bzcat

Did you actually read any of the articles and comments posted in this thread? Fiat Strada, Mahindra, Geely... WTF? Brazil, India, and China are not included in TPP or TTIP so how would that help any of them skirt the Chicken tax?

Sprinter misses because it lacks gasoline engine. Without Chicken tax, Daimler could very well try to expand the business with fully imported models to augment its CKD Sprinters. If the business grows enough for them, they will invest in gasoline powertrain. GM is leaving left the class 1 van market, which accounts for the bulk of the volume. And it has no European vans to Federalize to take advantage of the convergence of US van market with overseas markets so the long term outlook for Chevy Express and GMC Savana 2500/3500 is pretty grim. GM is buying Nissan NV200 to sell as Chevy City Express... I think that shows you where they are competitively speaking with Ford.

Just my analysis... take it for what it is... an armchair CEO view. I'm not Biker so I won't be sad if you don't agree The list - from most likely to benefit from TPP and TTIP to least likely: 1. Ford - Ford has been an ironic victim of Chicken tax - a tax originally enacted to protect Ford from VW but lately, has been costing Ford lots of money because US Customs ruled Transit Connect is a van and thus subject to the tax (Ford is paying the tax while it appeal the ruling). Just as in the case of Daimler, Ford can expand the Transit Connect offering significantly and also add the mid size Transit Custom if custom demands. Additionally, Ford can finally import the Ranger from Thailand (after Thailand joins TPP). It won't make or break Ford's business in pickup trucks but it will finally quiet the peanut gallery. 2. Daimler - Mercedes Commercial can expand the Sprinter and Metris line with fully imported version to augment the existing CKD line up (e.g. different powertrain options, more specialized body styles) 3. VW - With a line up that is basically identical to Ford, VW will probably move very fast to enter the van market in the US. VW will import all the vans at first but will probably switch to some local assembly once the business matures. 4. Toyota - Toyota has been slowly eating Ford and GM's lunch in more traditional commercial car fleet business (e.g. Toyota now has 70% of the NYC taxi business) and it is eying the only piece of US vehicle market that it doesn't dominate or have significant participation - the commercial van segment. They will probably start with something like the Hiace, which competes overseas with all the other midsize vans (VW Transporter, Mercedes Metris, Ford Transit Custom) that will inevitably be on sale in the US. 5. Hyundai - The Korean company invested a few billions to enter the European van market... they probably already figured out the US game plan already in their 10 year plan. 6. Nissan - Like Toyota, Nissan will probably start by selling NV350 but it will eventually figure out a way to offer a full range of vans. No reason to think that Renault will not design its next generation midsize and fullsize vans with US sales in mind. 7. FCA - TPP and TTIA doesn't benefit FCA very much because Brazil is not included... so not much opportunity to import small trucks from South America. And their van business will be under significant pressure as Ford, Daimler, and VW flex their muscles. 8. GM - GM is stuck between a rock and a hard place on vans. The strategic decision by Opel to exit van business a decade ago has left GM exposed in the van business in the US as the markets converged. GM has the outdated fullsize vans with V8 engine that will continue to have a small niche in the future but it will be outflanked by everyone else. The only thing GM has going for it is its Wuling van business in China (Wuling Hongguang is roughly comparable to Nissan NV200, Ford Transit Connect or VW Caddy)... but China is excluded from TPP and likely will remain so for a long time.

Some of them will be willing to buy market share and play a long game - start with imported vans and eventually commit to local production. It's a product that they know very well, not like pickup trucks. And US van market is converging with the rest of the world. Think of vans not in terms of pickup trucks but compact cars in the early 1980s... American consumers flipped the switch and decided compact cars are not supposed to be like Vega and Gremlin and more like Escort and (original) Accord. Very similar dynamics is playing out right now in the van market regarding right-sizing and expectation about fuel efficiency. I'm not saying all the potential new entrants will all achieve significant market share. But it's conceivable that a few of them will jump in and make a go of it. I feel quite confident in predicting that Ford will still be #1 in commercial vans. But who is going to be #2 in 5 years? 10 years? I can tell you it won't be GM, and likely won't be FCA either. The market is wide open if you understand the limits... Ford is 500 lb gorilla but there is room for 2 or 3 more 200 lb gorilla.

I think Cruze Limited will be around for a lot longer than 12 months. Impala Limited is going in on its 3rd model year.

Automotive News like every other outlet that has written about TPP and TTIP completely missed the point about Chicken Tax. The action is all going to be in VANS not pickup truck! The boat has sailed so to speak on pickup trucks. Competitive landscape is such that anyone that could be thinking of importing pickup trucks to sell in the US have already invested in production in NAFTA zone. The only plausible player to import pickup trucks at this point are Mitsubishi (bit player) and VW (bit player). Toyota and Nissan are locked into building trucks in NAFTA zone for a loooooooooooong time. And no one else is even remotely thinking about challenging the market. Van market on the other hand, are ripe for more comptition. US commerical vehicles segment is leaning towards more vans and less pickup trucks and with a major player (GM) exiting the market, there is room for growth for new entrants. It also helps that all existing players locked out by Chicken Tax has products that can be adopted for US sales. Toyota and Nissan are going to pounce, and so will VW, which has long eyed the US van market as a potential growth segment. Hyundai just invested a couple of billion to enter the European van market. Don't think for a second that investment was just for Europe only. They are playing a long game with vans and they are clearly positioned to enter the market in the long run.

I'm using fleet as a short hand but I think you get my point. GM has to create a separate model that they can sell at lower price as a pre-requisite to play residual chicken game on the new generation model. The underlying assumption is that demand (and thus residual costs) of Cruze Limited will in no way impact that of Cruze in 36 months.

MKX looks better but I do like the XT5 as well. Both are better looking than Lexus RX.

Don't think it implies MSRP are going to get a lot higher. Just means GM is playing the same old residual game. If they limit fleet sales to a different nameplate, they can tell the banks that latent demand for Cruze and Cruze Limited 3 years down the road are independent vairables... one won't affect the other. Boosting new Cruze residual by a few % will help make the lease payment more competitive - remember that GM doesn't own its financing operations so it has to live by the residual rates set by 3rd party banks. Banks will play along as long as they can sell the portfolio to investors whom probably won't care. Ford (and everyone else) finance leases through captive banks so Ford Credit can work with Ford to set a reasonable residual without resorting to tricks like selling fleet a different (in name only) car.

Cruze diesel was a calculated experiment with a decent amount of cynical post-bankcrupcy PR built in to show certain political establishments that GM is "trying". I very much doubt GM expected the car to be a retail success. The lack of Curze hatchback on the other hand is definitely a mistake. C-segment buyers are quite polarized these days, split evenly with younger Gen-Ys and babyboomers downsizing from larger cars. The younger buyers are more receptive to hatchback while the older buyers prefer sedans. Ford neatly caters to both groups and is able to make significant in roads with critical younger buyers that will become repeat Ford buyers. Chevy on the other hand, has failed to really move the needle with younger buyers with Cruze.

I think the car looks great. Still wondering about the business model and how this investment is going to ever pay off.

The $6 billion wasted on Alfa is going to go down in history as one of the worst investments. From a shareholder return perspective, that $6 billion would pay much more if invested in expanding Jeep and Maserati product portfolio.

GM is playing catch up but the solution is still just a rebadge... Looks like it will continue to be a marginal player without conventional medium duty offerings. On the other hand, Ford and International are the only player in the market without a cab forward medium. Daimler has Fuso Canter series, Toyota has Hino COE, Volvo has the UD cab forward, and Paccar has their rebadged DAF cab forward. And Isuzu of course only do cab forward.

Looks like C-Max Energi is on a very slow roll out in Europe... It seems that a lot of EU countries that have favorable tax incentives on EVs do not have favorable tax incentives on PHEV. For example, Focus EV finally made it to Norway that exempts EVs on a lot of annual taxes but strangely, not PHEV.

I don't think a Focus "XV" is really going to cannibalize Escape sales very much. Think of Escape as the "wagon" version of C-segment CUV and the Focus "XV" as the hatchback version of C-segment CUV. Ford maybe losing some customers who viewed Escape as too big, too soccer mom, or too conventional. Who knows... but Subaru XV, Jeep Compass, Jeep Patriot, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tuscon, and the hapless VW Tiguan combined is just a million units a year in the US. There is a market for a shorter C-segment CUV in the US (nevermind Europe or South America, where the shorter size is preferred over the "wagon" size). The CUV market is evolving exactly as the car market did many years ago with many different bodystyles to suit buyers' needs and preferences. I think Ford was correct to hold out the current generation EcoSport from the US market... probably not ready for primetime here. I suspect it will compare poorly to the likes of Honda HR-V and Mazda CX-3, which is the direction the market is headed... these sub-compact B-segment CUVs are essentially replacing a lot of the middle end C-segment sedan and hatchback sales. EcoSport is a little too small.

It says right on the graphic... from an analyst report. So it's just someone's random guess for the most part.

It is an iconography and that's part of the problem. In more mature markets (e.g. Europe or US), CUVs are trending more car like so the Ecosport kind of has the "wrong" look. The car was designed first and foremost for emerging markets and the spare tire is probably an asset in projecting the right kind of image there. In mature markets, something with that spare tire hanging out back in a package like EcoSport could come off as not being very authentic... too pastiche and trying too hard to emphasise the utility elements. The problem is Ford is trying to sell the same car in both emerging and mature markets and sometimes things just don't translate very well.

If the choice is between having a "Fiat" of some sort or nothing, the Italian Govt will step in and bailout the worthless brands and factories... like how the French Govt rescued PSA just last year. Some Chinese car company will probably be interested in taking the rest, again, just like what happened to PSA last year (with Dongfeng now the largest shareholder followed by the French Govt). The problem is not the Italian Govt... it's Sergio's attachment to Fiat at this point. A rational analysis of FCA's balance sheet will tell you that investing in Alfa and propping up Fiat in Europe is not a wise use of capital. Especially coming at the expense of Jeep investments.

I don't know if Ford will keep the IRS but I suspect the F-150 frame was designed with Expedition in mind from the beginning so they probably make provisions for it. And if Ford wants Navigator to compete with Range Rover, then IRS is a bare minimum requirement. Some fancy adjustable suspension is probably required. I know that the fold flat seats are a major selling point over the GM fullsize for a lot of Expedition owners.

If Navigator is here to stay then Aviator (and Mariner) name make sense for smaller SUVs. Otherwise, it's not worth much more value than MKT when taken out of context with Navigator.

If Sergio wasn't so attached to his Italian orphans, FCA could have a real future. Think about how the balance sheet of the company would look if FCA got rid of the "F" part of the company... - Accelerating Jeep product development, which has a proven return on investment vs. Alfa's never-land fairytale. - Keep the Alfa brand for niche sports car... but forget about trying to make luxury sedans and SUVs... FCA already has a brand for that in Maserati. - Expand Maserati down market in organic and incremental fashion over the next decade - It already has a large and mid size sedan, luxury GT coupe, and a BMW X5 size SUV coming in 2016. Add a BMW 3 series size sedan/coupe/sports car, and X3 size SUV later, perhaps around 2020. It's a much better use of its money than burning it in a fruitless Alfa revival. - Dump the Fiat passenger car brand and all the Italian factories to a hedge fund and let them burn the place down. Lancia is already worthless. - Keep the Fiat factories in Poland and Turkey... convert them to build Jeeps, and relaunch Chrysler in Europe. - Keep the Fiat Professional commercial brand for Europe and aligned it more closely with Ram elsewhere (e.g. primarily in South America) - Convert all the emerging market Fiat operations to Chrysler or Dodge brands e.g. Fiat South America becomes Dodge, Fiat Russia, Turkey or India becomes Chrysler etc. - Convert the GAIC Fiat JV in China to GAIC Chrysler-Jeep. Accelerate Jeep roll out in China.

Expedition sales are keeping pace from last year so far... the one month dip is probably due to Texas flooding as someone mentioned. GM is selling a lot more fullsize SUVs than Ford but GM is active in the airport towncar fleet market with their fullsize SUVs. Ford choose to focus on retail market a few years ago, probably for CAFE reasons when the trucks were using 5.4 V8... focus on profit yield and trim the volumes and thus the negative impact to Ford's CAFE. Ford builds Expedition and Navigator in the same plant as super-duty trucks so it doesn't need to worry about maintaining output volume to keep the lights on. GM has a plant dedicated to building Escalade, Tahoe/Suburban, and Yukon... so their respective production decisions tend to dictate what they can and will do to maintain sales volume.

Well, if GM does that, it will just shoot itself in the foot and CAFE will still be around. GM's balance sheet will implode if it stops selling pickup trucks. CAFE has what is known as the "Mercedes" loophole. if GM can't meet CAFE target, it just means GM has to pay a fine. GM will pay a fine before it will stop selling fullsize pickup trucks. If GM says it will stop selling pickup trucks, there won't be any angry mob... just lots of ridicule and a complete PR disaster. Not to mention a financial one.

I doubt that's how the allocation will go (i.e. 2.5 cars per dealer)... very stupid way for Ford to do it. Look at BMW M3... similar number allocated to the US this year but dealer allocation is based on previous volumes. So some dealers have plenty of production slots and they will do MSRP if you order one in advance. If you want one right now for an in-stock unit, sure... you are going to pay above MSRP. Now I understand there are a lot more Ford dealers than BMW dealers... but how many Ford dealers are SVT (or Ford Performance) certified?

I made it very clear those are old models. The point I was trying to make (which I guess didn't get across very clearly...) is that FCA has a very big hole to climb out of on the retail side because the nameplate had zero resonance with midsize sedan buyers. They have the same production volume as the previous gen so the temptation to fleet dump is there. The Taurus comparison is not exactly apt... Ford closed the Atlanta plant and thus eliminated nearly 50% of Taurus volume when it moved over to the current platform (as Five Hundred/Freestyle). FCA didn't eliminate 50% of its 200/Avenger output when the model switched over.