bzcat

This probably warrants a separate topic of discussion but there are a couple of end-game scenarios that would be acceptable to the Chinese Govt. First is probably fully competitive Chinese manufacturer that competes with the top tier OEMs worldwide. They are far very far from achieving this goal but don't underestimate the sales of Chinese brand vehicles in 3rd and 4th tier cities and towns where foreign brands rarely have dealers or service networks. The "Big 5" Chinese Central Govt owned car companies - FAW, SAIC, Dongfeng, Chang'an, BAC, are all in the top 10 in the world in terms of overall production volume. And the 6th one - GAIC is in the top 15. And semi-private and provincial Govt owned companies like BYD, Geely, Brilliance, Chery, and Landwind (they are sometimes referred to as "Little 5") are all going to be knocking on the door of top 15 worldwide eventually based on their growth trajectory. That means a lot of existing car companies are going to be small potatoes compared to the "Big 5" and "Little 5" Second acceptable outcome for the Chinese Govt would be sort of status quo but with more localization. Basically, think of Ford or GM in Europe, or Toyota in the US... but without 100% control of production facilities. The way things are going, eventually, VW, GM, Hyundai, and PSA will be very dependent on the Chinese market (some may say they are now) and therefore, their futures are in the hands of the joint venture partners, FAW/SAIC, SAIC, BAC/Dongfeng, and Dongfeng/Chang'an respectively. So instead of the foreign companies dictating the terms of their joint venture relationship, it will reverse and the Chinese will increasingly take charge until VW, GM, Hyundai, PSA etc become effectively Chinese. Third acceptable outcome for Chinese Govt would be a reverse merger whereby foreign car companies are swallowed whole by their Chinese joint venture partners. For example, Dongfeng is now the largest shareholder of PSA, and SAIC owns a chunk of GM. If Dongfeng and SAIC increases their holdings incrementally until they gain effective control, then it is fait accompli as far as the Chinese Govt is concerned. Anything short of these 3 outcomes is likely not acceptable to the Chinese Govt in the long run.

On the subject of Toyota possibly passing Ford, I think the attitude from Ford is going to be... we are used to it Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, The Philippines, South Africa, Central America, The Caribbean, North Africa, The Middle East... the list of places where Ford used to dominate in sales but got passed over by Toyota goes on and on. And yet, Ford is still doing just fine. But honestly, I think once F-150 deliveries normalize and the second plant is running at full speed, Ford will put some distance between it and Toyota in the US. Ford is also on pace to have another great year in China and will likely move up a few spots in sales there.

The van sales... between the 3 models, 14k total vans delivered in one month - wow! Transit is on track to double E-series sales soon. Where are the E-series mafia? Time for some people to eat crow...

No, from a CAFE standpoint, a Bronco based on shortened F-150 platform is a lot worse than F-150 due to the footprint multiplier rule. That's why 2 door SUVs doesn't exist anymore. And regular cab pickup trucks are going extinct. CAFE is a made up number using EPA MPG of eact model x multiplier and averaged across the fleet (based on sales volume). The multiple is determined based on "footprint" of the truck. The longer/wider the truck, the bigger bonus it gets. However, if a truck is significantly shorter/narrower than the average truck, the multiplier is effectively negative. So a 2 door Bronco is basically CAFE poison pill... it will lower Ford's CAFE relative to just the F-150.

2 door SUV has no market viability in the US. Too small of a market, too much drag on CAFE due to SWB, and too much liability (rollover risks, difficulty with side impact crash test etc). It's miracle that Jeep Wrangler is still available with 2 doors. If Wrangler was a clean-sheet idea and not a heritage product, I feel 100% confident in saying that it would be 4 doors only and no 2 door version.

Timely mention of Nissan as media reports says Nissan has notified its suppliers that 2015 is the final year for Xterra. So no, they are unable to figure out how to make the business case work for a new one.

I like what I see so far.

Yea... there must be something wrong with the data. I also refuse to believe the most popular new vehicle for retail sales in Delaware (Delaware!) is Silverado. It's possible the Delaware data includes commercial fleets because all the Corporations that are headquartered in Delaware and may have their vehicles registered there for whatever tax reasons.

Why is C&D rehashing a concept car shown a year ago? Slow news day?

I'm not sure what you are inferring? Are you saying he is full of shit? That's truth when it comes to his opinions... but he is generally correct on industry speculations and developments because of his connections in the industry. Earlier in the thread, we seemed to have come to a consensus that the three he is referring to is Ford, GM, and Toyota. Ford because of the persistent Bronco rumors, GM because it said so about a GMC Wrangler fighter, and Toyota because FJ Cruiser was a financial success that caught Toyota off guard (it was planned as a limited run model with no replacement but now it appears replacement is under development).

Ford will not be looking to sell this in the US only so one of the things we have to keep in mind while speculating is what other markets will demand of this Bronco. Ford already sells (or will begin selling) Everest everywhere except North America. It's obvious that Ford sees an opportunity that it cannot address with Everest so what it is that opportunity? In my opinion, it is basically styling... Everest will provide most of the off-road chops and on-road manners that some of you already pin pointed. All that remains, is a top hat design that is more emotionally rooted in the Bronco name. I don't think retro is going to do it but definitely something more butch looking than the Everest.

180,000 orders says Ford can make cab chassis Transit Connect happen Here are my thoughts on this... 1. USPS Office of Inspector General (sort of like the Board of USPS if it were a corporation) recommended the NGDV be based on a modified production vehicle: https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/defaul...-ma-14-005.pdf So not purpose build vehicle like LLV. 2. The maximum length (230") in the RFP is the size of a midsize van like VW Transporter, Ford Transit Custom, or Mercedes Vito... So whomever wins the contract, probably has a really good business case to bring those vans to the US. 3. RHD and sliding doors are non-negotiable must have features so if Ford is interested, they have to design the van that can have front sliding door. Or maybe it needs to partner with a sub-contractor that can modify the cab. 4. EV is not practical, not because of cost or range. USPS wants minimum 1,500 lbs payload, which is what regular Transit Connect does right now. If you add 600 lbs of batteries to it, the payload drops below acceptable. Hybrid is possible with a small battery array. 5. AWD was listed in the RFP as optional but it didn't say mechanical AWD. Something like the Toyota Highlander hybrid setup (FWD+electric motors driving the rear wheels) should work as well. 6. The size of the contract will probably require local (North America) assembly... this greatly favors Ford, GM, and FCA, which can shift productions around its many facilities to accommodate this contract. Potential foreign bidders like Daimler, VW, Hyundai, Toyota, and Nissan have far fewer facilities and will need to commit huge sums for new factories. It could also open the door for a contract manufacture (like AM General) to sub-contract. i.e. Ford will ship half-assembled Transit Connect or Transit Custom to AM General to do final conversion like Ford already does with cab chassis Transit and F-series to uplifters that turns the cab chassis into buses, ambulance, motor-homes, or UPS and FedEx delivery vans. So basically, I predict the winning vehicle will be something like a Transit Connect or Transit Custom cab chassis. A subcontractor (like AM General) will make a unique body for the USPS with front sliding door(s). It will be FWD for the majority of this contract, and the USPS will have to commit to certain numbers (like ~50,000) being hybrid AWD.

Chicken tax will not apply to South Korean import starting in 2016 due to US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement.

180,000 guaranteed orders should be enough to kick off that program... although with batteries, TC probably won't meet the minimum payload requirement of 1,500 lbs

Here is the summary of New Generation Delivery Vehicle (NGDV) specs: 1. 2WD with optional 4WD 2. Automatic transmission with traction control 3. Fully enclosed van body with integral cab and cargo compartment constructed with aluminum or composite material with a sliding drive door and a separate cargo area side door 4. Driver side airbag 5. Driver seat with horizontal/vertical/lumbar adjustments 6. Minimum cargo capacity of 1,500 lbs 7. Rear camera with monitor 8. Compliance with FMVSS and 50 state emission 9. Minimum Ground clearance 7.3" 10. Minimum Mail storage volume 155 cubic ft 11. Minimum Rear door opening W x H 48.5" x 72" 12. Maximum Driver window sill height above ground 44" 13. Minimum width between wheelhouse 48" 14. Maximum length 230" 15. Maximum height 106" 16. Maximum width excluding mirror 85" 17. Load floor height 26" ~ 28" 18. Minimum flat cargo area W x L 72" x 108" Other details (all in the PDF file I linked) 1. Single vendor award (so winner takes all) 2. Delivery to start no later than January 2018 (3,000 vehicles due on January 2018), and USPS will take delivery for up to 7 years 3. Target cost between $25k and $35k

Some clarification... you posted two different articles related to two different stories. There is a "near term needs" RFP for 10,000 vehicles. It was released last October: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2f9534d530acfe39f5abd7c7f566cce6&tab=core&_cview=0 There is a permanant repalcement RRP for up to 180,000 vehicles. It was release in January: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b8bc45b682078cd7fead35c6aec40849&tab=core&_cview=1 So the first RFP is already well under way... I would be surprised if Ford didn't bid on it. The second RFP is much bigger contract and will probably require Ford to commit to building the van in the US.

The postal news link say 10,000 units. The autonews link says 180,000 units. That makes a big difference... If USPS just want 10,000 over the next two years like the postal news link says, Ford will be all over it like bees on honey. They can meet that demand easily with a RHD Transit Connect. But if USPS wants 180,000 units to completely replace the LLV, it will be a tough nut to crack... Ford will probably need to move Transit Connect production to North America... It certainly add to the rumor that Ford is seeking to expand C-car production at Cuautitlán. Edit: found the actual RFP... 10,000 units https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2f9534d530acfe39f5abd7c7f566cce6&tab=core&_cview=0

The hood scoop is interesting... Australia is not leading development of CD4 derivatives so my guess is Ford Australia is doing durability testing for the Taurus because it will be exported from US to Australia to replace the Falcon.

Do they? Tata can build cheap cars for India market but they haven't demonstrated any ability to make an affordable mass market car that can meet EU or US safety and emission standards. Land Rover certainly has not been able to move down the cost curve, even when Ford owned it, which afford it a much large economy of scale from design to engineering to parts sourcing to manufacturing to marketing and sales support.

These all fall in your price range VW has Beetle and Scirocco, plus Golf 3 door GM has Astra coupe Renault has Megane coupe Honda has Civic coupe Hyundai has Elantra coupe Kia has Forte coupe Toyota has 86 Mazda has MX-5 It's not a growing segment like CUVs but it's still a significant market. The lack of 3 door Focus in the current generation is *probably* (pure speculation on my part) due to the financial situation Ford was in when development decisions had to be made. If that decision had to be made today, I would guess the 3 door or a coupe will make the cut. I would not be the least bit surprised if 3 door Focus or a "Capri" coupe returns for the next generation Focus program.

I've never heard of GINAF so I looked it up... it's a Dutch severe duty truck specialist now owned by a Chinese conglomerate. It made sense that while it was Dutch-owned, it collaborated with DAF (another historical Dutch brand now owned by Paccar) but now it is Chinese owned so they probably were more open to using an alternative supply for its cabs.

Land Rover Defender is not exactly luxurious... it is very much in the same mold as Wrangler or Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series. But as you pointed out, Land Rover, and Toyota for that matter, cannot figure out how to build one to Wrangler's price point.

No it's not. It is still based on the previous Troller platform. It is fully converged with T6 on drivetrain... same engine and transmission choices; although that wasn't difficult because Troller began by buying Ford drivetrains to fit in their vehicles 10 years ago so they have always been compatible with Ford products from that standpoint. I have no doubt the next Troller will be fully based on the T7 Ranger program.

It fits in between Cherokee and Renegade... :happy feet: Seriously though... the C-segment CUV market is bifurcated in Europe. There is a "small C" and "large C" CUVs and FCA is obviously trying to make sure it has the entire spectrum of CUVs covered. A-segment: Fiat Panda Cross ==> Jeep ??? B-segment: Fiat 500X ==> Jeep Renegade C-segment small: Jeep Compass (competitors include VW Tiguan, Hyundai Tucson, Subaru XV, Nissan Qashqai, Peugeot 3008 etc) C-segment large: Jeep Cherokee (competitors include Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Nissan X-Trail/Rouge, Subaru Forester etc) C/D segment: none, although Wranger Unlimited is roughly the same exterior size as Ford Edge D-segment 5 seat: Jeep Grand Cherokee D-segment 7 seat: Jeep Grand Wagoneer

The current Troller is a dead end product that is too expensive to upgrade to meet US and EU crash safety standards. But that doesn't mean the future Troller is not going to figure into this discussion. Ford can probably include the Troller in the T7 Ranger program, and that may be what the Bronco will become.