bzcat

I guess Subaru would be Toyota's Volvo and Scion would be Toyota's Mercury. Mazda is Toyota's... well... Mazda.

If I'm Sergio, I am not thinking larger, but definitely more expensive. Armchair CEO time... I think Jeep can sustain up to $70~80k in MSRP. Beyond that, it's difficult. There is a reason why Land Rover created the Range Rover sub-brand to sell the expensive models. Jeep is FCA's volume brand in North America - it sells more Jeep than any other brand, so Jeep is FCA's "meat and potatoes" brand. Jeep to FCA is Chevy to GM, or Ford to Ford. If Sergio pushes Jeep too far up market (let say over $100k), it will create brand schizophrenia (i.e. see VW Phaeton). Currently, Jeep is leaving a lot of money on the table by not having something like Ford truck's Platinum trim level or GMC's Denali sub-brand. FCA can easily push Grand Cherokee ATP up $10k by adding a new top trim level and eliminating the cheap Laredo trim level. Jeep customers prefer the Limited trim level, which used to be the top model, but is now mid-level... make that the base model. Adding Grand Wagoneer is a good move. Maybe do a LWB version as well but I don't see any need for an entirely new larger model beyond that. What Jeep really needs is something like Range Rover or Denali... a sub-brand that can easily juice up the profit margin on existing vehicles.

Well, Sprinter exists in the US because one very large fleet customer (FedEx) told Daimler it would take as many as Daimler was willing to import... For fleets that were mainly diesel medium duty (e.g. FedEx), Sprinter was a very cost efficient van to move down in size into light duty arena. FedEx quickly replaced all of its gasoline E-series in North America with diesel Sprinter. But that was limited to a single form factor - LWB cargo van with medium roof height. Sprinter failed to catch on as a cab chassis and that's where the E-class continues to dominate.

Good point... so seeing how Toyota and Honda are the kingpin of passenger vans today instead of Ford or GM, I'd still stand by my wild ass guess that there would be more meaningful competition in commercial vans for Ford had there not been Chicken Tax. The point is that the segment would have evolved with more players participating and changing their product strategy with it. But obviously, Ford had other structure advantages that still probably would have enabled it to be a major player in commercial vans, regardless. Unlike say... Chrysler, which also had the benefit of Chicken Tax but was always an also-run or non-factor in commercial vans.

2016 will be a short model year, which is consistent with how Ford typically does mid cycle updates. 2017 will be out early in calendar year 2016. We'll probably see the 2017 Escape at LA Auto Show in November, if not earlier. Current Escape went on sale in May 2012 as 2013 model 2013 model year 2014 2015 2016 (probably will only last a few months) Facelift - I'm guessing it will go on sale early in 2016 2017 model year 2018 2019 (probably will only last a few months) Next generation - probably launch mid year 2019 2020 model year

Tangentially related to this discussion... Ford China just announced 2.0 DI Focus will be phased out and replaced by 1.5 Ecoboost when the facelift model goes on sale in September 2015. China was the other market besides North America where 2.0 DI was used in a volume product. 2016 Focus Chinese market specs: 1.6 Ti-VCT (128hp) 5MT or 6DCT 1.0 Ecoboost (128hp) 5MT or 6DCT 1.5 Ecoboost (184hp) 6MT or 6F35 2.0 Ti-VCT (170hp) 5MT or 6DCT cancelled

If you are implying that early Transit was vastly better than Daimler or VW vans in Europe, I think that is debatable. But regardless, aside from UK, Ford never fully dominated the van market in Europe - VW and Daimler were always strong competitors. VW and Daimler were precluded from competing in the US van market in those early days because of chicken tax. They had products (some competitive, some less so) from other markets that they could have leverage for sale in the US van market. This was unlike the fullsize pickup truck market, which they were completely locked out, chicken tax or not. Whether or not their products would have evolved similarly like Ford's entry (Econoline) in response to US market needs is anyone's guess but the point is that they would have been here in the absence of chicken tax.

The companies signed a "long term partnership" agreement today. No exchange of equity but it's only a matter of time before Mazda is tightly bound to the Toyota death star. http://www.autonews.com/article/20150513/OEM01/150519954/toyota-mazda-form-partnership-to-share-technologies-confront-cost My take: 1. Really bad news for Suzuki in its battle with Toyota. Mazda will almost certainly switch from Suzuki to Toyota to supply its kei cars for Japanese markets, which means Suzuki will lose a lot of volumes and plant utilization in its Japanese factory is going to take a death spiral. 2. Mazda says the company will stay independent but with the company short on cash, the temptation to choose short term expediency over long term independence will test management. I guess we will see whether this pledge to stay independent is just lip service when the new CX-9 SUV comes out next year... my guess is it will have the same drivetrain choices as Toyota Highlander - Toyota's 3.5 V6 and Toyota's hybrid system.

I think it's fairly obvious that fullsize truck market will not be meaningfully different without chicken tax, primarily because it is a very localized market segment exclusive to North America. Other car companies will not be able to leverage their existing products to sell in the US because there are no existing fullsize truck products in their portfolio. However, I venture to say that the van market will be drastically different without chicken tax. VW, Toyota, Daimler would have all been in the market the whole time (remember, the tax was specifically aimed at VW) and Ford may not have risen to its current dominant position with more competition.

Fleet buyers that operates other Class 7 or 8 trucks may be interested in Allison or Cummins for maintenance commonality but that may not be all that relevant for fleet buyers that mainly operates Class 3/4/5 trucks, which are overwhelmingly Ford/GM/FCA/Izusu/Hino/Freightliner proprietary drivetrain. So Ford may be tipping its hand on what kind of customers it intends to target with a proprietary only drivetrain options on the Medium duty. I'm not saying it is good or bad strategy to ignore demands of existing Class 7 or 8 operators; but if the idea is to up-sell existing Ford Class 3-5 fleet customers who might otherwise go with Freightliner for Class 6, Allison or Cummins may not be that relevant.

2.0 EB will be around for sure because Chinese market dictates something under 2 liters, but it will be updated to the new version. It's also a useful marketing tool for Lincoln in the US because they can offer the 2.0 EB and 2.0 Hybrid for the same price... making the 2.0H a more compelling value. Upgrading the "base" model to 2.3 EB, you lose the flanker effect of the 2.0EB because now the "base" engine (i.e. 2.3 EB) is far more powerful than the 2.0H. I'm also expecting the Energi version to show up finally on the Lincoln side... it's a curious absence right now. Ford will have to come up with a new marketing name though... Energi is for the Ford brand. Then it comes down to a choice between 2.3 EB and 2.7 EB as the replacement for 3.7 V6. In the Edge Sport, Ford replaced 3.7 V6 with 2.7 EB; but in the Mustang, 2.3 EB replaced 3.7 V6. For sure 2.3 EB is more than capable of matching 3.7 V6 performance in a lighter car like MKZ, so I can see it go both ways. The 3.0 EB Lincoln exclusive engine is a wildcard... I assume initially, it will be available only in Continental. And depending on the tune, it may be "too much" engine (~350hp?) in a normal MKZ. If Lincoln ever wants to build a performance version of MKZ, the 3.0 EB is the obvious choice.

$32,000 in 2015 = $29,494 in 2010 $26,278 in 2005 $23,274 in 2000 $20,518 in 1995 So if you spent $20k in 1995 buying a F-150 XLT, you are spending the same amount today at $32k. And I'm pretty sure the 2015 XLT is a lot nicer than then that 1995 XLT. Edit: found a window sticker from 1995 XLT 5.0 V8 with preferred equipment package (which are now standard equipment on XLT) short bed: $19,695... you get the point... $32k in 2015 is almost exactly what you'd pay at any point in recent history of F-150. And another one... this time a 1995 XLT 4X4 for $25,291

The article mentions 2.3 Ecoboost replacing 2.0 Ecoboost and 3.7 V6. I think the base engine will remain 2.0 EB and 2.3 EB optional. 3.7 V6 is probably going to the grave early for sure, as least on the MKZ.

Colorado/Canyon has been on sale for 9 months and GM has sold a total of 37k units. I think if there is really 10k a month potential here, Ford would be in the market already. Transit Connect is averaging 4k per month now in the US and Ford is still on the fence about building the van here - they would rather import it with Chicken Tax (Ford is paying them now pending an appeal) than commit to building the van here. That tells you something about Ford's internal ROI evaluation on capital investment on new production capacity in NAFTA zone.

Likely because whomever calculated those profit per unit for GM excluded Wuling, which would boost the profit per unit significantly. GM counts SAIC Wuling sales in its reported unit sales but it only owns 30% of the company so it is accounted for an an equity investment. Wuling is GM's 2nd highest selling brand behind Chevy but the margin is probably pretty low on these low cost vans. So excluding the units will boost the profit per unit quite a bit. Which brings me to the problem of calculating profit per unit for all the major car companies... because none of them consolidates their Chinese operation so you have to make some assumptions about what to include and what to exclude. Unless the assumption are the same for all car companies, you are comparing apples to oranges. As for the Toyota or VW's accounting practices, I'm sure they are above board and very good. Both Japan and Germany uses the same accounting rules and those international standards are not that much different than US GAAP that GM uses since the two standards have converged. Currency gains works for VW or Toyota just as they do for Ford or GM.

He didn't spill any beans on future products... I was hoping he would at least mention something worthwhile.

HS was dropped because it was getting killed by Lincoln MKZ hybrid. So Lexus replaced it with ES300h. CT sells fine... it is really popular in California. It was the biggest selling C-segment luxury brand vehicle in the US until Mercedes CLA and the new A3 sedan came out. It outsold BMW 1-series and the old Audi A3 hatchback handily. Quite impressive considering it is available only as a hatchback.

We've had two of them already. Both are based on E150 Corolla platform. C-segment sedan is a key growth segment for luxury car brands on a worldwide basis. Lincoln needs something in this space ASAP. I would be shocked if the next generation Focus program does not include a compact Lincoln sedan in the mix for the Chinese market with possible US sales in mind as well.

I think the only reason it is still around is because Ford can't make enough 1.5 EB now to meet worldwide demand (hence the new engine plant in Mexico).

Memory chips are not a key product differentiation attribute in mobile phones - that similar to FCA and Ford sharing gas tank suppliers. If Apple was using Samsung's version of Android then we have something comparable to car companies sharing engine or chassis. Apple is also buying those off-the-shelves commodity from Samsung (memory chips, glass etc) - they are not collaborating on any key product differentiation attributes.

The market understands VW very well... Americans like CUVs and VW doesn't sell any good ones. Hence the problem. It's quite simple... VW sells as many cars as FCA in the US. While no one is going to say FCA is a powerhouse in passenger cars in the US, they have a huge Jeep franchise to fall back on. Meanwhile VW get's clobbered in the US in CUVs sales. Consider this... 2015 YTD thru April, VW has sold more than twice as many cars as Subaru. And yet, Subaru has sold 30% more vehicles than VW. What's the difference? Subaru moved over 100k "trucks" - Forester, Outback, and XV Crosstrek... In fact, XV is outselling Impreza 3 to 1. That in a nutshell is why VW is struggling in the US.

Piech wanted the wrest the product development decisions from the local markets back to Germany. That would have been a disaster for not just VWoA but the rest of VW's emerging market empire. More Phaetons for everyone! VWoA doesn't have a pricing problem, quite the opposite actually - their ATP is not high enough. It boils down to the fact that VWoA has a SUV problem... and SUVs are generally more expensive than their sedan counterparts. VW is losing money in the US because they have all these fixed costs but no profit boosting SUVs to cover for the low margin sedans. If VWoA was given more freedom to develop products for the US market like Toyota US or Honda US, I think they would have solved the Tiguan problem already. But instead, they have to wait for HQ in Germany to implement MQB platform first before they are allowed to think about compact and midsize SUVs. Piech would have made things even worse as he would have insisted that VWoA sell the same compromised Tiguan designed primarily for Europe, rather than something bigger and more market friendly in US and China.

CVPI had a lot of the police car market share for a long time because it had no competition... the only serious enough alternate was Chevy Tahoe and that vehicle was not very well suited for urban police patrol use. CVPI market share started to erode significantly when Dodge Charge Police Package came out and Ford only had 1/3 of the police car market the last two years CVPI was offered. Even if Ford kept the CVPI in production, the market was changing and police agencies would have moved on without Ford regardless what some panther aficionado thinks.

Sounds like new generation of Sigma (or all new engine?)

Bell Weather Midsize sedan sales Toyota Camry 34,066 Honda Accord 27,251 Ford Fusion 24,954 Nissan Altima 22,108 Chrysler 200 18,850 Hyundai Sonata 18,340 Chevy Malibu 17,430 Kia Optima 13,666 VW Passat 6,623 Subaru Legacy 5,276 Mazda6 4,995 Buick Regal 1,647