2016 MKS/Taurus Mule

[papilgee4evaeva]

While it may be technically a full size, it competes with the midsizers in the market.

 

That's what's key. The PT Cruiser was full-size according to the EPA, but that doesn't mean it was in the same segment as its contemporaries the Concorde/New Yorker/LHS/300M.

Edited September 28, 2014 by papilgee4evaeva

[ehaase]

What's key for me is that the full size market continues to shrink. The new Epsilon II Impala doesn't sell well. The Kia Azera sells poorly and there are rumors of it being dropped from the US. We have 54 mpg CAFE coming in 10 years. I could see Ford not developing a new Taurus for the US, and the Fusion ends up the largest sedan.

[papilgee4evaeva]

What's key for me is that the full size market continues to shrink. The new Epsilon II Impala doesn't sell well. The Kia Azera sells poorly and there are rumors of it being dropped from the US. We have 54 mpg CAFE coming in 10 years. I could see Ford not developing a new Taurus for the US, and the Fusion ends up the largest sedan.

 

And automakers are allowing for their fullsize sedans to sell in lower numbers by making them more premium. You're not finding the big cars starting at $23k anymore like the Five Hundred did.

 

That, and I think the Mopar LX cars are the only ones not to share a platform with a midsize sedan (aside from the current Taurus, of course). So they're mitigating the effects of economy of scale by using much more common hardware.

 

There's a ton being made of the fullsize sedan market shrinking, but equally true is the fact that no one has exited the segment. (Phaeton doesn't count... and they're reportedly coming back.)

[silvrsvt]

What's key for me is that the full size market continues to shrink. We have 54 mpg CAFE coming in 10 years. I could see Ford not developing a new Taurus for the US, and the Fusion ends up the largest sedan.

Couple things to point out, the 54 mpg cafe is rated differently then what the window sticker EPA ratings are. So actually the cars will be around the 35 mpg mark and hybrid/electric cars are counted differently then gas cars in these ratings also.

 

The next gen Taurus is nothing more then an extended fusion and its development costs will be spread around with the Fusion, Edge and whatever else is built on the CD4.3 or 6 they are calling it. Making a new Taurus prob cost as much as doing a wholly new top hat like a Lincoln would cost. Then add in the higher profits that a larger car can command, ford will have no issue making money on it, if they only sell 80-100k of them a year.

[jpd80]

I don't think it makes sense to do that. They've spent a lot of time building the Fusion's reputation only to move it up and replace it with some new product? Keep in mind Fusion and Mondeo are the same now, so you're talking about creating a completely new product, at which point is no different than leaving Fusion where it is and creating a larger Taurus.

That's the dilemma in a nut shell.

 

Reinvention....

- commute all existing Fusion and Taurus sales onto the one new vehicle that's slightly wider and longer

- then develop a lighter more cost effective midsized vehicle off C1 to fill the void below,

 

The above plan giving significant difference in size and increasing fuel economy in both segments . Win win win.

 

Large CD4....... Fusion + D3 buyers, affordable large car, only ~100 lbs heavier than mid sizer.

Large C1........Mid sized buyers, increased economy, lower starting price.

Edited September 28, 2014 by jpd80

[papilgee4evaeva]

That's the dilemma in a nut shell.

 

Reinvention....

- commute all existing Fusion and Taurus sales onto the one new vehicle,

- then develop a lighter more cost effective midsized vehicle off C1 to fill the void below,

 

The above plan giving significant difference in size and increasing fuel economy in both segments . Win win win.

 

Large CD4....... Fusion + D3 buyers, affordable large car, only 100 lbs heavier than mid sizer.

Large C1........Mid sized buyers, increased economy, lower starting price.

That assumes a lot:

(1) that midsize shoppers will willingly buy a full-size Fusion, and

(2) that a midsize sedan on C1 is cheaper to build and will be profitable with a lower MSRP.

 

Truthfully, it looks like the solution to a problem no one knew existed. And it looks like it would dramatically reduce volume of the Fusion.

Edited September 28, 2014 by papilgee4evaeva

[jpd80]

That assumes a lot:

(1) that midsize shoppers will willingly buy a full-size Fusion, and

(2) that a midsize sedan on C1 is cheaper to build and will be profitable with a lower MSRP.

That depends on your perception of a full sized car, consider this enlarged fusion as being only fractionally longer and wider

but able to accommodate existing D3 Taurus buyers as well as current Fusion buyers.

 

You then cover both mid size and large buyers with one car that actually increases production volume.

 

The new but smaller and lighter C1 based mid sizer then adds volume and jobs to American plants.

All odf those vehicles then become additional production and sales, increasing Ford's volume and profit.

 

Truthfully, it looks like the solution to a problem no one knew existed. And it looks like it would dramatically reduce volume of the Fusion.

As far as my research takes me, there is absolutely no talk of CD4 Taurus for North America.

Make of that what you will..

Edited September 28, 2014 by jpd80

[papilgee4evaeva]

That depends on your perception of a full sized car, consider this enlarged fusion as being only fractionally longer and wider

but able to accommodate existing D3 Taurus buyers as well as current Fusion buyers.

 

You then cover both mid size and large buyers with one car that actually increases production volume.

 

The new but smaller and lighter C1 based mid sizer then adds volume and jobs to American plants.

All odf those vehicles then become additional production and sales, increasing Ford's volume and profit.

To me, and this is just my opinion, that would only make sense if this new C1 midsizer keeps the Fusion name. It simply has too much positive equity in that segment now.

But THEN, you run into the problem that GM has had with the Epsilon II SWB sedans named Malibu and Regal... namely, that in some dimensions they're too small. That's death for a family car.

 

As far as my research takes me, there is absolutely no talk of CD4 Taurus for North America.

Make of that what you will..

Along those lines, we've all been talking about CD4 MKS. If CD4 stretches to only be "fractionally" bigger than it currently is, then you end up with MKS and MKZ being practically the same size.

 

Somehow I think an increase in size will be a bit more substantial (say, 4 or more inches in wheelbase, for starters) than you're projecting.

[rmc523]

That depends on your perception of a full sized car, consider this enlarged fusion as being only fractionally longer and wider

but able to accommodate existing D3 Taurus buyers as well as current Fusion buyers.

 

You then cover both mid size and large buyers with one car that actually increases production volume.

 

The new but smaller and lighter C1 based mid sizer then adds volume and jobs to American plants.

All odf those vehicles then become additional production and sales, increasing Ford's volume and profit.

 

As far as my research takes me, there is absolutely no talk of CD4 Taurus for North America.

Make of that what you will..

 

I'm with papilgee on this one. I think they'd be shooting themselves in the foot with an approach like what you're suggesting. Buyers would become confused by this new entrant and you'd then be splitting sales between the two. In the casual buyer's mind, they walk into a dealer and see this new midsize and now the Fusion - which has finally gained a reputation as a great midsize offering - is suddenly the large car in the Ford showroom. I just think they'd be opening up an unnecessary can of worms, especially considering they'll already have a full-size CD4-based Taurus engineered and developed for China.

 

Here's some further speculation on my part based on the info/research you're presenting regarding no news for a CD4 Taurus in the US: I wonder if we could see a delayed launch here in the US of the CD4 Taurus. As in it will launch in China first, and launch here at a later date? Don't we already know they'll be making a CD4-based MKS out of Flat Rock? They're not going to do that vehicle without a Taurus counterpart in my mind. A thought I've just had is perhaps we could see the new CD4-based MKS launch first, with the Taurus launch coming later. Another thing to think about is Chicago - it's currently set up for D3 production, and produces the Explorer, Taurus, and MKS, as well as the PI and PIU. Given the fact that the PI is tied to the Taurus, I wonder if we could see the Taurus' launch delayed to coincide with the launch of a CD4 PI, with both being produced out of Chicago once that plant is changed over to CD4 (with only MKS at Flat Rock, leaving additional room for future increased Fusion production, given the relatively low MKS volume). This would mean a CD4 Taurus would wait for US production and launch around the same time as the Explorer full redesign on a variation of CD4 (perhaps this CD6 platform we're hearing about). That would have Chicago producing Explorer, PIU, Taurus, and PI, which I'd think would be better plant utilization than having just Explorer there. There was a similar delay with the Mondeo for Europe - it was shown at the same time as our Fusion (new for 2013), yet it still hasn't launched in Europe.

 

I don't know what'll happen obviously, but those are just some thoughts I had - hopefully they make sense to you all haha.

[ehaase]

I wouldn't want a new mid size C1. I just would like for the Focus sedan to have the roominess of the Corolla, Sentra, Jetta, Cruze, Elantra, etc. These cars are all close to being mid size according to the EPA critera. The current Focus sedan has less room than the Chevrolet Sonic sedan.

 

I would prefer Ford to bring the CD4 Taurus to the US, but if it is not, I would like the next generation Fusion to have a slightly roomier interior and only a fractionally larger exterior. I would want the MKS to always be substantially larger than the Fusion.

 

There have been rumors for several years that the CD4 Taurus isn't coming to the US. First the TTAC article I posted here a year or two ago; then these rumors from akirby and jpd80 who are both very credible.

[akirby]

It doesn't make sense to keep D3 with CD4+ available. There have been no fusion ST or sport rumors. S550 needs more vehicles. Lincoln is getting a Continental and could use more vehicles. Falcon replacement. PI replacement.

 

I'm really leaning towards a new GRWD platform.

[RichardJensen]

Again, on GRWD, you've got two options: render it unsuitable for the Mustang or unsuitable for everything else, and I really don't see how you've got enough potential 'everything else' volume to justify either standalone GRWD or bastardized Mustang GRWD.

 

If anything, I would expect the Continental to be the CD4 Lincoln sedan, as it and the CD4 utility (Aviator) would replace alphabet soup vehicles with *zero* nameplate equity (MKS, MKT)

[akirby]

Nobody said it had to be the same platform. They could keep S550 for 2 door coupes and convertibles and build a new GRWD sedan platform (CD6?). If you use it for the Falcon, Continental, a Ford Thunderbird (Taurus replacement) plus the Aviator (and maybe Explorer) then that's plenty of volume. Remember that was the plan before the economy tanked.

 

Not saying it's definite - but it's the only scenario that makes sense to me if it's true we're not getting a new CD4 Taurus.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Nobody said it had to be the same platform. They could keep S550 for 2 door coupes and convertibles and build a new GRWD sedan platform (CD6?). If you use it for the Falcon, Continental, a Ford Thunderbird (Taurus replacement) plus the Aviator (and maybe Explorer) then that's plenty of volume. Remember that was the plan before the economy tanked.

 

Not saying it's definite - but it's the only scenario that makes sense to me if it's true we're not getting a new CD4 Taurus.

 

I'd be completely on board if that were the case.

 

If that were the case.

[sullynd]

EUCD was developed off C1. CD4 was developed off EUCD. Why would a "Midsize C1" be different than CD4?

[akirby]

 

I'd be completely on board if that were the case.

 

If that were the case.

 

Why would you move MKS to CD4+ but not move Taurus? And if you don't move either one, do you kill them or keep them on D3? We know they're not cancelling MKS - it will be Continental.

 

I know this sounds like wishful thinking but if you eliminate the other possibilities then that's what you're left with. Although you could leave the SUVs/CUVs and PIs on D3 for another gen.

[papilgee4evaeva]

EUCD was developed off C1. CD4 was developed off EUCD. Why would a "Midsize C1" be different than CD4?

 

I've wondered the same thing.

 

 

Why would you move MKS to CD4+ but not move Taurus? And if you don't move either one, do you kill them or keep them on D3? We know they're not cancelling MKS - it will be Continental.

 

I know this sounds like wishful thinking but if you eliminate the other possibilities then that's what you're left with. Although you could leave the SUVs/CUVs and PIs on D3 for another gen.

 

No, I mean I find your solution much better than not having a Taurus replacement at all, whether it meant moving Fusion up to full-size or just pulling out of the segment altogether.

[akirby]

 

I've wondered the same thing.

 

 

No, I mean I find your solution much better than not having a Taurus replacement at all, whether it meant moving Fusion up to full-size or just pulling out of the segment altogether.

 

Sorry - I wasn't really replying to you, just continuing the thought process. I know what you were saying.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

There is a point where "not being able to make a business case" becomes an intellectually lazy way to miss opportunities and accelerate senescence as a corporation. I think that leaving the large sedan market would fall into this paradigm. Those who can make modular platforms and flexible manufacturing work seem best adapted for successfully competing. Toyota (according to our local dealer) rarely discounts Tacomas, even this late in the product cycle. They told me a few weeks ago that it is still one of their most lucrative and reliable models. They are really happy that their manufacturer made a business case for small trucks, and that Ford didn't.

 

I would not be at all surprised to see the next escalation in fuel prices cause the midsize CUV market go the way that the midsize SUV market went during the last one. While being more efficient than the SUV's, the CUV's are still plenty thirsty for their relative passenger/cargo capacity. If that doesn't happen, then the same stigma that got the minivan isn't that many years away. Large sedans have changed in many ways, but they have persisted for about half of the history of this country. Styles change but completely yielding markets to giants like Toyota makes for a long, uphill battle to gain back even modest shares.

 

Ford could pretty much find its self down to the F150 and Fusion if they continue to be lazy about making a diversity of business cases work. They have ceded so many market segments and personal use, full-sized pickups are increasingly at risk of becoming dodo's. Physics make it be that large sedans are only slightly more consumptive than mid-sized one's. China is paying for much of the cost. Thus, I don't think it is a bad hedge to bring a new Taurus to the USA, regardless of recent trends for the segment.

Edited September 29, 2014 by TBirdStangSkyliner

[RichardJensen]

There is a point where "not being able to make a business case" becomes an intellectually lazy way to miss opportunities

 

There is absolutely *nothing* intellectually lazy about a properly executed business case.

 

Building a sound business case for a product involves engineers, market analysts, economists. Constant market analysis, evaluation and re-evaluation of assumptions, if *anything*, will prevent senescence.

[akirby]

Ford has only ceded 2 markets - true minivans and midsized pickups. Flex makes up some of the loss of minivan sales with high ATPs and a cheap shared platform.

 

Toyota is happy with Tacoma sales because Tundra sucks. Ford saved BILLIONS by not updating the Ranger and closing the plant. That's a win/win for both Ford and Toyota. Ford has the ROW Ranger ready if they need it. They also have Ecosport, S-Max and Galaxy available if needed.

 

It would be one thing if Ford was not investing in anything while killing vehicles - that might be a wasted opportunity. But they're using that money for higher priority items - like rebuilding Lincoln.

 

Have you looked at full-sized sedan sales <$40K? They're abysmal and they're not going to get better.

 

If Ford kills the Taurus it's because they have something with a better long term plan to expend those resources for.

[RichardJensen]

Nobody said it had to be the same platform. They could keep S550 for 2 door coupes and convertibles and build a new GRWD sedan platform (CD6?). If you use it for the Falcon, Continental, a Ford Thunderbird (Taurus replacement) plus the Aviator (and maybe Explorer) then that's plenty of volume. Remember that was the plan before the economy tanked.

 

Not saying it's definite - but it's the only scenario that makes sense to me if it's true we're not getting a new CD4 Taurus.

 

I couldn't possibly disagree more with your optimism regarding demand for larger RWD vehicles.

 

 

Assume your full lineup: Explorer, Aviator, Thunderbird, Continental, Falcon.

 

What's going to be the volume driver of this platform? The Explorer.

 

The Explorer absolutely will have to come with AWD as an option.

 

Implementing AWD on longitudinally mounted car-based vehicle is significantly more expensive to build than transverse AWD, yet it adds no perceived value to customers. In fact, it might actually increase the take rate on AWD at the fringes of the snowbelt.

 

Would Ford dramatically slash margins on the Explorer in order to support a variety of niche products that would probably sell at an only incremental margin over FWD-derived alternatives?

 

--

 

Alternatively, assume a Falcon/Thunderbird that are nearly identical. You will be using expensive union labor + expensive shipping to build this product for the Oz market. This does not seem like a winning proposition--it seems far more likely to conclude that Ford is going to let the Falcon market segment go in Australia.

 

Now, how much volume are we talking with a Thunderbird/PI/Continental. Do we think it would be twice the Taurus/PI/MKS? I don't. And at 2x that volume you'd be hard pressed to amortize all the engineering that would have to be done for that platform. A unique platform supporting, say, 10k monthly units (or 13k with *extremely* optimistic views of the Aviator) split across two or three very different vehicles? That does not sound like a recipe for success.

Edited September 29, 2014 by RichardJensen

[akirby]

Maybe Toyota is being intellectually lazy since they don't have a full-sized or mid-sized work van or a heavy duty pickup.

[RichardJensen]

Another thing worth bearing in mind re: No confirmed CD4+ Taurus:

 

When's the current UAW contract up? And when's the Taurus launching in China?

[akirby]

Do we think that RWD Thunderbird/Falcon and Continental would sell at 2x volume of FWD variants?

 

No but it might generate twice as much profit per unit since these would be premium high performance vehicles, especially the Lincolns. It also gives you more volume for high performance mustang engines.

 

Cancelling Taurus and keeping the rest on D3 doesn't make any sense.