bzcat

I used to drive with my sunroof open all the time when I was younger. Sunroof was one of the things that I must have in any car. Now I occasionally tilt it open to vent out hot air while parked under the sun and rarely ever have it open while driving. Most of the time, they just produce too much noise compared to my old cars. I have a theory that as cars got more aerodynamic, car companies are finding it more difficult to keep the noise of air turbulence down which is leading to consumer dissatisfaction. Basically the cars are so slippery now that air flows are sticking very close to the roof and a hole in the roof is producing too much noise. Whereas when cars were not as slipper in the old days, the air flow further above the roof so a hole doesn't cause so much disturbance. The noise is then causing consumer dissatisfaction in things like JDP survey. Also, I'm pretty sure open sunroof causes a dent in the fuel economy. CAFE target is calculated using the most popular configuration so even a tiny 0.1 MPG hit is going to have significant consequences for CAFE target calculation. So getting rid of open sunroof scores two positives for car companies... less noise complaints and better CAFE results. And like I said, because new car sunroofs are generally more noisy than old car with sunroofs, more people keep them closed anyway. It's an easy win from car company's perspective which is why they are all getting rid of it and offering fixed glass roof instead.

I have two guesses on E-Transit. First educated guess is Ford completed delivery of a large fleet order E-Transit in Q1 or Q4 last year so sales have fallen on year over year basis. Amazon and FedEx each ordered a bunch and maybe one of the order is fully delivered. Second educated guess is Ford is supporting the Oshkosh NGDV so it is reducing E-Transit availability. USPS revised the order in 2024 to increase the EV so Ford probably caught flatfooted and decided to prioritize delivery of drivetrain components to Oshkosh and therefore reducing the E-Transit.

You are probably right, CAFE is always the answer. If Ford expects Tremor buyers to opt for the 3.0, they have to reduce the 3.0 volume from somewhere.

I have only seen 2 Explorer Platinum in the wild so it is not a popular choice to begin with and having two engine choices for such a low volume trim didn't make sense. However, I would have kept the 3.0 and nuked the 2.3. Force the upsell for people who wanted the kitchen sink edition.

Every decision Ford has made about this gen Escape has turned out to be questionable at best and downright baffling for the most part. It's really crazy how much they got wrong compare to RAV4 or CR-V. From the beginning they made the car too small and saddled it with a cheap interior. All the way to the end axing the car, which is in the biggest selling volume segment, without a proper replacement.

It was originally planned to end in 2025. I guess Ford just didn't have time to get 2026 CARB certification done (or choose not to because expected short model year). Otherwise identical (from emission standpoint) Maverick and Bronco Sport are still for sale in CARB states so that tells you all you need to know.

US spec Ranger 2.3T makes 270hp and the same engine is rated 185hp in AUS spec PHEV (without the PHEV part). I'm sure Ford didn't detune it by 30% 😆 The AUS spec PHEV is rated at 207KW which is 278hp. Crazy coincidence that PHEV and ICE Ranger have almost the same hp rating? Right... 🙃 Ranger PHEV is Ford Australia's greenwash vehicle and is being closely watched by the Govt regulators since Ranger is either #1 or #2 selling vehicle in AUS and NZ. Australia introduced a new system similar to CAFE where car companies will be fined if they go over some kind of corporate fuel economy target. It's what it says on the spec sheet but some website or magazine will be able to do some 0-100 km/h or 1/4 mile test and strap it to a dyno and we will find out soon enough. US spec Ranger 2.3T does 0-60 mph around 6.5 seconds in various tests. I will take the under if I'm a betting man when an Australian magazine or website do their test on Ranger PHEV.

Ford should not have not given up on Flex. As usual, Ford had a good idea but they didn't stick with it. Maverick SUV is Bronco Sport... They are build on the same platform, in the same factory, on the same assembly line. If Ford wanted to sell a 7 seat version, they will just stretch the Bronco Sport rather than try it with Maverick. But anyway, there is no market demand for compact 7 seat CUV, at least in North America. Several brands (Rav4, Rogue, Tiguan, Santa Fe when it was still a compact) have tried it and they've all got rid of that options fairly quickly. Since we don't have any weight/engine size/CO2 based annual taxes, people who need occasional use of 3rd row can just get a midsize or large CUV that are better at carrying 7 people.

I hope CE1 OS should be easy to upgrade over the air to enable Level 3 or any other future enhancements. That should be a bare minimum requirement for all new platform now days. Ford hasn't said much about CE1 other than it will be cost competitive with Chinese EVs. I hope they are not just narrowly focused on bill of material costs. One thing that Chinese OEMs do really well is the software which enables them reduce costs in lots of ways. They are years ahead of Ford and most non-Chinese OEMs, including Tesla.

Putting 8 different bodies on top of a shared chassis? Stop the presses! Why didn't someone think of this idea before? Some of these publications are really grasping at the straws 😄

Kind of make sense now why Ford pulled the plug on the Mahindra RHD CUV that was just weeks away from being unveiled in 2023. It would have duplicate the effort with Territory.

Ford's India plan is cancelled, again.

The supercharger kit can be installed on any 5.0 so it has nothing to do with Lobo per se. The Lobo package is all about selling XL for XLT money.

Lobo is a model name in Mexico, not a trim level. So they definitely will not sell something called Maverick Lobo... that's the same as selling something like Maverick F-150 in the US. Back to the Lobo package for the US... It looks like F-150 Lobo package is based on XL just like STX. So another variation of retail-friendly XL. Interesting approach to selling XL for more than XLT money by limiting drivetrain and body configuration choices to a single built. Would like to see how well this does... in theory, you can get a much faster/better equipped truck by order XLT with either 2.7 or 3.5 Ecoboost but I get the allure of this package is the 5.0 and the cosmetic upgrades.

I wasn't implying Ford Taiwan will be exporting RHD Territory. I'm just saying Ford Taiwan is probably developing a version for high income countries - e.g. potentially high grade interior materials, better noise isolation, Carplay and Android Auto compatible infotainment, different exterior trims etc. Taiwanese customers' expectation are more in line with Australia and New Zealand than for example South Africa or Philippines. Ford Taiwan did export plenty of vehicles in the past, including the Gen 1 Escape and Tribute to Australia/NZ/Russia/Japan in the 2000s, Mondeo, Econovan and Mazda 3 and Bongo to LHD APAC markets in the 1990 and 2000s, and Mercury Tracer to Canada in the 1980s.

I think the point is small displacement ICE is being phased out in favor of EV, especially in Europe and China, so there will be increasing needs for car makers to pool resources and figure out a way to sunset the business in a way that makes sense. Collaborating on next gen ICE for your non-performance models makes sense when you are looking at reduced volume. It's not the first time Ford looked outside for engine suppliers. The PSA diesel for example was a mainstay of Ford Europe passenger cars for nearly 20 years before Ford developed inhouse EcoBlue replacement. But for something like Mustang (or any of Farley's "non-commodity" core models like Bronco etc.) I expect Ford will continue to develop its own engines.

Mondeo and Lincoln Nautilus. Territory has been largely been limited to export to middle income countries that Ford doesn't consider key markets. With Ford Taiwan starting production of Territory, I'm sure it points to the model making its way to other high income countries to replace Kuga/Escape - e.g. Australia is probably going to get it sooner or later.

Not a bad tradeoff if you think of it in the context that Maverick allowed Ford to pull back on Ranger so it can build more higher profit margin Bronco, which is basically what happened.

Right, Ford owns 32% of JMC and 49% of Jiangling Ford so technically it owns just shy of 2/3 of Jiangling Ford. This is what I refenced in how the two JV are setup. It seems to me that Ford is launching new products it wants to sell in China locally to the Jiangling Ford JV while just keeping the Chang'an Ford to produce cars for export. As Chang'an models age out, they are not replaced - e.g. Fiesta, Escort, EcoSport, Taurus, Focus, S-Max etc. and Escpae is likely to follow that trend. I posted earlier in this thread that Ford made a media presentation on the future of its SUV line up and there was no mention of any models from the Chang'an side.

The origin of various Jiangling Ford products is always a bit of mystery. Track width or wheelbase is not a meaningful data point in the age of modular platform like C2... they can be changed for specific applications. The only thing we know is Equator Sport doesn't use the same drivetrain packages as C2... since drivetrain packaging and calibration is one of the most essential part of modular platform, it points to Equator and Equator Sport not being on C2 platform.

Just came across this... Looks like Ford Taiwan is going to replace Kuga with Territory (Equator Sport) next year. Another nail in Escape's coffin. 22 pre-production test builds registered by Ford Taiwan. Probably means they are going to test it before starting full scale production. Taiwan is one of the 4 worldwide Escape/Kuga production sites: Louisville: extended? Valencia: end in 2025 Taiwan: looks like it will end in 2025 and replace with Territory China: ? https://auto.ltn.com.tw/news/28566/2

Chang'an Ford has been purged of all lower end models. Escort and Focus were discontinued last year and so was the cheaper Escape. I'm not sure 2.0T Escape will survive in China after this year either. Farley was planning to kill the model worldwide - seems like US production got a reprieve for one more year but not so sure about China, Spain and Taiwan production. Basically, Ford has been growing Jiangling Ford products and pruning Chang'an Ford products. I think it may have something to do with how the JVs are setup. Ford seems to have more control over what goes on at Jiangling Ford.

The 2.3 Puma diesel used by Jiangling Ford looks like it is also similarly value engineered for China. The European Puma diesel was either 2.0, 2.2 or 2.4 liter and have been replaced by the 2.0 EcoBlue. So looks like Ford updated the old Puma (there is 2.0 and 2.3 liter versions now) and is using it only in China. It powers all the Jiangling Ford trucks and vans as I noted above.

Here is a summary of the engine options on all the Jiangling Ford products: JMC Baodian: 4G18 gas and unknown 2.5 diesel JMC Yuhu (old): 4G20 gas and 2.3 Puma diesel JMC Yuhu (new): unknown 2.5 diesel JMC Dadao: 2.3 Ecoboost gas and 2.3 Puma diesel Ford Ranger: 2.3 Ecoboost gas and 2.3 Puma diesel JMC Fushun: 2.0 Puma diesel Ford Transit T8: 2.0 Puma and 2.3 Puma diesel Ford Transit: 4G20 gas Ford Tourneo: 4G20 gas Ford Equator Sport: 4G15 gas Ford Equator: 4G20 gas Ford Bronco: 2.3 Ecoboost gas The 4G family is used in both JMC and Ford branded vehicles. Still not exactly sure why Ford went with a new engine instead of just using the existing 1.5/2.0 Ecoboost.

Chang'an produce I4 Duratec in China. Ford used the 1.5EB I4 on several models after the market rejected the newer 1.5 EB I3 engine. I suppose there is a firewall between Chang'an Ford and Jiangling Ford (they are considered separate companies in China). Also consider that Jiangling Ford is building both Puma and EcoBlue families of diesel engines, the decision to fund a completely non-Ford gas engine just seems wild. Using this alternate gas engine also means no economy of scale on transmission or electrification investments.