akirby

Entry level would be affordable - say $27k for a truck with midgate. Enclosed bed $5k. Higher trims with more options like tents, etc similar to Bronco Sport available at higher prices. What made me think of the bed is that focus group I was in a couple years ago where they had a prototype bed cover system with removable panels. The panels could be used as tables or seats. It was a tonneau style but I could see that being adapted to this.

I think it would obviously replace Maverick but be done on a cheaper platform enabled by ce1 architecture. Or maybe this comes in below Maverick and they move it upmarket a little. The enclosed bed option should be very popular with families. The 3rd row not as much but it might be an easy add engineering wise for the few that want it. With the midgate the rear seats have to fold flat so maybe the 3rd row could do the same. Probably not likely but an interesting design.

That's whatI thought at first to keep costs down but I think midsized has far more market potential.

BINGO

We're just North of Atlanta and it was 10 here. Wind chill yesterday near 0. Very cold for us. But we will be above freezing during the day for the next several days. We got almost 1/2" of freezing rain but not much stuck to the roads or trees so power outages were minimal. Then we got a couple of hours of 33 degree rain and the wind dried off the roads. Extremely lucky.

I was thinking of this new TTP affordable truck that's supposedly a new type of truck. What if it was a midsized truck with a midgate and a removable rear roof section? Maybe even with optional 3rd row seats? Crossover with seating for 6, seating for 4 with enclosed cargo room, seating for 4 with an open bed or seating for 2 with a larger open bed? Probably unibody with a hybrid powertrain. That would certainly be different from Maverick and Ranger.

It was nothing more than a different style option. Limited/Titanium Fords worked just as well. Sucked for standalone LM dealers though. It still makes me laugh that there are GMC buyers that swear they would never buy a Chevy.

I think we could have guessed that..... Nailed it Listening to the bean counters and making sometimes ill informed financial decisions. This is why the CEO has to mandate quality being most important so you don't make these tradeoffs.

Executives are compensated heavily with stock and stock rewards short term performance. Takes discipline to play the long game. Boeing has a lot more at stake and they used to do it the right way. But after the MD merger the MD execs took over and started pumping and dumping - massive cost cutting and stock buybacks to pump up prices with no regard for public safety or long term viability. It's really sad to see.

There needs to be more compromise. Without seeing the details of what Trump wants vs what Canada is offering it's impossible to say who is being more unreasonable. Some concerns are probably very fair and others might be totally unreasonable or unwarranted.

Let me explain how this happened. Corporate processes and decision making 101. At the beginning there are cost, date and mpg targets and a lot of pressure to meet those targets. Managers are compensated based on meeting those targets. There were generally no repercussions for things that happened after launch. The engineers initially found they could only meet the mpg targets with the dry clutch so they used it knowing it was at the design limit. By the time the engineers realized there was a serious problem it was so late that making a change would have delayed the launch significantly and more importantly would no longer meet mpg targets either. When middle managers were given this information they chose to ignore it and continue because it would have negatively affected their performance and compensation. The only choice the engineers had at that point was to escalate the issue to VP level or higher which probably would have been suicide. The managers probably said it would just cause some extra warranty claims for a few buyers. That's how it works when you tie compensation to the wrong KPIs. That's why I said the only way to fix it is to change compensation and make it worse to lie or say nothing than to say hey we have a problem and figure out how to fix it regardless of the consequences to the schedule and mpg targets. if my old VP had been in charge the managers who knew about the problem but did nothing would have been fired. The way it should work is you identify the problem and do a risk assessment that says these are the options - do nothing, change the tranny, change the engine, change both. Each one has a short and long term cost and pros/cons. This is run up the chain to at least the VP level and then whatever the executives decide you go with. At that point the managers have done everything they can do. The process by which the original decision was made should be revamped so it doesn't happen again. Now it's entirely possible the executives would have made the same decision depending on how the severity of the problem was estimated. But if it was underestimated then that in itself is a problem that needs to be fixed. Change your processes so you don't underestimate. The real solution is to reward employees far more for long term success rather than just meeting short term objectives. Ford tried this - holding product teams accountable for warranty costs after launch e.g. but that gets really difficult because the original folks may have changed jobs or left the company. To me the best solution is to hold everyone accountable for meeting targets including quality and warranty costs. And I think Farley is doing that or at least trying. Hold people accountable for their decisions including termination for egregious offenses, tie compensation to the correct KPIs and make quality the highest corporate objective and you'll see changes.

Wet clutch had more torque capacity. The dry clutch was fine with lower power engines. The 2.0L exceeded the design limit and the engineers knew it and raised the issue but mgt told them to STFU and do it anyway.

I think Nissan had similar issues with their CVTs.

What hurt Ford's small cars was they were too expensive to build and sales worldwide were dropping in favor of crossovers. They ditched the powershift in Europe in 2015. They need a lower cost platform that can be shared with crossovers to help amortize costs. Stand alone car platforms won't cut it.

Nowhere to go but up....

Atlanta expecting a major ice storm. 100 times worse than snow. Expecting widespread power outages. Probably should have installed that whole house generator.

Maybe they were already planning to move/replace Escape

That's what happens in a free market. Folks like Nissan and Hyundai and Mitsubishi thrive on the lower price points so if they find a big cost advantage you better believe they'll lower prices. In those markets a $2k price reduction is a guaranteed volume increase. Of course Ford first has to reach a normal profit margin before cutting prices as opposed to just breaking even or losing money.

I knew you would...... 😎

But those aren't mass market engines and they don't compete with Fords. The Tacoma 2.4l turbo has 278 hp/317 lb/ft Lexus RX-350 2.4l turbo is 275/317 Ranger 2.3L turbo has 270 hp/ 310 lb/ft. Mustang 2.3 turbo is 315/350. Big difference in low volume high performance engines vs mass market engines. Apples and oranges. Ford puts their money into Coyotes and Diesels and Godzilla. Others put their money into smaller engines.

I guess I stopped reading at that's the point 😎 The real issue is that they decided to divert so many ICE resources to EV development that yielded absolutely nothing and killed Edge in the process. I wish they kept Oakville and gave it a c2 Edge and Nautilus. Redesigned Escape and Corsair in Louisville and put ce1 in BOC. But that ship has sailed. I still think it's possible they move Maverick/replace it with something new in TTP, import Bronco Sport and give Hermosillo a new Escape and/or Edge/Nautilus.

I get it but even my 2.5 turbo sounds great to me with active exhaust open. And nothing sounds better to me than a Porsche flat six at 9000 rpm. Maybe a flat plane crank Ferrari v8 inches behind your head......

Wow - I didn't realize how close all 3 gas engines were: only 1-2 mpg difference. Glad I went with the 3.5TT.

If you're saying they should have used it to do a redesigned escape then I agree but I thought we were talking about all new models. I think the problem was they had already decided to repurpose Oakville and Louisville for EVs.

Try these facts. In 2016 a mustang gt started at $35k which is almost $48k adjusted for inflation. Current mustang gt base price is $46500. A 2006 with only 300 hp and fewer features was $42k in today's money. They're not jacking up prices. It's simply inflation. Hell a hybrid Rav4 is $48k.