aneekr

He is honest and direct, however. I respect that attribute in business executives.

The sales race between these two pseudo-luxury compact crossover vehicles should be an interesting one.

Probably not. The rental car industry in the U.S. is experiencing overcapacity and the major players (Hertz Global Holdings, Enterprise Holdings, and Avis Budget Group) are all cutting back on new vehicle acquisition.

I'm not optimistic that assembling Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 will be particularly profitable for them. Magna currently builds Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen, Mini Countryman, and Mini Paceman at the plant in Graz, Austria. All are considered premium entries in their respective segments, with greater prospects for consistent profitability than the Chrysler sedans.

TNGA is completely new. Currently, Toyota builds approximately 100 different platform variants for vehicles worldwide. TNGA is part of a strategy to dramatically simplify the design, engineering, and manufacture of future Toyota automobiles via modular construction using a standardized, interchangeable set of parts. It's similar in concept to Volkswagen's MQB platform.

To me, crossovers for the most part combine the least desirable aspects of SUVs (ungainly handling and even more ungainly styling) with the least desirable aspects of station wagons (limited towing and off road capabilities). What's worse, the current proliferation of crossovers has resulted in automotive OEMs devoting fewer resources to passenger cars, including station wagons. Jeff Sabatini of Car and Driver stated, "...we’ve had it with boring-looking, boring-driving slugs that squeeze interesting cars off the corporate product plan. Who will save the car from the crossover? It is up to you and me." In Buick's case, adding the "boring-looking, boring-driving" Envision to the brand's lineups in the U.S. and China is unfavorable to the possibility that the stunning Avista concept that debuted at NAIAS 2016 will make it into production as Buick's "halo" car.

That's true. The whole concept of a "crossover" vehicle in general makes no sense. But there's currently a mania for this vehicle category, so I doubt GM will have trouble finding customers for Buick Envision in any market where it's sold.

Ford Credit Link is only available in certain portions of the Austin-Round Rock metropolitan area in Texas, which has a population of approximately 2 million. While Greater Austin is one of the fastest growing regions in the USA, I'm not surprised at the tepid response to Ford Credit Link due to its geographic restriction.

Good points, BORG. You are correct that some automotive brands are more consistent than others when it comes to long term reliability and dependability. Based on JDP VDS, Consumer Reports, and TrueDelta data, one can make the following generalizations: Toyota and Honda stand out for having consistently low problem rates across their vehicle lineups, even after 5 years of ownership Hyundai and Kia products tend to do better in initial quality than in long term reliability/dependability Audi has shown significant improvement in long term dependability over the past decade GM and Ford vehicles as a group can be inconsistent. Some models do very well while others rank among the worst in their respective classes. FCA brands and Mini consistently do poorly

If the smart brand is considered an outlier, J.D. Power's VDS results from eariler this year (survey of owner reported problems after three years; chart below) show more variation than IQS. Consumer Reports' reliability survey also shows greater variation among brands as vehicles get older (note that the graphic is from 2012, but results of CR's 2015 reliability survey demonstrate similar trends):

IQS scores by brand: Top three models per segment: Best plants:

That's par for the course when it comes to almost the entire "crossover" vehicle category. But this category has been increasingly popular for reasons that remain mysterious to me, so GM probably figured it would be best to field a midsize crossover Buick sooner rather than later.

I agree. However, customers who obtain 60 month or longer loans on cars with below average reliability and owner satisfaction scores (e.g., Ford Focus) may be tempted to trade in before their car loan is paid in full.

Subprime new vehicle buyers - the majority of whom won't default on their car loans - still face the issue of being "upside down" on them when it comes time to trade in, especially with cars like Ford Focus that have low resale values.

Perhaps, but Focus has traditionally been a popular choice among new vehicle customers with subprime credit ratings. In 2013, CarFinance.com reported that Ford Focus had the sixth highest proportion of subprime buyers among car and light truck models that year:

You refused to acknowledge the assertion that MKZ's interior is cramped relative to Toyota Avalon and other sedans in its class. I'm done.

You've just pointed it out. Congratulations!

That's why I focused (pun intended) on configurations as similar as possible to the $22,190 Cruze hatchback LT without any additional options, namely Focus SE hatchback 200A with satellite radio and automatic transmission. Both 2.0L and Ecoboost engines are available with this configuration according to the order guide. As noted in post #9, adding package 201A to Focus SE (which is only available with the 2.0L engine) brings its feature set and price closer to the Cruze Premier model.

MKZ's exterior dimensions are actually close to Avalon's. The Lincoln is slightly shorter than the Toyota but a tad wider and taller. MKZ: Length: 193.9" Width: 73.4" Height: 58.1" Wheelbase: 112.2" Avalon: Length: 195.3" Width: 72.2 Height: 57.5" Wheelbase: 111.0" In the USA, Avalon is considered a full size car by the EPA because its total interior volume (passenger + trunk space) hits the threshold of 120 cu.ft for that classification; MKZ's volume is 115 cu.ft.

Given the car's exterior footprint, the MKZ's interior embodies poor space efficiency. Period.

2016 Focus SE with SYNC 3 requires the 201A package and navigation system, which raises the price to $24,475. This configuration is closer to Cruze Premier in feature set and price than the Cruze LT. 1.0L Ecoboost engine is listed as an option for Focus SE sedan and hatchback in the order guide that ice-capades posted here. An embedded telematics system is advantageous compared to phone based connectivity alone for supporting features like remote start and remote locking. Also, emerging technologies in the "connected car" realm also benefit from embedded telematics. Powershift tranny in Focus is total garbage.

Pricing of U.S. market 2016 Cruze sedan ranges from $17,495 for a manual transmission 'L' model to $23,995 for a 'Premier' with automatic transmission.

A 2016 Focus SE hatchback 2.0L equipped as closely as possible to 2017 Cruze Hatch LT has an MSRP of $21,180, and Focus SE hatchback Ecoboost is $22,075. Considering Cruze has additional features like Apple Carplay & Android Auto support and telematics, and the fact that Cruze has a much better powertrain than either Focus, the price premium isn't unreasonable.

No. D2XX platform Cruze sedan is sold to both fleet and non-fleet customers. Cruze hatchback will be as well when it's released in the U.S. market.

It's all relative. MKZ's rear seat may be quite spacious compared to Ford Mustang, but "cramped" compared to Toyota Avalon which has 39.2" of rear legroom and 37.9" of rear headroom.