akirby

They are. It's called an Explorer.

What if I said "IN MY OPINION the earth is flat." Does that make it ok because I said it was my opinion?

POTW!

That's true, but remember that he delayed the public debut of the concept 9 months and the production version 1 year - that's a lot of time just to make minor "revisions". I think he was given carte blanche to make the design his own and that's why it was delayed so long. He may have been hampered a bit by structural changes but probably not much. This isn't like the first MKS where they just put a new grille on it.

Hadn't thought of that - it would be a possibility.

Ford accomplishes the same thing with Platinum F150s. Either make higher trim level Chevys or make it a Caddy. The ONLY reason GMC exists is to keep the stand alone GMC/Buick dealers in business. As long as GMC exists it proves to me that GM doesn't get it yet.

It never said that. You misinterpreted it. And you must have missed all of the buzz about the new MKZ which DOES indicate the new Lincoln styling direction because it's the first all new vehicle designed under Wolff. The MKS was just a refresh and as such they couldn't make too many changes like they are with the MKZ.

And they have nothing whatsoever to do with the NEW Lincoln designs from the NEW Lincoln design chief. So why complain?

Exactly - that's what the negatards ignore. It started with killing Mercury and putting all resources into Lincoln. Then they hired a team of 100+ people with experience from other luxury brands including the Germans and they started with the dealership experience and a dedicated design team. It's a systematic approach that will pay dividends down the road and should put Cadillac to shame once they get all the parts in place. This is the planning and execution ability that GM lacks.

And adding "in my opinion" doesn't mean anything unless you're actually giving an opinion and not stating a fact and calling it an opinion.

The problem is there are several people here who state their personal preferences for styling and performance as if they are universal truths and imply that Ford is making a mistake if they don't build the vehicle THEY want. Ford's internal barometer for success of the new Escape is far more complicated than just sales volume. It includes all the cost savings of reducing platforms and sharing components with other vehicles and increasing ATPs with more options. It also includes a forecast of future sales volume of the old model vs. the new one 5 years from now when the current Escape styling would be even more dated compared to the competition. If the negatards would just stick to "I don't like it" without implying that Ford is making a bad business decision we would have far less arguments.

This was arguably the best Lincoln LS commercial....Wood...Leather...Adrenaline.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxJfDFlJZLw

They probably do - up to 112 mph.

Bad week for that analogy, eh?

Only MFT. I don't think they changed the regular Sync software.

For people who want to haul big loads and seat 7 or 8 the only choice is a full sized SUV. If you share the platform, drivetrains, interior and most of the exterior with the F150 then the cost is minimal and ATPs would be high. If it required a dedicated platform then the answer would be different.

The difference is the F series sells 500K+ every year at a very good profit level and that situation only exists in the U.S. It's not a case of whether the T6 would be profitable - it most certainly would even in a small market. There are 2 things that Ford has to consider - the cost to build the T6 in the U.S. and the net impact to the bottom line including lost F150 sales AND the resources necessary to make that happen versus other projects in the pipeline. Even if there was a net positive business case to build the T6 here they may not have the resources to put on that project, especially with the big changes hinted at for the 2015 F150. When you run a business the decisions are always far more complicated than outsiders like to believe.

But I thought GM was the Green Bay Packers of vehicle design.......

The difference was 1 mpg. 2008 3.0L AWD 17/25 combined 20 2008 3.0L FWD 18/26 combined 21 Perhaps you were comparing the 3.0L AWD to the 2.5L FWD which is not apples to apples.

What are you talking about? We're talking about a full sized BOF RWD SUV using the F150 platform including drivetrains. Should be capable of towing at least 8K and carrying 8 comfortably. In other words - a Supercrew F150 with a covered rear and a 3rd row seat. There is a market for such a vehicle - it's just a lot smaller than it used to be so it has to share as much as possible with the F150 to be feasible.

That bodes well for performance.

You click on the link that says "this thread" and then you click on the order guide.

Fixed.

What about USA Today and Edmunds? They know the type of mileage to expect based on their normal test course. These are experienced test drivers under semi-controlled conditions. If they can't do any better than 39% below EPA estimates then something is wrong.

That's the beauty of platform sharing. You spread the costs over Flex, MKT, Explorer, Taurus and MKS which is a lot more than 34K vehicles.