rkisler

I think it's funny how leftlanenews based an article on a single quote from a handwringer. The timing of the auto shows is fixed. There are four major shows in the U.S. with the most important for Ford being Detroit and LA. New York and Chicago also are a bit less important, but there are at least one or two intros planned for each show. Ford introduced the Escape to LA in late November with production planned in late March. The Fusion previewed in Detroit in January with production in Aug/Sep? If Ford had not introduced these vehicles at these shows, they would have missed a whole auto show cycle and would have headed into Job1 and public intro with absolutely no buzz. Buzz=sales and advertising dollars. It's not as if these products are being previewed 2-3 years ahead of time. Although not on topic, I also want to say that I am simply amazed at how tight-lipped Ford has become, particularly in this age of electronic gagetry and social media sharing. This discipline was always lacking in the past, but if you can hold your tongue, it makes the public intros of concepts and production vehicles have a lot more "shock value" and get reported more heavily Who reported ahead of time, for instance, that Fusion was going to have both HEV and PHEV versions? Of course there is always an issue with the old product when the new one comes on board. In the "bad old days" Ford U.S. sometimes carried over the old product while introducing the new where the old one served as a price leader. Caused nothing but confusion and ripped out the support for the new model. So the issue this time with Fusion, as it always is, is to balance out the old model Fusion in a coherent manner. Right now, the deals are already very good. Threre is a healthy rebate, and good incentives on leases. And some special pacakges. For instance, employee pricing with all incentives including re-up on Ford Credit lease and less than $1,500 down for a very well equipped 2.5l SEL Fusion is $169 a month for 27 months before taxes. This type of lease would enable the dealer to capture the lesee into a new Fusion in 2-years' time so even if the customer really wanted the new model, they might take this relatively low cost approach to wait (deanh would be much more the expert on this). Pricing of the new model Fusion inititally without rebates will encourage movement of the older stock. Fortunately the present Fusion is a pretty nice product -- safe, reliable, and reasonably fuel efficient -- and some customers might actually prefer the more conservative styling. The other thing we don't know is how much of a production disruption Hermosillo will experience. I certainly haven't read anything about it. They are going from a Mazda-designed platform to and EAO-designed platform. The build order likely is very close, they are already making hybrids and MKZ, so that would indicate minimum tearup. There might be some period where the plant is down and production has to build back up on the new model. So inventories at the dealer will be worked off as the new model arrives. I'm not concerned at all, just as I'm not concerned over balance out of the old model Escape.

Duh!! Stupid me. Of course you're right.

Possible. Derrek said he had his dream job, and didn't aspire to anything more. HTT might feel the same. Dunno.

While I agree that Raj "ran around" Paul for Derrek's job, that still doesn't completely eliminate Paul for later consideration, but HTT would probably have the lead. Yes, Nick Scheele was COO. But this is a different situaiton and a different cast of characters. If Ford NA were to report to a COO and the COO were Mark, then all is good. I don't think there would necessarily be any unmanageable friction. Suppose this overlap occurred for only one year and then Mark ascended to the throne. Ford NA head would still report to Mark. And a COO could allow Mullaly to start stepping out and delegating certain pieces to the discretion of the COO, easing the transition. I dunno. Not saying it's going to happen, but it could work.

It's not a full test, but a toe in the water at an operating job. You really need to run Asia-Pacific/LA or Europe in total before taking over NA. Of course I've never been in this position, but I'm sure at the end of this type of assignment, there is an honest discussion of how well they did, and whether they liked it enough to see even bigger operating jobs in their future. Not everyone is cut out to run a total organization; it requires you to let go of your area of expertise (which is hard to do), to pick up a fresh understanding of other disciplines, and put a lot of trust in your direct reports and other key management members. And you have to deal with labor which is a big shock to some. Plus, HTT just made VP, so he's lower on the pecking order than some of the other names like Farley or Henrichs.

It won't be LNG as you have to cool natural gas to -260F to get it to stay liquid at atmospheric pressure. Not an expert, but here's a few things: Plus 1. We have a lot of natural gas. Extraction has problems (fracking), but a lot less issues than diminishing oil reserves (tar sands). 2. Natural gas burns cleanly because it's primarily NH4. That means you are getting engergy from hydrogen and it reduces CO2 output.. 3. I'm not sure if it's settled, but there might be incentives for natural gas power in the new CAFE legislation Minus 1. Packaging -- The pressure tank takes up quite a bit of room which intrudes in luggage capacity. This means that you have to make a choice of going CNG or gasoline, but probably not both for cars. An example is the Honda GX which is CNG only (and also seems to be a pretty good product). 2. Range -- range is a shorter (around 200 miles) due to the energy density of compressed gas vs. liquid gasoline. 3. Infrastructure -- Where do you fill up? So, this combines with #2 to get you the same range anxiety you might experience with a BEV. 4. Home refueling -- It can be done, but the company Honda was working with (the "Phil" NG compressor) has had a troubled financial history. Compression takes overnight for a complete fill. 5. It's not in vogue -- If you look at the details of the latest California zero emissions mandate, they are projecting a market penetration of 50% hydrogen vehicles in the future. Sane people (like Dr. Chu) could argue with this logic, but it tells you where their emphasis will be in terms of infrastructure. They will be pushing for hydrogen filling at regular gas stations, with a lot less emphasis on CNG. Because, after all, CNG is just another nasty fossil fuel. Regardless of how we all feel, California with 5 other states hopping on board will influence the nationwide product offerings. Ford and other manufacturers are going to be under a lot of pressure to improve fuel economy, and trucks are going to be especially difficult. If I'm correct that CNG will carry a "bump" in achieving fuel economy, then my guess is we'll see it as a factory installed option on the next-generation F-series. But that's just a guess.

Yes, of course that's what's happening. The two positions in the recent retirement notice of course have some connection, but the expertise is largely independent. Both executive positions can be replaced without any real disturbance. And I don't believe either is being pushed out; both have served admirably. Believe me, their retirements with an extra package they got, won't leave them living in a trailer park in Florida. I would put the timing of Mullaly leaving at 2 years (3 years max), and a very, very high probability that Mark Fields will take his job. I'm assuming he has already have been told the job is his. So, in the meantime this gives this new team 2 years to get settled together, although there could be some other moves in upper management leading up to that event.. To me the big question is not who is going to replace Mullaly, but who will move into Mark Fields' slot. Bob Shanks will make an excellent replacement for Lewis Booth. The CFO in Ford is, of course, a very powerful position. In addition to handling the more mundane parts of the job (accounting, systems, financial reporting, stockholder relations, treasury), he/she is really the chief strategic advisor to the CEO. Good judgment comes from basic smarts and lots of experience in different jobs which allows one to make an almost instant assessment of a particular situation, but also the ability to follow up with hard facts drilled down to minute detail if necessary. Bob will do fine, but his background has been totally in Finance and Strategy with no operating jobs, so I think there is very little chance that he ultimately would be lined up for the CEO job. So now you still have Farley and Henrichs with Raj Nair poking up a bit but there are others who might rise into contention also. If I were to speculate, I'm thinking that Farley is really good at Marketing, but not so sure how he is in operations. At any rate, these guys are part of the next wave after Mark and now have been joined by Raj. Raj Nair has risen rapidly. He came up through Manufacturing, and in one of his previous jobs as Director, New Model Programs he was in charge of all of the vehicle launches. Tough job. From the manufacturing side, you really have to push hard with everyone as you approach Job 1 to ensure high quality on time. Given his rapid rise, I'm sure he's getting results. This does line up Raj for other jobs after a couple of years. But I think he would have to take another big job before running the Americas (like Europe). But that's OK, because Hau Thai-Tang is now lined up right behind him and could step in or maybe Paul Mascarenas who is Ford's Chief Technical Officer would be appointed to replace him. Either would be good. Hau is extremely technically capable, a really nice guy, and a good team leader. Paul also has lots of experience in PD and a great technical background. One intruiging idea I've seen is that Ford could potentially create a COO position into which the heir would move, which would then allow other positions to be aligned. Then when Mullaly leaves, the COO is appointed CEO, and the COO position eliminated. Not sure if it will happen this way, but it's an interesting thought. Here are some other things I'm seeing: 1. One of the most important legacies of these gentlemen is getting rid of the "Scream and Shout" school of management which was pervasive inside Ford. Leaders like Jac Nasser who would set up opposing teams to work on the same problem without informing either of the teams what he was doing (ummm, more than a bit devisive) and many others I don't care to name. They were all arrogant and abusive. Either they felt this was the most effective way to manage, or they couldn't handle the stress, or they were covering up the fact that they had a small penis. Whatever it was, it wasn't fun working for these bozos (think of the chimps in the Career Builder ads). That doesn't mean that Ford's present management is not tough, but Mullaly has brought a style of more open, honest management with realistic goal-setting that has really benefited Ford. 2. Everyone in this management team has been through the tough times and the change in strategic direction. There won't be any culture shock regardless of who is appointed. 3. As we've seen, the stock market can be illogically nervous over Ford management changes, and certainly when Mullaly retires, they will wring their skirts nervously, and sell Ford stock so they can put their money under the mattress again. Ford is obviously taking these management succession steps carefully to ensure the shock is minimized when Mullaly leaves. That's why I think the idea of appointing the heir apparent to a COO position might be a good thing to get everyone used to the idea. I want to put in a plug. I recently read Bill Vlasic's Once Upon a Car . I thought it was a good read, and gave some interesting insights into the personalities and actions of the senior management of the domestic auto manufacturers during their worst hours.

Go here to look at the test cycles: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml The EPA highway test goes to 80 mph. There is nothing in Ford's gearing that should cause a big dump after 70 mph -- or at any rate a bigger dump than one might receive due to the non-linear drag and friction associated with the increase in speed. Maybe I didn't understand you correctly, but are you saying that the EPA test is a poor test? If so, I don't agree. The cars are run for 1 1/2 hours total during testing and the tests simulating a number of conditions. These tests are run at very highly controlled laboratory conditions, and all of the gasses are collected to determine fuel economy. All-in-all, the results of the test appear to be reasonably representative of real-world results. But...let me expand on your question. What if it's at a lower speed? I could add "what if it's warmer out when you start the car?" What if you drive more aggressively than the test? What if you drive more gently? What if you brake more rapidly? What if anything? It's a standardized test and, as they say, your results might vary. All that those designing the test can hope for is a test whose results will represent a reasonable mean around which there is a reasonably tight distribution of actual results. Very tough to do in a big country with lots of different climates, geology, population, and driving habits.

jpd, you said the magic word. You really want the transmission to be able to lock up whenever possible to get rid of the losses from the torque converter. For fuel economy, you generally want to get into the next gear as soon as possible (i.e., lower rpm) and get locked up. But to ensure good driveability and good NVH, you might have to delay the shift somewhat. And of course, going in and out of lockup has to be handled carefully to avoid shudders or other undesireable effects. More gears can help the powertrain to meet these objectives. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that Ford's transmission can lock up in any gear? Designing a calibration that performs well in the CAFE certification (not to mention emissions) and also performs well on the road is part science and part experience/art. But the fuel economy test is representative enough that I don't think a manufacturer could completely game the test, hold the same certification, and have acceptable on-road behavior. So it's a give and take with program management, development engineers, and powertrain (certification) engineers toward the tail-end of the program that gets to the best possible result for label and customer acceptance.

I agree with what you're saying and want to add a thought. It's true that "tuning for the EPA cycle" is a myth. For the other readers, All manufacturers, including Ford, will want the label to be as high as possible. Since the resistance on the rollers is set by weight and coast-down criteria (which encompasses wind resistance, rolling resistance, and friction), manufacturers will do the best they can to decrease resistance and get the weight of the vehicle into the next lower ITWC class. In each case, as you rightly pointed out, the actions taken to improve label fuel economy also help real-world fuel economy. However, in once case, where you are heavy with a weight class, there could be some difference between your product and one that is light within a weight class (the roller resistance for weight is the same, but in the real world you might be heavier than your competition). Manufacturers also have a very delicate balance of fuel economy and driveability/performance. Manufacturers cannot have one engine/transmission calibration for certification and another for production. So, if a manufacturer wants to let the vehicle linger in a higher gear for fuel economy and it lugs, transmits vibration, or is to slow to shift down and accelerate, then they are likely to pay the price with reviewers and consumers. In addition: ALL manufacturers have skilled "drivers" to follow the trace on the screen to ensure the best results with a given vehicle. ALL manufacturers use prototype vehicles because the vehicle has to be certified before the vehicle is in production. ALL manufacturers experience variability between individual vehicles, but less than it used to be due to tightening manufacturing tolerances and electronic engine/transmission controls. A prototype that is doing particularly well in testing is referred to as a "flyer". How manufacturers treat the certification of these vehicles which might not be representative of the population of that vehicle line is up to the manufacturer. ALL manufacturers conduct their own tests with the EPA lab in Ann Arbor doing audits on 10-15% to keep everyone honest. I only remember one cheating episode (GM), and I believe it was actually brought to the EPA by GM voluntarily when they found out about it internally. So we have to assume that manufacturers aren't cheating.

No, that's not possible. I can tell you that trying to make a RWD car out of a FWD platform and vise versa has been investigated numerous times. In fact, it's investigated every time the ones that did the original investigation have moved on their way, and the new "team" thinks it's a brilliant idea. But it's not. What you quickly find out is that the basic body proportions are so different, that body parts start changing in the front of the vehicle and don't stop changing until you hit the rear bumper. i.e., almost nothing can be kept common when all is said and done. So, Ford is better off using the existing RWD platform for Mustang and modifying. Same with Falcon. But hopefully with a view toward commonality. I'm speaking about body structure and to a large extent suspensions also. There are certainly other components that are and will be commonized across carlines.

I was going to add some comments on this previously, but you pretty much have to make a decision to go with IRS or SRA; doing both can have a sub-optimal outcome. 1. You might remember that in 1999, the Cobra had an IRS while the rest of the lineup was SRA. This IRS was pretty nice, and certainly an improvement over the SRA, but there were issues trying to package it which resulted in some compromises in geometry. I've mentioned before that a lot of the packaging action in the Mustang goes on around the butts of the rear seat; that's the toughest part of the car to get right because it is very, very tight with low seating (caused by the sloping roof), fuel tank, a big exhaust, suspension, convertible top package, etc. If you aren't going to strike a new rear floorpan, with a new fuel tank, new seat, and new trim, then you arent' really optimizing going from one suspension to another. And those changes would be very expensive and would cause a lot of complexity in the assembly process, so that's not likely on the table. Here's a picture of the Cobra IRS: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1999-2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-ford-mustang3.htm 2. The same team that designed the IRS for the Mustang also designed an optional IRS for Falcon which had a standard SRA at the time. If you looked at the two suspensions, you would find they are very similar, but they didn't share any parts at all. The only thing they shared is that they were both frightfully expensive to manufacture due to design and also low volume. 3. If you design from the get-go for IRS, you can get some benefits in rear seat package and fuel capacity. And maybe also better packaging for a free-flowing exhaust. 4. I also should mention that AAI is very tight on the chassis line; the ability to shunt cars off line for a separate suspension would be very difficult. So, in summary, I don't know what decision Ford is going to make. But it's very likely going to go one way or the other, but not both IRS and SRA.

Ouch! I don't think Ford is anxious to come to the rescue at this point. In the past, Mazda used to fund their operations through convertible notes. Ford used to have to subscribe to the notes to preserve their equity percentage if they were to be converted to stock. It's pretty obvious with "One Ford" that Ford has decided to work with themselves rather than Mazda on forward model product. Mazda might have been offered to participate, but only on Ford's terms. As Mazda develops their new models uniquely, they will start to become more and more separated and cooperation with Ford will have less and less synergies. I'm not sure how much more Sumitomo Corp. can stretch to pick up the slack if there isn't any success schlepping shares in the market.

Well, Mustang is always emotional as shown by several of the comments that followed your posting. While staying away from some of the more inflamatory remarks of the article, let me talk about some of the "true/not true" elements of the article. I'll also say that while drag racers are a vocal element, they are not the only buyers of Mustang. So while I don't characterize drag racers as "redneck", I also don't characterize those that might enjoy the positive attributes of IRS as "snobs". By the way, I'm not sure who the inside Ford contact was that the author mentions. So let me summarize a few points: 1. It is true that the original S197 concept started from a D2 (DEW98); these studies were begun when the LS was in prototype stage. The first cut, to create a base -- or stalking horse (no pun intended) -- was pretty much pure D2. The second cut was to hold commonality where it made sense and to modify as required -- primarily to package the larger V8 and to get cost down. 2. Despite some loud and emotional arguments, IRS was in the S197 program planning assumptions from the very beginning. Many of the long-tenured members of the Mustang team argued for solid axle based on tradition and also because they were afraid of offending the drag race crowd. But nevertheless, IRS was always planned. 3. The S197 drifted away from D2 to what became D2c which is really a unique platform (even though you might be able to find some "tie points" in some of the structural dimensions if you had that level of detail). There were a number of reasons including cost and proportions. But another key factor was the decision to build Mustang at AAI which meant the production facilities could not be shared with the LS. 4. It is true that there was a joint effort with FoA to design a common IRS with the Falcon. FoA sent engineers to Dearborn to help the process. In the end, it didn't happen. There were some legitimate reasons (packaging and fuel tank issues), and there were timing issues. Also, it was hard to show a business case due to the assembly plants and suppliers separated by thousands of miles and a big ocean. The FoA guys went home very, very disappointed. 5. So the S197 continued with IRS, but one unique from Falcon. The IRS was designed by Hau Tha- Tang, who had come over from the Chassis side of the LS. The LS multi-link was pretty much state of the art, but it was somewhat bulky and way too expensive for Mustang. So the team settled on a control blade which started life as the C170 rear suspension, and they were changing parts only as necessary (surprisingly few). There were some packaging issues (in particular, the front mount point of the CB was intruding on the door opening of the long Mustang front door), but they were eventually sorted out, and Mustang was to have a reliable, cost-effective IRS as standard equipment. 6. Phil Martens did indeed cancel the IRS. And, since Phil was right 100% of the time, he got rid of the people that argued with him that it was the wrong decision. He went for a dollar savings, but caused a huge tearup late in the program. This design change tore up the whole rear of the car and had all sorts of negative consequences including NVH. In the end, the word was it didn't save any cost. 7. I won't damn Hau Thai-Tang like the author does. You have to understand that once the decision is made, the person left has to salute and execute. You're not going to make statements like "Well, we had this great IRS, but I have to put in a live axle". Maybe his choice of words left something to be desired. 8. Given what they had to work with, I think the Mustang team did a good job. But you can only go so far with a live axle. 9. The picture of the rear suspension in the article has nothing to do with the IRS that was supposed to go in the Mustang. If you want a better idea, look at Falcon or Focus or upcoming Fusion AWD rear. 10. I have no idea what the program direction is for the upcoming Mustang (and wouldn't say if I did); but from my perspective, IRS was right for S197, and it's way overdue now.

If you want to see the full leather Titanium seats, you can go to the www.ford.com site and look at the interior pictures. The description of the Titanium seats includes the descriptor "Sport Styled" which to me indicates they have a unique shape from the SEL, but I can't find any pictures to make a firm conclusion. I suffered with low-profile tires on a Volvo and ruined 2 of them when they pinched on the rim after hitting potholes causing bulges in the sidewall. Very expensive problem which I don't want to repeat. The tires on the SEL are 235/50R18 and Titanium is 235/45R19, so the larger tire has about 0.2 inches greater circumference which is nill effect in terms of performance/economy. Personally, I didn't see enough to make me go to Titanium, so I stuck with a highly-optioned SEL.

Could be, thanks for photo. I'm also assuming we'll see a couple of other things on the freshening as part of "One Ford." The U.S. model has some uniqueness in the front end due to the fact that it was "patched" to meet tough U.S. front crash criteria (35 mph head-on into a barrier with unbelted occupants). I'm assuming that the structure will now be common across all models and the front sheetmetal/fascia will be common where it's uniuqe today. In the cabin, the U.S. model had unique seats due in part to the fact that 'mericans just love Big Macs, Large Fries, and a Large Coke and the European seat wasn't large enough. I assume the freshened Fiesta will go to a new corporate seat which was mentioned in a Ford video at one point.

Given that Fusion is a very nice major refresh of the Mondeo, I'm assuming they used carryover parts wherever they could as long as they didn't inhibit the design theme or function. Engineers generally design what they know. In this case, I doubt they gave it much thought at all. Whether the parts are actually common or just similar in design, I'm not sure.

Since this is also one of my pet peves, I can provide some input. . I will agree that one has to make the decision on which decklid hinging system to go with before the design is complete, but it is primarily a cost issue. The sheetmetal for a 4-bar link is unique as it has to incorporate a bigger ditch to accomodate the mount ponts for the hinge. If you have a gooseneck, then going to a 4-bar link would require considerable cost to retool. And there is also a variable cost penalty for 4-bar link. My general impression without doing research is that goosenecks are very European, while 4-bar links are very Japanese. I've noticed at the auto show that even BMW uses goosenecks (I didn't check MB and Audi). They are packaged better than they used to be. In the old days, they were more inboard and uncovered so there was a good chance they would smash your luggage. But now at least BMW has them outboard and enclosed so even though you still lose some luggage room, you can't pinch your luggage.

Yes, but this is 'merica where almost nobody drives manuals. And, with the push to fuel economy, the auto does better in certification testing.

It's a mistake to listening to anything David Champion of Consumer Reports has to say. For a magazine that is supposed not to be biased, he is continually spouting unfounded, opinionated crap. I do accept, however, that customer reaction to MFT has caused CR readers to downgrade Ford's reliability (which goes to show how interrelated things are in a car -- particularly things the customer touches every day). The article quoted David Sargent, JD Power vice president for automotive research as saying "You shouldn't have to go into the menu structure to adjust the temperature or fan," Umm. You don't. Use the panel, idiot. That shows that this person making the comment had not even bothered to sit in or control a MFT system, yet he has an opinion. As in CR, however, I'm not arguing that MFT didn't have an effect on JDP ratings. I have a number of issues with MFT, but taking my eyes of the road is not among them. The main issue for me is the extemely bulky response time, and the seeming inability of the system to understand in any logical fashion whatsoever where I want to go and to navigate for me by voice control I do find the seeming inability of some users to understand the system to be very puzzling. It doesn't take a manual, unless you want to review it later to improve how you are using the system. It only requires common sense. I can understand that the initial exposure can be confusing as there are often multiple ways to implement a command (touch panel, voice, steering wheel, touch screen), but, like using any electronic device, one ends up using the method you find most comfortable. The update is coming, but since we haven't heard anything at this point, I'm thinking it might be delayed. Ford certainly understands the importance of getting this one right. And Microsoft now fully understands that their reputation is on the line also even if they weren't the lead for MFT development, so I understand they have also thrown considerable resources at it. Nothing short of excellent execution will quiet people down on this.

I'm most interested in the battery packaging for the Hybrids and Energi PHEV's -- C-Max and Fusion. They were locked in Detroit although Borg got a good look at a C-Max Energi. In the C-Max it looks like Ford have created a higher, flat floor over the battery pack which has a section in the back behind the battery pack that can be opened for better storage. The Fusion Energi trunk wasn't open, so I couldn't see the battery pack, but I'm guessing you lose a substantial piece of the trunk behind the rear seats. I'm also interested in the battery packaging of the C-Max and Fusion Hybrids. Fully under the floor, with full fold-down rear seats and flat load floor? Or are there bumps in the load floor or other compromises? I'm guessing they also will be locked in DC, so you might not get the chance. But thanks in advance if you do.

I thought I heard Alan Mullaly say in an interview that it was in the $1's -- I seem to remember $1.3 billion, but that might not be right. Ford has shown remarkable progress on paying down debt. Automotive Debt (i.e., excluding Ford Credit) hit a high of $33.6 billion at the end of 2009 (only two years ago!!!!), and has now been reduced to around $12 billion. Don't forget that as Ford's credit rating has been improving, they have churned some of the debt to improve the overall interest rate Also, Ford was able to borrow $5.9 billion using Department of Energy loans that were put in place as part of the last CAFE improvements approved during the Bush administration. I would think that part of this borrowing went to pay off the "in hock" loan package. Ford has stated that they believe they will be at an "ideal" $10 billion or so in borrowing by mid-decade. Of course if things keep going along well, then the cash position will be increasing at the same time and the interest on that debt will be reduced if, as expected, Ford hits "investment grade" later this year.

Eeeeeeeeeeewwwwww! Luggage-crushing gooseneck hinges; I much prefer a 4-bar link. The bump on the bottom of the decklid for style also is very strange. It's an awkward lump. Hopefully Ford will have the counterbalance fully worked out by production.

Thanks once again for your great coverage. A lot of the posters here could learn a lot from looking at your detailed pics of the new Cadillac ATS body-in-white to learn about body structure and ponder what it would really take to make a structure shorter/longer/wider. I would like to see less use of the phrase "it would be easy to ......." Also another thing to note. The spare tire area used to always be round to accomodate a spare. But in the ATS it's square which looks more like a provision for batteries -- maybe for start/stop or a mild hybrid at some point in the future? On a new platform, if you don't have that built in, you're missing a bet. I'm a little confused on the battery packaging and tray on the C-Max's. On the Energi, it looks like the battery stands up behind the seats, so they built a flat shelf over it, with a provision for opening up the rear most portion that doesn't have the battery? But I'm also not so sure if the battery for the C-Max Hybrid takes up luggage room? I guess I'll see in more detail tomorrow. Thanks again for taking the time. Edit: I've taken another look, and the ATS "box in the trunk" below the load floor is quite large. It goes rail-to-rail and likely could accomodate enough batteries for a full hybrid with no loss in luggage space.

Yes, Lewis was a Finance guy.