sullynd Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I still think OAC makes sense for Transit Connect once Flex rides off into the sunset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Is there really demand for Focus overflow production in Mexico? Where are the current Foci coming from for South America? The only reason Ford may move Focus to Mexico is if it stops building Focus in Argentina. Mexico has bilateral free trade agreements with both Brazil and Argentina so cars made in Mexico can enter those country duty free (and vice versa - Mexico gets Ranger from Argentina for example). Brazil and Argentina are both in Mercosur free trade block, which means cars can go from Brazil to Argentina and vice versa duty free. Ford produces Fiesta, Ka, and EcoSport in Brazil, and Focus and Ranger in Argentina for all of Mercosur countries. It's easy to see why Ford is probably thinking about building Transit Connect somewhere in the Americas (Mexico to be specific...) - the potential market for something like Transit Connect has to be pretty significant in South America. Add in existing volumes for North America, you can see the business case. Edited October 14, 2014 by bzcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 The SWB Transit Connect van is more like 3500 pounds and 174 inches long. The LWB Transit Connect is about 3600 pounds and 190 inches long. That places it at about the same length as the old North American extended cab Ranger. I don't remember the weight of the old ranger. that 3800 is for the LWB Transit 7 passenger pretty loaded.....the 2.5 is adequate, it needs the 2.0 eco boost....and a total redesign of the folding second and third row...its design belongs in Disneyland...yup...Goofy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The SWB Transit Connect van is more like 3500 pounds and 174 inches long. The LWB Transit Connect is about 3600 pounds and 190 inches long. That places it at about the same length as the old North American extended cab Ranger. that 3800 is for the LWB Transit 7 passenger pretty loaded.....the 2.5 is adequate, it needs the 2.0 eco boost....I was thinking 3800 was awful heavy ! Drop 300-500 lbs off for no rear seats, no roof and shorter rear side panels and you are getting into the right weight range. Hopefully they will extend the cab enough that folks up to 6'4" can be comfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 It would the 3rd... Wayne: Focus, C-Max Louisville: Escape, MKC Cuautitlan: Transit Connect, something else (as speculated) You are correct ! I forgot about Escape/MkC at Louisville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I was thinking 3800 was awful heavy ! Drop 300-500 lbs off for no rear seats, no roof and shorter rear side panels and you are getting into the right weight range. The weight loss of the roof and side panels would be offset by the additional material added to strengthen the unibody after the loss of the aforementioned body panels....but I agree that 3500 lbs should be a target....add the 1.0L 3 cylinder Ecoboost in it and you should have a small truck that would get 35 MPG everyday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Is there really demand for Focus overflow production in Mexico? Where are the current Foci coming from for South America? its complicated. On one hand you are right, focus demand isn't enough to require overflow. On the other hand, It the other products that are proposed for MAP, (C3 HEvs, and C3 EVs) along with any other products that require the complexity that MAP can handle. the focus is the simplest Variant on C3 and should be Easier to Fit into Cuautitlan. more complex and costly to produce variants would likely stay at MAP while the simpler lower cost models would move south. much like FRAP only produces FWD fusions while mexico produces FWD/AWD Fusions,and MKZs. You could be looking at demand at MAP for 70,000 C-max(s) 120,000 HEVs and 260,000 focus(s) and 80,000 Random Lincoln Sedan/hatch/coupe. Thats 530,000 units vs the 400,000 MAP can build on 3 crew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think a Fiesta/Focus is too angular, and the Transit Connect is just ugly as a Ranchero. I think the Eco sport is a better start. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Couple of new concepts are hitting the Sao Paulo auto show this week... very indicative of what Ford is planning I think. This is a big market segment in South America and Ford wants back in. Renault Duster Oroch - it's a concept but looks production ready. The dimension is almost exactly the same as the departed Ranger. The Ford equivalent model (if it were to happen) would be a truck version of EcoSport like timmm55 posted above. Fiat FCC4 - a preview of midsize Fiat truck (roughly the same size as Honda Ridgeline) based on the Cherokee/Chrysler 200 platform. FCC4 production test mule... the Ford equivalent (if it were to happen) would be a truck version of Edge. And lastly... Ram is now selling the Fiat Strada in Mexico as Ram 700 (leaves just enough room between 700 and 1500 for the FCC4 above... perhaps Ram 1000?). The Ford version (if it were to happen) would be a truck version of Figo. Edited October 29, 2014 by bzcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 And the one common denominator in all of them? FUGLY! The truck version of ecosport that trim posted reminds me of that x-90 thing somebody built a few years ago. Useless. If you take a micro car and take the trunk lid off so you have a 2ft square hole in back...THAT'S NOT A TRUCK! Remember the 86 ranger with a 7ft box? THAT'S what I'd like to see. I can't photochop but if somebody does the ecosport with a longer box, say 5-6ft minimum, I think that would be better. If you buy a mini truck, the whole point is that your current car can't carry what you want. (or why would you want a truck?) So, it's either make the "minitruck" a 4door like that eroch abortion which drives/acts/feels like a car...and carries as much as a car, completely negating the purpose of it's build, or, build it more like the mini ram (which is wow,FUGLY to the extreme) but has at least a semblence of a box. One other point I'd like to add (and it's really obvious on the mini ram) is, wtf is with boxes being so high you can't load over the side??? I'm talking full size or not, all trucks are so fricken high they can only be loaded from the rear it seems, and then with a high lift forklift! How do you swing golf clubs or a toolbox over the side of any new truck without having to drop it into the box the last couple of inches? Pet peeve maybe, but at 5'11" and bad shoulders, I have a hard time with new vehicles of any make. Wife bought a 2013 loaded edge and I can't imagine it as a "truck". I prefer to drive the old freestar as it has more usable space. Chop it off after the back seats? wtf? That's maybe 3ft x 4ft?...with no roof?...umm, yeah, that's not a "truck". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 There is a big disconnect here. Most of the discussion and pictures seem to center on a small truck for the consumer/lifestyle market. All well and good, but none of these would make any sense in the commercial market. Biggest reason is the bed. Come on, is that Fiat concept a fastback coupe or a truck? Commercial users need to carry stuff. A regular cab with maybe a 6 foot bed would be nice. I still see many Rangers, Colorados, and Canyons used in pickup and delivery service and general commercial service. Also more than a few Frontiers and Tacomas too. So, if a new small pickup will be offered in extended and crew cab versions mainly to serve the consumer/lifestyle market, at least throw the commercial users a bone with a regular cab on the wheelbase of a crew cab version with a useable bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 There is a big disconnect here. Most of the discussion and pictures seem to center on a small truck for the consumer/lifestyle market. All well and good, but none of these would make any sense in the commercial market. Biggest reason is the bed. Funny, I was just thinking the same thing ! A "consumer" small truck would have a bigger markup. Hard to that and the cost sensitive "commercial" market at the same time. Is there enough demand for 2 different vehicles ? A commercial truck based off of the C platform and a sportier consumer pickup (think Sport Trac) based off of the CD platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 There is a big disconnect here. Most of the discussion and pictures seem to center on a small truck for the consumer/lifestyle market. All well and good, but none of these would make any sense in the commercial market. Biggest reason is the bed. Come on, is that Fiat concept a fastback coupe or a truck? Commercial users need to carry stuff. A regular cab with maybe a 6 foot bed would be nice. I still see many Rangers, Colorados, and Canyons used in pickup and delivery service and general commercial service. Also more than a few Frontiers and Tacomas too. So, if a new small pickup will be offered in extended and crew cab versions mainly to serve the consumer/lifestyle market, at least throw the commercial users a bone with a regular cab on the wheelbase of a crew cab version with a useable bed. It is a concept car... I posted the production mule undergoing attribute testing - you can see the form factor for yourself. It looks like it will be a functional truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Functional for what purpose. A 1 meter bed might be fine for the consumer/lifestyle market, but a non starter in the commercial market. Is / will the consumer/lifestyle market be large enough to support multiple small lifestyle pickups? One reason the Transit Connect did as well as it has is the form factor. It met a real need for commercial users, from the one man service operation to larger fleets that have 10 or more of the TCs on the road mixed with other size trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 There is a big disconnect here. Most of the discussion and pictures seem to center on a small truck for the consumer/lifestyle market. All well and good, but none of these would make any sense in the commercial market. Biggest reason is the bed. Come on, is that Fiat concept a fastback coupe or a truck? Commercial users need to carry stuff. A regular cab with maybe a 6 foot bed would be nice. I still see many Rangers, Colorados, and Canyons used in pickup and delivery service and general commercial service. Also more than a few Frontiers and Tacomas too. So, if a new small pickup will be offered in extended and crew cab versions mainly to serve the consumer/lifestyle market, at least throw the commercial users a bone with a regular cab on the wheelbase of a crew cab version with a useable bed. This market isn't being driven by North America but is being driven by the needs of the rest of the world for a cheap efficient, sub-compact Pick up truck. this pickup will have a ~6 foot bed with a single row and 4 foot bed if 4 door version as offered. As with most pickups the lifestyle version will be the 4 door version while the 2 door will be more utilitarian/ work Truck with payloads of ~1,200-1,500 lbs. There isn't enough demand in the world for a midsized sport-trac Pickup. that market is covered by the Ranger everywhere but in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRM Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 These are moderately interesting, but they do not appeal to me as a substitute for a Ranger/Canyon/Colorado/Tacoma, etc. I have a list of things I do which I typically do and they in turn drive the required capabilities. Tow a 21' RV, haul trash, furniture, carry a dirtbike, hunting gear, haul sheets of plywood, some off road capability, fit in my garage, decent commuter vehicle, and so on. The Sport Trac proved to be nearly ideal. Just enough capability, while being reasonably decent commuter vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 You'd tow a 21' RV w/less than a full size truck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 And this is an example of the perception gap with larger mid sized trucks, they look moire capable than they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser768 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 You'd tow a 21' RV w/less than a full size truck? I have a 19' that weighs about 3500#. I don't need to drive an F150 all the time. I'm looking at something Colorado/Sport Tracish to replace the overkill 7mpg 83 F250 I currently use. More than I want to throw at my 2.x Rangers but shouldn't require a 1/2 ton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRM Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 You'd tow a 21' RV w/less than a full size truck? Yes. I did frequently. Why not? The Sport Trac did just fine. It was about 4,000 lbs, which is well inside the towing limit and I used a weight distribution hitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRM Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 And this is an example of the perception gap with larger mid sized trucks, they look moire capable than they are. Can you offer an example to support your assertion? If the tow limit is over 7,000 lbs and I'm towing 4,000, the frontal area is not too large nor is the length excessive, how is that a perception gap? I was quite comfortably within the capabilities of the ST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Yes. I did frequently. Why not? The Sport Trac did just fine. It was about 4,000 lbs, which is well inside the towing limit and I used a weight distribution hitch. My thinking was the combination of weight (I'd have guessed closer to 5,000lbs for a 21' RV) and a big cross section in stiff winds. Of course, we're due for 35MPH gusts tomorrow and the weather service calls that "breezy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Can you offer an example to support your assertion? If the tow limit is over 7,000 lbs and I'm towing 4,000, the frontal area is not too large nor is the length excessive, how is that a perception gap? I was quite comfortably within the capabilities of the ST. I recently towed similar to a 21' enclosed trailer with a diesel Ranger. I thought it would be around 2500 Kg mark (5,500 lb) mark but by the time it was all loaded up with equipment, it was close on 8,500 lbs which was a bit over what the Ranger was rated at. Sure it pulled the load OK but I was quite surprised by the weight... All I'm saying is that when it gets to towing larger box trailers, it's very easy to get over weight and not know it. Edited November 1, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRM Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I agree you can get real heavy, real quick. But, many newer RVs are somewhat lighter than in the past and I believe a Sport Trac/Canyone/etc., are more than capable for towing many of them for the handful of trips a year many of us make. Some do need an F150 or more, but a significant number simply do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Well, IF Ford is planning some kind of truck smaler than th F150 in the US, they already have competitionRam 700 by Fiat may be the small truck we've been waiting for 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.