sullynd Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Apparently these aren't cd3 or cd4. They're hand built prototypes that won't share anything with the new production models. At least the Edge concept: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/19/behind-scenes-2015-ford-edge-concept/ Well of course - they're concepts. Hell, for all we know there's panther in there. But the production models based on the concepts will, most likely, be CD4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) I not saying offer every punch that BMW is offering but just at least get in the ring with them. A good solution is offer a volume competior (X5/X6 and X3). The closest domestic competitor that meets that is the Grand Cherokee. The term volume competitor and Luxury Utility should not be used in the same sentence, even with the BMW badge the X5 struggles to get much over 3,000/mth. While Grand Cherokee in upper trim levels could be called a Premium brand.....it's a stretch to association it to a genuine Luxury Utility like the BMW X5. RWD Is not mandatory, what is essential is great design and styling - MKT falls woefully short but IMO, a better mousetrap on V6 EB Flex or Explorer would suffice. Edited April 21, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrewfanGRB Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 This is ok but boring, I wont run out and buy one. What Lincoln (and any other domestic lux make) needs is a rwd sport luxury crossover. The Germans and Japans have theirs and making money off of it, where's the x1 or x5 or even M class competiors from the US?. You guys can bitch and cry about profits and Wal-Mart like ROIs meantime the imports are using rwd car platforms (along with bad reliabilty) and making tons of money in our own yard. It makes no sense that BM-Daaaba-u have a its largest factory in the US in a market our own carmakers dont compete in, its sad!.. Again with this. It's like a broken record for people. You don't have the data to conclude that people are buying these vehicles because they're RWD! Are there those who do buy them because they're RWD? Of course. Does a BMW handle the way it does merely it's RWD? No. Would the vast majority of buyers still buy it if it was FWD/AWD? Of course. And a large chunk of those buyers probably don't even know it's RWD! So why are they buying them? BECAUSE IT'S A BMW! You can't engineer or price that advantage away. Cadillac has tried...at a cost of BILLIONS. Is it a moderately successful brand? Sure, I suppose. Has it come close to supplanting BMW? Hell no...and it certainly hasn't made the progress you'd expect after spending $8 BILLION. You realize Lincoln is even further behind than Cadillac was when it started that investment. The issue here is a misplaced expectation of what Lincoln should be/what it should do. It doesn't NEED to "beat" BMW, M-B, Audi, anyone. It simply needs grow on Ford's intended pace and be profitable. Like Kevin O'Leary says "I only care about the MONEY". THE CORPORATION'S ONLY REASON TO EXIST IS TO MAKE A PROFIT. It does not need to cater to the whims of people who will never buy their product (but say "if you only you'd build X, THEN I'd buy") or to try to beat entrenched competitors with dominant market share. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 And a large chunk of those buyers probably don't even know it's RWD! 80% of BMW 1 series buyers thought it was FWD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Well of course - they're concepts. Hell, for all we know there's panther in there. But the production models based on the concepts will, most likely, be CD4. But there was no mention of the platform for the Edge concept and if it was going to be CD4 I would have expected to hear that or at least say it's on a new platform. Maybe because it was just a hand built prototype they didn't say one way or the other - but if this thing is going on sale in a few months you'd think we would have heard something by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) But there was no mention of the platform for the Edge concept and if it was going to be CD4 I would have expected to hear that or at least say it's on a new platform. Maybe because it was just a hand built prototype they didn't say one way or the other - but if this thing is going on sale in a few months you'd think we would have heard something by now. Theres been lots of spy shots of funny looking Galaxy and S-Max prototypes running around the past 2 years or so. And we haven't heard anything changing at Oakville (AFAIK) this year either... Oh found this from Feb http://www.blueovalnews.com/Ford_Motor_Company_News/feb-13-2014-toronto-ford-selects-canadian-plant-to-build-all-new-global-utility-vehicle-for-export-to-more-than-60-countries.html All New is the key words.... Edited April 21, 2014 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Again with this. It's like a broken record for people. You don't have the data to conclude that people are buying these vehicles because they're RWD! Are there those who do buy them because they're RWD? Of course. Does a BMW handle the way it does merely it's RWD? No. Would the vast majority of buyers still buy it if it was FWD/AWD? Of course. And a large chunk of those buyers probably don't even know it's RWD! So why are they buying them? BECAUSE IT'S A BMW! You can't engineer or price that advantage away. Cadillac has tried...at a cost of BILLIONS. Is it a moderately successful brand? Sure, I suppose. Has it come close to supplanting BMW? Hell no...and it certainly hasn't made the progress you'd expect after spending $8 BILLION. You realize Lincoln is even further behind than Cadillac was when it started that investment. The issue here is a misplaced expectation of what Lincoln should be/what it should do. It doesn't NEED to "beat" BMW, M-B, Audi, anyone. It simply needs grow on Ford's intended pace and be profitable. Like Kevin O'Leary says "I only care about the MONEY". THE CORPORATION'S ONLY REASON TO EXIST IS TO MAKE A PROFIT. It does not need to cater to the whims of people who will never buy their product (but say "if you only you'd build X, THEN I'd buy") or to try to beat entrenched competitors with dominant market share. Nonsense. If this were a rear-wheel-drive crossover based on the Panther platform and styled to look like a 1979 Continental Town Car, Ford wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. Correct? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I not saying offer every punch that BMW is offering but just at least get in the ring with them. A good solution is offer a volume competior (X5/X6 and X3). The closest domestic competitor that meets that is the Grand Cherokee. Keep in mind the FWD-based Lexus RX's sales eat all the German SUVs' sales for lunch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Share Posted April 21, 2014 But there was no mention of the platform for the Edge concept and if it was going to be CD4 I would have expected to hear that or at least say it's on a new platform. Maybe because it was just a hand built prototype they didn't say one way or the other - but if this thing is going on sale in a few months you'd think we would have heard something by now. I get your point, but I see no reason for them to be on anything but a variation of CD4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I get your point, but I see no reason for them to be on anything but a variation of CD4. It's simply a timing thing - if the cd4 version wasn't going to be ready for a couple of years then it would make sense to do a same platform refresh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Nonsense. If this were a rear-wheel-drive crossover based on the Panther platform and styled to look like a 1979 Continental Town Car, Ford wouldn't be able to keep up with the demand. Correct? You forgot the bench seat and column shifter. And no MFT. Or Ecoboost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 It's simply a timing thing - if the cd4 version wasn't going to be ready for a couple of years then it would make sense to do a same platform refresh. I'll buy you a beer if Edge/MKX stays on CD3. The weight and efficiency targets I've heard wouldn't possibly work on the old architecture. These have always planned to be on CD4. Nothing has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 You forgot the bench seat and column shifter. And no MFT. Or Ecoboost. I'm sure that TwinForce would be welcomed, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I'll buy you a beer if Edge/MKX stays on CD3. The weight and efficiency targets I've heard wouldn't possibly work on the old architecture. These have always planned to be on CD4. Nothing has changed. Not doubting it - just noting that it hasn't been confirmed yet by Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted April 21, 2014 Author Share Posted April 21, 2014 It's simply a timing thing - if the cd4 version wasn't going to be ready for a couple of years then it would make sense to do a same platform refresh. I suppose anything is possible, though I honestly think this Ford would wait an extra year or whatever to get it on the right platform rather than rushing a patch job out there just for the sake of redoing it. I'm sure that TwinForce would be welcomed, though. I always thought they should've used the TwinForce name for Lincoln products as a way to further differentiate the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I always thought they should've used the TwinForce name for Lincoln products as a way to further differentiate the two. You and I have discussed this before, and I 100% agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I always thought they should've used the TwinForce name for Lincoln products as a way to further differentiate the two. Twin Force implies that there are two turbos. That does exactly fit the bill with the 2.0 and 2.3 turbo 4's. I don't mind the Twin Force name. I just don't think it applies well across the board for all turbo engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Twin Force implies that there are two turbos. That does exactly fit the bill with the 2.0 and 2.3 turbo 4's. I don't mind the Twin Force name. I just don't think it applies well across the board for all turbo engines. No, Twin Force means two 'forces': turbo and direct injection. At least, that was my (and many others') interpretation when the name was first used. I agree that it could be somewhat confusing though. Edited April 21, 2014 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) No, Twin Force means two 'forces': turbo and direct injection. At least, that was my (and mother others') interpretation when the name was first used. I agree that it could be somewhat confusing though. Correct, as usual. Except for the "mother others" part........ Edited April 21, 2014 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Except for the "mother others" part........ Ha ha...I completely missed that on the proof read...WTH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 No, Twin Force means two 'forces': turbo and direct injection. At least, that was my (and many others') interpretation when the name was first used. I agree that it could be somewhat confusing though. "Twin" implies "the same" though. There's nothing similar about turbos and direct injection. Perhaps "Multi Force" would make sense in that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 "Twin" implies "the same" though. There's nothing similar about turbos and direct injection. Perhaps "Multi Force" would make sense in that scenario. Exactly, which is why it is confusing. I remember someone at Ford stating that Twin Force meant Di & turbo charging. How many people have called the turbos on the 6.4L Power Stroke 'twin' turboes, when in fact, they aren't twins at all. Well, maybe fraternal twins... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 "Twin" implies "the same" though. There's nothing similar about turbos and direct injection. Perhaps "Multi Force" would make sense in that scenario. Doesn't matter - that's what they called it and that was their definition so it applies to all ecoboost engines whether it's one or two turbos. http://paultan.org/2007/07/04/fords-new-twin-force-engines-to-debut-in-lincoln-mks/ http://themagsreport.blogspot.com/2007/07/fords-future-powertrain-direction.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Doesn't matter - that's what they called it and that was their definition so it applies to all ecoboost engines whether it's one or two turbos. http://paultan.org/2007/07/04/fords-new-twin-force-engines-to-debut-in-lincoln-mks/ http://themagsreport.blogspot.com/2007/07/fords-future-powertrain-direction.html And their confusing definition is likely one of the reasons they changed it. Edited April 21, 2014 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Not doubting it - just noting that it hasn't been confirmed yet by Ford. I posted a link earlier about ford spending money at Oakville for an all new Edge.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.