Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 But that's just the CTS+ATS thing in a different guise. As RMC said, it's Ford splitting their own market. well, that brings the Flex to the conversation....correct?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 well, that brings the Flex to the conversation....correct?.... I thought that the Flex and MKT die after this generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 well, that brings the Flex to the conversation....correct?.... Perhaps. If the Flex splits the market, then it needs to go. If, however, it brings in enough outside customers to make "Flex + Explorer" a more profitable proposition than "Explorer" then it stays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 ABSOLUTELY! But taking the Explorer RWD doesn't do that. why the anti RWD...that configuration has an extrememly loyal following, granted, most dont give a flying, but that wouldnt be swayed either way if the Explorer changed, what would change possibly?....higher horsepower from the smaller ( read 2.7 eco ) engines whilst still sidestepping any potential CAFE issues, higher tow capacities, potentially better driving dynamics, TRUE 4WD with better offroad potential, now double down with Aluminum and lighter curbweights, and its 2015 F-150 all over again....albeit, as you have mentioned, more risky and potentially less profitable unless sales numbers increase, and that could be through more products.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I thought that the Flex and MKT die after this generation. the comment was reflecting the "splitting" their own market... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 This the Grand Cherokee system. As far as I can tell the Ford system runs to the side of the engine just like GC, not under the engine. You can use the transfer case from the Expedition or Navigator and get full time AWD capability. I thought the GC moved to IRS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Perhaps. If the Flex splits the market, then it needs to go. If, however, it brings in enough outside customers to make "Flex + Explorer" a more profitable proposition than "Explorer" then it stays. so maybe thats what they are potentially hoping with a shared RWD platform, and it may not even be the Explorer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) why the anti RWD... Because it costs more and most people don't care. If I seem particularly 'anti-', it's because the most RWD supporters seem oblivious to the first fact and in denial regarding the second, and that really gets on my nerves after a while. Same thing with diesels. If things change and diesels make sense in NA, I'm totally on board with that. But so far they haven't and I'm not, and people seem to somehow read that as antagonism toward diesel the thing when it's mostly frustration with diesel advocates. Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 so maybe thats what they are potentially hoping with a shared RWD platform, and it may not even be the Explorer... RWD makes sense for additional volume, not replacement volume. Hey, I'd love it if Ford could justify a fancy range-topping Thunderbird with RWD/AWD, but I just don't see how you get there without making the company less profitable, and thus more vulnerable to the cyclical nature of this business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Because it costs more and most people don't care. If I seem particularly 'anti-', it's because the most RWD supporters seem oblivious to the first fact and in denial regarding the second, and that really gets on my nerves after a while. Same thing with diesels. If things change and diesels make sense in NA, I'm totally on board with that. But so far they haven't and I'm not, and people seem to somehow read that as antagonism toward diesel the thing when it's mostly frustration with diesel advocates. Richard, I haven't seen you this worked up in ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Because it costs more and most people don't care. If I seem particularly 'anti-', it's because the most RWD supporters seem oblivious to the first fact and in denial regarding the second. Same thing with diesels. If things change and diesels make sense in NA, I'm totally on board with that. But so far they haven't and I'm not, and people seem to somehow read that as antagonism toward diesel the thing when it's mostly frustration with diesel advocates. gotcha, and kinda figured, however, exhibit A) Aluminum....costs more, most dont care even with benefits....B) if Fords come up with something groundbreaking, and seriously NOTHING would surprize me with the way the industry has been leapfrogging one another as of late, that maybe REQUIRES RWD, then, hey Im all for it. In wheel hybrids? Who knows, but they sure know how to put a discussible topic on the table. Truth be told, im with you, sceptical, for the same reasons you outlined, but NOTHING surprizes me anymore, and the product just keeps getting better.... As far as Diesels go, stick with commercial applications with consumer spinoffs, which is exactly what Ford is doing..theres superior alternatives in passenger cars....we have a couple of employees here whom obtained 3000 plus miles on their first tanks on Energis, put THAT in your Diesel VW pipe and smoke it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Richard, I haven't seen you this worked up in ages. LMAO....usually it involves you.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Don't confuse 'worked up' with 'posting a lot'. The fact of the matter is that I'm down with a nasty allergy attack, and have a fair bit of free time today. I am, however, baffled that people who can see the folly in GM's actions cannot see the folly of increasing per-unit costs of a high volume vehicle for no clearly discernible reason. Certainly, if this Aviator and Continental are successful, they will not need Explorer volume either to fully utilize a plant or to amortize development costs. Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JZ150 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Can this RWD platform lead to a F100/Ranger replacement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 gotcha, and kinda figured, however, exhibit A) Aluminum....costs more, most dont care even with benefits....B) if Fords come up with something groundbreaking, and seriously NOTHING would surprize me with the way the industry has been leapfrogging one another as of late, that maybe REQUIRES RWD, then, hey Im all for it. In wheel hybrids? Who knows, but they sure know how to put a discussible topic on the table. Truth be told, im with you, sceptical, for the same reasons you outlined, but NOTHING surprizes me anymore, and the product just keeps getting better.... As far as Diesels go, stick with commercial applications with consumer spinoffs, which is exactly what Ford is doing..theres superior alternatives in passenger cars....we have a couple of employees here whom obtained 3000 plus miles on their first tanks on Energis, put THAT in your Diesel VW pipe and smoke it. People don't care about aluminum per se, but they do care about better FE and more capability! And yes, Ford may have come up with a game changer, but that's basically what it would take. There is no conventional business case to be made for an RWD Explorer, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Can this RWD platform lead to a F100/Ranger replacement? My expectation is that it would be too expensive. I think the legit Ranger replacement is the Transit Connect pickup discussed elsewhere.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Don't confuse 'worked up' with 'posting a lot'. The fact of the matter is that I'm down with a nasty allergy attack, and have a fair bit of free time today. I am, however, baffled that people who can see the folly in GM's actions cannot see the folly of increasing per-unit costs of a high volume vehicle for no clearly discernible reason. Certainly, if this Aviator and Continental are successful, they will not need Explorer volume either to fully utilize a plant or to amortize development costs. another maybe, maybe the Explorer moves up market, then t5he Escape slots into where the Explorer was, then theres another product slots in where the Escape was....its already happened in the car lineup ( thus the Fiesta )..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Well, we're getting the EcoSport, so that's apt to relieve bottom-line pressure across the board, but it's not as though the Explorer will need RWD if it moves upmarket. It already basically defines the top end of the entry-level CUV category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 But that's just the CTS+ATS thing in a different guise. As RMC said, it's Ford splitting their own market. No, I was arguing the RWD Explorer WOULDN'T split its own market because it would be directly replacing itself, not adding a new vehicle to the lineup, like GM did with adding the ATS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 People don't care about aluminum per se, but they do care about better FE and more capability! And yes, Ford may have come up with a game changer, but that's basically what it would take. There is no conventional business case to be made for an RWD Explorer, IMO. Aluminum RWD Explorer, 400lbs lighter, 2.7 eco engine 325 hp, 28 hwy mpgs, tow up to 7500lbs, avail true 4x4 with lockable diffs. Starting price $32000......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Right, but CTS is eventually moving to Alpha as well, which brings you around to whether two Alphas are better than one. CTS is already on Alpha LWB. ATS is Alpha SWB, as will be Camaro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 No, I was arguing the RWD Explorer WOULDN'T split its own market because it would be directly replacing itself, not adding a new vehicle to the lineup, like GM did with adding the ATS. I know. I was applying your argument to Dean's suggestion that Ford would move the Explorer up in price in order to slot another 3-row beneath it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 CTS is already on Alpha LWB. ATS is Alpha SWB, as will be Camaro. Then, there you go. There's your conundrum: Is Cadillac better off with CTS+ATS volume than it would be with just CTS volume? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Outside of the Explorer what else would use a CD4 CUV platform? Flex and MKT are surely dead. That leaves Explorer (and the police version). And that's not the same platform that would be used for a Chinese Taurus. You said yourself that a CUV was different from the sedan so while it's not 100% new it's not the same platform either. So you think it makes sense to build a RWD CUV platform for the low volume Aviator and also build a new CD4 based CUV platform for ONE vehicle (Explorer) rather than build a single platform that works for both globally? Any loss in profits on Explorer would be more than made up for in platform and engineering savings. A RWD explorer would attract some new buyers - and compete better with the GC - while not alienating current buyers. The problem with the old one was it was BOF, had terrible NVH and fuel economy and was on a bespoke platform. I think you got too much sudafed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Well, we're getting the EcoSport, so that's apt to relieve bottom-line pressure across the board, but it's not as though the Explorer will need RWD if it moves upmarket. It already basically defines the top end of the entry-level CUV category. sorry, sidetracking...are we for sure getting the Ecosport?... 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.