Harley Lover

Lost in the show hubub is this significant news from Jim Farley: The 9 platforms are identified as 5 global platforms, and 4 regional platforms. The five global platforms are listed as: B C C/D Light truck (Ranger pickup sold outside the U.S.) Commercial (Transit) The F series is given as an example of one of the 4 regional platforms. (duh) I think this is worthy of discussion, as it has implications for several favorite and not so favorite products, including Lincoln. Full article here: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120111/OEM09/120119943/1491

Do you realize Moray was at Mazda for several years? I don't recall any Mazdas showing Aston influences. So, while it's an interesting connection (Aston-Fusion), give him credit for his own talent.

Echo of the Concept C in the shoulder. Can't wait to see proper pictures of the car from proper angles.

Thanks MKII! Give us more!

No it doesn't. The proportions of the grill to front end are off, as are the fog light openings and lower grill facsia. You really should stop trying to pass this off as representative, when it isn't. It's going to confuse things, when all we have to do is wait until Monday to see the real thing.

Depends on the model. The current MKS and Taurus do not share top hats. The current Fusion and the MKZ do. Etc.

I don't think it would be the MKZ, which is a sedan, not a "personal concept car". My guess is the concept will be Max Wolff's full on representation of what he wants Lincoln styling to be. A Lincoln Evos, so to speak. The big question is which chassis, or better put, might this concept be on a RWD chassis? Or could Lincoln build a "personal car" (i.e. coupe) on one of the existing FWD chassis now in the stable?

If Ford's plan is to have the Expy/Nav revert to sharing the F150 chassis, might it be possible that the new gen Expy/Nav might actually debut before the F150? Doing so would allow Ford to start up the presumably brand new chassis at low volumes on a low volume product, and iron out any kinks in advance of production of the volume F150. This approach would also allow the various suppliers to ramp up and debug their product and processes as well. Since the next gen F150 is supposed to be radical, why not use the Expy/Nav to get things straight before they introduce the money product?

The images shown in this thread are chops. Here's a link with the actual images captured from the Ford site: http://www.worldcarfans.com/111120638781/2013-ford-ecosport-suv-images-leaked---full-body-prototypes The chops in this thread are close, but like most chops, are idealized imagery, and a bit too good.

From the linked article: The article makes no hedges about his late arrival or lack of ability to influence the design of the MKZ. In fact, just the opposite. Unless Ford starts issuing hedging statements closer to NAIAS, this is his baby.

I could say the same thing about some of the posts around here. The difference is he's doing it for a living, writes to his deadline, and apparently is making a living at it (he's over the 10 year mark).

Don't forget the 'hybrid' application that Ford is developing with Toyota. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be something similar to GM's 2 mode tranny, except I could envision Ford building it in quantity, and making it standard across the line (over time). If the F150 had this tranny for acceleration, then it could be built with a smaller engine for non-acceleration duty, and the 30 mpg number becomes more and more likely. Factor in Ford's intent to reduce the weight of the truck significantly, and they might even be able to get well into the 30's, especially if they add more gears to the transmission; look at what Chrysler has done with the 300 and its 8 speed.

The updated Taurus incorporates the new corporate grill much better than this. Ick.

The message this price sends is "don't buy this vehicle." I don't think Ford really wants to sell very many, and they probably won't at this price.

Do you think the 'Lincoln Escape' will debut within your 2 year window?

I think the concern over how this new version of the Escape will sell versus the current version mirrors the situation on which we speculated with the Focus. Recall: the prior generation Focus, despite being vilified for its "dated" styling, sold in very generous numbers for Ford in the U.S. (can't address profitability, imagine it was acceptable). The new Focus represented a complete change in direction for the styling of the car, and there was certainly some sentiment expressed that it was the wrong direction for the car. I think the jury is still out on the new car, since it's hard to assess its success with the slow start up and lack of inventory to support sales. The Escape saga reminds me of the Focus situation a great deal. IMO, this product will be successful for Ford, not because of its looks, but in spite of them. Ford has the ability, through its dealers, to push product into the marketplace (witness the previous generation Focus). I expect them to really push this product hard into the market, and support it in whatever ways necessary to see it succeed. In some ways, I expect the Escape to get the type of support we see for the F150 when the support is needed. This product will succeed for Ford.

Yes it is. If you read the comments at the intro of the Evos from people like J Mays, the Evos was created after the design of the Fusion was locked (as JPD noted), but it is intended to carry many of the signature design cues of the Fusion and other future products. Both J Mays and Martin Smith commented on the unusual situation of creating a concept car that actually carries approved production design cues - usually it's the other way around, the concept influences production design. I guess it could be argued that the Taurus update is the first to show the new look, given its new grill treatment.

The first gen Cooper S had a supercharger, the current Cooper S has a turbo. The turbo engine is superior to the supercharged engine in every way, but that might be unique to the MINI and not a general situation. In general, I think turbos are superior on smaller engines because of the parasitic power loss of the s/c. It might also be true that a turbo functions better with DI, but I don't know that for sure.

It needs to be seen next to a Fiesta to put it in proper context; it's essentially a tall Fiesta wagon, with the added benefit of sliders. This type of product is popular in Europe, which is its target market. I have not read anything about it being offered here - I imagine Ford is not convinced a market exists for it here. Perhaps if its big brother C-Max does well, Ford will look at adding to our product mix.

Maybe now Gary WHINEowicz will shut his pie hole, as Clint Eastwood would say.

What determines the order in which the plant votes are taken? I wonder if the union would make sure to have the plants that contain more "dissidents" vote first, in order to get a handle on their impact on the vote totals. The union could then make certain that subsequent vote totals contained enough affirmative votes to pass the agreement. It's a union, after all, so it wouldn't be beyond the realm of reality to have them "influence" later votes. I have the feeling that this is getting played out for the various parties to observe, when all along the outcome is already determined, so to speak.

Biker, you are being a hypocrite on this. Elsewhere, you wrote the following: Now, let's change your words thusly: "your FEELINGS on whether this is right, mean Zilch, to Alan Mulally. Its like Someone Telling you are overpaid, or that you paid to little for the house you are in. this is a business transaction between two parties, with a lot on the line. IT is hard enough to negociate this without 3rd party tossing in thier 2 cents." See? Alan Mulally's compensation is between him and those who hired him - namely, the Board and Bill Ford. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You've been quick to jump on "outsiders" who condemn the union, saying the contract is between the union employees and Ford management. Likewise, Alan Mulally's CONTRACT with FORD is between HIM AND FORD. Get it?

The thing that bothers me about this situation is the realization that (at least from the 'early precincts' that have voted) that there is such a massive undercurrent of unhappiness in the plant workforce. My concern relates to the effect on quality this can have going forward. If the so-called dissident members ultimately lose this vote and the agreement is ratified, I can absolutely envision them making the choice to downgrade their effort on the lines. Human nature being what it is - it wouldn't be the first time unhappy line workers didn't give the job their best effort. I realize they were probably unhappy before the agreement, but this process seems to have crystallized their anger. I was strongly considering a C-Max hybrid or Energi for purchase next year (or 2013, depending on when they finally go on sale), with an eye towards driving it for 2-3 years, then giving it to my kids as their first car. Now that I see what appears to be the attitude at MAP, I doubt I will trust my precious, hard earned dollars to any product from that environment.

To what end? Anyone who has been paying attention should be able to recall his grandstanding rhetoric. We've seen enough garbage thinking demonstrated by Gary Walkowicz and his ilk, do we need to see King's again?

"Ford, meanwhile, says it will begin offering the technology on some of its new models next year." http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/10/kick-starting-start-stop/