Ford: Next Gen Focus to begin production in NA in 2010

[LSFan00]

Fuseo won't have a goal of 140,000 sales a year. (I don't need to dig up where you trumpeted this as "success", do I?) Sure, theoretically, Fusion could be produced in 300,000 a year. But the goal and plant capacity was to be profitable at, what was it, 110,000?

 

Dave has no hope to conquer Camcord, unless Ford elects to lose money left and right.

 

The rest, as they say, are details.

 

Dave Fusion arguably made sense when Ford saw itself making late 90s F-series/Explorer/Expedition profits, and could afford moral wins in the NA car market with the rental-Taurus replacement. It provided continuity along the path away from both the UAW and fleet sales more than anything else.

[jpd80]

Last year, Hermosillo provided the USA with 220,000 units alone as well as providing vehicles

to Canada, Mexico and South America. So far this year, the plant is up 10,000 units to the USA

alone compared to 2007.

 

I'd say the plant is operating at near full capacity, 300,000 units/year but not all of them

come to the USA and not all of them are Fusions, about 25% are higher profit Milan and MKZ.

Edited June 24, 2008 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Fuseo won't have a goal of 140,000 sales a year. (I don't need to dig up where you trumpeted this as "success", do I?) Sure, theoretically, Fusion could be produced in 300,000 a year. But the goal and plant capacity was to be profitable at, what was it, 110,000?

 

Dave has no hope to conquer Camcord, unless Ford elects to lose money left and right.

 

The rest, as they say, are details.

 

Dave Fusion arguably made sense when Ford saw itself making late 90s F-series/Explorer/Expedition profits, and could afford moral wins in the NA car market with the rental-Taurus replacement. It provided continuity along the path away from both the UAW and fleet sales more than anything else.

Do you think that vehicle styling will make a 100% difference in sales?

 

That, in effect, "Euro" Fusion will sell at twice the rate of the Dave Fusion?

 

Oh, and it wasn't ME that said the Fusion was a success at 140,000 US sales per year. It was George Pipas.

 

Of course, he was just lying and doing damage control right?

[RichardJensen]

I mean, seriously, if you are going to say "Euro" Fusion will outsell "Dave" Fusion, you need to furnish some kind of supporting arguments?

 

Or are we going to play the old "It's just my opinion, but I'm asserting it as fact" game?

[pcsario]

LOL...

 

I see RJ is still butthurt over the whole "FNA lost to FOE's excellence" thing.

 

Cancel the Fiesta ASAP. Kinetic design won't work in NA and just look how hard the old Accord bombed for using the European interior/ergonomics for NA... oh wait.

 

Well at least they fixed that with the Civic... oh wait again.

 

Well at least they're redesigning the Mondeo to resemble the Taurus... oh shit it's the other way around.

[RichardJensen]

Uh yeah. That's what I said.

 

BTW, if Euro Accord is so great, why doesn't Honda sell it under the Accord badge here? Why did Honda see fit to dramatically alter their US spec Accord from the global spec Accord?

 

Why are you even using the Accord as an instance to prove that the same car sells well everywhere?

[pcsario]

Because your main point has switched from styling to ergonomics, Euro interiors worked just fine there.

 

Mondeo is just as roomy as the Fusion too.

 

So you can't use either as a reason why FNA should be given priority in terms of design and whatnot.

 

It won't be an issue and it's the right thing to do, no matter how many tears the whole thing makes you shed at night.

Edited June 24, 2008 by pcsario

[RichardJensen]

Because your main point has switched from styling to ergonomics.

 

Also, you're aware the Mondeo could've replaced BOTH the Fusion and Taurus right?

 

So you can't use either as a reason why FNA should be given priority in terms of design and whatnot.

No. The quibbles I have with the Fiesta interior are that =quibbles=.

 

The larger issue is the still unproven assertion that FoE designed vehicles would sell better than FNA designed vehicles.

 

Ever since that assertion has been made here, I have asked for anything remotely resembling proof.

 

No one supporting the "FoE would sell better than FNA" has taken up the cause.

 

See, the assertion is "S-Max would outsell Edge", "Mondeo would outsell Fusion", "C1 Focus would outsell C170.5 Focus", etc.

 

And, I'm afraid, no one has bothered to back up those assertions with any hard numbers.

 

For instance, what would be the S-Max selling advantage over the Edge? What would be the Mondeo's advantage over the Fusion? etc.

 

...

 

I am very interested in how the S-Max & Mondeo would overcome sizable hp deficits vs. their competition, and how the C1 Focus would get by without Sync.

 

See, if you are going to go FoE, you have to go FoE all the way. NO NA powertrains, NO NA goodies. It is your assertion that FNA has been a total failure, and =therefore= all FNA exclusive items (3.5L V6, 3.0L V6, Sync) are all off the table.

 

You must compare FNA 1:1 with FoE, since that is your premise.

 

...

[RichardJensen]

Oh, and no diesels either. FoE diesels don't pass muster in US emissions tests.

[pcsario]

Ever since that assertion has been made here, I have asked for anything remotely resembling proof.

 

No one supporting the "FoE would sell better than FNA" has taken up the cause.

 

See, the assertion is "S-Max would outsell Edge", "Mondeo would outsell Fusion", "C1 Focus would outsell C170.5 Focus", etc.

 

And, I'm afraid, no one has bothered to back up those assertions with any hard numbers.See, if you are going to go FoE, you have to go FoE all the way. NO NA powertrains, NO NA goodies. It is your assertion that FNA has been a total failure, and =therefore= all FNA exclusive items (3.5L V6, 3.0L V6, Sync) are all off the table.

 

You must compare FNA 1:1 with FoE, since that is your premise.

 

It's equally as questionable as your premise of "FNA all the way or else", how can you prove --assuming both were on sale-- americans would choose the Fusion over the Mondeo? And don't give me that "because they would mistake it for a Camry" crap. No matter how hard you try to spin the issue, Dave was a failure that only did something for the Edge, it did shit for sales of the Freestyle, the Taurus, and the Fusion... yes I said Fusion, because no matter how much you want to argue about it, it's clear the Mondeo was a better effort all around.

 

I'm willing to accept the things that worked in NA to make a better product, and yes that includes thing like the 3.5L V6 and Sync.

 

Why can't you accept the fact Kinetic design was a success, and FNA has shit for a design language in & out for cars?

 

Take winning elements from both sides to make a great product, rubish like this is far from a "winning" effort:

 

 

I find it somewhat insulting that you constantly claim that is what americans want / like.

 

Why are you against superior efforts and progress?

[RichardJensen]

It's equally as questionable as your premise of "FNA all the way or else", how can you prove --assuming both were on sale-- americans would choose the Fusion over the Mondeo?

 

Why are you against superior efforts and progress?

See, I am making NO POSITIVE ASSERTION, therefore I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE.

 

You say the FoE Mondeo is better suited to the NA market than the Fusion, I ask you for proof, you respond by asking me to prove your assertion for you. Do you see why this is a problem?

 

Furthermore, you ask me 'why I am against superior efforts and progress', when you have not demonstrated that the Mondeo is, indeed, a 'superior effort' for this market.

 

Again and again and again I ask you, PC, where's the proof? Where's the logically constructed argument that places the Mondeo (sans Sync & AWD) at an advantage over the Fusion?

[pcsario]

You don't need to state it with words. To doubt it would be the case, is because you think the opposite would be true.

 

And, IIRC, you openly stated the only reason americans would pick Fusion over the Mondeo was because of Dave.

 

To me, right there, you conceded the fact the Mondeo is a better product all around.

 

It wasn't the inferior interior, it wasn't the warmed over 2001 Mondeo exterior, it wasn't the powerplants, or the inferior NVH and R&H... it would win because of Dave... a grille that has been a failure in everything but the Edge.

 

That's the Fusion's "advantage"? That it "doesn't look like a Camry"?

 

If someone were to tell me FNA's truck division "knows what americans want and like", I would believe it, I know they know their shit, they like to polish their work and their products are first class. The car division? No way. The fact you're admitting Sync --something Ford DIDN'T create-- is a major selling point to get a Ford car, well, that should tell you something about their talent, especially when most reviews find almost every element in a FNA car mediocre or in need of a redesign, and basically tell people how clueless FNA is and to look elsewhere. Those reviews aren't done by europeans, but by AMERICANS.

 

And no, it's not a boycott against Ford from the media, unless you want to claim sites like FamilyCar.com have an agenda against Ford.

Edited June 24, 2008 by pcsario

[jpd80]

What I'm interested in is what Ford thinks, has there been a radical change in thinking?

Or is this meerly a speed up of intended plans?

 

Are we missing the one Ford point?

[RichardJensen]

You don't need to state it with words, to doubt that it would be the case, is because you think the opposite would be true.

What? What exactly does this mean?

 

As far as me saying that Americans would pick the Fusion over the Mondeo because of 'Dave', well, congratulations on your selective memory. I've said before that the Fusion is more distinctive than the Mondeo, and I stand by that assertion.

 

If you want to construe that as 'the only advantage the Fusion has is its looks', fine, be my guest. You'd be wrong, but hey, my objections to your wrong conclusions obviously hasn't stopped you from drawing them, so why should I bother?

 

Anyway, I am still awaiting your analysis of the success of the C1 Focus vs. the C170.5 Focus, the S-Max vs. the Edge, and the Mondeo vs. the Fusion.

Edited June 24, 2008 by RichardJensen

[pcsario]

I've never argued the S-Max should replace the Edge, I've argued FNA should use its interior or at least offer both.

 

FuckUs? All people see is "35 MPG + Sync", of course sales are up.

 

If you disagree, then I guess you think FNA should make all their cars look in & out like the FuckUs, right?

[RichardJensen]

I'm especially curious (taking a lead from VW's pricing) to see how Ford would overcome about a $2k to $2500 price disadvantage on these products vs. their NA equivalents.

[RichardJensen]

I've never argued the S-Max should replace the Edge, I've argued FNA should use its interior or at least offer both.

 

Focus? All people see is "35 MPG + Sync", of course sales are up.

 

If you disagree, then I guess you think FNA should make all their cars look in & out like the Focus, right?

1) So your assertion of FNA incompetence is pretty much confined to the Fusion, given the lefthanded compliments you gave the NA Focus not too long ago?

 

If, indeed, your assertion is that the Fusion is not as good a fit for the NA marketplace as the Mondeo, then why must you continually insist on characterizing all of FNA's efforts as subpar?

 

2) With the C1 Focus, all people would see would be "35 MPG"--since the C1 Focus would probably get no better gas mileage, seeings how it weighs about the same and would come with the same 2.0L 140hp 4.

 

3) Where did I say that? Do you need another lesson in logical fallacies? The redesigned Focus has gained significant retail market share, and it argues rather persuasively that the FNA team is capable of doing sound research into what moves car buyers.

Edited June 24, 2008 by RichardJensen

[rmc523]

It wasn't the inferior interior, it wasn't the warmed over 2001 Mondeo exterior, it wasn't the powerplants, or the inferior NVH and R&H... it would win because of Dave... a grille that has been a failure in everything but the Edge.

 

Are you forgetting that Ford did not advertise the Taurus and Taurus X? How do you expect people to discover a vehicle (and it to therefore become a success) when it's not advertised? And I hardly think the 3-bar grille has been a failure in the Fusion.

[pcsario]

Because FNA's efforts are subpar compared not only to FOE, but the competition as well. Things are improving (gotta admit engineering has done its work lately), but other than the Flex, the design department is still leaving much to be desired (new Mustang and Fusion interiors... I expected better after the Flex).

 

As for customer research, again, I'm not against giving customers what they want, I just don't share your view that in order to do that, you've to make the cabin look like crap (aka FNA's definition of "american"). All the research and engineering progress won't do shit if your car --largely due to visual feedback-- is perceived as inferior or mediocre Vs. the competition, also aimed at, and prefered by, americans.

Edited June 24, 2008 by pcsario

[pcsario]

Are you forgetting that Ford did not advertise the Taurus and Taurus X? How do you expect people to discover a vehicle (and it to therefore become a success) when it's not advertised? And I hardly think the 3-bar grille has been a failure in the Fusion.

 

It was advertised and people see them daily on the streets... they're still ignoring them.

 

You're confusing lack of advertising, with Ford refusing to waste money on a lost cause.

 

I could probably fill your room with posters of Laura Bush... odds are you still won't see her as a MILF.

[RichardJensen]

Because FNA's efforts are subpar compared not only to FOE, but the competition as well.

You can't just say stuff like this and assume that the rest of us will believe it on your say-so. I want to see logically constructed arguments that rely on independently verifiable evidence.

 

You can't say, on the one hand that the S-Max should not replace the Edge and then turn around and say that the Edge is subpar vis a vis the S-Max.

[pcsario]

It's basically as simple as this:

 

- FNA engineers have been doing a great job.

- FNA research also did its homework quite well.

- FNA designers have not perfomed at the same level, they're the main reason why the other 2 don't get the recognition they deserve.

 

FOE = Respected.

FNA = Laughed at.

 

Given the fact that great design is global in nature, when americans don't find visual stimulation with FNA's work most often than not, well... it's time to let someone respected --someone with a clue-- help.

Edited June 24, 2008 by pcsario

[RichardJensen]

Given the fact that great design is global in nature, when americans don't find visual stimulation with FNA's work most often than not, well...

1) Great design is, by its very definition, a rarity. One cannot routinely produce 'great' design as the very act of making greatness commonplace reduces it from its stature as 'great'. One can no more have consistent 'greatness' than one can have everything above average.

 

2) You have offered no proof that Americans are not 'visually stimulated' by FNA product.

 

Am I to understand that you are asserting that the success of the Edge and Focus (leaving aside for the moment the Fusion, as you are at least willing to concede the Edge & Focus as successes) is entirely independent of their styling?

 

Are you stating, in effect, that FNA designers received negative feedback on Focus & Edge styling from consumer clinics and ignored it? Because if consumers were not responding to Edge/Focus design during clinics, shouldn't this have been noted?

 

I would, on the contrary, argue that the success of the Edge & Focus is due in no small part to their distinctive appearance. And that, therefore, Ford NA designers have done their work, inasmuch as they have delivered products for which styling is a positive factor for their target audience.

[Noah Harbinger]

See, I am making NO POSITIVE ASSERTION, therefore I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE.

 

Unless you post a hypothesis that can itself be tested and proven or contradicted with evidence, you are saying nothing. (Though the positive assertion implied by your statements is OBVIOUS, that NA-designed vehicles would sell in greater quantities than otherwise similar european designed vehicles -- you may not type those letters, but every argument you make attempts to convince readers of that)

 

The problem with arguing on the internet is, only Ford can test their hypothesis. It doesn't matter what we say, since none of us has the means to prove or disprove it. Even Ford Motors with its billions of dollars can't perform double-blind controlled experiments with defined independent and dependent variables; how can you expect any of us to come up with anything more than conjecture? Even you can't do that - not to disprove that idiot whose name starts with P, nor to pretend you have some knowledge to impart on this issue.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Noah Harbinger

[theoldwizard]

You can't just say stuff like this and assume that the rest of us will believe it on your say-so. I want to see logically constructed arguments that rely on independently verifiable evidence.

 

This is the Age of the Internet ! Anyone can say anything they want. Whether the rest of us believe it, is up to us !