Harley Lover

Is anyone here up to speed on A123 and their product/intellectual property/plants? IIRC, Ford's partner for battery tech is JCI. Assuming that JCI receives government approval of its buyout of A123, does Ford stand to benefit from the addition of A123's production capacity? Will JCI (and indirectly Ford) benefit from the addition of A123's intellectual property?

Austin, I would like to read your take on this: http://www.f30post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=597327 BMW has patented an approach to using an electric turbo (apparently in a 3 turbo set up).

Interesting that he MKZ doesn't have the same ratings as the Fusion, instead at 45/45/45.

Obviously it doesn't bother them in the least.

Meanwhile, Porsche moves forward to construct its U.S. headquarters on a portion of the old Atlanta Assembly Plant site: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665488/porsches-new-atlanta-hq-is-the-essence-of-the-porsche-driving-experience

Is it most likely that this minivan would be built alongside the Edge in Canada?

double post - please delete

To akirby's post about CD4, that does make the most sense, from the standpoint that Ford probably needs to get out of the D chassis vehicles by the end of the decade because of fuel economy regs.

Oh well, I wish I hadn't taken so much time on my post! LOL

The entertaining part is that as China slows (especially in the luxury segment), they are running out of hiding places. MB has already announced they won't make their numbers for 2012.

I don't know that your conclusion is verifiable yet. WRT the minivan product, it occurred to me today that Ford's plan might be to use the chassis of the Flex, engineered for sliders, as the basis for a minivan product that would be built with other platform mates in Chicago. I recall reading that sliders were on the table earlier in the Flex's development, but the money was directed to the interior appointments instead. Presuming the chassis could be engineered for sliders, that would seem to be a less costly way to develop a product that could be added to the production mix in Chicago, which in turn might be just the right addition as the Taurus (non PI) migrates to a stretched CD4 chassis (as has been reported in the past). It would also presumably have AWD capability, not to mention Ecoboost capability, so it would already have Ford's signature items available, again at presumably a lower development cost. The other reason this makes sense to me is that it mirrors what Ford did with the Freestyle. That vehicle was the basis for the Explorer, and I would guess saved Ford time and money because the bones were available, and they didn't have to start from scratch. Not to say that the Explorer was not enhanced, stretched, whatever, but its basis remains the Freestyle. Wouldn't it make sense for Ford to "do an Explorer" on the Flex to create the new minivan? JPD, I don't mean to sound argumentative, so please don't read my post that way. But as you mentioned about we Americans, all one has to do is look around and see what is working in the minvan segment here, and it just wouldn't make sense for Ford to ignore the segment leaders. I contrast that opinion with what Ford is doing with the Tourneo Connect, because there really isn't a bonifide market segment, so Ford can invent the niche, just like they did with the Transit Connect.

This is perhaps a key consideration for Ford. GM is doing well in China with the Buick minivan, and don't even offer it here. It would make sense that Ford sees a "One Ford" opportunity for a minivan product that could be sold primarily in North America and China, and perhaps the China component is even more important for Ford as it tries to have major growth in sales in China in the coming years.

Exactly. How many BILLIONS has GM dropped on Cadillac in the past decade, and for what? They are essentially starting afresh with the ATS, so those billions are wasted in the sense that the funds expended did very little to establish Cadillac as a player, other than the CTS. And several billion to develop one decent product is a poor return on investment by any measure.

C-Max is not even in the same galaxy (pun intended) as the minivan in the U.S.. As a previous poster wrote, minivan buyers want sliders. The best thing Ford could do is spend a lot of time in the T&C, Sienna, and Odyssey, in order to understand those products. They are the segment leaders, plain and simple. I'm convinced Ford has all the building blocks it needs to field a leading product for this segment, I guess time will tell.

IMO, making this product available in hybrid and Energi configurations would make it a category killer. Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda have no present intentions of offering this kind of product (hybrid minivan), and it would represent something of a "white space" product for Ford within this niche. I would liken it somewhat to the offering of the Ecoboost V6 in the F150, in the sense that it would represent something of a gamble. I guess it's very debatable whether or not buyers of minivans as a group would pony up the $$ for such a product, but I can categorically state that it would be my next new vehicle purchase. We've had a Ford minivan (Mazda MPV with the Contour V6) for 100,000+ miles, currently have a Sienna, and will be looking to replace it another 3-5 years. Man I hope Ford does this.

I would argue that the BMW is more closely related to the C-Max in terms of size and capability than it would be to a MkEscape.

Here's a list of the top 20 U.S. ports, but this list is not edited for purely auto importation: http://www.logistics...heres_the_money I was surprised that Savannah was the second largest east coast port.

It's possible that the Evos might influence some of the new Mustang's lines, but on balance, it would be the Evos taking cues from the Mustang, if that makes sense.

I hope not, only because Ford really needs him in his current assignment to see things through (especially in China with all the construction that is taking place). I might even argue that his current job is more important for the next few years than succeeding Fields in NA. If he is successful in his current assignment, I think he could be Fields' direct replacement without going through any other assignments.

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)?