akirby

Welcome!

I think it only shows up if it really helps aerodynamics and therefore range and battery cost. As for the front end design don't forget that this isn't a legacy Ford design team and none of this is what Ford typically does. I like it.

Canada, probably. Mexico, maybe. Not China and not any of the other countries that have had tariffs on US products for years. Why should we allow Europe to levy tariffs on our exports up to 17% with no reciprocal tariff?

Really? I literally just said you can be disappointed, upset or downright angry about a business decision. You just can't say it was wrong when the evidence says it was right. Just because you have an opinion that 2+3 = 7 doesn't mean it's right.

Opinions are I like this, I don't like this, I'm disappointed, I wish they would make something else, I wish they didn't cancel X. Personal preferences. For every Fusion buyer that Ford lost they added a Maverick or Bronco Sport buyer. For every Focus buyer they lost they added a Bronco or Ranger buyer. The folks buying those new products spend way more on average and are much more passionate about their vehicles. And Ford makes way more profit to boot. Those are facts not opinions.

He said it's a new kind of pickup that could be compact, mid sized or full sized.

I don't see a lot of overlap with CE1. It's an EV and the majority of buyers still don't want an EV. Think of it as an additional powertrain option. It might also allow Maverick prices to go up some. No way the Bronco pickup is going to TTP at 50k-75k volume. Makes no sense to build it anywhere other than MAP. Based on what ExplorerDude said it sounds like a new platform that could underpin multiple sizes.

On further review it appears e-tnga was a joint project with Subaru.

It's possible. Dodge just did it. Or maybe they drop Mach-E or make it in Louisville. The only other option I can see if they're not rebuilding Flat Rock is Chicago.

Ford is a business not a non profit so their business decisions are always going to be primarily ROI driven. That's usually profit but also includes legacy and heritage and other subjective factors. Keeping Mustang e.g. You can't justify building a plant to make boring high volume vehicles with low or zero profit margins IF you have the opportunity to build different vehicles that inspire passion and can be sold at a higher margin. Like Bronco, Bronco Sport and Maverick. Or a 4 door mustang and suv. Doesn't mean every decision is good. Trying to make Escape softer to appeal to Focus buyers backfired for sure. Killing Edge and not moving it to C2 was a mistake. The problem is people complain about product decisions like killing Fusion and Focus which are obviously disappointing from a consumer perspective and try to rationalize it as a bad business decision just because they don't like it. They also don't understand that what works for one company doesn't work for another. Toyota developed cheap high volume global platforms over several decades so they can sell corollas camrys and rav4s and make money. Ford focused on domestic trucks and suvs and commercial vehicles. Each company has strengths and weaknesses and different infrastructure which yields completely different opportunities. Tacoma is the market leader in midsized trucks but Tundra hardly made a dent. Maverick has no competition at all. Hyundai tried and failed. I don't think it's asking too much to simply acknowledge good business decisions while expressing personal disappointment about those decisions. Instead of saying Ford should do this say I wish Ford would do this. And stop saying Ford should do this just because it works for somebody else. The situations can be totally different.

Aren't some of those rebadged Subarus?

That's 2 off topic posts after being asked to get back on topic. Consider that strike two.

So next gen Mach-E and ICE SUV in Cuauatitlan?

It makes sense to me to update cd6 with new architecture and lower cost for Explorer, Aviator and Mustang sub brand vehicles.

I think a big reason for that is the small profit margins making a big refresh or redesign ROI negative. That doesn't explain Explorer or Bronco though. I think they were casualties of the EV debacle. Hopefully the new products and platforms will help with that problem going forward.

Urban myth. It only shared the floor pan and fuel tank.

Ford Blue $3B Ford Pro $6.8B Without Model E that's $9.8B profit. Not as good as Toyota but pretty healthy all things considered. End of Discussion. Back on topic. Sorry for the tangent.

Bingo! Did you find it yet?

Like I said upgrading FR is an option but it seems to be far more expensive than using Cuautitlan but I understand the optics. Maybe they will upgrade FR after all. The good news/bad news is they can build a year's supply of mustangs in one month to last while it gets rebuilt.

Do they make pickups and vans?

Europe was never very profitable Europe 2015 profit $131M 1.8% margin Stop quoting revenue and sales volume without profit and profit margins.

They didn't because they never had to. But CE1 has shown them how to do it now and that's where Ford's growth will come so the future should yield exactly the changes you seem to want. But by all means ignore that and just keep bitching about F150s.

Almost nobody parks an F150 in the garage regularly. And businesses who buy F series certainly don't. It has survived 70 years of recessions and high gas prices and still sells 900k/yr. Toyota and VW would kill for a product like that. Toyota yes. VW not so much. Now tell me how Toyota and VWs commercial business compares to Ford Pro.......

Because you guys keep complaining that Ford doesn't build what you want them to build and your complaining won't change that. We keep explaining over and over why it's a reasonable business decision which you guys just ignore. That's why it's frustrating. Ford has a different business plan than Toyota or Hyundai that works better for them even if it doesn't match your personal needs. It's perfectly fine to be disappointed. I was disappointed they stopped making supercab Rangers but I understood why they did it. But saying or implying the company is going under because of the vehicles they killed is patently ridiculous given their financial results and future products.

Cheaper than remodeling Flat Rock to build utilities. But that is also an option.