up to 40,000 S-Max to come to US for '09?

[jlsaylor]

That just doesn't happen, and that's not what Ford needs.

 

What Ford needs is sustainable volume for its factories accomplished two ways:

 

1) a larger number of smaller volume products on shared platforms: Ideally you will see EUCD2 underpinning the Fusion, Edge, Milan, MKZ, MKX, Five Hundred, Freestyle, 'Fairlane', Montego, MKS, and unnamed Lincoln crossover--all these vehicles being assembled at three plants, where fifteen years before you had the Sable, Taurus, Windstar, and Continental on related platforms and assembled in four different plants.

 

The frustrating part, of course, is that it took 15 years to get there.

 

2) More shared architectures. Ford cannot make small volume plays work unless they share architectures.

 

Ford is working both of these problems out now, and it will take time to get things fully sorted.

 

Lest we forget Ford had 'project Ballpark' underway during the early part of Bill Ford Jr's tenure. It was the first attempt at global platform sharing and it stalled out when FOE went EUCD instead of CD3 and D3.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say that it doesn't happen anymore, and not because it is implausible. The Taurus was a runaway, out of the gates success because it defied the mainstream, and ultimately altered it. The plan you outline might save the company, but it wont return it to the status it once commanded. Ford can't afford to fail, but they can't afford to be that conservative either, not if they want to do more than simply survive.

[RichardJensen]

I think it would be more accurate to say that it doesn't happen anymore, and not because it is implausible. The Taurus was a runaway, out of the gates success because it defied the mainstream, and ultimately altered it. The plan you outline might save the company, but it wont return it to the status it once commanded. Ford can't afford to fail, but they can't afford to be that conservative either, not if they want to do more than simply survive.

You yourself, earlier, outlined why a vehicle like the Taurus is no longer possible.

 

The market is too closely studied, customers are listened to, products are tailored to their tastes and expectations.

 

The Taurus was the first car to really do that, and it 'changed the game'. It did not defy the mainstream, so much as it expressed the mainstream customer's preferences, in direct opposition to what the mainstream manufacturers were building. If the Taurus were not so appealing to customers, it would not have succeeded as it did.

 

And as you've said, the heirs to the Taurus throne (the Camry and Accord) are supplying products far better than what GM and Chrysler were supplying back in 1986, when the domestics had something like 75-80% of the U.S. market, and when no Japanese car was larger than the Tempo (with the possible exception of the Cressida).

 

Ford displaced the incumbents because they weren't that well suited to the marketplace.

 

It was not chance circumstance and brilliant guess-work that made the Taurus a success. The Taurus was a success because Ford listened to its customers.

 

-----

 

Eighty years ago, Ford lost the #1 spot to GM. It could be argued that Ford has never, since, had the status it had when it built the Model T. However, there are more important things than 'status' (as measured by whom, and with whom?) In the end, the Ford 'comeback' story will be worth something, and within the industry, Ford will be recognized as the first U.S. car company to repudiate the 'bad old' Detroit ways.

Edited January 29, 2007 by RichardJensen

[jlsaylor]

You yourself, earlier, outlined why a vehicle like the Taurus is no longer possible.

 

The market is too closely studied, customers are listened to, products are tailored to their tastes and expectations.

 

The Taurus was the first car to really do that, and it 'changed the game'. It did not defy the mainstream, so much as it expressed the mainstream customer's preferences, in direct opposition to what the mainstream manufacturers were building. If the Taurus were not so appealing to customers, it would not have succeeded as it did.

 

And as you've said, the heirs to the Taurus throne (the Camry and Accord) are supplying products far better than what GM and Chrysler were supplying back in 1986, when the domestics had something like 75-80% of the U.S. market, and when no Japanese car was larger than the Tempo (with the possible exception of the Cressida).

 

Ford displaced the incumbents because they weren't that well suited to the marketplace.

 

It was not chance circumstance and brilliant guess-work that made the Taurus a success. The Taurus was a success because Ford listened to its customers.

 

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. But IMO we are missing an important component here. Companies like Toyota and Honda indeed do a good job of listening to the consumer, but they primarily listen to the consumers that they already have (which is obviously wise for them) while companies like Ford simply chase those brands in an effort to win over their customers (which arguably is not wise for them). In fact, where Ford has deviated from the original Taurus concept is in a return to the belief that consumers want, essentially, what is already being offered to them. How do we know that? They have few viable alternatives to indicate that this is the case and even when they do, the results are pigeon-holed into a certain segment or ingored outright.

 

For example, I would say that the Chrysler 300 proves that, at least in terms of a stylish, rwd revival, there may be a great untapped customer base which everyone is ignoring. That car recieved criticism for it's move to rwd long before it debuted, with many armchair CEO's predicting the failure of the same. Ironically, a good many of these are the same people who rant and rave about how Chrysler was ahead of the game with the 300 now, but I digress. The sheer volume of 300's sold by Chrysler, a branding which hardly helped the 300's cause in this repesct, should have been a clue that rwd is not the sales anchor some seem to think. Without question GM or Ford, given the same car, would have met with half again as much success, at least, as did Chrysler. If the 300 alone isn't enough to sway you then take into account the recent popularity of rwd based suv's, or the current popluarity of rwd full-size pickups, or the success of the exclusively rwd Mustang. If you likwise take into consideration the popularity of awd as an option on the above mentioned suv's, what we have is a scenario where the practicality and popularity of rwd cars in most every sgement is worth looking into at the very least.

 

Did anybody listen? Did they even blink? Only in as much as this relates to large cars, which IMO proves that the original Taurus was more a fluke than an indication of things to come. We do here at BON what the car companies still do for the most part. We run around telling everybody what we know consumers don't want based on outdated ideas and notions ignoring that which is right in front of our faces everyday. You said it yourself in an earlier post, the auto makers don't ask people what they really want, they take a car which is largely finished and ask the consumers what they think about it; largely limiting consumer input to items like HVAC controls and seat height instead of exploring the possibility of taking a truly different path.

 

Edited for grammer.

Edited January 29, 2007 by jlsaylor

[RichardJensen]

"they primarily listen to the consumers that they already have"

 

Not necessarily true. Toyota's established car lines have seen flat to declining growth over the past few years. Where they've built momentum is by drawing in new customers with the Scions, Yaris, FJ Cruiser and Prius.

 

Further, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Ford assumes car buyers want what they're getting. Rather, they've identified with the Fusion (among other products) areas where they can draw Camry and Accord buyers not satisfied with the Camry/Accord experience (style, handling).

 

"The sheer volume of 300's sold by Chrysler, a branding which hardly helped the 300's cause in this repesct, should have been a clue to some that rwd is not the sales anchor some seem to think."

 

Let's break down that volume.

 

According to Chrysler, for the first year of production, 40% of all 300s sold were 300Cs, also about 1/4 of all 300s sold were fleet sales. That gives a total of 35% of all production (ignoring the negligible number of 3000C fleet sales) going to retail "family car" customers: That is to say, V6 sedans sold for less than $30k.

 

The total number of 300s sold to 'family car' buyers the first year is probably in the 50k range. That is hardly indication of overwhelming demand in the 'meat' of the sedan market--a segment ($20-30k) which is about 2.5 million units in size.

 

Now I won't dispute the demand for a premium priced entry-level branded RWD sedan. In the past I've been loath to acknowledge this demand, however it's worth rethinking.

 

That said, it is not wise to assume that in the $30k-40k range, a product can be launched that will sell in 'Camcord' volumes.

 

Below the $30k price point, evidence available does not suggest wide adoption of RWD. Now with the Charger we may have a different picture, but with the absolute shambles that Chrysler's production was in 2006, I don't think that any numbers from Chrysler for last year are worth studying. Either as to fleet percentage, or average transaction price.

 

"they take car which is largely finished and ask the consumers what they think about it"

 

No car company worth its salt does this. A customer focused (or market driven) car company would pitch concepts, ideas, and sketches to customers, not just nearly finished designs.

[@_@]

One thing I always don't understand is:

 

If Honda and Toyota can sell the same Corolla, Civic, Accord, & Camry all over the world and make money... (Of course, they do some change of the outlook to fit the market) but Why can't ford? Why NA Ford need to spend so much money to R&D a failure product just for the NA market, instead of use the money to R&D a very good global product?

Edited January 30, 2007 by @_@

[RichardJensen]

For the nth time, Honda doesn't sell the same Accord all over the world, and Toyota sells a car under the Camry's size in Europe, confusingly labeled the Camry.

 

OTOH, they do sell pretty much the same Civic and Corolla everywhere.

[@_@]

For the nth time, Honda doesn't sell the same Accord all over the world...

 

 

For the Nth times, Honda does sell the same Accord all over the world in many counties. In Japen, they called it Honda Inspire, but still the same car.

 

Argentina:

http://www.accord06.honda.net.ar/multimedi...genexterior.asp

 

Brazil:

http://www.honda.com.br/web/index.asp?pp=c...aleria&id=4

 

China:

http://www.guangzhouhonda.com.cn/accord07/

 

Japan:

http://www.honda.co.jp/INSPIRE/

 

Jamaica:

http://www.atlmotors.com.jm/accord_gallery.shtml

 

Pakistan:

http://www.honda.com.pk/Accord.htm

 

Thailand:

http://www.honda.co.th/accord/

 

In most Europe and some mid-easten counties, Honda sell the Acura TSX with Honda Accord name plate on it.

 

If it work for Honda, why it doesn't work for Ford? Why Ford need to develop a whole new different product for the N.A. market?

 

Why Ford spend so much money to R & D the Fusion and Edge for N.A. market only, when they can just use part of that money to make the Mondeo, S-Max more "Global", "Fit for N.A. market too"?

 

Who cause all this waste of money? Is it the product, Management, UAW, or N.A. Consumer?

Edited January 30, 2007 by @_@

[NickF1011]

For the Nth times, Honda does sell the same Accord all over the world in many counties. In Japen, they called it Honda Inspire, but still the same car.

 

Well, Ford sells the Fusion in Europe too. It just happens to be a small CUV.

 

Different focuses for different markets. Just the way it is. Ford does sell several of its vehicles all over the world: Focus, Explorer, Escape/Maverick to name a few.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

That, and many of the domestic cars just don't appeal all over the world, but still do well here.

 

the mustang sells in huge quantities here, but, when tried in japan, didn't do so well. In europe, its a boutique collector's item.

The Panthers are all way too large for most european to even consider them, yet still make decent volumes here in the states.

Large SUVs appeal almost exclusively to the US crowd.

Full Sized pickups are similar in appeal to the Large SUVs.

 

those vehicles right there cover a huge portion of the vehicles that Ford sells in the US.

 

Are there chances to use overseas designs stateside? Of course, but they must be carefully thought out, appropriately contented (and quality built, ahem:focus) and have at least a chance of being competitive.

[jlsaylor]

"they primarily listen to the consumers that they already have"

 

Not necessarily true. Toyota's established .................. and ask the consumers what they think about it"

 

No car company worth its salt does this. A customer focused (or market driven) car company would pitch concepts, ideas, and sketches to customers, not just nearly finished designs.

 

A few comments. First, I disagree regarding Toyota. IMO they aren't changing thr status quo so much as they are expanding their own version of the same by expanding their existing philosophy and methods to new segments, or in a few cases segments which they haven't been in for some time.

 

Second, I don't think you can remove the 300C from the examination of that model and get an accurate picture. To do so assumes that no 'mainstream sedan' buyers would choose a V-8 given the choice, and I don't think we can really say that. That said, I am not simply using the 300 on its own merit to make my case, although that many retail sales for a car in this segment is huge by any standard. Rather large sales of rwd based suv's, full-size pickups, and even the Mustang simply cannot be ignored. Not so long ago, largely thanks to suv's, sales of rwd based vehicles surpassed the sales of fwd base models IIRC. Again, I don't see how we can ignore this. IMo the evidence suggests that Ford and others are ignoring a possibility which is right in front of their faces with no evidence to suggest a mid-size, or even a compact, rwd car would meet with anything but success. I wont get into this in any more depth here because I largely covered it within my rant about why Ford should consider rwd not too long ago.

 

As for the argument that this day and age doesn't lend itself to another Taurus, I disagree. In fact I think this era is more ripe for a Taurus type revolution than the the 80's were. What made the Taurus special was Ford's willingness to think outside of the box to find a better way to build a better car. At the moment every auto maker is so conservative that they cannot see past the standard, mid-sze, fwd template every mainstream auto maker is employing.

Edited January 30, 2007 by jlsaylor

[jlsaylor]

For the Nth times, Honda does sell the same Accord all over the world in many counties. In Japen, they called it Honda Inspire, but still the same car.

 

In most Europe and some mid-easten counties, Honda sell the Acura TSX with Honda Accord name plate on it.

 

If it work for Honda, why it doesn't work for Ford? Why Ford need to develop a whole new different product for the N.A. market?

 

Why Ford spend so much money to R & D the Fusion and Edge for N.A. market only, when they can just use part of that money to make the Mondeo, S-Max more "Global", "Fit for N.A. market too"?

 

Who cause all this waste of money? Is it the product, Management, UAW, or N.A. Consumer?

 

To be blunt it isn't as cut and dried as your post makes it seem. Companies like Honda and Toyota don't design all of their cars, or even most of them, with as broad a global view as you may think. A good example is our Accord. Yes, it is sold elsewhere, but it isn't sold everywhere by any means. One broad exception to your theory is that it isn't sold at all in Europe. And the Accord/Insight sells in relatively small numbers in many of the other countries where it is offered. Make no mistake, the US market Accord is specifically designed for the US market, Honda is just open to the idea that it may hold appeal elswhere too.

 

We have the same scenario with the Euro market Accord and Acura TSX. Honda saw an opportunity to turn mainstrem Europes mid-size Honda into an entry level offering for their US market Acura brand. We are hardly talking apples and oranges here, since the same basic car is viewed in two entirely different lights on these two continents. What global models they do offer don't always meet with the success many imply. The Euro market Corolla isn't nearly as successful as Toyota would like, with both it and the Yaris being seen as the lowest of the low there. In fact, the new model was aimed squarely at fixing that image problem, arguably with little success is preliminary reviews prove accurate.

 

I'm all for selling cars in every market. But in most cases I subsribe to the Honda method which holds that what makes a good honda in Europe might not be a good fit for the same brand here. This is why I still find Mercury to be useful. Most of the Euro market Fords fit the Mercury mold perfectly IMO. A move which would leave Ford NA and FOA free to develop cars better suited for large volume sales in those markets, and which could likewise be sold in Europe under a different brand name as well.

[RichardJensen]

Toyota has realized that the innovations need to be visible. People don't care that the Yaris and xB are identical under the floorboards. Nor do they care that the FJ Cruiser is a gas guzzling stubby 4Runner. The products 'look' cool.

 

The '86 Taurus had funky but not altogether disagreeable styling, but its drivetrain was nothing remarkable whatsoever (it was not even the first FWD car Ford had, and Ford was late to the FWD game), and FWD already had a reputation as the better approach to winter driving (even though that was due more to the absolutely atrocious rear suspensions of previous RWD cars). For family car buyers--buyers of the $20-30k 'daily driver' who probably have more of their income tied up in car payments than any other new car buyer--perception is vital, and RWD, I can tell you has a terrible rep, as in you can't even get the people I've talked with to "try it, you'll like it".

 

-----

 

The reason for dismissing the 300C's sales figures is because, at about $10k more than the base 300, it's not in the same price range. Cars that cost $34k are considered entry-level luxury cars, not entry-level period. The price difference between the 300C and the 300 is around 40% of the base price of the 300. It's over a third, and almost half again as expensive as the 300.

 

I think that leaving the 300C in results in a distorted view of mainstream demand for a RWD sports sedan.

 

Moreover, 50k retail sales in the $20-30k segment is not huge. At least not by the standards being applied to the Ford Five Hundred, which sells almost exclusively in that price range, or the Ford Fusion, or the Toyota Camry, or the Honda Accord, or any of a number of other models that sell in that price range.

 

-----

 

Also, you mention that RWD SUVs pushed the RWD/FWD mix in favor of RWD---well, then, what do you make of the ascendancy of FWD based CUVs such as the Edge, Murano, Highlander, etc.? It could very well be that the RWD/FWD mix will shift again.

 

-----

 

"every car maker is so conservative"

 

It is not so much that they are conservative, as much as it is that they are adhering to sound business practices. It is not necessarily wrong to be conservative, if it keeps you following practices that are sound.

 

The market is far tighter than it was in 1986. The reigning kings of midsize are not ignoring their customers. They are listening to them. Now, it can be argued that Toyota and Honda have missed the AWD boat, but be assured that they will not ignore it completely, if they see success for Ford in the arena.

 

However, to postulate in the face of at best questionable evidence, that there is demand for RWD sedans sufficient to justify its added cost (more parts, longer assembly time), simply because trucks and suvs with available AWD/4x4 sell well.... It's difficult for me to make that leap.

 

-----

 

In snowy SD, where I live, if you told people that their new Fusion was RWD, they'd flip. They would be irritated that, in order to provide the same perceived snow capabilities as the Accord or Camry, they would have to purchase the AWD package... You don't want to put yourself in that situation for the 100+ million people that live in the snow belt.

 

Whereas with SUVs and trucks, the import competition is standard RWD as well (4Runner, Tacoma, Frontier, Titan), so you're looking at upgrading to AWD/4x4 no matter what. There's no perceived disadvantage for an RWD model because they're all RWD.

Edited January 30, 2007 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

I would be curious to know what percentage of standard RWD SUVs sell with AWD.

 

Ford's inhouse research suggests that SUV owners want, rather than RWD, AWD in their next car, for safety. It's one of the reasons why they've pushed AWD as a distinguishing point on the D3s and CD3s.

[jlsaylor]

I would be curious to know what percentage of standard RWD SUVs sell with AWD.

 

Ford's inhouse research suggests that SUV owners want, rather than RWD, AWD in their next car, for safety. It's one of the reasons why they've pushed AWD as a distinguishing point on the D3s and CD3s.

 

IMO you are making a point here which furthers mine. The fact that awd is becoming so popular, and that Ford subscribes to this notion, is a reality which makes a rwd platform far less problematic. If awd is seen as an integral part of the program meant to move in large numbers rather than a band aid to make up for rwd inadequacies then I fail to see the downside (I once lived in the snowbelt myself) This is exactly the perception that we saw with rwd suv's in fact. Simply make virtually all of the cars offered in foul weather prone areas awd. If Ford can sell a dynamically superior car, with better inhernetly aesthetics, along with the advantage of awd for a price resonably comparable to Toyota's equivalent fwd Camry or Honda's equivelant fwd Accord I think the advantages would obviously outweigh the downside.

 

As for fwd suv's outselling rwd suv's, and proving that people prefer fwd in the process.....I think this is apples and oranges. The shift has been from truck based suvs to crossovers largely due to the crossovers perceived better driving dynamic and fuel economy. (as you know reality isn't always the same as this perception) This move has many fathers, but I don't really think a desire for fwd is among them. Rising gas prices, the passing of the suv fad, and Detroits failure to keep truck based suvs as compelling as they once were are more likely the forces responsible IMO. And crossovers are typically fwd because the cars these brands make upon which they can be based were already fwd.

 

Either way, these fwd hybrids will never see the sales volume those rwd-based suv's of yore enjoyed, which makes it impossible to seriously pose the argument that these buyers really wanted fwd but settled for rwd. And in the end, if we want to argue that rwd is a product killer, we still have to explain the odd acceptance of rwd platforms under these suv's, whatever the percentage of awd product might have been, if rwd is the turnoff people imply. The notion that they took it because it was all they could get has too many holes in it to suffice.

 

As for cost of rwd manufacture, I have long believed that this was/is overstated, at least in more modern times. Chrysler's LX platform is ridiculously cheap to manufacture by their own admission, as is Ford's D2C platform under the Mustang. Nothing about either platform indicates that rwd based cars couldn't be cost competitive even when equipped with awd. People I've spoken with initially shoot down the idea of rwd-based, awd vehicles because they are convinced that the same will be ridiculously expensive. RWD cars like the Charger, a car which has an msrp that starts far below an entry level V-6 Camry despite it's much larger size, don't support this notion. There is no reason to believe that Ford couldn't easily conjure a rwd based mid size sedan which could sell for similar money to the Camry and Accord even when equipped with AWD. This would leave room for budget rwd models to undercut Camry and Accord pricing while allowing awd models to outgun them in every dynamic respect but pricing. In regions where foul weather isn't as serious an issue rwd would still provide better dynamic qualities than the fwd Camry or Accord can, with better content for the dollar

 

That would be ground breaking and, if executed and marketed properly, very successful IMO.

Edited January 30, 2007 by jlsaylor

[RichardJensen]

Yes, you would theoretically equip all RWD sedans with AWD in the snowbelt.

 

However, my point is that to most people's way of thinking, stability goes something like this:

 

RWD < FWD < AWD.

 

Now you present them with this option:

 

RWD or AWD.

 

They will object to having to purchase AWD when all they wanted was FWD.

 

And don't underestimate the wariness the typical midsize snow-belt customer brings to RWD.

 

If RWD was preferred to FWD, it would still be the standard choice for midsize sedans. Ford's LTD II and Marquis were no less homely than the GM A-bodies, yet they sold and the RWD Fords didn't.

 

Old prejudices die slow deaths, and for most customers the idea that they should have to pay extra to get Camry/Accord style winter drivability is enough to torpedo the effort--forget about selling 400k units of anything.

 

Just my opinion.

[LSFan00]

AWD=mechanically more compicated

AWD=heavier

Ford Perception=less reliable in US

 

Logically then, the consumer will get this logic;

AWD=poorer fuel economy

AWD=more maintenance trips/expense/less durability

 

AWD does not help balance the car's dynamics by giving equal weight distribution etc.

 

Making all of your vehicles (suv's or cars) into AWD is a dumb attempt to cater to a popular misconception.

[jlsaylor]

Yes, you would theoretically equip all RWD sedans with AWD in the snowbelt.

 

However, my point is that to most people's way of thinking, stability goes something like this:

 

RWD < FWD < AWD.

 

Now you present them with this option:

 

RWD or AWD.

 

They will object to having to purchase AWD when all they wanted was FWD.

 

And don't underestimate the wariness the typical midsize snow-belt customer brings to RWD.

 

If RWD was preferred to FWD, it would still be the standard choice for midsize sedans. Ford's LTD II and Marquis were no less homely than the GM A-bodies, yet they sold and the RWD Fords didn't.

 

Old prejudices die slow deaths, and for most customers the idea that they should have to pay extra to get Camry/Accord style winter drivability is enough to torpedo the effort--forget about selling 400k units of anything.

 

Just my opinion.

 

i see your point, but I think there is an argument perception has changed somewhat. I also don't think it is unavoidable that they would have to pay extra. The Camry and Accord aren't cheap, which is part of the reason I think the door is wide open here.

[jlsaylor]

AWD=mechanically more compicated

AWD=heavier

Ford Perception=less reliable in US

 

Logically then, the consumer will get this logic;

AWD=poorer fuel economy

AWD=more maintenance trips/expense/less durability

 

AWD does not help balance the car's dynamics by giving equal weight distribution etc.

 

Making all of your vehicles (suv's or cars) into AWD is a dumb attempt to cater to a popular misconception.

 

There is some seriously dated thinking here. First, awd does not have to translate into poor fuel economy. People cite the weight of the awd system as the problem here when, in actuality, it's typically the drag the system creates on the driveline that is the culprit. Several auto makers are unveiling awd systems that are alsmot entirely 'on demand' minimizing this problem. And even without this advancement awd had improved in this respect significantly.

 

And you missed my earlier point entirely, I said a rwd platform lends itself to better dynamics and balance, not that awd somehow managed this. (and I said it more than once) I also never suggested making all vehicles, or even the majority, awd. I suggested making the majority of vehicles offered in areas where foul winter weather is so serious an issue that it renders rwd impractical awd. That leaves out just about everything south of the Mason-Dixon line entirely, and doesn't take into account the fact that most of the US is pretty mild for that matter. There would be a mix of rwd to awd everywhere, just like it was with suvs, but in many areas it would be primarily rwd to be sure. The fact that consumers seem to be embracing awd proven through the popularity of the same on many vehicles is impossible to ignore without bias or ignorance, and lends value to my argument that rwd with awd as an option has newfound credibility.

 

Back to the balance argument, even an awd equipped vehicle based on a rwd chassis is going to easily outstrip anything fwd based assuming a modest level of competence. Dynamically speaking there would be no comparison in any respect, with the rwd car lending itself to better handling and a better ride by design. (using typical differences between fwd and rwd here) That is a small price to pay for a little bit of weight relative to some of the fwd products on the market.

 

Richards argument has merit, even though I disagree with it. In fact his last post pointed out the opposite of my argument perfectly. Has awd gained broad anough acceptance to make a rwd/awd platform practical rather than the fwd or fwd/awd platforms we now have? My answer is yes and his is no. Blueblood and NickF10111 make sound arguments as well, even though I likewise disagree with each of them. Your argument on the other hand, sounds like you didn't even read the thread. You'd likely still disagree anyway even if you had, but it would do everyone here a service if you took the trouble to do so.

Edited January 30, 2007 by jlsaylor

[RichardJensen]

I also don't think it is unavoidable that they would have to pay extra. The Camry and Accord aren't cheap, which is part of the reason I think the door is wide open here.

True. You can get an AWD V6 Fusion for about the price of a FWD V6 Camry or Accord.

 

However, that's not the rub.

 

The rub is the extra cost on the Fusion itself. You can blunt that by saying, "You have the benefit of AWD for less than the cost of a FWD Camry", but you still have to face the "So, you're telling me I have to get AWD, otherwise I can't drive this thing in winter?" wall of doubt around the customer.

 

You could make AWD a no-cost option, but at that point, you're compromising your position in the marketplace in states where AWD is not as attractive a solution, and you're taking a premium option for all 50 states, and turning it into standard equipment.

[one2gamble]

True. You can get an AWD V6 Fusion for about the price of a FWD V6 Camry or Accord.

 

However, that's not the rub.

 

The rub is the extra cost on the Fusion itself. You can blunt that by saying, "You have the benefit of AWD for less than the cost of a FWD Camry", but you still have to face the "So, you're telling me I have to get AWD, otherwise I can't drive this thing in winter?" wall of doubt around the customer.

 

You could make AWD a no-cost option, but at that point, you're compromising your position in the marketplace in states where AWD is not as attractive a solution, and you're taking a premium option for all 50 states, and turning it into standard equipment.

 

 

All ford has to do is advertise the awd as a handling bonus "in all conditions" rather than wet weather traction.

[RichardJensen]

All ford has to do is advertise the awd as a handling bonus "in all conditions" rather than wet weather traction.

Point is that RWD in the base model increases the perceived need for AWD, which therefore decreases the premium you can charge for it.

 

You cannot, for instance, charge extra for bumpers on a car. The car needs them. With a RWD car the problem is more complicated, but not much more complicated.

 

Many people will feel that a RWD car needs available AWD, and perceiving that as something the car 'needs' they won't want to be told it costs extra--even if the total cost is still reasonable.

 

For instance, traction control was a $95 option on the Fusion, and even though with the traction control the car was still cheaper than the Accord, it was still perceived as a disadvantage that you had to buy it.

 

Hopefully I've made myself a little more intelligible.

Edited January 31, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

You have to see this Volvo S-60 T-5

 

[mackinaw]

I can offer the perspective of somebody (me) who's lived in the northern Michigan snowbelt for nearly 30 years. I've driven, or owned, 4WD vehicles, AWD vehicles, FWD vehicles and RWD vehilces, both with and without traction control. Hands down favorite is AWD followed by 4WD, followed by FWD and then RWD. While the roads around here are largely snow-free seven months of the year, the five months we do drive in snow and ice make some sort of AWD worth the price premium, no matter what that is.

 

Where I work, every personal vehicle in our employee parking lot is AWD or 4WD. A wife of a work buddy of mine, who's a nurse and travels over several counties on house calls, recently bought a new Ford 500 and specifically asked for the AWD option.

 

Forgt all the marketing discusion guys, the reality is that AWD and/or 4WD is a necessity in some parts of the country and is something that people will pay extra for.

[MKII]

Ford sees continued growth in all-wheel drive (AWD), expects to sell more than 500,000 AWD-equipped products annually beginning in 2007.

 

Consumer demand for all-wheel drive is at an all-time high. When it launched three new AWD vehicles for the 2005 model year – the Ford Freestyle, Five Hundred and Mercury Montego – Ford had to move quickly to increase capacity for the option as demand outstripped supply during the initial launch.

 

Market Trends Favor AWD

 

Ironically, the popularity of SUVs in the 1990s is now driving growth in the high-end features in car-based products as some buyers migrate from SUVs to smaller vehicles. All-wheel drive is becoming a more important factor in consumer purchase decisions.

 

Ford customer research and independent analysis shows that 73 percent of current midsize SUV owners want AWD or four-wheel drive (4WD) in their next vehicle. Additionally, 20 percent of full-size car owners want AWD in their next vehicle. And interestingly, in the large car sample, less than one percent of the owners currently have AWD.

 

The trend is stronger in the luxury market where 18 percent of luxury car owners currently have AWD, but nearly 50 percent say they want it in their next car.

 

In 2003, AWD or 4WD vehicles accounted for 25 percent of the market. It is estimated that number could double to 50 percent of the market by 2012.

[ZanatWork]

I can assure many of you that the love of awd is spreading, as the monter storms that have flattened New Mexico and Colorado this winter have already had effects on buyer dynamics...hell, even in my neighborhood.