bzcat

I think the Fusion Active wagon thing will be roughly the size of current Edge, especially if it will be sold in Europe. Next gen Edge will probably be bigger to keep pace with competition that are all taller and longer now - e.g. Chevy Blazer, Hyundai Santa Fe, VW Atlas Sport, Honda Passport, and next gen Grand Cherokee which will no doubt increase in size. The 2nd car in the photo is really interesting. Like silvrsvt mentioned, it has narrower track than the Escape body it is running in. But noticed the center strip in the hood, incidcating the bodyshell is widened. So I *think*, that 2nd car is Fusion Active width running on standard C2 wide chassis... possibly a test mule to test subframe or something to do with the width.

We are getting both. A 3 row Grand Cherokee is coming to replace Durango. The standard Grand Cherokee will probably stay midsize but the 3 row will be Explorer size. The rumor was that the 3 row will be called Wagoneer (no "grand") but looks like FCA may have decided to just call it Grand Cherokee. And Grand Wagoneer will be based on the Ram chassis. This will be the same size as Expedition.

I don't know but I agree with you that Ford should have a 2nd production site for C utilities. Ford is the only major volume car company in North America that has such a low capacity threshold for C-utilities. A single plant with around ~300k output without really putting quality control or labor relations in serious jeopardy. Ford has 1 plant in North America building Escape/Corsair, with Baby Bronco TBD. GM has 4 plants in North America building Equinox/Terrain, XT4 and will be importing Trailblazer and Encore GX (which are C-segment, no long B-segment) from Korea. And they also said they are building next gen Buick Envision in North America. Toyota has 2 plants in North America building RAV4 and also imports it and NX from Japan. Honda has 4 plants in North America building CR-V and RDX and also imports CR-V from Japan. FCA has 2 plants in North America building Compass and Cherokee. Nissan has 2 plants in North America building Rogue and also imports it from Korea and Japan, and Rogue Sport from Japan. Hyundai/Kia has 2 plants in Korea building Tucson and Sportage. VW has 1 plant in North America building Tiguan and will add another one building Tharu shortly. So basically, everyone in the industry has already made their bet... C-utilities are the new midsize car and everyone has the capacity to grow. Except for Ford. Unless of course Ford adds a 2nd line to build Baby Bronco and Escape overflow.

I don't think this is CX758. The thing to remember about CX758 is that it was supposed to be low cost and designed with emerging market in mind. I think Ford has decided to go with Territory instead. CX758 may have been re-imagined along the way and perhaps will now become next gen Territory.

You are also locking out the capacity in a single plant if both vehicle sales take off. The C-segment utility is now the biggest vehicle segment. Ford probably needs to have the flexibility to ramp up production here. If they can't sell 350k+ units here, they really have no business being a car company anymore.

There is no reason they shouldn't be developed together. Fusion Active vs. Edge is probably like Escape vs. Baby Bronco.

It' probably not a Ford. If I had to guess, I'd say this is the long rumored Hyundai truck.

I think Ford is working on a few C2 utilities and one of them will probably replace the current US market Edge. 1. 3-row utility about the size of VW Tiguan Allspace or Nissan Rogue. This will likely replace the Edge in Europe. 2. 2-row utility to replace Mondeo. This will end up being closest replacement for US market Edge if they decide to sell it in the US. 3. 3-row utility about the size of current Edge. This will likely replace the Edge in China. On top of that, Ford is working on a Model E utility for Flat Rock that is also Edge size. It's very possible that Ford will choose not to replace Edge directly at all and instead go with the BEV+one of the C2 option.

Mid size utility market in the US still favors 2 row offerings. Toyota, Hyundai/Kia, GM, and FCA are the only one that offers both. In the case of Ford, Nissan, and Honda, they also have large size 3 row utilities (Explorer, Pathfinder, and Pilot). 3-rows Toyota Highlander Kia Sorento GMC Acadia Dodge Journey 2-rows Toyota 4Runner Hyundai Santa Fe Chevy Blazer Jeep Grand Cherokee Ford Edge Nissan Murano Subaru Outback Honda Passport The obvious question for Ford is how they will differentiate Edge and Bronco when both are on the market. One possible solution is to market Edge as more family friendly utility with 3 rows, which is what Toyota does with Highlander, vs. a more rugged 4Runner.

Yes, I'm thinking of Traverse and Enclave. They are a bit bigger than Explorer with significantly more accommodating 3rd row. I think the new Explorer will do fine against Traverse and Enclave so it's probably not a high priority project but it may be something worth looking at if they can do it without breaking the bank.

I think cost basis is high (not many brands are exporting non-luxury cars from NAFTA region for a reason) and exchange rates haven't been good. Ford positioned Edge as an alternative for the likes of Audi Q5 in Europe instead of a family vehicle. If you look at the product portfolio of all the non-luxury brands in Europe, only VW offers a competitor (Tourage) of similar size and it isn't very affordable either. Fiat Freemont (Dodge Journey) did not last very long (plus it is a POS). What Ford really needs is a compact 3-row CUV like the Tiguan Allspace.

Definitely

Maybe not 5 years but sure... there isn't a lot of plausible scenarios where Tesla is still competing with retail sales of BEV when everyone are selling full line of BEV. I mean just look at how old the Model S is now and Tesla has no plans to update it. They simply do not have the money and the resources to do all the things they need to sustain this business for the long run. The capital market will run out of patience eventually - if you eliminate the short term fluctuation (the noise) from Tesla stock price, it has been flat since 2015. When the institutional investors starts to bail, it will be a train wreck. Stock chart: https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+stock&oq=tesla+stock&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5480j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Fiesta is probably getting a lot of close out retail support and fleet deals. Not surprising given that Ford dealers have no other small cars on the lot now that Focus is gone. Looking at the sales chart, you can see that Ford really needs to ramp up the "SUV" line up. Look at what's going on with Hyundai... they are replacing cars with SUVs as well and their product roll out is 12-18 months ahead of Ford. Something like Puma should have been on a fast track to the US market to replace Focus once they scuttled the Focus Active plan. We know Fusion replacement as a CUV is in the works but I would also look at Flex again and see what can be done with a limited budget to stretch out the new Explorer again (not just a simple stretch but more like Flex size and wheelbase wise for better 3rd row seat space but this time with more conventional SUV styling). There must be people who want fullsize CUV but do not necessary want a truck based solution like Expedition. Right now, GM is the only real option out there.

L x W x H // WB Edge 5 seat: 188.8" x 75.9" x 68.3" // 112.2" <I expect Bronco 5 door to slide in here between the two Edge> Edge 7 seat: 192" x 75.9" x 69.7" // 112.2" Everest: 192.6" x 73.6" x 72.3" // 112.2" Explorer: 198.8" x 78.9" x 69.9" // 119.1" Expedition: 210" x 79.9" x 76.6" // 122.5" Expedition Max: 221.9" x 79.9" x 76.4" // 131.6" For reference purpose, competing Toyota models (because Toyota is the only global competitor with similar spread of lineup as Ford): Fortuner: 188.8" x 73" x 72.2" // 108.1" - about the size of the 5 seat Edge 4Runner: 190.2" x 75.8" x 71.5" // 109.8" - basically the size of what I think Bronco will be Highlander: 192.5" x 75.8" x 68.1" // 109.8" - identical in size to Edge 7 seat Prado: 189.7" x 74.2" x 74.4" // 109.8" without external spare; the length is 196.7" with external spare - so the body is shorter than Everest but almost as long as Explorer with the external spare Landcruiser 200: 194.9" x 78" x 74" // 112.2" - much smaller than Explorer, almost the same size as Everest but mainly because it is just old so now it appears small compare to other newer SUVs Sequoia: 205.1" x 79.9" x 77" // 122" - 5" shorter than Expedition

It's identical in size to the 7 seat Edge, so roughly the same size as Toyota Highlander... let say about 5 or 6" shorter than Explorer

Ford and VW will collaborate on a midsize van to replace Transit Custom and VW Transporter. And the main reason VW is getting out is because the Hannover plant which is the home of Transporter since the birth of the van is being converted to build ID electric cars. The bigger VW Crafter/MAN TGE are barely a year old and will be around for a long time... it won't be replaced by the large Transit anytime soon. So Ford's fullsize electric van plans are very much focused on Rivian I believe.

They are bring back Dakota. It's penciled in for 2022 launch. Will be based on the Galdiator but obviously cheaper and more utilitarian. As for the compact truck in question, I think it is actually a van. Ford Australia had been proposing a replacement for the Mazda bongo based Econovan for a while. Transit Connect was deemed too expensive for most Asian markets where Ford used to sell Econovan. However, due to changes in safety regulation in several countries in Southeast Asia that will begin to outlaw cab forward vans and trucks, there is now an opportunity for Ford to enter the market again with a front engine small van and truck. Ford is probably thinking China as well where GM is the dominate player in small vans with its Wuling and Baojun brands. My guess is Ford will design a low cost van based on C2 that is different than Transit Connect... The cheap van will sell in developing countries while Transit Connect will continue in Europe and North America. It may be an extension of the new Ford Escort program as well... that car is ancient by Chinese market standards where everything turns over in 3 years. A value engineered version of C2 to underpin Escort, a cheap van, and next generation Territory.

I still think the vehicle that Ford is building using Rivian's chassis is going to be a van. And I'm of the opinion that Rivian will not be able to make this many vans that Amazon wants its contractors to buy. I think Ford will end up building these vans for Amazon. Just a matter of which badge goes on the front of the van.

A reasonably high gas tax or CO2 tax (they are the same thing... one tax the input, the other tax the output) is the most effective way to regulate greenhouse gas emission. However, you are forgetting the emission also include smog forming particles and non-greenhouse gas. You can control fuel consumption but regulating emission. But you cannot control emission (all of it, not just greenhouse gas) by regulating fuel consumption. It's not a 2-way street.

We have one single national emission standard and CAFE tareget NOW. It has been the case since 2016 when the Obama era EPA brokered the compromise between auto companies and CARB to come to a 50 state solution. What Trump is trying to do is undo the single 50 state standards and introduce a lower CAFE targets. They know this won't work because CA is not obligated to go along - because the Clean Air Act gives CA the legal authority to regular its own emission. So Trump is trying to revoke that authority. The legal argument is pretty slam dunk. Unless congress changes the law, EPA does not have the power to revoke CA's ability to regular emission. The Clean Air Act give CA the power to decide when its authority should end as a deference to the fact that CA's emission laws were in effect before the Federal Clean Air Act. Because this is a law, only congress can change it. This is a pretty silly power grab by the Executive branch of Federal Govt that will almost certainly fail in court.

CARB doesn't conduct any certification test. Car companies submit certification to CARB just like they do with EPA. The work is all done at the same time, usually by independent labs e.g. the guys that blew the whistle on VW diesel gate. And just to clarify, there is currently no difference between CARB and EPA emission. The car companies asked for a 50 state standard during the Obama Administration and they got what they wanted.

Yea, it's basically nonsense that this will result in cheaper cars and trucks. And it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the authority to revoke the waiver. Only congress can do that because Clean Air Act is a law, not an executive order or administrative policy. The constitution gives legislative power to congress. I learn that in 10th grade US Govt class. I guess Trump wasn't paying attention 😀

It's actually written into law in the Clean Air Act. The Feds can only revoke CA's power to regulate emission when CA deems there is no longer a need for it. Trump can attempt to revoke it but EPA actually does not have the authority to do so. It is a huge Federal overreach. The Clean Air Act allows the withdrawal of the waiver only on the following three grounds: (A) [California’s] determination [that its standards in the aggregate will be at least as protective] is arbitrary and capricious, (B) [California] does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section [202(a)]. So essentially, Trump is directing EPA to ignore the Clean air Act. And let's be clear... CARB emission standards (and by association CAFE because emission and consumption are two sides of same coin) is the current 50 state standard. There is no separate CARB and EPA standards. The auto companies asked for this during Obama Administration and got what they wanted. The issue now is purely political because the current administration wants to nullify everything that the previous administration accomplished. The few auto company that went along with it is basically in a suicide pact with Trump Administration... except they've already pulled the trigger to shot themselves in the face while Trump is still holding the gun. This will be litigated in court for many years and will outlast the Trump administration. Unless Congress amend the Clean Air Act, the courts will probably side with California. And lastly, the CARB (and current EPA) standards is nearly identical to EU and Chinese emission standards. This is why some of the smarter car companies (i.e. Ford is one of them) is saying WTF, why wouldn't we want to meet CARB emission and existing CAFE? It's not like we will see a significant cost saving is EPA lower the Federal standards.

Highly doubt it... external spare tire is a IIHS crash test nightmare. Also, I think it will have a lift gate not a swing gate which rules out external spare... but I could be wrong. I'm going with housing for lift gate handle. It is not too big as someone mentioned... it's about the right size. Remember, it also has to fit a bunch of other things in there like rear camera wiring and potentially cross traffic and parking sensor radar control unit.