Assimilator

It looks badass, but obviously there is very little to trust here from a vehicle prototype sharing none of the production vehicle's body panels. I'm glad Ford finally FINALLY showed something on the Bronco because the irritation level is increasing, ha. I do think some people are going to be surprised by how small the Bronco actually is, not realizing that it's nothing like the full-size Broncos people are use to. But the good thing about the reveal here is that it specifically outlines their messaging with this vehicle, more Raptor than Rock Crawler. They don't want people to think of it as a lumbering Jeep Wrangler than can scale mountains, it's meant for dessert running and some Moab fun. And yeah, the Bronco is getting a 2.7L EB, not sure if that's the engine they are using in this one but I assume so. I don't see any indication that it's getting the 3.0L in production.

It's also quite possible the Larger BEVs are also going to Mexico instead of FRAP, especially since they are based on the Mach E architecture. Not something they will disclose now obviously and they won't have to for awhile. Oakville is also possible. But I think the US has either lost these products to Canada or Mexico, or they are simply beyond the 4-Year contract which would mean the products are delayed (hopefully not). It's also possible the product plans have changed in relation to the Rivian investment, at least on Lincoln's side.

What is it called then? The 2023 Ranger is labeled "HEV" in their documents.

Not sure why Ford would move those BEVs from FlatRock to the Ohio truck plant, unless those BEVs don't fit in the 4-Year timeline of this contract. I also notice Ford doesn't mention HEVs for MAP, but does for all the other plants, which again confirms for me that the Bronco Hybrid has been shelved beyond the 4-Year scope of this contract. It also confirms that so much of Ford's next round of new products and nameplates are indeed coming out of those two Mexico plants. (Mach E, Bronco Scout, Transit Connect AV, Compact Pickup, Fusion Crossover).

The Corsair looks much bigger than it is, but it's a much smaller vehicle than the Nautilus (at least to me), although the Aviator feels like a living room compared to the Nautilus with I already find a little smaller than ideal for my tall self. I got to check out a Corsair and the design is nice, but I would still grade the interior quality higher on the Nautilus despite the older design language. The Corsair is a little busy with an abundance of glossy black surfaces and a prominent horizontal vent design which is something of a design pet-peeve I regret Lincoln is doing only on this car. The car does look much better at night with the lighting effects. But I feel much more relaxed in the Nautilus with the smoother surfacing. All the complains about the black plastic center console don't really mention how nice the surfaces feel and shape to the design. The switchgear in the Corsair however is indeed nicer, especially the transmission selector. The Aviator and Navigator do a much better job overall with that design language with the higher-grade materials. I will say I don't really like the Lincoln exclusive stalks, they look nicer perhaps, but the previous Ford design was more functional, especially with the rear-wiper switch. The new design has a sliding switch instead of a rocker which I find clumsy to operate without moving the stalk unintentionally. Weirdly they don't feel higher quality at all.

I think it's a safe bet the Bronco won't debut at an AutoShow, but I'm sure it will make an appearances at NAIAS. Bronco is 2021, Ranger is 2023. The Bronco is largely based on the upgraded North American Ranger frame, but HUGE suspension and top-hat differences.

I've never had a Lincoln that didn't have obvious panel alignment issues inside and out (basically anything that comes from Oakville). I like Ford and Lincoln, but for me it's impossible to ignore that Ford is uniquely troubled with larger panel gaps with more obvious misalignment issues than others. The cars that come out of Oakville are great, but I think they need to be doing better inspecting and assembling.

I think the new Escape deserves some praise for it's Hybrid system and excellent drivetrains, not to mention that outstanding interior packaging. The Escape's 2.0T is uncommonly powerful for this appliance segment and the chassis is tuned toward sport instead of mush. The exterior design is a little generic and featureless, I agree it's edging too closely to car language for an SUV. I think they did a great job with the exterior proportions, especially compared to the previous car or something like the Equinox. I think my only disappointment with the Escape is the interior, especially the door trim and door pulls, all of these looks and feels very inexpensively utilitarian. They spruce things up with some optional amenities (HUD, full LCD instrument panel), but those door panels are baffling to me, I was surprised when I saw them. What I do like about the interior is that it looks simpler, the fit and finish should be better than the dozens of panels of the old car and hopefully it reduces some of the creaks and rattles I associate with the old interior. The Bronco Scout brings back some of that old Escape SUV charm, but with far more personality.

Sync 4 is debuting with the premium 15" Screens, Mach-E and 2021 F-150 are the first. I assume Sync 4 rolls out to more screens eventually. Mach E gets a vertical orientation, F-150 is landscape.

Ford is very diversified in-terms of electrification, far more than any other company. I also think they may have a genius move with the Mach E by tieing it to the Mustang. Originally the Mach-E was developed under Fields with VERY modest aspirations, it was basically just another slightly better compliance car...they even called it the C-EV because C-Max. It was blandly styled but competent enough, absolutely generic. Hacket and Jim Farley drove them back to the drawing board and Farley initiated the Mustang transformation and turned it into a performance focused vehicle. It should stand out better than most non-Tesla BEVs with clearer messaging and bolder styling. And Ford's electrification scale spans every model and genre, it's pretty comprehensive. I have a hard time believing Ford doesn't have a winning solution in that mix. The problem with Hackett for Wall Street is they didn't cut jobs which would have had an immediate impact, instead they've restructured development which takes a much longer time to realize. Instant results are painful, people should be thankful Hackett isn't Wall Street.

They may also be anticipating depressed volume for Edge and Nautilus with Explorer/Aviator and Escape/Corsair, not to mention the rise of competition in this segment and the plateaued market. When the 2015 Edge debuted, Ford spokespeople said they expected sales had plateaued for the Edge and they didn't expect to grow sales. Edge is also aging fairly quickly next to their competitors, I'm not sure how they are going to keep sales stable.

The Mach E was being previewed to the press today, obviously under embargo. I've heard from some of them who are Tesla owners and they are thoroughly impressed and excited. One of them said the Dual Motor GT version gets 700HP. I was under the impression that it was under 600HP with dual 200KW motors, but maybe I'm missing something. They've been aiming for mid 3s for 0-60 performance. Again there are several versions of the Mach E, single motor, dual motor, different battery sizes (3 for Europe, 2 for the US). And once again, over 300 miles of range (330 is what I've heard). I don't know what the GT will do interms of Range, which model gets the best range, etc. And yeah, synthetic engine noises inside and out.

CD6 was original envisioned as a platform for Continental, Mustang, and Explorer/Aviator, but the Continental and Mustang applications were killed relatively early in development (that's what lead to the cancellation rumors for Continental within a year after it launched). So the platform really has no development work to scale, that's one way they were able to trim some costs and speed up development. You definitely won't see this platform used again, especially with cars gone and electrification taking over the premium and performance segments. The architecture (the parts list) will almost certainly be the basis for the updated Mustangs however.

The Flex was a more premium vehicle when it debuted, but by the time the 2011 Explorer came along, it was the same...and by the time the 2016 Explorer update came along, it was cheaper. It's easy to forget now, but Ford really struggled with the 3-Row Crossover early on, they had a hard time reconciling the BOF Explorer SUV and the early 3-Row Crossover. Ford failed to anticipate the collapse of the old school Explorer SUV and didn't quite commit to the Crossover transition like GM, so the Freestyle was their weird and ungainly wagon tweener. It underperformed while GM produced the Lambda products which ended up being the archetype for the segment. This is where it doesn't always pay to be early to market, Ford didn't make the right bet. Eventually we got the 2011 Explorer which they rushed to market on a very short time table, it was basically a reaction to Ford dragging their heels on Explorer while the Freestyle/Taurus X and Flex kept under achieving. Despite the extreme age of the platform and the rushed development, Explorer was a huge success. Sometimes you just need the right people kicking some butts. Personally I was always perplexed by Ford's priorities on the 3-Row Utility and resented the Flex for being the niche product while Ford was desperately lacking a volume seller. I have to say the 2020 Explorer does remind me a bit of the Mark Fields leadership that brought us the off-the-wall Flex, but this time not even the critics are that enamored despite how uniquely ambitious it is. I have my doubts the Explorer was developed with that typical Ford customer focus, I have a hard time believing they got through the development process without putting armrests or USB ports in the 3rd row without running this by their customer studies. It's hard to ignore that lack of thoughtfulness of the Explorer in the tangibles, especially for something way more expensive than the competition. I really doubt this will be the phenomenon of the 2011-2019 Explorer, despite the ambition. It's not that attractive, the money isn't visible, and the competition is really good.

I think the cut is probably to bring production in-line with demand for Edge and Nautilus, not just the elimination of Flex which has largely been a rounding error for the most part.

I've never driven a Tesla, but I've been convinced by enough people that everybody who drives one, absolute loves them. It's just the nature of GOOD electric drivetrains, they make a huge difference. ICE vehicles are inherently plagued with mechanical lag, we take it for granted now but once you drive the two you understand immediately.

This was a Mark Fields pet project (well before he was CEO), it was a concept that didn't go through the typical development cycle and review clinics. Ford almost never does this now because it seldom works. The Flex is a good example of a product that was largely developed in a corporate vacuum isolated from the marketplace. They created something they were proud of (and legitimately so), but it was very poorly received by the public who took very little interest and weren't as enamored by the design as Ford (or the critics) were. Ford just couldn't sell something like this. I really like the Flex, but it's also one of those products that was doomed from its inception. It failed to became the phenomenon it needed to be.

Somebody who works at the plant mentioned that production ends December 1st. We've known there were layoffs happening at the plant, but they confirmed it was tied to Flex going away. MKT production ended a couple weeks ago, but Aviator is effectively the successor. Flex has no successor.

This guy is like a troll with a YouTube channel, EVERYTHING he say is hyperbole and spoken with the considered restraint of a 16 year old who speaks with their feelings and not their head. He makes ZERO effort to consider the audience or the segment or compare it to the competition. He shows no professionalism to speak with any such authority. I don't know how anybody can take anything he has to say seriously. His Edge ST review was just as bad. Most auto reviewers are terrible, but there are far better ones on YouTube that deserve far more attention for their effort and expertise. This guy is just making lazy emotional diatribes with his 'feel facts' like every other bias troll.

I feel bad because I have NEVER touched the paddles in any of my cars, including my Nautilus. I use Sport mode rarely, but it never requires you to use the paddles, but they activate as soon as you start operating them. Sport mode in the Nautilus dramatically changes the vehicle. Steering, Suspension, transmission, everything really wakes up. I didn't mind Sport mode in the MKX, but in the Nautilus the 8-Speed transmission is not as smooth around 2nd and 3rd so the car just feels like it's constantly bumping through those gears and it's extremely obnoxious in Sport. It's less pronounced in Comfort mode, but it's still there to some extent. And the firmer Sport suspension also makes the car feel like an Edge, it has that same jittery ride that Fords tend to have, smooth over the big things, but everything else comes through and the car feels unsettled. ANYBODY who says the drive modes don't make a difference are reflecting their own attitudes, not reality.

There is no way to overstate how inept Mark Fields was, he is the real villain in this story. He completely abandoned Ford globally and failed to prep Ford in anyway for the future. His interests were all CEO pet projects, Performance Cars and Lincoln. He is the worst form of CEO, visionless and inbred. Thanks for Lincoln, but the task Hacket has infront of him is just enormous and it's not something that can be done overnight. It should be obvious now how much is finally being realized, but we are still a good year away from the fruits of their post Fields work.

There is a switch on the stalk that turns it on and off, are you certain it was turned on? It's also not something to depend on, she was drifting off to the side for awhile before reacting which tells me she may not have had her hands on the wheel which can turn it off.

This must be an old render, many of the details are wrong, especially the headlights and door handles (there are none). But that's roughly it anyway. It definitely looks better than this. The taillights are also better looking than these, but very similar with the horizontal element and c-shape segments. There are amber indicators in the rear lights btw.

Something the Mach-E has particular fun with is the proportions afforded by the long wheelbase with that lengthened hood. They were able to get those RWD proportions instead of that typical EV wedge shape.

Lane Departure also works full-time (on Lincolns anyway), but it only reacts when it sees that your'e crossing the line, often way too late. Lane Centering is more imperceptible and is always running and steering ever so subtly. Ford's Lane Departure system is one of the worst I've experienced however, but Lane Centering is a big improvement. It's definitely far from Tesla, but it also works full-time while Tesla only works when you're in Auto-Pilot. The Lane Centering camera is pretty interesting, it's a substantial piece of hardware with its own heating element on the windshield.