Jump to content

jpd80

Member
  • Posts

    31,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    172

Everything posted by jpd80

  1. Saw on Autoline Rick Wagoner talking about Ethanol breakthrough, $1/gallon to produce from waste products. Still acouple years away but very promising: http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/show/1205/2 Developments like this will break the stranglehold the Middle East has over the rest of the world.
  2. Generally: By Ford North America not acting like a completely separate company to Ford global. By use of common power trains By handing over all small car design to FoE, Volvo and Mazda. By FoA and Ford NA collaboraing with RWD.
  3. And yet they cope quite well, a person on a car lot is looking to the salesman for the reason to buy. More choices makes for less negative excuses from customer.. Eliminate all the perceived impediments for buying a new car and sign up happens very quickly.
  4. All I can say is either Ecoboost is more than just DI and Turbocharging or Mazda got it all very wrong.
  5. At the moment we have C1 and C170 for C sized cars and CD3, EUCD and D3 for D / E sized cars. With dedicated C platforms, there's no need for the C part of CD based platforms. There would also be be more benefit in having the Fiesta/Verve and Focus on the same platform say, BC3. Could the line up be like this: - a DE platform for FWD (Fusion/Taurus /Flex) - a DE platform for RWD (Mustang/Falcon/Territory/Explorer/Interceptor/MKR) - a BC platform for FWD (Fiesta/Verve and Focus). That way, vehicle groups could share more closely related componentry like architecture, power train, suspension and electrical systems.
  6. I think height would be another dertemining factor towards an airy cabin. Taurus with 60", Fusion 57, and Mondeo 59" - can see FoE have tried hard to get the big car feel. Our Falcon interior is like Fusion with 2" more width and that is a marked difference in a side by side comparison with a Mondeo.
  7. I see your point Richard, Fusion and Mondeo are pretty close except Mondeo has 2" more front seat travel and 3 cu ft bigger trunk. Also shows why Taurus isn't selling all that well - internal size is too close to Fusion (and Mondeo) In all honesty, I think a reworked Fusion would be just as good the other two. Fusion (Mondeo) Length: 191 (190.7) Width: 72.2 (74.3) Height: 57 (59.1) Wheelbase: 107.4 (112.2) Track Front: 61.6 (62.2) Track Rear: 61.3 (62.8) Leg Room Front: 42.3 (44.6) Leg Room Rear: 37 (37.4) Shoulder Room Front: 57.4 (57.0) Shoulder Room Rear: 56.5 (56.4) Head Room Front: 38.7 (39.2) Head Room Rear: 37.8 (38.4) Hip Room Front: 54.4 (54.4) Hip Room Rear: 53.3 (53.3) Trunk Space 15.8 (18.9)
  8. Agreed a few inches make a difference but a lot to do with front seat travel. I'm not saying Mondeo is anyways right of US markets but it points the direction with internal packaging. Will post comparison between Fusion and Mondeo shortly.
  9. No, the reviewer got it wrong! 2.0 TCDI Auto 0-60 = 10.6 seconds 2.0 TCDI Manual 0-60 = 9.2 seconds http://www2.fordconnection.com/ For a car that gives a worst of 29 USmpg when driven hard and returns 35 mpg easily, it's not bad. Read the internal dimensions comparison between Taurus and Mondeo in my post above, you'll be astonished to see what they achieved in a car 10" shorter.
  10. The same things were said of CD3 and now sales are blossoming. With the introduction of high profit D3 variants like MKS and Flex and Lincoln Flex that don't have to sell at huge quantities to return healthy profits, the D3 platform is about to turn things around. There is a changing of the guard with D and E sized vehicle sizes, old friends are in the departure lounge and new ones are about to land.
  11. Richard, In one of your previous posts, you described it as a 'tweener - I think that a better description. As American chat rooms are forever demanding proof of outlandish statements, I decided to research all of the available dimensions, do all the conversions to imperial and compare the two. what I found was this: - Outside the Mondeo sedan is same as Fusion but on the inside it's a different story. - Except for front/rear seat travel and slightly less shoulder room, Mondeo's inside is closer to Taurus! I'll show you: Taurus (Mondeo Sedan) Length: 200.7 (190.7) - 10" less and more like Fusion Width: 74.5 (74.3) - Same width Height: 60.4 (59.1) - Slightly lower roof line Wheelbase: 112.9 (112.2) - very close Track Front: 64.6 (62.2) - less and more like Fusion Track Rear: 65 (62.8) - less and more like Fusion Taurus (Mondeo Sedan) Leg Room Front: 41.2 (44.6) - 3.4" more than Taurus!!! Leg Room Rear: 41.9 (37.4) - 4.5" less and more like Fusion Shoulder Room Front: 57.8 (57.0) - 0.8" less Shoulder Room Rear: 57.6 (56.4) - 1.2" less Head Room Front: 39.4 (39.2) - similar Head Room Rear: 38.6 (38.4) - similar Hip Room Front: 53.7 (54.4) - similar Hip Room Rear: 53.6 (53.3) - similar Trunk Space 21 (18.9) - 2 cu ft less. The problem is a 'tweener like this would not be accepted by American buyers. Those expecting an externally larger car wouldn't give it a second glance and those expecting a Fusion Interior capacity would ask to see a smaller vehicle.
  12. The Mondeo and Taurus have similar internal dimensions but are worlds apart on the outside. That is no mistake on the part of the respective Ford divisions. Ford knows Americans would not accept Mondeo's compact design as a full sized car, even if it had a V6!
  13. Aussies don't usually read travel warnings - especially from their own government. I see the C2 is set to grow in wheelbase and tread width, this would make it closer internally to the superceeded Mazda 6. Does this then mean the next Fusion if based on a new EUCD2 design will be as big internally as the Taurus or would that not be allowed?
  14. I don't care for either, only one car I care about. Aussie Falcon.
  15. Sorry all, Should not have mentioned vehicle with out a future. Ecoboost will put new Fords over the top in more compact designs that will leave us all amazed.
  16. I said Getting power and smaller engine size /weight is easy, achieving better fuel economy is harder, convincing panther fans a 2.0 Ecoboost has power longevity of their sacred 4.6 2V - impossible.
  17. Deanh, I pulled the plug on my sink 10 times here in Australia, the water spins clockwise, I'll put down the phone and check my neighbour's sink, he lives 10 miles away.
  18. I asked DK about that an got the "form response", ecoboost is better, we are confident Yadda yadda, yadda.
  19. Understand your reservation, Deanh and Ford has a way to go selling Ecoboost. With tall geared turbo engine, you open the throttle more, not rev the engine harder. Having said that, Ford needs to fix up the dreadful fuel economy on CX-7 2.3 Turbo. The 300 lb heavier 3.5 V6 Edge beats it on both city/highway mileage. Until Ford sorts this pig out, no one is going to believe anything without proof.
  20. The thing is you don't, try the same gearing as the large engine. We're talking about the new Ecoboosts, not the old turbos plagued with lag.
  21. -LOL. Actually, the less cars Ford NA sells, the less the losses. May not fly in the US, but the rest of us will jump for joy.
  22. That 2.0 Ecoboost has close on the same torque curve of the Falcon 4.0 I-6. It's hard to believe a 2.0 Turbo can produce the same power as a 4.0 NA with better fuel economy. Actually, it would be perfect as the base Mustang / Falcon engine, changing people's perception of RWD.
×
×
  • Create New...