Roland

That was my thought. It's like watching one of those time travel movies where you keep going back to try to fix things but you find yourself powerless to keep people from making the same stupid mistakes over and over. Bottom line, if someone else can make cars profitably and Ford can't then they're toast eventually anyway. You can't keep running from segments because you can't make a buck there. And it doesn't take fuel prices to bring this little truck party to a crashing conclusion. Fashion can turn on a dime and this year's ultra-popular CUV could become next year's soccer-mom minivan. Pretty sad because my wife was really thrilled to "come home" to Ford for her new Focus ST. No way she'll settle for the mom-van version when it comes time to re-up. Ironically she fled there from Mazda because their car lineup has strayed to far from the "zoom zoom" nature that attracted us away from Ford in the first place. As for me, maybe I'll swap out my Ecoboost Mustang for the "Last of the V8s" memorial edition Mustang just before they toss that in the heap as well.

But decoupling has provided such gems as the second gen US Focus - a car that I always saw as the second coming of the Tempo. If the objective was to suck the soul out of anyone who looked at or sat in one then it was a success.

This is the image Ford is building for themselves. The message being delivered is that cars don't matter - it's all about trucks and SUVs. The distinction between SUVs and CUVs is meaningless in this context. You're making the case yourself, five new SUVs while their passenger car lineup dies on the vine. This is the eternal problem with old school American companies, constantly kowtowing to analysts. If Ford wants to be a tech company they should look at how some of the big tech companies treat Wall Street.

Agreed. Not sure if this is a fine metallic like OF that really pops in the light. Based on the pictures I've seen NFG is a little too flat looking to be a good bright green.

Really? Mach1? It might be more accurate to tell people to be careful what they wish for. Cougar is probably dead because of the popular connotation. Falcon would be more appropriate for a performance electric SUV than Mach1.

The risk is that if you become a niche product faster than your competitors you will lose market share in the process. Then, unless you have some compelling differentiator in your products you're going to be among the companies that are culled as things collapse and consolidate.

1.) Higher utilization of cars compared to regular personal cars Consumers don't care about higher utilization except where it benefits them. Higher utilization might reduce the cost but I've already pointed out that cost isn't the primary driver behind most people's transportation choices. Higher utilization also carries negative impact for consumers when we're talking about shared transportation. Interiors will have to be designed for high utilization by users with no ownership interest. You will enjoy the leavings of every user of that vehicle since it was last cleaned out. How many people do you think they'll have to employ regularly cleaning out these vehicles and who is going to do that work? Welcome to your new TAAS ride complete with automated hose-out interior. Enjoy the ride. Also, this is another case of what I mentioned - attributing benefits of automated vehicles to TAAS. Certainly TAAS would maximize utilization at a given time, but personal owners could also see increased utilization. Many families could combine two daily drivers into one, for example. Also, if owners want to maximize utilization, then they can simply keep a vehicle for it's entire useful life. By doing that they're utilizing 100% of the useful life of that vehicle and it makes little difference whether it spends 5% or 95% of it's time during that span parked. 2.) Much better service quality and frequency than public transit Here you make a good point, but it's about public transportation, not personal vehicle ownership. Given a choice between shared public transportation and TAAS, many consumers will choose TAAS because it overcomes the problem with almost all public transit - lack of direct access to a destination. Personal vehicles still provide better quality and frequency than shared transportation and will continue to do so in an autonomous vehicle market. 3.) Safer Automated vehicles may be safer, but TAAS isn't a requirement for that. In fact, with personal vehicles the consumer can decide for themselves how much they value safety and how much they want to spend on it beyond whatever is included with whatever shows up when they summon TAAS. 4.) Less expensive for customers Again, consumers aren't buying transportation on a least cost basis. They're buying on a best value basis where value is defined by their personal wants and needs. 5.) Encourage better urban design This is a mix of something consumers don't care about in their buying decisions and attributing autonomous vehicle benefits only to TAAS. Are you going to take away my parking space? I'll send my vehicle to park someplace else.

These predictions of the end of personal transportation are generally coming from those who want that to be the outcome. They're putting a heavy thumb on the scale in order to sell that not only as desirable, but inevitable. Finally they can be rid of that annoying conveyance that takes people where ever they want to go whenever they want to go there, destroying our environment in the process. The biggest fallacy that they use to advance their agenda is circular logic. In their arguments, the benefits of autonomous vehicles will only accrue to transportation as a service (TAAS) users because TAAS will supplant personal vehicle ownership because of those benefits. They apply circular logic in a number of areas but that's the most common. Second, they misunderstand what motivates people's transportation choices. They focus largely on cost when it's value, not cost that motivates most people's transportation choices. It's utility, comfort, convenience, image, and enjoyment that people are paying for, not just transportation from point A to point B. Third, they do all of this reasoning from an extremely urbanite perspective. They need density to make their TAAS models work and they dismiss the poor, unwashed masses who live outside urban centers. If you read between the lines they really want those people forced into urban areas. I agree that it would be nice to have the roads cleared of all the idiots who aren't the least bit interested in operating a vehicle safely, but car people need to be careful about getting on board with this thinking. There's an agenda behind a lot of this and it has nothing to do with a future for vehicles that provide theutility, comfort, convenience, image, and enjoyment that you want.

Oh, I've thought about it. If you read the stuff coming out of the think tanks that are pushing autonomous battery electric vehicles as the be all, end all solution, it becomes clear that their vision is really to eliminate personally owned and operated transportation. They're willing to allow for corporate ownership of ABEV vehicles but they expect that heavy regulation will turn that into defacto public transportation. The intent is to push an entire array of social engineering objectives by claiming that they are inevitable outcomes and therefore the government should begin passing laws and regulations to ensure that it comes to pass in the way that they desire. Here's an example from "rethinkX" which predicts the collapse of the ICE and personally owned transportation industry by 2030. http://www.rethinkx.com/press-release/2017/5/3/new-report-due-to-major-transportation-disruption-95-of-us-car-miles-will-be-traveled-in-self-driving-electric-shared-vehicles-by-2030

Same experience here with my new '18 with summers. It's an Ecoboost with PP but I get to enjoy the GT experience right now. With cold weather and salt glazed roads I can break it loose at just about any speed with imprudent shifting or throttle application. I'm like junior weather man right now watching the forecast for opportunities to get my car out of the garage. No residual ice or snow? Check. Temperatures above freezing? Check. No significant chance of precipitation? Check. Time to roll out. I got a little weary of changing over tires with my Miata so I'll probably put on a set of Michelin Pilot Sport all seasons next fall.

Just a note to say thank you again for your assistance and patience with my breaches of protocol. I was trying to hold out for an opportunity to get a decent picture with actual sunlight to highlight this gorgeous color, but we've had about ten minutes of sunlight since I got the car. This purchase was a double win for Ford. While I was wrestling the dealer for fair value on my trade my wife spotted a loaded '17 Focus ST that desperately needed rescued from the dealer's lot and she took that home a week later.

Sony stocks retailers and distributors with every model. So there's no need for anyone to custom order a TV from Sony. Obviously they're different models. It seems like they would want to maximize their sales that are sold when they arrive instead of sitting on dealer lots waiting for the right buyer to come along. It's not rocket surgery. It's all information that they're tracking anyway, it's just a matter of putting a useful, reliable customer interface on it.

My observations are the same. COTUS seems like a not quite finished project that is now abandoned and neglected but continues to sputter along. There's something broken in the back end that causes it to fail to find valid VINs about four out of five tries. There are also poor implementation details like not being unable to deal with duplicate order numbers. If someone cares enough to custom order a vehicle then Ford should be doing everything possible to make that an great experience. That could create a customer for life. Consumers today are accustomed to tracking $10 purchases from the warehouse to their doorstep in two days. The fact that an order for an item costing tens of thousands of dollars disappears into a black box for months with little to no useful tracking for the consumer is ridiculous.

Putting the Mach 1 name on a BEV SUV is the dumbest idea out of Ford in a long time.

Many thanks. Now I just need a snow-free delivery window.

Can I get an update? Thanks! 2018 Mustang - VIN 1FA6P8THXJ5135485

A report from a site I've never heard of "Virtual Driver" claims to have a confirmed reports that Ford has canceled the clean-sheet design for the 2021 Mustang and will have massive design staff layoffs. I tend to assume that this is click bait. While I suppose they could keep the S550 around indefinitely, a lighter RWD platform for the Mustang and a Lincoln would pay dividends in meeting fuel economy targets down the line. Also, the idea of laying off thousands of design staff seems ridiculous even if you think the future is autonomous people pods as a service. http://www.thevirtualdriver.com/analysis/2017/12/22/ford-kills-clean-sheet-mustang-again.html

Woot! Thanks again!

I'm a little surprised at the continued urbanization trend. Once I'm not tied to a desk I'm getting away from the city. I suppose "these kids today"...

Can I get an update? Many thanks! Order No: G030 Dealer Code: F47144 Vehicle: Mustang Ecoboost Coupe Premium with manual transmision

Right. Nobody wants to be branded a Luddite or dinosaur by the press. If you play lip service to the new flying car and it doesn't happen as quickly as some people imagine then you're still developing technologies that you're going to need along the way.