chucky2

As another poster pointed out in the new thread on Ford expanding a plant in Southern California South, that doesn't mean that engine is for US/Canada...could be RoTW.

Personally I'd be in favor of GPS mapping based taxing for road use, I think that's the most absolute fair way to tax people. It however has large privacy concerns, so I don't see it taking off quite yet. Once we're 20 years deep in all the autos having cell and GPS built into them, maybe it'll be a different story. Too hard to pull off right now...

No argument there at all...

Their % of CD to gas is quite high. People like getting real actual 50mpg on the highway, with power. Not to get too far OT but I'm watching some VW diesel swap threads for Rangers. My '03 SOHC is getting long in the tooth at 209xxx miles, I'm hoping one guy is going to make his swap with with the existing auto in there and get it working relatively easy. Low to mid 30's (4x4, 31's, 4.10) on the highway will be great after 18mpg...

That's not saying much really, the 2.0EB isn't very Eco. I don't think VW or BMW is having problems with their modern 4cyl diesels with shake or NVH. Louder than gas counterpart? Yes. Sound deadening fixes that for interior occupants? Yes. Problems solved...

They'd just tack it onto the price of the electric car if/when those take off, or make it a yearly sticker or some other such thing. You're right, the $ has to come from somewhere, it will be had, that much is sure, the only question is how the wealth will be extracted...

But the diesel will actually get good mileage whereas the 2.3EB might get it on paper. Soon as eB is used, it goes to TwinForce, which isn't Eco at all. The point of the 4cyl diesel would be actual economy, not fake economy. That the 4cyl could be used potentially in other vehicles would just further spread out its costs. Corp really has hitched themselves to EB though, I don't know if Corp Leadership could ego-wise stomach a smaller diesel for NA...

The problem in EU is they've got a.) really old diesels running around that really do pollute a lot and b.) people bypassing things like the DPF because their fuel prices are so high they're looking for every mpg gain they can get. I seem to remember a post by wxman on another forum that broke down their NOX sources and autos really weren't even that high...sort of reminds me of the CA hysteria against diesels (at least that has good reason, can't have those options standing in way of holy grail of electric power)...

2.7 or perhaps even smaller. There are a lot of F-150 uses where a full size is desired and purchased yet it's just not worked that hard. One wonders if the rumored 2.8 4 cyl GM is bringing to Canyonado will make it to their 1500 series...

I wonder how much less the 3.2 cost becomes if it's offered in F-150 volumes. They're already making $ on it as it's a premium option (those who want a diesel pay for a diesel, and the OEMs know that and price accordingly), one wonders what the true cost really is...

Haha gotcha. Then problem with that is I don't want to sit on my wallet for a long drive and I want to usr my cell. My front passenger is the same. Where does all the stuff go?

And this is how I drive as well. My suggestion, if the dealer won't let you take it for a couple hour trip, is rent one and do so. As you point out, 5 minutes isn't enough time. When you get on the longer drive you'll begin to experience the leg cramping from having the leg straight out for so long, and the lovliness of plastic jammed up against your knee.

Yes, and we used those on the Taurus and use them on the Flex. They are simply not as easy, convenient, or quick to see what's in them and where as a storage bin up where the shifter is. Also the visual reminder the center bin provides of what is in it is far better than the door mounted storage bins, like when you exit the vehicle and want to remember to take your wallet with you.

I'd take even Nissan over VW. I mean, I hope VW tries, as they'd probably bring over their offerings with diesel options, which means I might be able to score a diesel powerplant for a swap down the road more easily. It'd really be nice to have a modern diesel swap option that hopefully has been made to not have the HPFP doom option associated with it. But as a commercial operator? They'd have to be clearly both superior to the Ford offering, and be a good deal cheaper, to consider it coming from VW. The blinker costs alone could put someone under...

I agree, that is nice, but the loss in utilitarian space for my usage doesn't make it worth it. I don't like sitting on my wallet, and I like my cell up where I can use it. Frequently both I and front seat passenger have drinks. Front seat passenger also might not like sitting on their wallet and may also want to store the cell up front. Now we need to eat on the go...absolutely none of that is aided by a shifter that has zero use other than a hand rest over a column based shifter. They did the same thing in the Flex, which is even more crazy...

I don't want a land yacht nor do I, in a general use car, want a faux BMW. In my parents '12 Limited, the ride needed about 15% less firmness, at least here in IL. If your roads are mostly smooth OP, with no F'd up expansion joints, tar patches (that aren't done properly), and bomb craters as part of your normal driving, then you can ignore my firm ride comments. Ride on a smooth road was very quiet and nicely smooth (that is to say, it didn't lurch around while providing a smooth ride). As for the column vs "floor" mounted shifter, we can agree to disagree. I put it in drive, it remains there for the duration of my drive. I can use that space for storage, drinks, whatever, I don't need to pretend I'm rowing gears when I'm not - and, we're not, so no need to pretend.

Who in their right commercial mind would buy a VW with VW's quality reputation? That'd be...insanity...

My parents had a 2012, FWD, N/A 3.5, Limited, not sure if the 2014 or 2015 would have any major differences but I don't think so. Pros: Got 28mpg average on our 1.5 hour highway trips doing mostly 72-80mph. Engine quiet and smooth. On smooth pavement, ride was very nice. Handling is great. Electronics worked fine but since you'd be years newer they won't be the same. Trunk space is really good. Cons: Interior is small. I'm 6'3" 250 and was the driver. My dad is 5'10" and 230'ish, mom generally rode in back she's 5'9" 160. Dad would need his seat scooted forward, which put him closer to the dash than he would like, and mom would still be fairly cramped back there. For the exterior size of the vehicle, there is not a lot of interior room. Cockpit design blows. I'm not driving a fighter jet, nor an F1 race car, nor a BMW. They need to get rid of the "sporty" shifter (on an automatic) and go column mounted as shown in pics above. The space this takes up for a general use vehicle is just unacceptable. Also, if you are taller, enjoy your right leg being completely stuck to the plastic cockpit they needed to fakely design in needlessly, rendering what otherwise, on a smooth road, would be an enjoyable ride into a far less enjoyable one. Ride on rougher road is firm. While it doesn't produce the WTF is happening?! motions of Panther hitting a chuckhole going around a corner at 70, hitting all the little tar patches in lovely IL, the expansion joints, etc. will feel much more firm than your Panther, to the point on any stretch of road that has many of them (like IL does) you'll be wondering WTF Ford was thinking when they designed this thing. When we were trading in the Taurus to get their Flex, the salesman told me upon me voicing my displeasure of the Taurus that the 2014 Fusion they had parked in the showroom had more interior room than the Taurus. It's a salesman, so who knows if whatever is coming out of his mouth was true and/or accurate, but, that is something to consider checking out. Chuck

Before MKC, which I fully agree is in no way a rebadge of Escape, what did Lincoln have? It had a Ford Fusion called the MKZ, a Ford Edge called the MKX, a Ford Taurus called the MKS, a Ford Expedition called the Navigator, and a Ford Flex called the MKT (I just threw up in my mouth a little on that last one). Were they rebadged in the strict sense of the word? No, but they were close enough IMO. Where they nice? Sure, not saying they weren't. Could they be viewed as a premium competitor to premium brands? Not really, unless you're someone who is buying on the low end of premium - perhaps that's what Ford was going for?

My point is, Volvo in the US doesn't really carry the brand prestige that Lincoln does: It's looked at as higher end yes, but it's like niche higher end...Lincoln in the US has far better recognition. Overseas, excluding maybe China, what does Lincoln have over Volvo? Nothing. I'm saying truly get Volvo under the Ford umbrella, and keep the Volvo name outside of the US, and in the US, you can finally sell a premium vehicle under the Lincoln brand with very low Dev costs, rather than rebadging nice Fords. If/When you actually get a Ford that really takes off, like the MKX, you don't need Volvo to be primary Dev of that, you can just rebadge just as they do now. The way they went is certainly cheaper, and maybe they had to do that financially in the times they made that decision, but I don't see it as getting better product.

No, I'm saying you slap the Lincoln name on the Volvo products you wish to bring over here (and of course, since Volvo remains under Ford, Volvo and Ford relationship can be made more mutually beneficial), and also you can still offer a Lincoln Edge (MKX) if you wish to.

You like the Lincoln lineup better than Volvo's?

Ford might have been better off keeping Volvo and selling Volvo in the US as Lincoln. I have no idea why they ever bought JLR...

This reminds me of thousands of Taurus sitting on CAP yards that were screwed up (in one way or another) because of needing to make production run numbers. Ahhh Corp. Leadership, an oxymoron...

The larger more entrenched problem with Caddy and Lincoln is that they just aren't seen by the larger public as the premium brands of their parent company any longer - for the most part they're simply an expensive trim level that has a price tag putting them into competition with brands that really are perceived in this day and age with a Premium moniker and thus justifying Premium pricing, i.e. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Land Rover, perhaps Volvo. Sure Caddy has the lumbering Escalade that fills the large SUV niche nicely, but after that, what do these brands really offer at the premium price point other than past prestige notoriety when they really were the US Premium game in town? Not much. Dumping Billions into brands that aren't really even seen as true premium anymore just for the sake of nostalgia doesn't really seem all that smart to me when those funds could go towards the betterment of their existing bread and butter line.