T-dubz
-
Posts
1,970 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by T-dubz
-
-
On 11/11/2023 at 7:53 PM, jpd80 said:
There’s no time for anymore changes, I hope another group of buyers falls in love with it.
And can I add that for the sake of Oakville workers, I hope and pray that I’m dead wrong about this….
It’s probably better that no one likes it and it’s a huge failure. Sometimes you have to learn the hard way.
Wonder why they didn’t try to do a concept of this new design to gauge public reaction?
-
I’ve never liked using another models name on a vehicle. If you are making a good quality product that people want, the name doesn’t matter. Look at teslas or bmws, their names are just letters and numbers. When you use another models name, that tells me that you don’t believe your product will sell on its own and it needs help. If you don’t believe in your own product, why should I believe in it as a customer?
-
If it were just the blue nostrils and badging, I think it would be ok, especially with black wheels. But the strips and the blue wheels really make this look tacky. Also, did ford buy bulk navy leather at a discount or something? They are throwing that color on everything these days even if it doesn’t match. I remember when ford used to color coordinate their interiors.
-
1
-
-
Imo it doesn’t look much like the explorer ev at all. They tried to go for a cuv coupe look, but the back slant is way too much. Its getting close to being a lifted sedan here. I don’t have high hopes for this one. Maybe the camo is doing a great job, but this thing is terrible.
-
1
-
-
Always liked the prelude. This looks good, but I wish it had some more design cues from the previous generations.
-
This looks pretty good. Could we see some interior changes too? I’m guessing 360 camera could also lead to a larger touch screen? Hopefully ford prices it right, but if I had to guess, I’d say msrp of $49,999.
-
3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
It also launched during COVID like the Bronco, so I think refreshes might have slipped to the right due to the shitshow that entailed after that.
Plus it seems like EVs (due to Tesla) aren't as updated as much as ICE products are currently-I see that changing though.
I think the next gen Mach E will launch in 24 months or so, but due to everything else, who knows. We where supposed to have the EV Explorer/Lincoln already too.
Good point, it’s probably cost prohibitive to make updates regularly on a low volume product too. I think in the case of Tesla, they didn’t have to refresh because there wasn’t much competition. But going forward I would expect that to change, especially with skateboard platforms. It seems like it would be easier than ever to make updates to the tophat.
-
Just saw that the 2024 mach e will be dropping the California route 1 trim. I wonder if the reason was low sales, or maybe they didn’t have enough of the extended range batteries?
This is its fourth model year now, and no mid cycle refresh yet. Don’t they usually happen around the 3 year mark? Is ford planning on having a second gen mach e or is it getting axed in favor of the other second gen evs? If the latter, it would make sense ford isn’t spending more money on it. -
47 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:
Many EVs don't look good because they have funky areo designs. But EVs with more conventional designs have worse areo, meaning they need larger, more expensive batteries to put up respectable range numbers. Those EVs cost more to cover the cost of the larger, more expensive battery. Those more expensive vehicles struggle to sell, so the brand's try to cut costs, which leads to use smaller designs, which need those areo focused designs to do well.
I've said it before, but it seems like Ford should try this funky styling EV trend on a more affordable model. People would be more forgiving of the styling, and something futuristic looking could actually appeal to people looking at more affordable cars, considering most affordable cars tend to look very generic and bland.
I think that’s true in some cases, but then you have cars like the model 3 which has a more traditional silhouette, looks decent (subjective), is affordable, and maintains a high level of aero. I think that’s part of the reason why it’s a best seller.
It’s like the automakers think they either have to go full aero or full brick (in the case of trucks or SUVs), and there’s no in between. It’s that in between area they need to explore more. -
If they think demand is going down now, just wait until that $7500 from the government disappears.
Someone mentioned smaller, more affordable evs not selling well too. I think a big part of that is the design. Some of the early entries just weren’t very good looking, like the leaf and bolt. If they had actually tried to make these vehicles look good instead of focusing on aero, they probably would have sold a bit better. I think ford is going to repeat this mistake again with their 3 row wedge shaped EV.
-
2
-
-
Has it been mentioned what will happen to ford’s future battery plants? Did they give in like GM?
-
Ford did this to themselves. They took a good plan and executed it terribly. Escape design missed the mark. It looks like it’s from the same era as my old 2013 fusion. Bronco sport has the right exterior design, but didn’t get all the tech goodies it should have. Just because someone wants to have some off-road ability doesn’t mean they want a bare bones vehicle. Both have subpar interiors and high prices. Limiting the top engine to only one trim on a sporty off-road vehicle also made zero sense.
The bronco sport needs the 12” screen from the ranger and the 12” IP from the escape. Big screens go a long way in making a cheap interior seem more luxurious. Power liftgate was also a feature that was omitted for some reason.
Also, get rid of the light colored headliners that don’t match anything in the rest of the interior. I get it, it’s supposed to make the cabin feel larger. The bronco sport has almost unlimited headroom, it doesn’t need to feel larger. Just give me an interior that looks good.
-
36 minutes ago, rperez817 said:
I agree Rick73. Interestingly, Toyota Motor Sales USA released a teaser photo today of what's probably a Crown SUV.
When TNGA platform Crown was initially announced, Toyota planned 4 different models. Today's teaser should be #4.
- Crossover sedan (brown color)
- Compact crossover SUV (red color)
- Sedan (gray color)
- Midsize crossover SUV (bronze color)
That red one looks like it could be a winner here.
-
I’ve always liked the lifted sedan concept ever since Lincoln came out with the navicross concept. If Volvo made the S60 cross country still, I’d definitely consider buying one.
-
18 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:
I've seen people on this Ford obsessed site say they won't buy it because it's made in China. If Ford fans are turned off by that, it stands to reason mainstream consumers will be as well if they learn that.
I kinda think it’s the opposite. Car fans in general are probably the only ones who even pay attention to where a car is built. Your average car buyer has no idea. If it weren’t for this site, I’d have no idea where the explorer, or bronco or ranger were built. Think of other brands too. I couldn’t tell you where the Silverado, tacoma, crv, Santa Fe, Prius, etc are built.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, akirby said:
And you never saw that with Fusion or any other midsized sedan or any sedan for that matter.If there weren’t any supply issues, I don’t think you’d be seeing ADMs on mavericks or used mavericks selling for more than new ones either. With that said, I don’t think the fusion would demand ADMs even if it had supply issues.
1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said:Most of us pushing for the existing fusion and zephyr to be brought here are pushing to have them built in a N. American plant. It seems like importing them from China would just be a political mine field, and would kill profits due to high costs of importing goods. Then again, the UAW is making it hard for Ford to justify producing more cars here.
Nautilus is coming from China and I don’t think anyone cares.
-
45 minutes ago, akirby said:
Whether they like it or not Sandy is right - you have to allow your employer to be cost competitive and you’ll not only thrive but probably grow. Or you try to suck them dry and you’ll end up without a job. You can only force higher labor costs if you own all of the suppliers which was the case in the 60s, 70s and 80s with the big three. Not true today or ever again with all the transplants and imports and American startups.
Exactly. Think of how much money would be available to give the good workers raises if ford wasn’t forced to continually give more money to the bad workers. Top performers would be making a ton by now but that’s not possible when everyone gets a piece of the pie.
In a non-union job, the bad workers don’t get raises. They would need to either work harder, move on to a different job, or accept their lower wage and be fine with it. All of these are better for both sides than having the union involved. If they work harder, they will see a raise and ford will see increased output. If they quit, ford has got rid of a bad employee, and that employee can find a job that better suits their work ethic. If the worker accepts their low wage, ford gets a role player at a lower cost and the employee gets to work at the level they want to.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, rmc523 said:
Kind of crazy that they pushed the refresh to '25 - 5 years from the new model - and Ford wonders why people lose interest in its products...
I know what you mean. It seems like every day I see a new facelift for a Hyundai. The Santa Fe has probably gone through three iterations during the same timeframe.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
I think gone are the days where if you get fired for attendance policy violations you wait a set period and get your job back with back pay and retaining your seniority.
This sounds ridiculous. First, why would you hire someone back that you fired, and second, why would you pay them back pay if you did hire them back? The more I hear about the UAW and the manufacturers, the more I feel like I’m in La La Land.
-
13 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:
Like I said I hope that they can sell. Ford has to be competitive in the styling department too. Farley projecting 200,000 sales of this and the Lincoln crossover??? God I hope he’s right. When we had our online zoom ratification meeting they mentioned a possible third product down the line at OAC. I can’t see that being anything else other than another version of what’s already there. I suppose maybe we will see what these things look like sometime in 2024 one would think.
There’s no way 200k happens, especially if one of those models is a Lincoln. Lincoln doesn’t even sell 100k as a company, so that would mean the ford version would probably need sales around 160-180k to meet the 200k goal. With the controversial styling, that doesn’t seem likely. Besides f150, the explorer is the only vehicle ford sells that pulls those numbers.
Also consider that the more budget friendly escape and bronco sport only sell slightly more than 200k a year combined. -
I’d like to know more about these vehicles too. It’s been a few months now since that photo came out. I’m surprised we haven’t seen more spy shots yet.
Boxy off road designs are the “in” thing right now. I’m a big fan of the new Lexus GX. I wish ford would come out with something similar.
-
1 hour ago, HotRunrGuy said:
Right now in my driveway I have a made in Canada Edge, and a made in Mexico Maverick. As much as I wanted to order a made in USA '24 Ranger, and waited years for the latest update, the cost was too much to accept. I can't imagine that USA-made products won't see an additional MSRP increase as a result of whatever the new contract costs.
HRG
As prices go up, “Buy American” goes out the window, and the younger generations probably don’t care about buying American anyways. I myself have no problem buying an imported vehicle if the quality is there and the price is right.
-
Let’s not forget the cost saving measures are pretty easy to spot on the maverick too. Black plastic body panels, exposed metal behind the seats, not getting the “real” version of sync, just to name a few. It’s easier to get away with this on a truck.
-
1
-
-
Sounds like the GM gave in on the battery plants. I’m not sure how that is even allowed to be part of the negotiating process. It doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for a strike since it’s not related to unfair labor practices or economics.
Ford CEO: Vertical Integration Will Increase with Move to EVs
in E.V. Central
Posted
If it’s as bad as we all think, it would be better for everyone long term. Yeah, it’s gonna suck short term for OAC, but would you rather get a good selling product in there sooner, or stick with this low volume ev for several years?