bzcat

Like I said... if Ford wasn't already fully invested in D3/D4 by way of Taurus and Flex, they might have gone with a CD3S stretch and widening for Explorer. Flex was probably the tipping point because Ford wanted more interior volume than CD3S could reasonably deliver. Explorer on the other hand would have been fine with CD3S in my opinion. This is just my guess... once the Flex program got going, Flex requirements probably pushed beyond the CD3S limits originally proposed by Mazda, and so it was an either/or decision... Flex and Explorer both had to stay on CD3S or both had to move to D4. Remember, the Ford Fairlane concept car that became Flex was riding on CD3. Ford probably seriously looked at doing Explorer and Flex using CD3S because they knew Mazda was working on the CX-9 and Mazda8 - their Japanese alternate versions if you will. This was during the period when Mazda was operating as a Ford subsidiary for all intent and purpose (with Mark Fields running the place) so it will not surprise me if the origin of CX-9 and Mazda8 was an alternate proposal from Mazda for what eventually became Explorer and Flex. Ford was famous for doing that kind of redundant internal competitions before "One Ford". We know Ford NA had just gone thru the same exercise with MK3 Mondeo vs. Mazda6 and choose Mazda6 for the original CD3 Fusion.

L x W x H / WB 2016 Edge 3-row: 4878mm x 1925mm x 1734 mm / 2850mm Or for those metrically challenged 192" x 75.9" x 68.3" / 112.2" 2016 Edge 2-row: 188.1" x 75.9" x 68.6" / 112.2" [3 row version is extended by 4 inches vs. 2 row, all behind the rear wheels] 2016 MKX: 190" x 76.1" x 66.2" / 112.2" [splits the difference between 2 row and 3 row Edge] 2016 Explorer: 198.3" x 78.9" x 70" / 112.8" [Explorer is 6" longer than 3 row Edge but basically same wheelbase - my guess is the extra length shows up in cargo room with 3rd row seat up] 2016 Mazda CX-9: 200.6" x 76.2" x 68" / 113.2" [interesting reference point because it is basically a CD3 3-row Edge] The data on Mazda CX-9 suggests that Ford probably didn't need to do a D4 Explorer if it wasn't already committed to the platform as a CD3S Explorer probably would do just fine. CX-9 is a little old now but it was considered one of the top large CUV in the market when the D4 Explorer came out in 2011. The relevant point to think about is how CD6 Explorer may in turn influence the next gen Edge and MKX...

I think the fate of CD4 Taurus in US will be clear after the UAW negotiations are concluded. I sketched a timeline before in another thread... it makes marketing sense for Ford to have Continental be the new kid on the block for a 1 or 1.5 model years before Taurus joins the production line. It's my own speculation, not sourced from my imaginary friend. Late 2015 - Continental product begins at Flat Rock Early 2016 - Continental launch as 2017 model (2017 model year has been confirmed) Mid 2016 - Retail D3 Taurus production ends in Chicago (PI continues and the Taurus volume shifts to Explorer export program which will get bigger push in China with new 2.3 EB) Late 2016 - Production of CD4 Taurus starts at Flat Rock Early 2017 - CD4 Taurus launch as 2018 model (effectively 2 model years behind China, which will launch in October 2015 as MY2016) Note that this time line above jives with someone's mystery friend's claim that there won't be a Taurus after 2016... as technically, there won't be a 2017 Taurus in the US and the model will skip a model year.

Most likely a mule for the Grand C-Max mid cycle update. The timing makes sense because C-Max and Escape are twined program.

2.7 EB is probably going to be the biggest volume Ford V6 engine in a few years. Once the 3.5/3.7 non-EB V6 is phased out of Ford's FWD platform cars and CUVs and replaced with 2.3 EB. I see 2.7 EB being the volume engine in F-150 in a few years too.

Model T was a truck... right? The original SUV jack of all trades It's taken a while for compact CUVs to catch up with midsize sedan as the largest passenger vehicle segment - as in Honda CR-V outselling Accord, Escape basically at parity with Fusion etc. And if you look at longer term trajectory, RAV4 is going to catch Camry probably in 3 or 4 years, and Rouge is on pace to pass Altima probably next year when supply issue is resolved.

Bentley Continental uses Audi's 4.0T V8. It's the best selling Bentley model by far. PSA's PF3 platform is engineered for transverse engine. I6 is not really going to work. PS3 is midsize car platform, not fullsize and I4 turbo power is plenty. And if PSA comes back to North America, they won't be selling RWD luxury cars with I6 engine - it will be compact and midsize cars with I4 turbo. FCA has no resources to start new I6 engine development. If they did, Maserati Ghibli will not be using a V6.

It's not a theory. It's fact. The midsize CUV segment has pretty much eaten the fullsize sedan market and spit out the bones. The compact CUV segment has been slowing eroding the size of midsize sedan markets for years. It's just that midsize sedan segment is so large, it's taken a while to show up in the stats. The subcompact CUV segment is now going to devour the compact sedan at a much faster rate. Anyway... back on topic - that Jeep line up is a juggernaut... Just wait until they revamp the Compass and Patriot.

Mercedes or BMW are not worried about putting the I6 in FWD cars so they go with what makes the most sense for them. I highly doubt VW will go down the I6 route. Audi MLB platform cars are optimized for the Audi V6 family and they are pretty committed to the Audi's 4.0V8 family for Bentley. There is not enough volume for I6 for low budget Bentley or Porsche. PSA is not looking at I6 architecture. They don't even have any car that will need a V6. FCA will be lucky to engineer themselves out of a paper bag with their Alfa mess.

Ford is killing it in vans... those are amazing numbers for both Transit and Transit Connect. Edge numbers will start to trend up now that the new model supplies are getting better. Meanwhile, the car business is flat... I think the mid cycle update of Focus was too subtle and Ford missed an opportunity to get a jump on the new Civic next year. 1.5 EB should have been part of the North America mid cycle update.

The A with a circle button is the symbol for auto-start/stop. I believe it is SAE standard and also used by the German equalvant of SAE, so a default worldwide universal symbol.

I can't find any existing thread on the subject so I'm starting one. These new photos of Mondeo mid cycle update test mule are from China. It shows the car receiving the rotary knob gear selector from the new Taurus. Previous spy photos from the US: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/12/2017-ford-fusion-facelift-spy-shots/

2.3 EB should be interesting... I think it will work very well in T-150 or maybe even a T-100 for people that need the volume but not the weight rating. But at that point, Ford may be better off just selling the midsize Transit Custom.

3.5 EB replaced the V10... not the 5.4 V8. I would be shocked if 2.7 EB doesn't show up at some point because the output is a better fit for what Ford wants to accomplish (i.e. 5.4 V8 replacement) than the 3.5 EB. But 2.7 EB didn't make it in Transit at launch... probably because Ford wanted to prioritize 2.7 EB for F-150. 3.7 V6 (275hp / 260 lb-ft) ==> replaced 4.6 V8 (225hp / 286 lb-ft) 2.7 EB (325hp / 375 lb-ft in F-150) ==> would replace 5.4 V8 (255hp / 323 lb-ft) - in Transit, the 2.7 EB would be detuned to around ~ 300hp / 325 lb-ft similar to the 3.5 EB detune from F-150 to Transit 3.5 EB (310hp / 400 lb-ft) ==> technically replaced the 6.8 V10 (305hp / 420 lb-ft) - if 2.7 EB shows up, Ford will probably up-rate the 3.5 EB a bit and increase the GVWR for the T-350 and T-350 HD to close the gap with E-350, which can be gracefully retired at that point.

So that's the issue... no SoCal dealers even bother ordering any diesel. Chicken or egg first? I'm not an expert or anything but I know the E-series diesel when it was still available was precious commodity. Now that Ford finally has diesel van again, no one wants it? I find that a little hard to believe.

So... the bottom line is that Ford designed the crew cab pass the IIHS small front offset test but not the super cab (or presumably regular cab) because IIHS only tested best selling body style. You can either characterize this as "cheating" or smart planning depending on your perspective... because I'm sure Ford is not the only one that does this to game the IIHS test. If IIHS starts testing alternative body styles of all other vehicles, there will probably be some interesting raised eyebrows. For the record, I think this is "cheating"... Ford choose expedience over safety. However, I will leave room for debate on whether IIHS small front offset test is a meaningful test.

Don't give away the secret! What we do in New Zealand stays in New Zealand Nice! My dad had an EA-II with 3.9 I6... still one of my favorite car from that era.

Not even with diesel being $2 cheaper than premium in SoCal?

Hemm... very attractive pricing if it is real.

Here are my nominations for "I'm glad Ford left this one overseas" category: 1981-1991 Ford Del Rey (Brazil) - A quick and dirty facelift of the Corcel, which was based on Renault 12 from the early 1970s. Ford inherited the Corcel when it took over the Wilys operation in Brazil (which had sold a number of Renault based cars as the article in the OP noted). Brazil was stuck in a parallel universe throughout the 1980s due to military rule and isolationist Govt policies and Ford was barely interested in the market. By 1991, the Del Rey was badly out of date. ~1988(?)~1993 Ford Festiva (Japan/Taiwan) - The Festiva hatchback was kind of goofy looking but not half bad car. Mazda had designed it for Ford to sell in Japan as a Ford "exclusive" model during that time when Ford Japan was basically a subsidiary of Mazda. (That generation of Mazda 121 was in fact not sold in Japan - but was available overseas). The sedan, which was sold in Japan and Taiwan only, is... ugh... homely looking. Mazda affiliate Kia took the Festiva even further with a wagon and pickup version. In fact, the car is still in production in Iran. 1994-98 Ford Scorpio (Europe) - The Mk2 Scorpio ditched its sleek hatchback and gained some weird retro looks. It's kind of a disaster... and the last RWD sedan Ford will sell in Europe for a while. 1989-92 Ford Corsair - The Button Plan wrecked havoc with Ford and GM in Australia forcing them to sell rebadged Nissan and Toyota models. This Govt sponsored plan was intended to boost the production volume locally assembled cars to achieve economy of scale by artificially limiting the number of models allowed to be manufactured (yes, please roll your eye...). So in effect, Ford was forced into a shotgun marriage with Nissan (and GM with Toyota) and thus, the Corsair... a rebadged Nissan Bluebird (GM sold Holden Nova and Apollo, rebadged Corolla and Camry, respectively). Corsair not a terrible car per se but if Ford had any say, it probably would have continued with Mazda 626-based Telstar, which had sold much better. It's on my list of terrible Ford sedans because of the politics and misguided Govt policy. The Button Plan end up decimating Ford and GM's ability to compete with Toyota in small and midsize cars in the remainder of 1990 and into the 2000s.

Fun article but I would say that they were too focused on the 70s and early 80s. I would have included a few other Ford sedans from later 80s and 1990s. They choose the TC Taunus but real European Ford fans all know the next 2 generation (Mk4 and Mk5 Cortina) were the "archetype" of the Taunus/Cortina line. It was also sold in a lot more countries around the world. The choice of XD-XF Fairmont was ok but Fairmont is really just an upper trim level of the Falcon. I would have gone with the late 1980s/early 1990s EA-ED series Falcon. Much better looking car in my opinion. The Mk1 Meteor/Laser sedan was a just an ok car. The model did not hit its stride until the 2nd gen in 1985. The US did get this car as Mazda 323, and the hatchback and wagon version were sold as Mercury Tracer; although sadly, we never got the 3 door TX3 and TX3 Turbo version. And I think the article was rendered worthless by omitting the best Ford sedan not sold in the US... Sierra Cosworth 4x4. The follow up to the whale-tail Sierra Cosworth (which was a hatchback), the 4WD sedan was the ultimate Ford performance sedan.

I don't know what is the hub bub... the review seems really on point. MKZ is pretty decent car but the hybrid drivetrain is a little short of breath, and the Black Label price tag is rather optimistic. Perhaps what C&D didn't do is to point out the competition and put all of it in context... Lexus ES300h has 200hp but otherwise similar performance. The base price is $40,580 and can be similarly over-subscribed at over $54k if you check all the option boxes. And of course if you want to talk about value proposition of something based on ho-hum midsize sedan, take a look at the price of Cadillac XTS. It will make C&D editors pop a blood vessel and stroke out.

This is FCA (actually, started during the Hedge fund era Chrysler) not understanding the regulatory environment changed in 2008. [note: not a political post] NHTSA was neutered under the Clinton and Bush administrations, which favored letting car companies do what they wanted on "voluntary campaign" with very little push to recall anything. NHTSA was headed by rotating troop of ex-auto industry hacks that prioritized industry concerns over consumer protection. Then 2008 happened, and NHTSA got its teeth back. Other car companies read the tea leaves better (e.g. Toyota) and began cooperating and ordering massive voluntary recalls that they would never do before. Chrysler had (in my opinion) inferior Govt relations professionals and bush league legal consul and continued to fight NHTSA on everything. And 7 years later, this is all ending very badly for them.

I don't think Ford is in that dire of situation for capacity that they will want to take over this plant from Mitsubishi. For the last 2 years, the plant has been doing CKD assembly of Mitsubishi Outlander and Outlander Sport and so the production facilities are probably very outdated. The last actual manufacturing of cars that took place was the 2004-2012 Galant - which means most of the technology in the plant was installed in 2002-03. Ford will have to tear everything down and start over from scratch. For example, think of all the robots from 2002 vs. 2015. Or the advance in paint technology since that 2002... Might as well expand in Mexico... or restart production in one of the mothballed Ford owned plants (e.g. Wayne Assembly)

Those are not trim levels. But yes... I can see it all makes your job very difficult running through all those combinations and trying to find customers exactly what he or she wants.