bzcat

This is why it is so fun to speculate... both seems plausible and likely given what we know but only 1 can be true. I don't see how we end up with both Transit Connect based pickup/SUV and T6 pickup/SUV... or maybe we can?

My guess is 3.2 I5 in Ranger won't be CAFE positive relative to 2.7 EB F-150. 2.2 or 2.4 I4 diesel will be my guess IF we are really getting T7 Ranger.

It would be C3 not C2 right? But yea, basically the same thing. Further thought on Bronco rumors... Escape/Kuga is getting a little big and Ford is probably looking at something a little smaller to compete with C-segment Jeep Compass, Subaru XV, Hyundai Tucson, Nissan Qashqai etc. If MAP stays unibody C-car plant, then this Bronco is probably something alone the lines of those cars I mentioned... shorter than the Escape, but longer/wider than the EcoSport.

Let see... 1. It won't be T6 Ranger or Everest - that boat has sailed 2. Seems unlikely that Ford will rip out C-car production line in MAP to build BOF trucks... unless there is room to add another final assembly line 3. One would assume that Ford has bigger plans for Troller... it's a candidate for joining the T7 Ranger program. But not sure how relevant that is to Bronco rumors. 4. T7 Ranger still won't address Ford's previous concern that the truck be CAFE positive - how do you make it get 30 MPG and cheaper (but still profitable) vs. F-150.

Another reason for skewing towards V8... the comparable value. Leave aside the fact that there is pent up demand for Mustang with "proper" American V8, some buyers are inevitably looking at the bang for the buck ratio and saying the V8 makes a lot more sense if you are going to get a car like this in the UK. The base price for 2.3 EB Mustang in UK is £30,000, which similar to BMW 420i, Audi A5 1.8T, and Mercedes C180. Mustang EB will outperform these cars but not by an overwhelming margin. The base price for 5.0 V8 Mustang in UK is £34,000, which is similar to BMW 428i, Audi A5 2.0T, and Mercedes C250 CDI (diesel). Mustang V8 will leave these cars in the dusts. It's an obvious performance bargain. In the US, Mustang doesn't compete directly with these cars because Mustang is significantly cheaper, and the pony car is a long established segment. In the UK, because of the price and the annual costs, the likely Mustang buyers are probably 15~20% hardcore American car fans, and 80~85% luxury car buyers looking for something different.

UK is the largest convertible market in Europe. My theory is because the weather, Brits buying a convertible is more about making a statement about ones lifestyle choice than being able to drive with top down - i.e. similar to people in the US buying huge SUVs for single occupant driving to signal ones affinity for "active" lifestyle [note - I own a SUV too so this is not a bash post... just sounding out a theory]

The writing is on the wall, 6F is replacing DCT in China and Europe in Fiesta and Focus whenever Ford has a chance to do powertrain updates. Ford didn't chose to continue the DCT mistake with Escape in the US either and went with 6F. The US market is low-priority in terms of compact car and that's why our Focus have languished with DCT (and more importantly no 1.5 Ecoboost!) I would be extremely surprised if DCT continues in the next generation Focus beside a few limited applications (e.g. performance oriented models)

No, the last Ford-initiated project at JLR was XJ. The Evoque was only at the proposal stage when Ford put JLR on sale. It is based on EUCD platform but all the engineering work began after Tata took over. The last Ford-initiated project at Volvo was the V40 (C2 Focus based). Ford cancelled the CD4 (Fusion) based S60/V70 and D4 (Explorer) based XC90 because it decided to put Volvo up for sale. The last Ford-initiated project at Mazda was CX-9. Mazda6 and CX-5 both started right after Ford sold the controlling stake.

The internet... where no one reads anything more than a few paragraphs BTW, the article drew the wrong inference about China. The unwinding of Ford and Mazda actually slowed down Ford's drive to catch GM significantly because it was forced to give Mazda the Nanjing factory where Fiesta is currently being build. Plus Ford lost the FAW-Mazda JV that was Ford's other JV with one of the Big 6 (SAIC, FAW, Dongfeng, Chang'an, GAC, BAIC) Mazda entered China early on with a tiny provincial outfit in Hainan. The resulting Hainan Mazda was only a marginal player in Southern China and wasn't a serious player. Around the same time, Ford setup Jiangling-Ford to sell Transit vans. Then came the big push... Ford wanted to sell passenger cars and Chang'an was the only one left without a foreign partner so Ford was stuck with those guys. Meanwhile, Mazda set up a 2nd joint venture with FAW (FAW Mazda). Ford then made a mistake... it wanted to integrate production of Ford and Mazda models (what makes sense elsewhere doesn't make sense in China... ) and it structured Chang'an JV as a Ford-Mazda operation. So if you are doing the math... this means Mazda has 3 partners - Hainan, FAW, and Chang'an. The problem was self-inflicted by Ford because it pulled Mazda in on the Chang'an JV. To fix this, Mazda had to arrange for FAW to buy out Hainan... a really weak regional player anyway, to get back to only having two partners (FAW Mazda and Chang'an Ford-Mazda). So had Ford/Mazda marriage stayed in tact, Ford would have 2 JVs with Big 6: The Chang'an and one with FAW through Mazda, not unlike Hyundai/Kia, which has a JV with two of the Big 6 (BAIC Hyundai and Dongfeng Kia). But because Ford had to divest itself of Mazda, it lost the FAW JV, and it also had to carve up Chang'an Ford-Mazda, which seriously slowed down expansion.

Meanwhile in China, this happened earlier this week

The speculation is obviously planted by GM during UAW negotiation. It doesn't really make any sense. Encore and Trax are sourced from Korea. Doesn't make sense to get the Buick one from China while the Chevy one comes from Korea. In any case, unless GM plans to shut down Gamma production line in Korea, this one is easily debunked. Verano is going to end up in Mexico with new Cruze, or going to Lordstown with the old Cruze. The Orion Assembly Plant that currently build it is getting Chevy Bolt next year. GM would love to say it is moving it to China but it's an easy call on the bluff. You can see why they want to string the UAW alone... getting more concession at Lordstown is a bonus for GM. Envision from China is the most laughable one. GM can't keep up with demand in China so it is going to ship a shit ton of them to the US market where it will likely make less profit on them? Also from a product planning perspective, you want the one with growth prospect for local assembly, and this points to the CUV making the cut and the midsize sedan (Regal) getting the axe. Envision will be assembled in NAFTA zone. Mark that one down as a slumdunk - it will probably replace GMC Terrain. Regal is kind of iffy. Sure, GM can go back to importing it (the first year of Regal were all imported from Germany) but GM has 2 Epsilon plant (Oshawa and Fairfax) so making Regal in Canada (where it is currently - Oshawa Ontario) or moving it Fairfax (UAW will like that) is probably cheaper for GM than importing it from Germany. The only reason you want to import it from Germany is to keep the German plant utilization reasonable - e.g. like what it is doing now with Chevy SS that keeps the light on (barely) in Australia.

I don't like to argue semantics... I'm here to share observations and contribute to the discussion. I think it may be instructive for everyone to step back and take a look at the existing product offerings so we all know what we are arguing about... E-150/250/350 van - dead man walking E-350 SRW cutaway - 138" or 158" wheelbase, 5.4 V8 or 6.8 V10, GVWR 10,050 (138") ~ 10,500 (158") E-350 DRW cutaway - 138", 158", or 176" wheelbase, 5.4 V8 or 6.8 V10, GVWR 11,500 (138" or 158") ~ 12,500 (176") E-450 DRW cutaway - 158" or 176" wheelbase, 5.4 V8 or 6.8 V10, GVWR 14,000 (5.4 V8) ~ 15,500 (6.8 V10) Note that E-450 GVWR is determined by engine, not wheelbase. This tells me the frame is maxed out. T-250 SRW cutaway or chassis cab - 138" or 156" wheelbase, 3.7 V6 or 3.2 I5 diesel, GVWR 9,000 ~ 9,500 T-350 SRW cutaway or chassis cab - 156" wheelbase 3.7 V6 or 3.2 I5 diesel, GVWR 9,500 ~ 9,950 T-350HD DRW cutaway or chassis cab - 138", 156", or 178" wheelbase, 3.7 V6 or 3.2 I5 diesel, GVWR 9,950 ~ 10,360 What jumps out at me is that T350HD is probably very conservatively rated given that it has DRW. Right now, there is virtually no GVWR difference between T-250 and T-350 SRW so there is room to up-rate the T-350 SRW as well (note that T-350 is actually in Class 2 GVWR right now). It's likely that Ford will up-rate this version once they have more durability data, or when the aftermarket uplifters are ready to pull the plug on E-350. F-350 SRW cab chassis - 6.2 V8, 6.8 V10, or 6.7 V8 diesel, GVWR 9,800 ~ 11,500 F-350 DRW cab chassis - 6.2 V8, 6.8 V10, or 6.7 V8 diesel, GVWR 13,700 ~ 14,000 F-450 DWR cab chassis - 6.8 V10, or 6.7 V8 diesel, GVWR 15,000 ~ 16,500 F-550 DWR cab chassis - 6.8 V10, or 6.7 V8 diesel, GVWR 17,500 ~ 19,500 The F-series cab chassis is available in standard cab, super cab, crew cab, 4x2, and 4x4... So a vast array of options. F-350 and 450 is mostly aimed at trades that need the pickup truck form factor (e.g. stake beds or utility beds or requires crew cab). F-550 offers a step-up in GVWR from E-450 for minibus or RV builders but it is a high chassis design. If we are discussing a dedicated low chassis medium duty Ford truck, we should include F-550 (and 450 to some extent) in the discussion because the minibus and RV builders would probably ditch the F-550 high chassis for the new medium duty with lower floor. F-650 cab chassis - 6.8 V10 or 6.7 V8 diesel, GVWR 22,000 ~ 25,600 F-750 cab chassis - 6.8 V10 or 6.7 V8 diesel, GVWR 30,200 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` This is my observation and guess: 1. Class 3 / Under 14,000 lbs GVWR (current E-350 DRW cutaway max is 12,500) - Ford will likely stick with Transit. There is probably some room left in the current T-350 HD to up-rate to 12,500 lbs. And I don't mean a new truck with Transit cab on top. I mean Ford will just up-rate the Transit T-350 HD to match the E-350 DRW. 2. Class 4 / Under 16,000 lbs GVWR (current E-450 DWR cutaway max is 15,500) - Probably out of the league for Transit. Opportunity to combine with Class 5 for a new low chassis truck. 3. Class 5 / Under 19,500 lbs GVWR (current F-550 DRW cab chassis max is 19,500) - Ford has high chassis covered with F-550. Need a low chassis product - obvious solution is to develop a new joint product with Class 4 low chassis. 4. Class 6 (26,000 lbs) - 7 (33,000 lbs) - Not much demand for low chassis at Class 6/7 but you can probably share the cab with Class 4/5 low chassis if you want. I would say it is not unusual to share cabs between high and low chassis products but it is generally done with cab forward type trucks. Isuzu does it with it's N-series high chassis and low chassis version sharing the same cab. But note that in the case of N-series, the engine sits below the cab so the height of the chassis doesn't affect visibility very much.

There is plenty of money being left on the table by a lack of Lincoln Explorer. You are not US-based person so you probably do not have a very good feel for the market here [i do not mean that as a put down]. Lincoln MKT Aviator will not start at $43,500... it will start at $48~50k where the non-Platinum Explorer leaves off. Audi Q7 $48,300 ~ over $70k BMW X5 $53,900 ~ over $80k (not including X5M, which starts at $98k) Land Rover LR4 (Discovery) $50,400 ~ over $70k Land Rover RR Sport $63,350 ~ over $80k (not including the Autobiography series, which starts at $92k) Lexus GX $49,485 ~ over $70k Mercedes ML $48,300 ~ over $70k (not including ML63, which starts at $98k) Notice how mostly everyone starts near $50k and tops out before going over $80k? For reference, Lincoln MKT $43,210 ~ Just over $50k Lincoln Navigator $63,090 ~ over $80k So yes... There is probably another easy $20k of MSRP range left above Explorer Platinum for Lincoln to mine with MKT Aviator. Plus, you have to figure that the aluminum Navigator will move up in price point too.

This is how GM negotiates with UAW in the press... None of that is likely to happen but GM does have the option to move Verano to Mexico with the new Cruze. And they can put Envision in CAMI in Ontario if they are willing to sacrifice GMC Terrain (I would).

My guess is Fiesta (and other B-segment C3 vehicles) will either switch to CVT or will inherit the current Ford-GM 6 speed auto, which will stick around even after the 9 speed comes out. Focus (and other C-segment C3 vehicles) will probably use a mix of 6 speed and 9 speed auto depending on price point. Escape and MKC for example, will most likely have the 9 speed. The base model Focus S or next gen Escort in China? Probably not. CD4 vehicles will switch to 9 speed wholesale by the end of 2018.

I'm not sure I understand the arguments why Ford should use Transit cab for medium duty truck. This thread is 51 pages long and I still haven't read why this is a good idea beside "someone else did it once and Ford should copy it". Ford sold 9,627 F-650/750 last year and 103k E-series. Let's say 30k is E-450... that's 40k volume for medium duty trucks, plus whatever F-450/550 contributes to the table with diesel because E-450 is not available with diesel engine. If Ford is really working on a new medium duty, then between E-450, F450/550, F-650, and F-750, you are looking at more than enough volume to justify a unique cab that is best suited for the application.

Accent and Rio combined also outsell Fiesta. Also, don't forget about Soul, which towers over everyone. And I'm going to bet that the new Mexican Honda Fit will outsell Fiesta in a 12-months period, too. I don't think there is anything wrong with Fiesta either but if Ford is going to design a 2nd B-car (I'm calling it B+ because I'm assuming it will be similar in size to Versa, Accent, Soul, Fit etc) then I think it is a better product for the US market than Fiesta.

I can see E-350 going away soon but E-450 is a tough nut to crack for Ford. T-350 HD cab chassis can probably be up-rated just like the E-series once Ford has better real world durability data from its fleet customers. E-450 with higher GVWR is probably beyond reach for Transit. So if Ford is developing a replacement, it will probably be a dedicated class 4-5 vehicle, which plugs the hole nicely between Transit and F-650.

Ford may call it MKT or Aviator... either way (or both! "Aviator" in the US, MKT in China), the car is coming. Ford can get another $10k on top of Explorer Platinum easily with a Lincoln version so the unique exterior and interior will easily pay for itself. Just have to make sure it looks like a SUV this time, not a pregnant whale.

I think it is obvious that the main growth area in the B-segment is CUV so I would be extremely surprised if Ford doesn't have something in that space by 2017. It's not an either/or situation with the CUV. Ford will have a CUV and a sedan/hatch here. But the question is whether a global Fiesta will continue to be sold here or we get the emerging market cheap sedan/hatch instead.

There is probably another $10k easy profit on top of Explorer Platinum to be mined.

I think there is generally a consensus that traditional European B-segment cars are too small for US market (and many emerging markets). For example, Nissan sells Versa in US but March in EU. Hyundai sells Accent in the US but i20 in EU. VW has a whole suite of cars based on the "B+" dimension - VW Santana and Jetta (China), Skoda Rapid, and SEAT Toledo that are aimed mainly at emerging markets. If Ford is thinking about the market segments critically, I think they may go with the same playbook... a cheaper but bigger B+ car (most importantly, a sedan that doesn't look like an aborted fetus) for US and emerging markets, and a proper B car for EU.

Taurus Titanium has something LWB Fusion Titanium doesn't have - the name Fusion on the badge in the rear of the car. The name Fusion is anchored in the midsize market and people are not going to be sufficiently convinced a LWB version is worth $5k more than the SWB version. I don't think this is news to anyone... I even pointed out a real life example with Camry and Avalon, but you seemed to have miss the point. Fusion has higher ATP than Camry because Fusion has higher MSRP models like Fusion Energi.That has nothing to do with the fact that Avalon is commanding substantially more money than otherwise identical Camry. So question remains the same... you think LWB Fusion Energi will command the same transaction price as Taurus Energi (let's assume Ford will make one... apples to apples comparison). Evidence points to the contrary but we are all entitled to our wrong opinions.

I think it is too soon to say Expedition has gone off the boils... The flooding in Texas (which accounts for vast majority of these fullsize SUV sales) in May and June affected sales (probably pulled down GM sales too). July was off too but I'd wait until later this year to draw any conclusion on the direction of sales momentum. For sure, the 2017 model based on the F-150 is probably worth waiting for if you are in the market. That may also be part of the problem.

With a different nameplate, you can get a higher transaction price. LWB Fusion is still Fusion... LWB Fusion as Taurus is a Taurus. Toyota Avalon is a $33~$46k car with most of the sales in the more expensive end (Limited and hybrid Limited). Camry is $23~$35k car with most sales in the cheaper end (LE and LE hybrid). Do you think LWB Camry can match the Avalon ATP? Comparing apples to apples, meaning don't use hypothetical 2.7 EB Fusion ST as a stalking horse against non-ST (or SHO if you will) Taurus, do you really think Ford can get as much money with LWB Fusion Titanium vs. Taurus Titanium? LWB Fusion SE vs. Taurus SE? LWB Fusion hybrid vs. Taurus hybrid? LWB Fusion Energi vs. Taurus Energi?