rmc523
-
Posts
25,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
123
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by rmc523
-
-
I don't know - much like the "concept" - this thing really doesn't do anything for me. I think my problem stems from how design-wise it seems more like a refresh rather than some leap of design to a next generation. It looks like they took a Challenger front end and grafted it onto a Charger and called it a day.
-
1
-
-
-
37 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:
What's surprising about the maverick is that it's not a complete dumpster fire either. So often with those shortened vehicle development programs, the end product is this rushed abomination with never ending quality issues, and terrible attributes.
That doesn't seem to be the case with maverick, a few years in, and it's shaping up to genuinely be a decent product for the most part. Whatever development process they used, it seems to have worked. Not only did it keep costs down, but it delivered a compelling and desirable product. It's mind numbing to think Ford has essentially abandoned this process, and reverted back to their old ways.
The key for Maverick was that they leveraged an existing platform and essentially made a new top hat for it. I fully understand BEVs are a whole different animal and require a re-thinking, but I feel they absolutely could fill in some gaps with the "Maverick" approach in the meantime.
-
12 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
As I see it, the big design and styling issue was that the E-Max was based on the C-Max “minivan” instead of Escape.
The reason that Ford did not use Escape as the starting point was due entirely because it was using out of date data.
When Hackett and Farley rose to power after Field’s removal, the C-Max is cancelled because the market had already
shifted to utilities like Escape, so more $$$$ were spent doubling down on the project tinkering with proportions that
fortunately resulted in a more attractive vehicle but as it turns out few buyers want these days…..
A lot of Ford’s missteps can be traced back to its long product cycles and equally long product development times,
evolution of the electric Focus was tortured by using C-Max instead choosing a Focus & Escape combo like Ford
is developing at Cologne albeit with VW MEB toolkit.
It all gets back to a totally dis functional Ford and it inability to quickly design and deliver important products,
the one exception is the Maverick, an example of what can be achieved by a smaller more efficient team.
I shudder to think of what the total development costs were by the time Ford launched the Mach E
What I find crazy is that they were able to very quickly develop/approve Maverick, and that somehow remains the only product to come from that "faster thinking" process - everything else has reverted back to ancient timelines and never-ending delays.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:
It's not going to be exactly the same, but it sounds like the ford three rows look roughly like those original e-max sketches. I wouldn't mind if it looked something like this top right white sketch, that's pretty sharp imo. But with our luck, it's probably gonna end up looking like the blob on the left. Hopefully it doesn't look any worse than this.
.jpg.4fb915289b1c39b81d41298addbcb108.jpg)
That bottom thing is horrid lol.
-
41 minutes ago, akirby said:
I just read an article that said basically what fuzzy said about redoing the original BS design around the same time as the Mach-E redesign. So I guess it is similar to Mach-e in that regard. I thought they created the small utility based on the rejected Bronco design.
I remember the original “E-Max” sketches that came out. Definitely would’ve been a compliance model -
FWIW, even he put a ? in his post title over at GMI.
So he doesn't even know for sure.
I really find it hard to believe they're pushing products back another 2 years.
-
Bah humbug.
-
2
-
-
I always enjoyed his information and speculation. The problem was, everything he said was gospel, and even the slightest "Hmm, you sure?" or discussion resulted in a fit on his part.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, joseodiaga4 said:
According to Borg, Ford has delayed the launch of the 3-Row EV by another 2 years, pushing it out until Late 2027..
He says that Ford is going back to the drawing board on the battery pack with a complete redesign that brings it inline with the CE1 platform.
Also, the vehicles may see major redesigns.
This may also explain why Lincoln abandoned electrification plans at the dealerships and removed the Lincoln Star.This would be an absurd decision, IF true (given the source and above commentary, it's a good if).
I'm a proponent of making sure a product is right, but when you talk continual shifts in timelines, at a certain point, you'd have to have something out, even if it's not perfect.
-
So I guess we need to rehash this thread?
https://blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/75890-ford-delays-ev-bronco-and-maverick/
-
2 hours ago, akirby said:
I can’t speak for Mexican unions but here the obsession with restricted job duties and time really kill productivity. I witnessed my buddy have a grievance filed against him by other union members because he stopped to turn on the printer as he was getting coffee because it took 5 minutes to warm up (this was in the early 80s). So by the time he started working it was ready to go. They said he was doing work outside scheduled hours.
I’ve so had several occasions where I was supposed to put in a ticket and wait hours or days for someone to do something I can do myself in 2 minutes such as move a monitor. Training and skills are necessary for some tasks but when it prevents even the simplest things from being done efficiently it’s a problem.
Granted I'm at a small company, but we all do what needs to be done - move a monitor, offices, drive a forklift. I get there are lots of layers of bureaucracy in larger companies, but stuff like that seems ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
The question will be in next-gen models if they include it at all - I think right now, they still are producing the part, so they can offer it through the dealer. I'd imagine with next-gen models, they may not design it from the get-go, therefore, it'll revert to the stick on version.
-
20 hours ago, tbone said:
Yes, if you liked opinions routinely presented as fact.Don't forget, sir, the 800 articles per post, sir.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Interestingly, when the Edge was first introduced, it’s starting price was similar to that of Explorer
and in fact lived comfortably in that space battery Explorer and Escape, like an enlarged Escape.
IMO, the hatchback styling is exactly why it worked.
remember too back in 07, explorer was BOF, so they offered completely different ride characteristics too-
1
-
-
I remember really liking that concept when it came out (I also liked the Retro bird). I'm sure they wouldn't have sold many, but I still think it's a nice looking vehicle.
-
17 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
Interesting article on GMs issue with its new EVs. Makes you wonder how many Ford is going to run into.
https://insideevs.com/features/709703/gm-ultium-problems-software-batteries/amp/
That article made it seem like a lot of their issues had to do with a new process, and a supplier that had a tough time getting the promised production volume for some key battery components....and sounded like they didn't use a supplier that does that for other EV products. -
21 hours ago, ice-capades said:
GM could do whatever they want with trying to create a Colorado based competitor to the Bronco and it wouldn't make a difference. The new generation Bronco struck a chord with the modern consumer and re-established the Bronco as the worthy successor. A Colorado based Bronco competitor doesn't have the heritage or ability to compete successfully.
GM does have decades of sales leadership with their large 3-row utilities and Ford's Excursion was killed off by the environmentalists. Ford doesn't compete in my opinion with the C8 Corvette, whether it be the Mustang Dark Horse, a new Shelby or GT3 version. The Corvette and Mustang serve different niche markets, with their own interests and loyalty, with little of the crossover interest and sales that existed years ago.
GM would probably call it the XYZ-123 and then wonder why people don't get excited about the product.
-
1
-
-
Please.....this is Ford we're talking about. This plan will be cancelled, coming out next week, pushed back to 2050, and out in 3 months by next week.....
-
2
-
6
-
-
On 2/15/2024 at 2:40 PM, akirby said:
Also I think the general public is much more on Ford’s side given the outrageous demands and the subsequent strike. Much more than years past.
Also, when the guy is already talking about a strike for the next contract, it makes it hard to want to side with that guy.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, tbone said:
It didn’t really translate well did it.The problem with it was they just graphed the concept's lights onto the current model and pretended it was cool.
The funny thing is, they had that Airflow concept which looked nice, and basically ready for production, and scrapped it to make this concept.
-
1
-
-
Chrysler Halcyon EV concept: Previewing a four-door future? - Autoblog
This thing could be from anyone and you'd never know.
-
12 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Thinking about what you said above, Its possible that that the broader strategy looks at various
trim levels and bundled options to determine what is really needed - obligation of the
various bundled features adds a lot of complication, maybe that can be rolled into
trim versions to lock in defined supplier amounts and further streamline the process?
Sure beats the heck out of customer surveys, lots of data that’s factual, not subjective /customer feelings.
I'd imagine they probably have data that says some high percentages that purchase "option package 1" also get "option package 2", so why not bundle them into one single package instead.
-
16 hours ago, jpd80 said:
While I agree with sum of what you’re saying, we need to separate Musk the manager
from Musk who gets on late at night texting or who gets hurt because people criticise him.
To the first point, Ford would kill to have someone who could make decisions and bet the farm on calculated guesses. That's what really speeds up decision making and keeps costs down by limiting the amount of cooks wanting to add their five cents worth….a big issue with a corporate like Ford where normal decisions get bogged down for weeks and months because the Ford bible says you can’t do that.
To the second point, Musk’s character flaws are well known but the biggest one is his ego,
surrounded by people who always agree and tell you that you’re right never ends well.
Equally, working at Ford and having every decision questioned and micromanaged is also a soul killer,
so many talented people just give up and do what the boss wants so as not to be yelled at for having ideas.
On topic regarding an affordable compact BEV,
Ford keeps circling the airport on this one and unless I miss my guess, different people within Ford want different things. Ford Europe clearly has a desire to evolve its C2 platform into affordable BEVs (E-Max). Ford brass and North America would have none of it and signed up VW MEB architecture deal, Hackett called it job done but then after he took his golden parachute Ford realised that it was paying a big price for something it should be able to engineer internally. Now we’re back to a skunkworks doing an add on development of GE2 but for smaller vehicles….Ford groundhogs day.
Yeah, to me, the Hackett move always seemed like a knee-jerk stopgap move to "catch up" temporarily while Ford worked on its own in-house stuff.
Nissan, Fisker in advanced talks on investment, partnership
in Competing Products
Posted
Nissan, Fisker in advanced talks on investment, partnership - Autoblog
Nissan is in advanced talks to invest in electric vehicle maker Fisker in a deal that could provide the Japanese automaker with access to an electric pickup truck while giving the struggling startup a financial lifeline, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.
The deal could close this month, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because the talks are ongoing and have not been finalized.
Terms being discussed include Nissan investing more than $400 million in Fisker's truck platform and building Fisker's planned Alaska pickup starting in 2026 at one of its U.S. assembly plants, one of the sources said. Nissan would build its own electric pickup on the same platform, the source said. Nissan has U.S. assembly plants in Mississippi and Tennessee.