Harley Lover

That's true today, but it might not be true by the end of the decade.

Biker, thanks, that is grea info. Regarding the line I placed in bold type, do you think it's possible that Ford added the extra area in the driveline tunnel for the Lion batteries that will be used on the C-Max/Energi, and perhaps even the Escape Hybrid?

Yes - I think the Grand C-Max shares its wheelbase with the Kuga/Escape, while the C-Max (Hybrid/Energi) shares its wheelbase with the Focus, thus it will be built at MAP.

An interesting aspect of Porsche's announcement of a new site in Atlanta (on the old Ford Hapeville assembly site): Even a small company like Porsche (admittedly a ward of VW) understands the need to offer its customers an experience unique to the brand. This is exactly the point I'm making for Lincoln. I realize the knuckledraggers don't get it, but then again they are not the target demo at which Lincoln is shooting. If Lincoln wants to be 'world class' and compete in the marketplace with the upper tier brands, I wish they would consider doing something that would allow the customer to pick up the car and experience something unique to Lincoln (and Ford by extension). http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/05/porsch-makes-plans-for-new-u-s-hq/

B-Max: http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/ford-b-max-concept-2011-03-01

Announced: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/27869246/detail.html The embedded video shows a drawing of the building, and the building with the track.

Relocating to the site of the old Hapeville plant; as the article notes, the plant is long gone. This would be quite a coup for Hapeville if it's true.

All those northern cities with mass transit grew before the advent of the automobile, so the population density works for mass transit. Southern cities (and the West) grew with the car, and the populations are too spread out to effectively support transit. Put another way, if a city grew up around car-based transport, it's probably not sufficiently dense to support mass transit.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110509/OEM02/305099993/1179#ixzz1LsnyISna Some snippets from an interesting interview. I have one dream suggestion for the upgrading of Lincoln, which falls on the "consumer experience" cited by Fields above: I would love to have Ford be able to find a way to build the Lincoln line in one plant and then be able to offer the consumer the choice of picking up their vehicle at the plant. Include in this experience could be things like a plant tour, perhaps a museum of Ford/Lincoln on site, etc.. Having traveled to Munich to pick up my car, I can tell you that offering such an experience to the consumer is definitely something that would elevate Lincoln significantly. BMW, Mercedes, and Audi offer this program. Lincoln could really step up to the plate and shame Caddy with such a program. I realize it will never happen, but it would be super cool if it did - and - be a great way to differentiate Lincoln from Caddy. I guarantee you that the buyers of the other marques that do this LOVE IT. It's typical to read of people that are on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or more ED (European delivery).

OP, I think you've been dead on correct in your assessment of the situation, including the crap HHR. The only ones arguing with you work at dealers, imagine that.

Guys, it might be worthwhile to consider the Grand C-Max when it arrives. You need to consider your wife's back (yours too) in terms of how many times she will be putting the kid in the car. It gets to be a royal PIA to have to work around the door, lean down, get baby into seat, adjust the belts, snap the belts, etc.. The ability to slide the door out of the way and (especially) have the seat be at baby carrier level is a godsend over time. If the Grand C-Max is available with remote doors, jump on that option.

I think the first thing Ford is considering when putting the F150 on a weight reduction plan is its footprint. I think the first fundamental question Ford has to answer is whether or not they can reduce the 'shadow' of the F150 while still retaining all of its current capabilities. I saw an interview with the Global Product Planning person (Barb something), and she mentioned that Ford intends to have the next gen retain all the capabilities of the current model. If it's possible to reduce the size at all, all the incremental reductions that can be cascaded across the vehicle with the size reduction will certainly help. I don't think Ford can size the F150 for the magnitude of weight reduction they envision, but it could help. I've also read that Ford is seriously considering a magnesium frame. The news about the aluminum sheet metal is new to me. Cool.

JM, where have you been? Great to see you post!

The underlying issue here is your expectation that Ford should do something about Lincoln NOW. That's just not going to happen. Ford has a definite plan for Lincoln, but it won't happen overnight. In the meantime, I wouldn't expect Ford to implement some sort of marketing campaign to revive the brand, since such a campaign will of necessity be tied to the introduction of the products. It's coming, can't get here soon enough, but it will come when everything is ready, and not sooner. When that process starts, do you doubt for a moment that the trendy auto writers won't be all over it? Ford (Farley) knows how to play the game, and wining and dining these writers at product intros will put Lincoln right back on the written page of every one of the writers. At end of the day, the most important metric will be the success of those products in the marketplace - which is what will sustain Lincoln in the long haul.

From the Detroit News preview article: From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110419/AUTO01/104190330/Automakers-will-signal-a-sensible-turn-at-show#ixzz1JyO0PcGN

The more I think about it, the key part of the sentence might just be "North American vehicle". If the inference is that the vehicle is unique to N.A., then it almost has to be a truck, Expedition, or one of the D chassis vehicles.

Why should anyone pay any attention to anything Motortrend says? That magazine and its car of the year award have been the joke of the industry for years.

MKZ? Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110418/OEM03/304189983/1168#ixzz1JtnMblLM

Borg, I'm not at all sure about this, but I think the C-Max (energi and hybrid) share more with the Focus, and thus will be built at MAP. The Grand C-Max, while a Focus chassis derivative, shares more (like wheelbase I think) with the upcoming Escape, thus would be a candidate for LAP.

Austin can confirm this - I think the Grand C-Max would be built at the retooled LAP (alongside the new Escape) if it were to be built in the U.S..

I think it might be possible to have a vehicle with sliders on D3. IIRC, Mark Fields told a story at the introduction of the Flex that the money Ford saved by foregoing development of sliders was diverted to the interior of the Flex (or something along those lines). So, if that recollection is correct, it could be done - but I guess it comes down to whether or not a compelling business case can be built for Ford to enter that market segment. I own a Toyota Sienna, and unfortunately the Flex does not meet our needs (and I would really like to get one!). The Sienna (and the other minivans in the segment by extension) has significantly more room behind the second row of seats, and is simply larger inside than the Flex. Having noted those details, I just don't know if the minivan segment is big enough to merit Ford's reentry. The grand C-Max is not in this segment. As others have noted, it's a small Euro MPV, and it will be interesting to see if it establishes a market here (and kills the Mazda5 in the process). I don't think the Flex was meant to be a minivan, but an alternatively styled CUV. It just doesn't have the utility it needs to compete with a true minivan.

x2 Your posts always add to any discussion.

I pulled the Golf TDI numbers from the UK site. After adjusting for imperial gallons, here's the fuel economy numbers for the U.S. vs. the Euro version: U.S. Euro City 30 36.25 Hwy. 42 54.75 If I've done the adjustment correctly, this seems to illustrate the loss of fuel economy 'values' that occurs in the transition from Europe to the U.S.. As others have noted, it's probably attributable to both testing methods as well as equipment differences that are driven by pollution regs in the U.S..

Iosis Concept: