bzcat

Regardless of the rental sales, FCA must be pleased with the 200 sales. In 2014, they sold 170k 200+Avenger. In 2015, they sold 178k 200, plus a handful of left over Avenger. Even without taking into consideration that the new 200 has higher ATP and supposedly higher retail mix, that's a big success story. They consolidated their midsize sedan business without losing sales, and in the process, eliminated the dead weight Avenger. If they can duplicate that success with the new Town & Country in 2017 (with Caravan going away in 2016), the future of Chrysler brand is pretty well secured.

Transit Connect breaks 50k unit ceiling. The business case for building the next generation in NAFTA zone is getting stronger and stronger... Taurus & PIS is also selling at 50k unit but heading in the opposite direction. I guess Ford is betting that Taurus buyers have purchased their last big car (meaning if they buy another vehicle, it will be a SUV or smaller car). On the other hand, if Continental is as great as the hype, it could easily to 50k sales replacing both MKS and Taurus.

I'm not implying anything. The article said rental companies like SUVs. The article also said Cadillac increased rental sales by 52% to prop up its struggling sedans and GMC increased by 4,000 units vs 2014. That allowed the Chevy brand to reduce shipment to rental companies. In the case of GM, it's likely that GM just substituted ATS and XTS/CTS for Malibu and Impala/Lacross; and sent more Terrain instead of Captiva (production ended in 2014). In the case of Chrysler, it's surely because they lowered 200 shipment to rental chains but that may be because rental chains asked for more SUVs in their 2015 contracts. Contract with rental companies are generally output deals. The deal specify the volume for each type of vehicles rental car company needs during a period of time, with list of required equipment for each class. It is *generally* up to the car companies to decide the exact make and model and trim level to send to the rental chains. There is also residual value protection in some contracts so it it to the benefit of both car company and rental chains to have a fleet the reflects the model and trim level mix as the retail mix for that brand - i.e. it is good idea for Ford to send 60% Fusion SE and 30% Titanium to Hertz and avoid sending any Fusion S at all; or for GM, it may be wise to send GMC models to Enterprise instead of Chevy if GMC has higher projected residual (this part is just conjecture... but you get the big picture).

A lot of it is smokes and mirrors. Chrysler reduction is probably related to Jeep and Dodge increase, and the fact that rental companies are in general shifting to SUVs. Chevy reduction is probably related to GMC and Caddy increase (noted in the article).

Now that rental car companies are not owned by Big 3, they care about resale value of their assets. So naturally, they want to increase the % of SUVs in their fleet which gives them better protection on residual values. Plus that's what people like to drive/rent so rental companies can earn more money.

I didn't say for the North America. But something between Sonic and Cruze is clearly needed in both China and South America. And you renew trademark in the US even if you want to use it elsewhere because the continuous use doctrine.

Robert... I guess you have more insight than us. But I thought Fields had said Lincoln is keeping the MK names and only Continental and Navigator will have names. I agree MKT as is won't be around much longer (as long as Ford has spare capacity at Oakville to build Flex). I think MKT name gets resurrected when the next gen Explorer based model is ready.

Well, I'll bet GM is actually working on a new budget sedan call Cavalier. Cruze Classic is still for sale in China to compete with Ford Escort and VW Lavida so I'll bet that GM is working on a new car that slots in between new Cruze and Sonic. Cobalt is being used in Brazil right now on a 4 door sedan.

The question is does Google want to be in the car retail business? I don't think they do. Their venture into phone retail (Nexus) was a bust. People value Google technology and service but it's a leap to suggest they want Google cars (or phones for that matter). Google did the Nexus phone to demonstrate the ability of its Android platform because no OEM wanted anything to do with it (we were living in a iPhone/Blackberry binary universe back then) - and as soon as other OEM (e.g HTC, Samsung) started offering Android phones, Google kind of quietly ended marketing support for its phone business. When it comes to cars, there is no reason whatsoever for Google to try to retail its own cars because there is no shortage of OEMs that want to work with Google. Another example I can draw... Intel was in the business of making CPU, a critical part of computer. But did it ever feel necessary to enter the retail computer sector? It didn't have to because it had all the OEMs lined up to buy its chips. It will be the same for Google and cars.

We discussed this before... Ford doesn't need another 100k+ Escape... it can use another 30k or so. Having a full blown overflow plant will cause inventory bloat and then the math becomes how much discount and rebates you need to keep the line working. In another word, You need Escape overflow + another vehicle to share the capacity. And rather than adding Escape in another plant, in the short to mid term, it is probably logistically easier to move MKC (which will give Ford an extra ~30k Escape at LAP). The long term solution is obviously to have 2 full blown C car plant with enough flexibility to build all the different versions. And that's what Ford is working on... moving Focus/C-Max/something else to Mexico plus Escape at LAP.

If Lincoln Continental is a sales success globally and the car racks up 300,000 units annually, then Ford will probably seriously look at doing a RWD platform for next generation. The Lincoln business plan in place now is based on reality. If reality changes, then we should expect the plan to change going forward. This is fundamentally different approach than say... GM or Hyundai, which subscribes to the "if you build it, they will come" business plan.

It was when the engine was only available in Grand Cherokee and 300C in Europe. The supply of the engine is probably quite reasonable now that production capacity was raised significantly in anticipation of the engine being used in Maserati and upcoming Alfa Romeo models (which are delayed of course). In fact, I'm pretty sure the reason Ram diesel was even possible is because FCA has spare capacity of the 3.0 V6 diesel (due to delays in rolling out Maserati SUV and Alfa Romeo).

How upset are people now with Mazda engine in a Mustang? The 2.3 Ecoboost engine is largely based on the Duratec HE block, which is a clone of Mazda MZR engine. I don't think we are supposed to take the article at face value and conclude that if Ford and GM worked on engine development together, it means Ford will be using a Chevy engine or vice versa. I don't think there is anything particularly problematic with Ford and GM coming together to design a common block and go on to make its own respectively engines - like how Ford and Mazda worked together to design a common block and went on to make completely different engines from 1.6 MZR to 2.3 Ecoboost and everything in between. Or take for example, Ford's Duratorq I4 diesel engines which was co-developed with PSA. Ford and PSA then went on to make their own versions - with Ford even making an I5 version unique to Ford only.

You can make a case out of Ford and GM (or even with FCA) working together on the basic block of the engine. And each then go on designing its own version of the engine and specific application - e.g. like Ford and Mazda used to do, or how Mercedes and Nissan are doing it now, or how Hyundai, Mitsubishi and FCA did it with their I4 engines. But using identical engines (e.g. 3.5 Ecoboost) in Ford and Chevy vehicles is probably a bridge too far for the companies themselves and their customers. For example, Mitsubishi Evo, Hyundai Elantra and Dodge Caliber all used the same engine family but the engines end up being very different in how each company made it for the specific application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Engine_Alliance

Mercedes is on track to sell 3,000 units this year in the US... not a significant market for Lincoln to worry about with a clean-sheet new design vehicle.

Canyorado diesel delivery is delayed due to CARB and EPA re-testing every 2016 diesel vehicles. Ram diesel is supposedly about 10% of the mix but FCA would not confirm nor deny the claim so i suspect it is lower - e.g. Ford was more than happy to point out when V6 reached 50% of the mix on F-150. If FCA doesn't want to talk about it, it probably means the media (and internet forum rumor mongering) is guessing too high.

Any guess what the 900 "other" is consisted of? Mostly Explorer I'd guess. Edge is not yet on sale in EU20 right?

LR3? No such thing in the Land Rover line up. LR4 is being replaced by a new unibody Discovery next year so there will not be a traditional 4x4 in Land Rover's line up in the US. Land Rover Discovery Sport ~ MKC Land Rover Discovery ~ MKX and MKT (well... I'm assuming there will be another one based on the next Explorer) Land Rover Range Rover Evoque ~ MKC Black Label Land Rover Range Rover Sport ~ MKX Black Label (except RRS prices goes up much further) Land Rover Range Rover ~ Navigator (in theory anyway... the next Navigator should aim high)

All the Focus RS in the US (there are several) came from Mexico and they all have FMVSS letter from Ford. See the link in my previous post.

Lincoln needs to offer the blue color dash and interior from the concept as an option on the Continental. I'm a big fan of blue interior... not enough car companies offer this color as interior color.

You can private import vehicle to the US if it falls under any of the 4 categories: 1. Vehicle on the DOT approved non-compliant list - you would need to hire someone to make it conform to US FMVSS. http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/elig120115.pdf 2. Vehicles on the DOT show and display list - you are only allows to drive the car for a very limited number of miles per year (I think 1,000 miles?) http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/sdlistoctober222014.pdf 3. Vehicle that is under 25 years old and has a letter from its manufacturer that states it meets US FMVSS. Example: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjM2/z/llgAAOSw~gRVwLw9/$_57.JPG 4. Vehicle that is over 25 years old. T6 Ranger doesn't meet FMVSS (as far as I known) so someone would have to spend money to modify it and submit it to NHTSA to get on the approved non-compliant list (#1). No one is crazy enough to do that yet. It's also unlikely that Ford will issue you a FMVSS letter if you want to bring your Mexican Ranger to the US.

Right... but this time they are testing it in a 2015 F-150 with an engine that we know will be certified for sale in the US in 2016 model year.

Well, Autoblow Autoblog is wrong about the origin of the engine... The F-150 is not "packing a Jaguar-Land Rover turbo diesel V6" as the article says, but rather a Ford turbo diesel V6. This is not a Land Rover engine - it is the Ford-Peugeot Lion engine. Tata they must be paying Ford to do the emission compliance work, because Tata does not have the expertise or the resources to tackle something this complicated. However, I do agree with their assertion that Ford is testing a diesel F-150. If Ford was merely doing emission work for hire, they would just use Range Rover mules to do the testing. The fact that this truck has revised exhaust and plumbing for urea treatment system (I assume the camouflaged bed to to hide the refilling area for the urea tank) tells me Ford is definitely serious about selling it. Perhaps the fact that Tata paid for the emission compliance costs helped Ford make the math work.

$400 below invoice probably includes incentives, which would also applies to X-plan price too. So to compare apples to apples, OP need to know how the dealer arrived at the $400 below invoice offer. i.e. Selling price $xxxxx - incentive $xxx = $400 below invoce vs. X-plan price $yyyyy ($150 over invoice) - incentive $xxx = ??? Surely lower than $400 below invoice?

AWD Mustang will be really interesting twist