only purpose of the ISG is power for the electric s/c - it doesn't actually give any motive power to the car. The 1 liter Ecoboost is a dynamite engine, it seems there are many ways to utilize its goodness!

I would guess that the future of D3/4 in the late decade is very much tied to Ford's strategy for achieving the coming late decade fuel economy regs. Ford will need (of necessity) to get several hundred pounds out of the D3/4 chassis, and I don't know if it can lose that much weight.

I'm not sure either. Since supposedly the T series is going 'global', it might make sense that this image is it.

Purported to be from European patent drawings: http://jokeforblog.b...van-leaked.html

Now we need at home hydrogen fuel cells to allow us to make our own electricity and get off the grid.

Mulally was an astronaut in training for the Moon landing. Something new I didn't know. Very nice interview.

Hell yes: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120424/AUTO0102/204240388/1148/auto01/Fitch-upgrades-Ford-investment-grade-first-time-since-2005