bzcat

I would have liked to get 22 MPG in my 2001 Escape with 3.0 V6... never got over 20 MPG.

My opinion is that Fiesta RS won't have a business case in the US so it will sink or swim on European sales alone... prospect of it is rather dim at the moment.

That's an excuse not a real problem. Toyota and Honda have no problem selling cars and competing with European and American brands in China. Lexus and Acura on the other hand... Lexus in particular has an image problem. It is considered a brand for "weirdos" (in the Chinese context) that like impotent hybrid cars. The luxury car market in China is 100% Nouveau riche - there are no existing pool of luxury car owners... everyone buying a BMW (or Audi or Mercedes etc) is basically buying his or her first luxury car (in many cases, the first car, period). The marketing is therefore very heavily focused on the "halo-pull" of high performance and flagship models. Basically, buying a luxury car in China today is a left-brain exercise appealing to one's base instincts... it is all about flaunting your wealth and status. You can see some of this distortion in the product offering - everyone wants LWB everything because it is bigger. Lexus is a very right-brain brand. The persona of the brand was calibrated to appeal to a segment of US car buyers that were being under-served. And that drove product decision which runs counter to what Chinese luxury car buyers want.

Infiniti sales in Europe is not 0 - but close to it. On a global basis, the growth of German brands are basically driven by China, which the Japanese brands have so far failed to make a dent. Jaguar Land Rover sold more vehicles in China than Lexus did last year as the article pointed out. Each of the Japanese brand have its own issues... the article didn't really dig that deep to further the discussion.

But you need to read this chart in context with the others. If Jeep Grand Wagoneer comes out in 2018 model year (and new Grand Cherokee in 2017), while Durango just get a facelift, the writing is on the wall... isn't it? Similarly, if you look at the timing on some of the Chrysler models coming out, it's easy to see that some of the new Dodge may not happen. With Lancia being downsized to Italy only, it seems logical that Chrysler version will be paired with Fiat models instead of Dodge (e.g. Chrysler CUV becomes Fiat Freemont instead of Dodge Journey, Chrysler 100 becomes Fiat Viaggio/Ottimo instead of Dodge Dart etc.)

Did you just violate some kind of NDA? :kiss:

I would be happy with a 2.3 EB, AWD with torque vectoring, and 6 speed manual... basically take the Focus RS drivetrain and install it in Fusion. Instead of 350+hp, maybe dial it back a little to 330hp for better MPG. But I suspect the market will be more receptive to something like 2.7 EB (also around 330hp in FWD layout), passive AWD, and 9 speed auto. It's also much cheaper route since MKZ will get the 2.7 EB, 9 speed auto is just a matter of time, and passive AWD is already available.

FCA will not rebadge the current Durango... so no. The plan is to just let the Durango ride out the sunset until the current generation expires and not replace it. A new model called Jeep Grand Wagoneer will come out in about 2 years based on the next generation Grand Cherokee.

He is not very good at google if that is the case The new MKS will surely be here before 3rd quarter of 2016.

Your link doesn't say that. In fact, it is just 4 posts in a discussion thread that started in March 2013. The last reply was in August 2014, before Transit even went on sale. Your anti-Transit crusade is getting a little desperate.

The current A8 is on MLB platform (same platform as A4, A5, Q5, A6, A7) but with aluminum space-frame instead of steel unibody. Phaeton and Continental are still using the old D1 platform that previous generation A8 used, but in all steel version. Bentley is not aluminum... which explains its crazy curb weight.

After Caravan dies, the only duplicate product in the range with Chrysler will be Charger. In the short term, there is probably enough product differentiation to keep the Charger alive but in the long run, the outlook for the large car market is negative and I don't think FCA will be able to justify two competing models in the same shrinking market. The one with international reach (Chrysler 300) will get to live. Without Charger, the is really nothing in the Dodge stable to "save". The rest of the line up is a veritable list of dead man walking: Dart - sales are below target and the economy recession in Europe killed off its European twin (Fiat Bravo replacement). Rumors of Chrysler 100 as the replacement seems more likely than not. Avenger - it is already gone, but the point should not be lost on anyone... you cannot be a volume brand in the US without a midsize sedan Challenger - this could easily become Chrysler 300 Challenger Viper - the fix was in before when it became SRT Viper but it is Dodge Viper again. Could easily be Chrysler Viper next. Journey - talk about dead man walking... old uncompetitive product with no replacement in sight. Chrysler is getting a CUV based on Jeep Cherokee next year and that will be the end of the journey ugh... for Journey. Durango - another dead man walking with Jeep Grand Wagoneer already confirmed as replacement.

Pretty much. Buick survived GM bankruptcy for 3 main reasons: 1. It is GM's main brand in China, so there is marketing value (in China) to keep the brand alive in the US. 2. GM couldn't shed enough dealers even with bankruptcy, so you make lemonade with lemons... pair up Buick with remaining GMC dealers who are owed compensation for losing Pontiac. 3. Money for product development for Opel and Buick China are going to be spent anyway... so a Buick line up in the US is essentially free in the sense that money is not going to be saved for not having it around. Ford didn't have any of these dynamics with Mercury: 1. It wasn't sold outside the US, not even Canada. 2. There was no independent Mercury dealers to eliminate. Some Lincoln-Mercury dealers were not pleased but it was relatively cheap for Ford to give them a Ford franchise to compensate for the loss. And many Lincoln dealer walked away in much better position as a result. Everyone is happier than before. 3. There wasn't a parallel model development for foreign markets that would readily pay for a US line up of Mercury under "One-Ford".

Stop digging a hole for yourself... you are just going to get buried deeper. So Toyota and VW are moving towards 3 unibody architectures. Hemm... I wonder how many Ford will have... Hey, looks like there will be 3... Well, that must mean Toyota and VW's plan are deeply flawed - it looks like Ford's. The horror!

Exactly the problem... CUV is the only growing segments of the market in North America and VW does not have any competitive products.

That's all we know! There is a very high degree of validity from leaks and informed speculation inferred from comments made by Ford. 1. We know Expedition won't continue on an unique chassis - just too low volume even with Navigator. So F-150 frame is the only possibility. 2. We know Ford is putting all the truck programs on aluminum diet so figures that Expedition is on the list too. 3. 2017 is confirmed for Navigator... Ford said so when the 2015 Navigator came out. Expedition is not yet confirmed for 2017 but don't see why it would be delayed. Additionally, I think Ford will try to engineer an IRS to work on the F-150 frame so Expedition can keep the best in class ride and handling, and keep the disappearing 3rd row seats. I also wouldn't be surprised if Navigator comes out with some trick air suspension options which is par for the course on the luxury side of the business.

Courier has a B-pillar... how much does it really share with B-Max? I have no idea... it's a real question. Are they build on the same assembly line? Do they utilized the same basic chassis stampings etc? I guess if it is just a variant of B-Max, 10,000 units is just incremental profit.

This is EU20? Transit/Tourneo Courier only sold 10,000 units... that's not good.

I'm beginning to think Biker doesn't read his own posts 1. Who said anything about compromised architecture? Ford thinks it will need a large car/SUV platform and your solution is to enlarge a smaller car platform. Hemm, which one is the compromise? A clean-sheet design or let's stretch the C platform again? 2. Or so now you want to make a platform that will work for both SUVs and Mustang? Ok... that's not a compromise at all 3. You are the one making spurious comments about transmissions. I merely pointed out that ZF, arguably the most knowledgeable people on the subject completely disagree with your engineering assessment about FWD, AWD, and RWD should not share transmission. 4. How does orientation of engine affects fuel economy on a FWD car? That's by far the most ludicrous comment form you yet. If anything, longitude mounting would improve fuel economy because there one less change in direction to convert the mechanic power and kinetic energy from the engine to the direction of the moving wheels. 5. Fine, a different variant. Still better than your two completely different transmission solution

Yea, that website is fully of incorrect info, I thought it was TTAC. D6 is at least 2 years away. We know this because Explorer just got a mid cycle facelift so there is at least 3 model years left before D6 Explorer will debut. MKS is CD4... we've known this like forever. Ford is moving production to Flat Rock on the same line as Fusion and MKZ. Aviator trademark by itself is meaningless. Companies trademark outdated product all the time to stop other people from using it. Ford still renewed Pinto as well, doesn't mean it will start selling it again. "Nano V6" is the 2.7 Ecoboost... it's already been revealed. Edit - looks like other people also ridiculed them so they've heavily edited the article.

Why FWD because in some cases, you don't need RWD or AWD. This circular logic is crazy. ZF is probably the best transmissions specialist out there and their main product is designed for FWD, AWD, and RWD applications. The orientation of the engine means you can use the same transmission. Why on earth would you want to use 2 different transmissions if you have a clean sheet design and you can make the transmission work with all kinds of drive configuration? I'm just a guy on the internet but I'd imagine someone at either Ford or GM probably thought of that when they started working on a clean sheet design 10 speed auto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZF_8HP_transmission

I would hardly call it a POS but the fully loaded EVO MR has a lot more content, BBS wheels, and 6 speed DCT vs. the base EVO GSR which has 5 speed manual and non-BBS wheels. Is it worth $4,000 more than WRX STI or Golf R? I guess that depends on if you like the driving experience... EVO is far more hardcore and raw than the other cars in this class.

VW is making the Golf R400 so you know those Ford Europe guys in Cologne... they are probably already giddy over the thought of beating the Wolfsburg guys with the next RS500. Golf R starts at $36,595; and $39,090 with navigation and sunroof. WRX STi starts at $34,495; and $39,995 with navigation and sunroof. Lancer EVO starts at $34,495; and $44,180 with navigation and sunroof. So... Focus RS will probably start at $35k and top out at $41k.

What about the sales for Tourneo Custom and Transit Courier?

The previous Focus RS had 305 hp and FWD... but the limited production RS500 had 350hp and FWD. So just a guess... the new one will have 350hp and if Ford decides to do another RS500, it will need more power. Hence the reason they probably decided to go with 4WD this time around Or maybe Ford is trolling us and the video was all CGI and the car is still FWD.