C-Max North America

[ds91776]

I am so glad Ford is bringing over the Grand C-Max to North America (henceforth to be simply called "C-Max). First of all, I believe that this type of Mini-Minivan or MPV is an extremely useful type of vehicle. If I was a single car household, or a small family, one of these things would be very high on my list. Secondly, Minivan-style things tend to be very popular in Canada and the introduction of the C-Max into the North American Market can only improve Ford's performance there. Thirdly, three-row vehicles ( however large or small ) have gotten VERY expensive over the last ten years. The cheapest three-row vechicle in Ford's lineup ( and most other car makers as well ) start at $28-30,000. This would give people on a small budget ( and for people who don't need a large third row ) a more afordable option and might draw in many "used car-buyers." Fourthly, the only car brands to try out this market in North America are second tier brands, so this is actually almost an untouched market. Only Mazda and Kia have tried this segement out, yet they are not major players and are left off of the vast majority of buyer's list ( however silly that is since both brands make good products ). With the intro of the C-Max, Ford could be the first one to make a major impact on North American acceptance of this type of car. I really think Chevy is missing a chance with their Orlando, it looks like a nice MPV and they should bring it here...but oh well.

 

Despite my enthusiasm for the C-Max in North America, I do have some questions about it, and I thought I would see what people thought.

 

1. What is it going to be called? Grand C-Max would make no sense in NA because there is no regular C-Max here. ( I really think Dodge should have dropped the Grand title and made it just Caravan for the current gen....but anyway...). I have heard that they are simply going to badge it C-Max...which would be okay...but I think it would be better if it got a proper name....does anybody have any ideas? Personally, I like the name "Fathom." If the stick with the C-Max badge I would really hope they call it the Focus C-Max, since it would tie the car to the Focus brand...which has a decent reputation and would soften the weirdness of the C-Max name.

 

2. When is it coming out exactly? We know it is coming to Europe this Fall ( and I would assume China and other places in early-mid 2011 ). I am hoping Ford NA will get it for the 2012 model year, but following the Focus sedan and hatch....so sometime in the Summer or Fall of 2011. Might we see North American Autoshow debut this season....say in LA or Detroit?

 

3. What engine/s will it use? I doubt Ford would put the 2.0I4-155 hp from the the new Focus in this car for North America. Instead, I bet we will see it with either the 1.6I4 EcoBoost with 180hp or the 2.0I4 EcoBoost engine with 205hp that debuted in the S-Max update. We might even see both. It would seem to me that no more power would be needed in this car, and these engines are likely to be introduced to the NA Focus line ( 1.6 for the normal upgrade...like for the Mazda 3.....and the 2.0I4 for the Sport and then the stronger versions for SVT and RS, etc ).

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts and questions. I'm really excited about this car. My cousin and his wife have a two year old son and are planning on having another kid soon. I have shown my cousin's wife pictures of the Grand C-Max and she seems really excited about it. I think I may have made an early convert.

[BORG]

I'm not as excited by this vehicle, largely because it's not terribly attractive . I think the concept is interesting and has been interesting ever since I discovered the Mazda 5 at the Detroit Autoshow, but I'm not convinced Ford's execution is sound for the US market. Generally I'm very skeptical of any vehicle not specifically designed for its market (please don't make the Mondeo and Fusion the same car!). The Fiesta is a good example of a car that I believe should have gone through a more dramatic transformation for US consumption, specifically the drivetrains and dashboard/switchgear which are just not up to Ford's local standards IMO.

[jpd80]

I'm not as excited by this vehicle, largely because it's not terribly attractive . I think the concept is interesting and has been interesting ever since I discovered the Mazda 5 at the Detroit Autoshow, but I'm not convinced Ford's execution is sound for the US market. Generally I'm very skeptical of any vehicle not specifically designed for its market (please don't make the Mondeo and Fusion the same car!). The Fiesta is a good example of a car that I believe should have gone through a more dramatic transformation for US consumption, specifically the drivetrains and dashboard/switchgear which are just not up to Ford's local standards IMO.

 

In a way, I'm glad the C-max has that polarizing appeal, the worst thing you can have

is an apathetic styled vehicle that just sits there, this one you either love or hate.

[ANTAUS]

My bestfriend has a Mazda5, I'm interested to see if the C Max improved on that package, namely more power, NVH as it's biggest weaknesses. As for the name, that's not Ford expertise in relation to Alphabets...MKT, MKS, MKZ and no one can tell anything apart. And most probably their won't be any other "MAX" vehicle, no plans for the S-Max to come here, so it'll have a bastardized name with nothing else in the family to follow suit.

 

I would like to see a 2.0L T with around 240HP as an optional engine, maybe a 1.6L T could be a base offering. The Mazda5 with it's current 155HP 2.3L places it towards the end pack of one of the slowest cars being built now. I think 180HP would be a nice start.

[silvrsvt]

The Mazda5 with it's current 155HP 2.3L places it towards the end pack of one of the slowest cars being built now.

 

 

Had one as a rental, wasn't that bad....say vs a 82 Escort Station Wagon LOL

 

 

[rkisler]

I don't have answers to your questions, but I suspect late 2011 timing might work, imported from Spain.

 

I also suspect that Ford will not go with an all-Ecoboost lineup. If you notice from the Explorer, and from GM's pricing on the Cruze, there is going to be an attempt to recover cost for GTDI powertrains. And the pricing is not traditional, where you pay more for more horsepower, but instead pay more for increased fuel economy. So it seems to me the basic powertrain will have to be normally aspirated to keep it affordable.

 

I also have a question of my own. Ford is developing a third-generation hybrid system with a new U.S. built transmission (VanDyke), and U.S. assembled battery packs (Rawsonville). And plug-in capability. This system was announced for the Grand C-Max for Europe, but there was no specific annoucement as far as I've seen as to whether the HEV/PHEV would be available on the Grand C-Max in the U.S. I view it as mandatory for Ford to be able to offer a unique mini-minivan proposition.

 

I'm not sure of the market potential for this kind of vehicle. The fact that it's being imported from Spain rather than assembled in MAP should tell us that Ford's Marketing projections likely weren't that high. But I think this kind of vehicle has a place; there could be some people who are driving small SUV's for their versatility but who don't need AWD and higher ground clearance who might go for a do-everything vehicle like this. Too soon to tell, but I'm glad Ford is going to be in the hunt.

[bzcat]

I think the car will launch right after Focus here and it will make sense to market it as Focus C-Max here. You can pool the marketing resources for both nameplate and combine the marketing.

 

As for powertrain choices, I think initially, we will get only 1 choice: 2.0 DI with 6 speed Powershift.

 

The hybrid and plug-in hybrid option will increase the risk and costs of importing a low volume product so I don't see it happening. If sales of C-Max takeoff in the US, Ford can bring the assembly back to Wayne and then I think we will see lots of powertrain choices, like 1.6 Ecoboost from Focus.

 

The high volume spinoff of Focus platform in the US will be the new Escape... I'm expecting all kinds of powertrain choices there: 2.0 DI, Ecoboost, hybrid, EV, plug-in, and maybe even diesel.

[ds91776]

As for the Spain production....I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the C-Max ( or whatever they end up calling it ) to be eventually produced in North America or possibly China for Western Hemisphere and Asian consumption.

[Biker16]

As for the Spain production....I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the C-Max ( or whatever they end up calling it ) to be eventually produced in North America or possibly China for Western Hemisphere and Asian consumption.

 

 

ford is playing a game, that game is designed to balance any currency issue due to importing. for every engine, C-max or TConnect that we import from europe we will export a Kuga, engine or transmission back to europe. this balances out currency issue, instead of paying FOE for every C-max we trade them a kuga. they sell the kuga for euros we sell the C-max for dollars. it makes sense.

 

the only way this happens is with One Ford.

 

eventually we will see FNA trading mustangs for Focus cabrio's, or galaxys for tauruses. you never know.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Biker16

[MKII]

DS here is a video of the Grand C-Max on the road just to give you an idea how nice it looks (IMO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29Sdux7Iag&p=82AFC3191276BC07&index=2&playnext=1.

[Biker16]

DS here is a video of the Grand C-Max on the road just to give you an idea how nice it looks (IMO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29Sdux7Iag&p=82AFC3191276BC07&index=2&playnext=1.

love the stance of the vehicle the pictures do not tell the whole story.

[jason202]

My bestfriend has a Mazda5, I'm interested to see if the C Max improved on that package, namely more power, NVH as it's biggest weaknesses. As for the name, that's not Ford expertise in relation to Alphabets...MKT, MKS, MKZ and no one can tell anything apart. And most probably their won't be any other "MAX" vehicle, no plans for the S-Max to come here, so it'll have a bastardized name with nothing else in the family to follow suit.

 

I would like to see a 2.0L T with around 240HP as an optional engine, maybe a 1.6L T could be a base offering. The Mazda5 with it's current 155HP 2.3L places it towards the end pack of one of the slowest cars being built now. I think 180HP would be a nice start.

 

I also had a Mazda5 as a rental a few years ago, and it was surprisingly enjoyable to take on a road trip.

[RichardJensen]

for every engine, C-max or TConnect that we import from europe we will export a Kuga, engine or transmission back to europe. this balances out currency issue, instead of paying FOE for every C-max we trade them a kuga. they sell the kuga for euros we sell the C-max for dollars. it makes sense.

1: Ford is not exporting the Kuga from the US

 

2: That's not how things work. Ford's country/continent specific sales organizations *buy* vehicles from Ford's manufacturing operations. If Ford NA cannot profitably *buy* a Spanish-built C-Max from Ford Manufacturing they'll have to take a loss on it.

 

BTW: Ford Manufacturing has to buy parts from Ford Purchasing, and Ford's Engineering Unit is paid back over time with revenues from Ford Manufacturing.

 

Simple principle: If some guy has 'president' or "C__" in his title, he's the head of a 'business unit' that books P&L based on the transfer of funds internally.

 

You're operating under the old 'each country is its own silo' model that was dissolved shortly after Mulally was brought on board.

 

Ironically, "One Ford" makes the transaction that you suggest extremely convoluted in terms of internal accounting.

 

What Ford will do is place currency hedges based on estimated net import/export balances and currency projections.

 

AFAIK, the hedging operations are reported under 'Other Automotive'.

Edited September 17, 2010 by RichardJensen

[theoldwizard]

I'm not sure of the market potential for this kind of vehicle. The fact that it's being imported from Spain rather than assembled in MAP should tell us that Ford's Marketing projections likely weren't that high.

It also could be they are using the same strategy as the Transit Connect. Launch as an import (from an existing factory) and then, if sales support it, bring production into the US.

 

I have heard no rumors on what will be built at WAP in the future, but my guess is that it will be various C sized vehicles.

[theoldwizard]

BTW: Ford Manufacturing has to buy parts from Ford Purchasing, and Ford's Engineering Unit is paid back over time with revenues from Ford Manufacturing.

I'll start by saying I never worked in Ford Accounting, but I don't believe you did either.

 

"Buying" parts from Purchasing is illogical. Purchasing would either be a huge profit center (from markup) or a huge sink hole (reselling parts from suppliers at cost and losing money on their overhead).

 

Paying back Engineering "over time" is also illogical. Most of the Engineering cost is spent well in advance of the product going to production or the customer. Such a long delay would leave Engineering under-funded for future products.

[theoldwizard]

As for powertrain choices, I think initially, we will get only 1 choice: 2.0 DI with 6 speed Powershift.

Highly probable.

 

BTW, there are still some people in Engineering that believe the non-turbo DI is not cost effective. Direct injectors and a high pressure fuel pump adds cost, but what is their return ? Due to US emission regulation we can not enjoy all of the benefits.

[Hugh]

DS here is a video of the Grand C-Max on the road just to give you an idea how nice it looks (IMO).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29Sdux7Iag&p=82AFC3191276BC07&index=2&playnext=1.

Good video. Jim F. will have to market it though, because where I'm from there's a possible market. The rest of NA? Who knows.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Highly probable.

 

BTW, there are still some people in Engineering that believe the non-turbo DI is not cost effective. Direct injectors and a high pressure fuel pump adds cost, but what is their return ? Due to US emission regulation we can not enjoy all of the benefits.

 

 

Is there maybe a volume advantage that they are hoping to take advantage of?

[Pioneer]

I had the chance to drive a 1.6 EB Grand C-Max this weekend. Very nice interior. And, wow! That engine is a screamer!

[PREMiERdrum]

I had the chance to drive a 1.6 EB Grand C-Max this weekend. Very nice interior. And, wow! That engine is a screamer!

 

Coming from you, that says alot. I think the C-Max has big potential here... especially if gas prices creep back up.

[Noah Harbinger]

Coming from you, that says alot. I think the C-Max has big potential here... especially if gas prices creep back up.

 

Maybe we'll figure out a way to cheaply build large sheets of diamond?

Um... wrong thread. Does anyone else get the thing where a the tab you just closed re-opens when you cilck reply?

Edited September 20, 2010 by Noah Harbinger

[MKII]

I had the chance to drive a 1.6 EB Grand C-Max this weekend. Very nice interior. And, wow! That engine is a screamer!

 

I assume this was the 177hp/180ps 1.6l EB, yes? Was it the new 6spd manual or was it autobox?

Did it feel quite buttoned down to the road or more on the top heavy feeing?

[blazerdude20]

I had the chance to drive a 1.6 EB Grand C-Max this weekend. Very nice interior. And, wow! That engine is a screamer!

 

sometimes i hate you!

:shades:

[RichardJensen]

"Buying" parts from Purchasing is illogical. Purchasing would either be a huge profit center (from markup) or a huge sink hole (reselling parts from suppliers at cost and losing money on their overhead).

Just because it's not your logic doesn't mean it's illogical. :D

 

If Ford operates like any other Fortune 500 Company/large government entity I've ever come across, you didn't go down to Staples and buy your notepads, pens, etc. You got them out of a filing cabinet somewhere. Well guess who bought those pens? Your department. Guess who they 'bought' them from? Purchasing

 

Your department got a pen and paper budget every year that turned into that cabinet full of office supplies, all "bought" by your department from purchasing.

 

And so on and so forth. Need a new computer? Your department is going to get billed for that. It's coming out of your department's budget and going into purchasing. Robert Lane has a great story about trying to buy a print from Ford's central purchasing unit only to discover that the unit hadn't the apparatus to sell stuff to someone who didn't work for Ford with a Ford account no. and a Ford purchase order.

 

Buying parts and raw materials for manufacturing is no different.

 

And yes, there are times when purchasing nets a profit and other times when they absorb a loss------a classic example of this was the disastrous long-term supply contracts that Ford negotiated at inflated commodity prices a few years back. The goal is to basically break even year to year.

 

Paying back Engineering "over time" is also illogical. Most of the Engineering cost is spent well in advance of the product going to production or the customer. Such a long delay would leave Engineering under-funded for future products.

 

Nope. This is how they calculate ROI. The budgeted 'payback' allocation per unit is compared against the initial outlay and adjusted for inflation. That's your true ROI. If you don't sell enough units, you don't pay off the investment and you have negative ROI.

 

It was part laziness and part a mistaken belief that other programs could get something for nothing that led to the accounting farce of making the first platform to utilize a piece of technology pay for all of it. That steep ROI curve led to a number of bad product decisions, and it made the bottom line all screwy.

 

Ford's engineering unit basically works like a bank. Their 'assets' are items being sold that are paying 'interest' that is hopefully both in excess of the amount invested and the annualized rate of inflation in engineering cost. Their 'liabilities' are current projects.

 

The 5.0L engine is the equivalent of a loan. Engineering 'fronts' the money involved in development with the expectation that they will be paid back with interest over time. The CD4 platform (at present) is the equivalent of a savings account.

 

When a project (however finely grained accounting manages it) is in Engineering, it's a liability that is funded by revenues from existing products, in a manner comparable to the way that interest income from loans is used to pay interest on CDs and savings accounts (although the two situations aren't absolutely analogous).

 

When the project is finished and turned over to manufacturing it becomes an asset, generating revenue for Engineering, which allows Engineering to work on new projects. If it's a good performing asset (e.g. the mod motors), it will generate revenue for Engineering well in excess of development costs and ongoing inflation. If it's a poor performing asset (the Blackwood), it won't pay for its own development, and will have to be written off as a loss (compare it with a loan of $50k of which only $25k is paid back before the borrower files Ch. 7).

 

If you don't look at projects this way you have no way of telling if the 5.0L engine (or any other engineered article) was a good investment or a bad one.

Edited September 20, 2010 by RichardJensen

[TomServo92]

If Ford operates like any other Fortune 500 Company/large government entity I've ever come across, you didn't go down to Staples and buy your notepads, pens, etc. You got them out of a filing cabinet somewhere. Well guess who bought those pens? Your department. Guess who they 'bought' them from? Purchasing

 

Your department got a pen and paper budget every year that turned into that cabinet full of office supplies, all "bought" by your department from purchasing.

 

I work for a Fortune 500 company and our departments do buy directly from an office supply company. However, it's through a web portal managed by procurement so that we get the negotiated prices.

 

Computers OTOH, are purchased by our IT group (actually a completely separate but wholly-owned company) and then "leased" to the main corporation.