2016 MKS/Taurus Mule

[akirby]

And when's the Taurus launching in China?

 

April 2015 Shanghai auto show with production sometime later in 2015. Less than a year away.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I disagree, especially when a competitor with a once smaller market share (Tacoma to Ranger) is able to pull ahead and make money for itself and its dealers. FoMoCo couldn't make a business case for a successful line of luxury cars for the last twenty years when several competitors made billions. If Ford isn't successful with it, or if it is a segment that has receded, then several posters here automatically spout that " a business case can't be made". At times that is true (Ford never really succeeded in minivans when they were popular, for example), but to dogmatically, always, go there is intellectually lazy.

[akirby]

I've said many times there probably IS a business case that shows a profit can be made, even with minivans. The question is how much investment is required versus the expected profits and resulting ROI. Then you have to compare that with the 50 other projects that also have positive business cases and decide where to draw the line since you can never fund all the projects you want to do. And it's different for each mfr and model depending on - e.g. - things like existing platforms and production factories.

 

The business case for Ranger involves additional cost for U.S. drivetrains and certifications plus the cost to import from a friendly country without a chicken tax or add a new plant/shift at a NA facility. Those costs are potentially huge. Combine that with a relatively modest sales forecast based on the existing market and the net effect of lost more profitable F150 sales and it's easy to see why Ford chose other projects.

 

Please explain how that analysis is "intellectually lazy".

[RichardJensen]

 

April 2015 Shanghai auto show with production sometime later in 2015. Less than a year away.

 

And when's the UAW contract up for renewal?

[akirby]

How do you know Tacoma is making tons of money for Toyota (dealer profits don't help Toyota)? If it is then why haven't they updated it recently? Perhaps it's not making enough profit currently to pay for a new generation?

[akirby]

 

And when's the UAW contract up for renewal?

 

No idea. I try to ignore the UAW as much as possible.

[RichardJensen]

 

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.

 

Premium high performance vehicles selling at what price and to which customers?

 

Do we honestly believe that there is a stout market for Lincoln badged high performance vehicles?

 

And in order to achieve that higher margin, you would have to substantially increase costs for bread and butter vehicles--if you build the Explorer on a RWD chassis.

 

---

 

 

I fully expect the Explorer and Edge to be longer and shorter versions of the same basic vehicle, and that the S-Max and Galaxy will be very closely related to them.

 

As to the Taurus/Continental? engineering costs look likely to be underwritten by Chinese volume, and tool & die costs should be easily amortized given volumes (PI included) and transaction prices for the Taurus/Conti.

 

---

 

And, since you don't follow those things, the UAW pact is up for renewal next year as well. Which means CD4 Taurus/Conti are a bargaining chip.

 

I would not expect Ford to commit to NA Taurus/Conti ahead of contract negotiations.

Edited September 29, 2014 by RichardJensen

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I'd say they have pretty much ceded large FWD cars with how long they have gone without making a serious and wise attempt. Any non-ponycar RWD segment is kaput. They have mostly ceded large SUV's to GM which happily makes lots of money on suburbans, Escalades, etc.. They ceded the entire luxury car market to companies which weren't even major players before Ford lost their way. Not much more than 20 years ago, if that, BMW was a niche maker of small and famously unreliable sports sedans and coupes. Audi was almost not a factor in the USA luxury market. lexus and Infiniti aren't very old either. There have certainly been good business cases missed.

[RichardJensen]

There have certainly been good business cases missed.

 

Well, then lend Mark Fields your time machine so he can go back and recapture missed opportunities.

 

Ford is making sound decisions *now*, for the most part, and the proof is the healthiest business among the U-3, and a sustainable global concern no matter how you slice it.

[rmc523]

I'd say they have pretty much ceded large FWD cars with how long they have gone without making a serious and wise attempt. Any non-ponycar RWD segment is kaput. They have mostly ceded large SUV's to GM which happily makes lots of money on suburbans, Escalades, etc.. They ceded the entire luxury car market to companies which weren't even major players before Ford lost their way. Not much more than 20 years ago, if that, BMW was a niche maker of small and famously unreliable sports sedans and coupes. Audi was almost not a factor in the USA luxury market. lexus and Infiniti aren't very old either. There have certainly been good business cases missed.

 

I bet the next gen Expy and Navi will be great entrants. The GM suv buyers for whatever reason seem to be a loyal bunch as well. The Expy/Navi hold/review has held them back some.

Edited September 29, 2014 by rmc523

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

I think the next Expy/Navi will be very good and I hope to own one. I doubt they pull many buyers out of the GM line, though. GM has been consistent with this line for decades. Many current owners are on their third or more one, like F150 buyers. I haven't googled it, but I assume the Tacoma isn't selling as much as it did several years ago. Toyota has still done well to update it more often than Ford did with the USA Ranger. It has a loyal base, which pays a premium for the vehicle (quite a bit more than the Frontier's asking price), and it doesn't need short product cycles or continuous advertising. It wasn't so long ago that little money was to be made in "C" sized cars and those of the ulta-conservative business case ilk considered it dead. Ford, GM, and Chrysler let the Camry and Accord rule. Now the Camry can keep selling huge late in its life cycle, just on repeat traffic and perceptions of it being the class leader.

[RichardJensen]

Now the Camry can keep selling huge late in its life cycle, just on repeat traffic and perceptions of it being the class leader.

 

As of August last year, The Fusion sold at a $2,300 price premium to the Camry. So, you know, don't assume it's all sunshine and roses over in Toyota land.

[jpd80]

Excellent thoughts and responses guys.

I know some of my language and thoughts may be imprecise but most of you picked up the threads and ran with it.

 

Go back to the time before Taurus was split into Fivehindred and Fusion, that Taurus and Aussie falcon were similar size,

both best described as small large car. interior dimensions of Falcon rival CV but in a package barely larger than current Fusion.

 

That's the size I'm talking about but yeah I know that throws up red flags with what to do at the lower end with a mid sizer.

So look at Corolla with a 4" increase in wheelbase, the sedan is basically a mid sizer save for smallish trunk capacity

keeping it as a compact. Why could we not lengthen / widen the Focus sedan to a nice roomy mid sizer and leave the

Focus hatch as the versatile compact.

 

I'm trying to capture that formula with DN101 Taurus and Contour/Mondeo but yes, I can see as many problems as solutions.

One car for midsize and large car may be devilishly tempting but would it end up destroying the current momentum,

 

I guess I want to have my cake and eat it too by combining larger sales on one vehicle and creating new sales on a smaller compact.

 

Greed is good..LOL.

 

 

 

As of August last year, The Fusion sold at a $2,300 price premium to the Camry. So, you know, don't assume it's all sunshine and roses over in Toyota land.

 

This is why Ford is less interested in outright leadership of the segment, how many more cars does Toyota need to build to equal

Ford's income and profit on less vehicles. Even if the answer is that they are the same, Toyota has expended more resources to

achieve the same result. Ford is clearly in a better position by not needing to build as many vehicles, that savings from that out

weight Camry's added revenue.

Edited September 29, 2014 by jpd80

[rmc523]

Excellent thoughts and responses guys.

I know some of my language and thoughts may be imprecise but most of you picked up the threads and ran with it.

 

Go back to the time before Taurus was split into Fivehindred and Fusion, that Taurus and Aussie falcon were similar size,

both best described as small large car. interior dimensions of Falcon rival CV but in a package barely larger than current Fusion.

 

That's the size I'm talking about but yeah I know that throws up red flags with what to do at the lower end with a mid sizer.

So look at Corolla with a 4" increase in wheelbase, the sedan is basically a mid sizer save for smallish trunk capacity

keeping it as a compact. Why could we not lengthen / widen the Focus sedan to a nice roomy mid sizer and leave the

Focus hatch as the versatile compact.

 

I'm trying to capture that formula with DN101 Taurus and Contour/Mondeo but yes, I can see as many problems as solutions.

One car for midsize and large car may be devilishly tempting but would it end up destroying the current momentum,

 

I guess I want to have my cake and eat it too by combining larger sales on one vehicle and creating new sales on a smaller compact.

 

Greed is good..LOL.

 

So now you're talking about having two separate size vehicles both batched Focus?

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

And when's the UAW contract up for renewal?

September 2015

[jpd80]

So now you're talking about having two separate size vehicles both batched Focus?

No, using the C1 Focus sedan as starting point for the new mid sizer - am i becoming a spray hitter?

[sullynd]

C1>EUCD>CD4 How/Why would a C1 Midsize be different than CD4?

[jpd80]

C1>EUCD>CD4 How/Why would a C1 Midsize be different than CD4?

because C1 is not EUCD or CD4, the framing and suspension is smaller and lighter

the wheel wells are smaller so the packaging in between the wheelbase is more efficient

 

This grand C-max is on C1 and has the longer wheelbase,

notice the length of the rear doors..

 

Edited September 29, 2014 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

Given all the squaking about a RWD platform, does it really make that much sense to spend money into it?

 

The Falcon only sold roughly 20K between the Sedan and Ute versions.

 

For comparison, the Taurus 70K units with another 10K PI's added to it...

 

Another thing, Taurus Sales actually have consistent since 2010...with about 70K units a year sold.

 

Going back to the RWD thing, only way it would make sense would be share engineering work with the Mustang, but at the same time, can they take a midsized platform with a subcompact interior and make it into a full sized car? I don't think so. I can see maybe the business case for a RWD Lincoln sedan that slots in-between the MKS and MKZ, making it an Lexus IS vs ES type car...more sport inclined. Is there really a demand for a RWD based CUV too? Give that Ford can successfully sell AWD/FWD CUV products to people, I don't think it really matters. RWD is just for snob appeal in the markets that Ford/Lincoln are competing in and not really worth the while.

[akirby]

It wasn't so long ago that little money was to be made in "C" sized cars and those of the ulta-conservative business case ilk considered it dead. Ford, GM, and Chrysler let the Camry and Accord rule.

 

It's CD, not C. C is Focus/Corolla which had the same problem years later. Not dead - just not as important as the other vehicles at the time. That wasn't the problem. The problem was when that market ramped up the domestics did not ramp up their product offerings and quality to stay competitive. The same was true with B and C class until a few years ago.

 

You're under the same misconception about product development as many others. It's not possible for Ford to do all of the projects you think they should do at the same time. Every business has limited capital and other resources and you have to pick and choose where you spend that money. Building a new global platform like CD4 with 3 new vehicles means you can't do that one-off niche vehicle or it means you have to delay a new platform for something else. The new F150. Transit and Mustang took a lot of resources.

 

The key for Ford is to have products ready or almost ready so they can quickly adapt to the market if and when it changes. Ecosport and Ranger are 2 good examples. But you don't throw money at projects with no current benefit just in case they turn out to have future value 10 years from now IF you have other better projects to fund today.

 

Don't forget Ford has been doing major platform consolidations over the last 5 years. Now that those are mostly done they can go after lower volume more niche vehicles. This is the biggest advantage Toyota has right now - they already had global platforms and they're just refreshing them - not building all new ones all the time. Camry and Corolla have not been significantly updated platform wise in at least a couple decades.

[akirby]

Given all the squaking about a RWD platform, does it really make that much sense to spend money into it?

 

RWD is just for snob appeal in the markets that Ford/Lincoln are competing in and not really worth the while.

 

One benefit is added volume for F150 and Mustang drivetrains. You're not putting a 5.0 or high output 3.5L EB or a FPC 5.0L in a FWD vehicle. And since Lincoln is not going to chase the uber expensive full sized market they'll need different products to grow the brand and volume which is where a mustang based performance coupe and convertible and a performance oriented sedan and SUV/CUV would also make sense. Expanded mustang volume from global sales and Aussie exports are just gravy.

 

They don't HAVE to do this - I think it really depends on where they're trying to take Lincoln. They can certainly get by with FWD/AWD vehicles.

[ehaase]

I favor the Focus sedan becoming the same thing as the Chinese Escort, a small mid size car just like the Jetta, Cruze, Sentra, Corolla, Elantra, etc. The Focus sedan is not sold in Europe. I favor keeping the Focus hatchback and wagon the same as they now are - a highly styled small car designed for Europe but also sold in the US as a supplement to the sedan.

[rmc523]

No, using the C1 Focus sedan as starting point for the new mid sizer - am i becoming a spray hitter?

Yeah, you said:

Why could we not lengthen / widen the Focus sedan to a nice roomy mid sizer and leave the

Focus hatch as the versatile compact.

 

I took that to mean you'd enlargen the sedan but not the hatch. But perhaps I misunderstood your use of the word "leave," and you were saying itd become more versatile once made larger.

[RichardJensen]

 

One benefit is added volume for F150 and Mustang drivetrains.

 

I don't think any powertrain used in the F150 needs additional amortization volume. Going with a fairly low volume uniquely engineered platform that is only distantly related to the Mustang in order to sell more 5.0Ls & 3.5L engines seems...... a bit misguided.

[bzcat]

I favor the Focus sedan becoming the same thing as the Chinese Escort, a small mid size car just like the Jetta, Cruze, Sentra, Corolla, Elantra, etc. The Focus sedan is not sold in Europe. I favor keeping the Focus hatchback and wagon the same as they now are - a highly styled small car designed for Europe but also sold in the US as a supplement to the sedan.

 

Focus sedan is definitely sold in Europe. It's not as popular as the hatch but it is available in most markets.

Edited September 29, 2014 by bzcat