bzcat

Well, price in China reflects import tariff so it is what it is. Price in Europe reflects mainly VAT, which is included in the price and layered in at every step of manufacturing and distribution process, as opposed to the US where sales tax is only applied at the final stage of transaction, and only in the jurisdiction of the final sales. Some European countries also assess carbon tax that shows up in the MSRP.

Galaxy is too small for the US market. Customer expectations are different vs. Europe and it will not be a competitive product. Unless Ford is making the Galaxy a lot bigger than the S-Max this time around. The main difference last time was basically the shape of rear window.

I think it will sell reasonably well. The B-segment in the US market is entering a period of diffusion with cars like Kia Soul finding a lot of success seemingly at the expense of more conventional styled hatchback. But it's not all about body style... the product has to be compelling and value proposition has to be there. Case in point, a B-Max like car with 4 swing out door will resemble Nissan Cube... a colossal failure in the US market because of poor packing (CVT and anemic power) and poor valuation proposition (imported from Japan with high costs vs. dirt cheap Mexican Versa in the same showroom).

If Ford did AWD, it probably means they went well over 300hp on the RS. I'm guessing 350hp.

Chevy will get the Camaro. Buick remains to be seen...

1. They didn't wake up one day and decide that. It had been the strategy since the original CTS to challenge BMW on performance and not make any excuses because it is a "Cadillac". 2. I already explained this... MSRP is kind of irrelevant. Monthly lease payment is the issue. And the sales data seems to indicate CTS is selling just fine despite the increase in price, outselling most rivals. ATS is the problem and Cadillac already said they will address that by making the car bigger next time. 3. I don't think Cadillac view their previous buyers as low brow, but they are definitely old and they likely won't be buying more Cadillacs in the future. If the brand is going to survive, they need to conquest buyers from other brands and that means going after Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Lexus.

Ok yes, I agree... the cost of making an unique version of LS V8 for CTS that can hit the power/fuel efficiency benchmark to be competitive with Audi S6, Mercedes E550 or BMW 550i is definitely cost prohibitive for such a small volume.

EB had the ZF 4 speed auto right? My dad had an EA and the 3 speed auto was... craptastic.

Look, EcoSport was developed for emerging market tastes so it is not all that surprising that it is not doing well in Europe. EcoSport replaced Fusion (the one based on Fiesta, not the midsize car) in Europe and Fusion was more closely aligned to what that market demands. It is one of the pitfall of "One Ford". Ford thought that B-Max would appeal to buyers seeking the tall roof profile and those that want high ride height would not mind the butch 3rd world looks of EcoSport. But they kind of read the market wrong... the B CUV segment is trending more car like appearance and less miniature 4WD.

I believe the first year Escape (2000?) still holds the record for most recalls in the first 12 months. Some of them were quite serious too. Still didn't stop me from buying one... although I waited until 2001 model year.

The video pretty much seals the deal for AWD... can't drift FWD like that

Chi is just the SUV version of Epsilon III

I think CAFE plays only a minor role. The likely culprit is the market itself... The midsize luxury car segment is totally moving towards smaller engines (at a very rapid pace I may add) and Cadillac is right to not expand significant sums to certify such a powertrain option that may account for 3 or 4% of additional sales. GM doesn't need to lose money on 2,000 or so CTS V8 it may sell a year to help offset the development cost of the LS V8 program... they have plenty of volume already from pickup trucks to Corvette etc to carry the load. BMW and Mercedes have a completely different calculations... they know going in that they are not going to meet CAFE so the fines are baked into their business model. And once they determined that they are doing a V8 due to needs from high performance models, SUVs and fullsize sedan etc. additional volume at midsize sedan can and do help offset the cost of powertrain development. The business case for CTS V8 might have been different had the CT6 large sedan been approved earlier but that was during the bankruptcy days and we know what happened so no need to re-litigate it. Safe to say that CTS V8 was probably evaluated and logically rejected on those basis.

I don't mean this as a put down but you are in Australia... I don't think you are very in touch with the luxury car market in the US. V8 is not really a thing... sure, Mercedes and BMW still offer V8 in their midsize car but they account for such a tiny % of sales. The vast majority of the market is 4 and 6 cylinders and Cadillac has not one but two competitive products in this segment. Cadillac sales are hitting a wall because it cannot bring down the monthly lease payments due to lack of captive bank to subsidize the residuals. I don't think the lack of V8 has anything to do with the state of Cadillac sales. Also, to put it in context, CTS outsold Audi A6 in 2014. CTS + XTS would put Cadillac right in #2 spot in midsize luxury sedan sales in the US market, ahead of BMW and just behind Mercedes. Midsize Luxury Car Sales 2014 Mercedes E-Class 66,400 BMW 5-Series 52,704 Cadillac CTS 31,115 Cadillac XTS 24,335 Audi A6 23,941 Lexus GS 22,198 Lincoln MKS 8,160 Infiniti Q70 5,034 Acura RL/RLX 3,413 Volvo S80 1,753 Cadillac has a real issue with ATS/compact size luxury car. It doesn't really have a problem with selling mid size luxury cars, V8 engine or not. XTS sales are falling as you'd expect for a 4 year old car while CTS is only down slightly. Would Cadillac like to increase sales? Sure... but it is fighting an uphill battle with stated (not actual) residual value on lease contracts. Compact Luxury Car Sales 2014 BMW 3/4 Series 142,232 +19.0% Mercedes C-Class 75,065 -14.9% - some of the decrease probably went to CLA but also there was a model change which limited availability (e.g. still no C300, only C300 4Matic etc) Lexus ES 72,508 -0.1% Audi A4/A5/Allroad 55,299 -9.0% (33,993+16,620+4,686) Lexus IS/RC 53,320 +52.3% (51,358+1,922) Infiniti Q50/Q60 44,639 (36,899+7,740) +61.6% - note the increases is offset by -48.5% decline in Q40 due to model name change Lincoln MKZ 34,009 +5.1% Cadillac ATS 29,890 -22.0% Acura TL/TLX 29,743 +22.3% (10,616+19,127) - increase is offset by decline in TSX Volvo S60/V60 25,447 +9.6% (20,457+4,990) - all the increases are driven by addition of V60 as the S60 sales fell by 12% Infiniti Q40/G37 15,590 -48.5% Acura TSX 6,287 -64.0% I added the % change to illustrate the problem. The "big picture" here is BMW and Lexus continue to dominate. MKZ outsold ATS... by a significant margin. ATS has the biggest % decline that was not model name change related. Subcompact Luxury Car Sales 2014 Mercedes CLA-Class 27,365 +93.9% Audi A3 22,250 +2,496.3% - the % increase is not a typo :punched: Acura ILX 17,854 -12.6% Lexus CT 17,673 +17.3% BMW 1/2 Series 7,220 +1.7% This is the segment that de Nysschen wants to enter with a RWD product based on the next generation Alpha platform. I think even BMW would say "good luck with that". Mark my words... the subcompact Cadillac will be FWD.

SUVs sales are growing worldwide but especially so in China so yes... Cadillac needs to grow the SUV portfolio aggressively. The plan is to align with GM's global platforms on SUVs. Subcompact XT1 or XT2 - Based on Gamma II platform (related to Buick Encore/Opel Mokka) Compact XT3 - Based on Delta III platform (related to Buick Envision/Opel Antara) Midsize XT5 5 seats - replace SRX, based on the Epsilon III platform Midsize XT5 7 seats - longer with 7 seats Fullsize - Escalade ATS and CTS pricing - I don't really see a big problem with MSRP in the US per se. The big problem is that GM does not have a captive bank to write subsidized leases so no amount of tinkering with MSRP is going to change the fact that BMW and Mercedes can always undercut Cadillac with a better deal, since they each own BMWFS and MBFS. Ditto Lexus with Toyota FS and Audi with VWFS. The end game here is to improve the products, and forget about MSRP. With that being the goal, I believe CTS (CT5) is fine as is. Say what you want about Cadillac's sales strategy, marketing, or pricing, the car itself is not the problem. ATS needs to be bigger for sure. Cadillac benchmarked the B7 A4, E90 3-series, and the W204 C-Class during development of ATS and as a result, it is now one size smaller than the B8 A4, F30 3-seres, and W205 C-Class; Audi, BMW, and Mercedes have filled the size void with A3 sedan, upcoming FWD 1-series sedan, and the CLA-Class. So what needs to be done here is pretty obvious... make the next ATS (CT3) size competitive. Regarding the subcompact sedan challenger... I think it's probably a little premature. I wouldn't bet on de Nysschen's idea of RWD subcompact car coming to fruition. GM's board is not going to like the idea... think about the logic: 1. Alpha platform is expensive, but de Nysschen wants to charge 10% less than the current ATS... so squeezing the margin even further. 2. Customers in this size class do not care which wheel is being driven as evident that most BMW 1-series owners in Europe (Europe!) think it is FWD. Audi and Mercedes have been selling FWD cars in this size class for nearly 15 years and has proved that RWD is irrelevant. 3. Given #1 and #2 above, the choices are charging 10% less for Alpha or charging 50% more for a Delta III sedan - I think it's easy to see how the chips will fall on this one, Cimarron comparison and all - FWD is going to win the business case.

I've been saying this car is not really ready for primetime in developed markets. It works very well in South America and Southeast Asia because the faux 4x4 styling is what the consumers in those markets like. For Europe and North America, Ford needs something more car-like in appearance, and less butch. More Mazda CX-3 or Buick Encore, and less miniature Bronco looks.

Autoblog botched the quote. Hinrichs said Ford won't do an "all-aluminum" car (e.g like Audi A8 or Jaguar XJ), but nothing about not making cars more aluminum intensive. Note the word "all". He basically said Ford will continue to use aluminum extensively in its car, as well as other light weight material. Autoblog either is ignorant of the fact that Ford is already the industry leader in aluminum content of cars, or is trying to bury the lead so to speak. Here is a more accurate account of what Hinrichs said: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/detroit-auto-show/2015/01/14/ford-exec-expect-aluminum-cars/21750973/ I added the emphasis... read his quote in context. He is only saying Ford won't do a 100% aluminum chassis/unibody. That's it. Everything else, including use of more aluminum and carbon fiber is on the table.

Sure, just like CD is a derivative of C2... doesn't mean it is the "same". I'm sure they will have separate engineering teams. Ford maybe doing one single flexible FWD architecture but ultimately, it will still have at least 3 different engineering efforts to focus on vehicles in each specific niche. You can't really have the same people working on B-segment city cars and midsize CUVs at the same time.

So how would #4 disappear if there is a new one?

Least we forget... the best selling Cadillac (SRX) is also a FWD based product. What constitute a luxury car depends on who you ask of course... But this much is clear - it has to be an authentic product. Authentic product doesn't mean RWD... it means the car is not a cynical marketing exercise. It has to have the right combination of luxury, design, engineering, performance, dealership experience, lifestyle. It's somewhat intangible quality that I once describe as the same way the US Supreme Court once defined pornography: you can't really say what it is but you know it when you see it... Mercedes kind of invented it. BMW took a while to learn this but has it down pat. Lexus has it figured out for the most part. Audi aced it during its renaissance in the early 2000s. Cadillac is where Audi was 15 years ago. Lincoln had it in the 1960s but lost it over the years but Ford is going to figure it out again now that it doesn't have any English patient to revive.

But we can extrapolate from previous data points with hybrid cars. Most EV buyers that took advantage of the current tax incentives will end up buying another EV without any tax incentive. I think that's a pretty fair assumption.

1. B platform (Ka/Ikon, Fiesta, B-Max, EcoSport, Transit Courier) 2. C platform (Escort, Focus, C-Max, Escape, MKC, Transit Connect) 3. CD platform (Fusion/Modeo, S-Max, Edge, MKX, Taurus, MKS... does Galaxy come back with S-Max?) 4. D platform (Explorer, MKT, Continental... does Flex come back?) 5. T platform (Ranger, Everest) 6. Mustang 7. Transit (Transit Custom, Transit) 8. F-series Looks like 8 platform count will not include specialty low volume cars like GT, which makes sense. Also, I think "platform" is probably not the best word... I think "8 chassis program" or "8 engineering development program" is better way to call the plan. It's obvious that Ford will not have only 8 platforms in production at any given time. There will always be different version/generation of the same cars in production at various parts of the globe, but the point is that they will be using the same engineering resources.

Nope, the fines stays. It was a compromise to get VW, Daimler and BMW to agree not to litigate the 2017 CAFE. Their business model in the US depends on paying fines to avoid compliance. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota also got a compromise on truck fleet MPG, which is converted to CAFE using the "footprint" formula. They got to keep the "footprint" conversion rule but the conversion rate got flattened in the 2017 CAFE. This was a major impetus for Ford to replace the E-150 because it would have seen a huge penalty, and why GM will stop selling the Chevy Express 1500 and GMC Savana 1500 soon. I believe Daimler is the perennial winner in the CAFE penalty game. BMW sells a lot more 3 series and MINI with good MPG so its CAFE is not that horrible. Gas guzzler tax is something different. It is applied on individual models, and not based on CAFE. Gas guzzler tax is triggered when the model MPG is certain % under the industry average for that class of vehicle. So it generally hit high performance sports cars because they are typically classified by EPA as "compact cars" according to interior volume... and compact cars generally have good MPG so these sports cars end up significant below the class MPG for compact cars.

GM is probably ok. They sell plenty of cars to offset pickup trucks for CAFE purpose. FCA is in more dicey situation because its heavy reliance on trucks and SUVs, hence why it is the only one out of the Big 3 trying to push diesel pickup trucks and SUVs. It is a quick fix to their problem. But one thing to remember... CAFE is not a hard cap. Car companies can go way under CAFE and they do it all the time... they just pay a fine. It's cost of doing business. For example, Daimler has no hope of meeting 2017 CAFE with all the gas guzzling luxury cars and SUVs they sell so they are not even going to try... they are just going to pay the fines.

I know enough people that has EV as their primary or only vehicle to know that this is not true. I know 2 Leaf owners that do not own another car, several Tesla owners that uses it as the primary car (although they have other cars), and my cousin is a Focus EV owner and it is his only car. If your daily commute less than 30 miles, EV works fine. According to the Census Bureau, 90% of American have daily commute that is 30 miles or less... To be clear, I agree with you that some people are driving EV because it is low costs after tax incentive but EV is also inherently cheaper to operate for most people if you ignore acquisition costs. So with steadily decreasing battery price, EV adoption rate will climb and at some point tax incentive will not be necessary to subsidize the cars. On the other hand, we will need to continue subsidize gasoline to keep it economically feasible for average people to operate.