jpd80

Do you think that an air brakes option is something Ford feels is better left to a tier 1 supplier to develop for post production fitment? I could see that working much the same way that CNG prep allows buyers to have that option without Ford handling the complete system.

Chinese Territory is an interesting vehicle, similar length and wheelbase of Escape with the extra width of Edge. While not intended for North America, it shows how the lines between compact and mid sized can be blurred..

The ST is developed and available, so Ford will probably continue selling it for as long as practical. I anticipate that Edge sales will putter along until the plant shuts down for change over. Similarly, I don’t see Ford widening Edge, it’s just easier and less costly to do nothing now and let the BEVs roll in and have improved space as a key feature.

The current Everest is a little too round for my liking, I think that was a drawback for intended buyers in the segment where the champ is Prado/Landcruiser 120 - a much squarer profiled vehicle. New Everest clearly shares most of its front half with Ranger, so making the Ranger more filled out and squarer, also means that Everest takes on that more “solid” look, especially when the back half is similarly styled. Filling out the lines also increases canopy feel, they feel bigger inside. Some of the really big change with Ranger/Everest is not seen, it felt and experienced in a new quietness that I’m sure will really grab potential buyers on a test run…they’re that good. Recently, the sales ratio of Everest has increased to about one sixth of Ranger which is impressive given the T6 Everest is approaching six years old, a bolder Everest could see sales double.

It’s like they actually want a bigger (as in wider) Escape.

Since Edge was always priced just below Explorer, the two row Explorer comes more into view and probably seen as more value simply by being bigger.

Everest is not even a thought for North America

A lot of it has to do with the disorganisation that goes with evolving plans. Hopefully things get a bit more organised now that the switch to electrification has started

They probably can, I suspect that all changes could be getting batched into a single update but when that will be, I couldn’t guess… It doesn’t cost Ford $10k more to develop a 6.7 Powerstroke option but they do have a good idea of how much a Diesel engine is worth to buyers in terms of fuel savings and residual value.

Ecosport should have remained a South American centric product. Ford Europe should have transformed B-Max into Puma a decade ago. How is it that GM had Trax/Encore last decade while Ford pushed Ecosport. The thinking behind not doing that is the problem and still is. Instead of axing a wrong choice vehicle, Ford tends to keep it there even with low sales as a way of recovering the developed costs and staving off the cost of a proper replacement (MKT=Aviator, C-Max=Hybrid Escape) The heads that approved Maverick don’t know how good it is because they never envisioned its use in Europe or ROW, what kind of global products manager does that? Answer is one working off seven year old data.

Puma’s pricing has not been a problem for European Kuga sales. What Ford Europe pitches as the entry Puma is actually more like Titanium spec and pricing

Was that last comment directed at me?

This is not about who’s in charge of the company, it’s about who actually does the heavy lifting…. by then I think Ford will be pushing electric pickups on everyone, so everything changes

One example is gasoline for North America and diesel for ROW. At some point, hybrid will arrive and grab sales in both markets. Loving the squarer filled out profile of the new Ranger, it should go a long way towards converting a lot of fence sitters driving mid sized utilities, pushing sales higher.

Then wasn’t so long ago, it’s not the mindset so much as too many short hires in key positions.