akirby

Not necessarily. That only applies to transmissions with torque converters because the torque converter multiplies the engine torque before it hits the input shaft. Also the tranny rating is in newton-meters rather than lb/ft so the translation from tranny name to engine torque limits is not so straightforward.

This is no different than we’ve seen with smaller more fuel efficient ICE vehicles vs larger vehicles vs trucks vs sports cars vs luxury vehicles over the last 50 years. Vast majority of buyers have prioritized size, performance, utility, styling and features over fuel economy/range and there is zero reason to think that might change with EV vehicles. Low price will be a bigger factor but again that’s a small fraction of the market.

I know. I’m saying they should have either waited for C2 and/or built C2 sooner instead of switching escape, TC and focus to C1 and Fusion/Edge to CD4.

Im not convinced they’ll be plug in hybrids.

Because Corsair is a plug in hybrid and there wasn’t enough room for the driveshaft with the extra batteries.

If they had left the seats in when they sold them I think it would have been perfectly legal. Yet another vehicle that should have been on C2 and made in Mexico from the start.

And they could use heavier gears but it’s probably not worth it. I was just pointing out that ecvts are totally different than regular belt driven cvts and can handle a lot more torque.

And at the same time people need to stop making comments like that to begin with which invite those responses.

Maybe not 400+ lb/ft or heavy towing loads but remember ecvts are geared and the Nautilus version was upgraded to handle a 2.0 ecoboost which should be close to 300 lb/ft (engine only).

I don’t recall anyone here suggesting you should buy an EV. And you clearly have no intention of buying one (for valid reasons). So why keep arguing?

I think he meant the nose would be shorter not passenger space or cargo space.

Perfect example of a passion product.

They have to keep volume at a certain level or overhead gets too high. They should have room for lower prices and still maintain high margins.

Thats what everybody says but I don’t think that’s what happens. I think you have a product with low margins from the get go because of high platform costs and not enough commonality. Even when new like the 2013 Fusion. They realize that even if they throw big money at refreshes and redesigns it will generate sales but still won’t generate a favorable ROI so they milk it until they find something better. Had Ford introduced C2 back in 2012 and used it for Escape, Fusion and Edge globally with hybrids I think the outcome would be different and they would have built a new plant for Maverick and Bronco Sport.

The answer to almost everything sales related is price. As prices go up sales go down because the number of potential buyers at each price level drops. I don’t blame them for raising prices initially when dealers were getting $10k - $20k ADMs plus inflation. But it’s time to make adjustments and find the sweet spot between profit and volume.

Never liked it.

How have they managed to do it with F series for 76 years? Mustang for 60 years? Explorer for 30 years? It’s not about not having competition - that just helps with profit margins. It’s about the investment required to stay competitive in a particular market vs the expected ROI.

He’s looking at Edge and Escape profit margins which I assume are much lower than desired.

Theyre not pushing anything. They’re offering products that people want to buy. Bronco short lived? That’s utterly ridiculous as is everything else you’ve said lately.

But from a factory perspective and a corporate resource perspective - Bronco and Ranger did replace Focus just like Mav and BS replaced Fusion. It’s all about budgets and projects not the products themselves. Think of it as having a fixed amount of shelf space in the grocery store. You have room for 10 products. If you want to add a new product you have to get rid of an existing one or you have to expand the store. They didn’t want to build a new factory so they replaced existing products.

There is plenty of room in between those extremes where people will buy vehicles with great styling and performance at a slightly higher cost and/or slightly less range. Not everybody wants a cheap jellybean.

It’s a new vehicle launch that was delayed significantly by the strike and they’re being held for either a parts issue and/or a quality issue(s). Bronco is not new, Ranger is. Stop with all the conspiracy theories.

True but that doesn’t mean Ford has to build sedans if they have better options. If a company wants to build sedans there is a business case and it can be done profitably. There are also business cases for companies to build other things. Honda builds sedans and minivans and hatchbacks. Ford doesn’t. Ford builds full sized trucks, SUVs, vans, and Broncos. Honda doesn’t. Get over it and stop trying to rationalize personal desires.

I agree they diverted resources to EVs but I’m not sure they have excess C2 capacity. Certainly not in Hermosillo. If they had excess capacity at Louisville they wouldn’t have killed edge and Nautilus they would have just moved them there. I do agree they need an extra C2 factory in North America. However, had EV sales continued to explode as predicted then the EV investment would have paid off big time pretty soon. It’s a gamble either way.

They didn’t replace Fusion with EVs. They replaced it with Bronco Sport and Maverick.