Jalopnik: RWD Lincoln coming, and it's a crossover

[RichardJensen]

How on earth would PD possibly know that it was a 'different' source?

Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen

[SoonerLS]

How on earth would PD possibly know that it was a 'different' source?

Would you listen to a source who would talk to TTAC?

[akirby]

How on earth would PD possibly know that it was a 'different' source?

 

I was going with your assumption that TTAC didn't have a real source.

[Biker16]

You really think that a 7 Row CUV that would retail at 50K in the US and even more overseas is going to sell 40K units world wide?

 

I'd like to have what your smoking.....

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/10/booming-audi-q7-sales-mean-big-profits-for-volkswa.aspx

 

Booming Audi Q7 Sales Mean Big Profits for Volkswagen

 

By John Rosevear | More Articles | Save For Later

February 10, 2014 | Comments (0)

 

 

The big Audi Q7 SUV has seen sales boom in China -- and elsewhere. Photo credit: Audi

 

Audi said last week that its global deliveries were up 11.7% in January. The German luxury giant's growth continued on a solid pace last month, despite increasing signs that the U.S. and Chinese markets are softening.

 

In a sign that Audi's profits could be on the rise, the brand said that its larger models, the A6, A7, A8, and Q7 SUV, all saw global sales rise significantly. The small A3 and Q3 also posted significant sales gains.

 

That's good news for shareholders of Audi parent Volkswagen (NASDAQOTH: VLKAY ) -- and a sign that the global luxury-car market continues to show surprising strength.

 

Big Audis see big sales increases

Audi said that sales of the big Q7 SUV were up a whopping 40.8% in January, thanks to a big boom in China. Q7 sales were up 75% in the world's largest auto market, as China's appetite for luxury SUVs continued to generate impressive sales growth.

 

 

 

Sales of Audi's full-sized models as a group, including the sharp A7 Sportback, were up more than 11% in January. Photo credit: Audi

 

China has become arguably Audi's most important market. The market for luxury vehicles in China has absolutely boomed over the last few years, and Audi, with about a third of the market, has been dominant. Overall, Audi's sales in China were up 18.2% in January.

 

Audi's SUVs aren't just popular in China, of course. The Q7 and its midsized Q5 sibling accounted for 40% of Audi's U.S. sales in January, a month in which the brand saw just slight growth -- 0.4% -- as extreme cold weather kept buyers away from dealerships.

 

Meanwhile, sales in Europe were up 7.8%, impressive given the overall market -- and Audi sales more than doubled in Brazil in January.

 

So why is all of this important? Because Audi is a massive profit generator for Volkwagen.

 

Why Audi's profits are so important to Volkswagen

Consider this: Through the first nine months of last year, Audi accounted for 14.8% of the Volkswagen Group's global passenger car sales, and 43.7% of its pre-tax profits.

 

Fold in corporate sibling Porsche, and the numbers get even more remarkable. Over that same period, Audi and Porsche accounted for 16.5% of the VW Group's global passenger-vehicle sales -- and almost 66% of its pre-tax profits.

 

(Porsche sales were up just 1.4% in January over year-ago totals -- but January of last year was a very strong month for the brand.)

 

VW was outsold by General Motors (NYSE: GM ) and Toyota (NYSE: TM ) in 2012, but its profits eclipsed both. Why? Luxury cars.

 

That example hasn't been lost on VW's rivals. Why is GM putting so much attention and money into Cadillac? Why is Nissan (NASDAQOTH: NSANY ) making massive investments in Infiniti? Why did Fiat (NASDAQOTH: FIATY ) pony up big bucks to give its Maserati brand a Super Bowl ad?

 

Because successful luxury-car brands generate big profits, and all of those automakers -- and many more -- want to emulate the success that VW has had with Audi.

 

Meanwhile, Audi's success continues -- and that bodes well for VW's first-quarter profits.

[RichardJensen]

 

I was going with your assumption that TTAC didn't have a real source.

 

Well, it turns out their source also says the GT is a no-go, and that there is absolutely *no* program at Ford dedicated to a GTE-capable vehicle, which renders the presence of a Ford employee at GTE constructors meetings particularly difficult to explain.

[RichardJensen]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/10/booming-audi-q7-sales-mean-big-profits-for-volkswa.aspx

 

 

Hey, if the CHINESE suddenly want 3-row $70k crossover imports and are willing to pay the duties on a significant number of them, then, shoot, why not? But let's not pretend that this product is even *remotely* justifiable in any other market--or by adding tons of cost to the Explorer.

Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen

[2b2]

You'd have to force all Explorer AWD buyers to buy a hybrid and you'd be turning the hybrid into a no-cost option.

not that I understood^

but afaik there's no reason Ford can't go ahead with their 'traditional' mechanical Awd

but the low-volume Lincoln can be the state of the art guinea pig.

per the FocusElectric, FoMoCo doesn't have a problem with electrification for reasons other than (or even opposed to) volume.

not that I understand that either

[RichardJensen]

not that I understood^

but afaik there's no reason Ford can't go ahead with their 'traditional' mechanical Awd

but the low-volume Lincoln can be the state of the art guinea pig.

per the FocusElectric, FoMoCo doesn't have a problem with electrification for reasons other than (or even opposed to) volume.

not that I understand that either

 

Traditional mechanical AWD in a RWD CUV Explorer would not be a cheap undertaking either.

[Moosetang]

A "through-the-road hybrid" RWD/AWD vehicle would be quite a smart move to me. So if this is true that's a solution id like to see. But TTAC is still an abysmal source even if crazy mc crazy pants and P71 don't dominate it anymore. So I'm going to be somewhat extremely skeptical for the time being.

[Footballfan]

I wonder if the rumored Ranchero would fit in this scenario. It could add to the economies of scale.

[akirby]

I wonder if the rumored Ranchero would fit in this scenario. It could add to the economies of scale.

 

Too big and too heavy.

[Biker16]

 

Traditional mechanical AWD in a RWD CUV Explorer would not be a cheap undertaking either.

Negative Ned.

 

you are being the opposite of a Can do person.

 

Again how can Nissan do AWD on a RWD CUV and Ford can't?

[Biker16]

 

Hey, if the CHINESE suddenly want 3-row $70k crossover imports and are willing to pay the duties on a significant number of them, then, shoot, why not? But let's not pretend that this product is even *remotely* justifiable in any other market--or by adding tons of cost to the Explorer.

 

Everyone here needs to get it into their head that North American market is not the largest auto market in the world and China is.

 

Richard is a laggard, when ford plans products they have to think about the Rest of the world not simply the US market, and many BONers do.

 

So the RWD explorer would replace the Ford territory in OZ, and offer a premium Ford product in other markets where the Expy/Navi are simply too large.

 

If the Explorer moves up market does it open up room for a 7 passenger Edge?

 

How forward thinking must or have been if they believed that the excessive investment in the 2015 mustang wasn't a dead end like the previous Mustang and could allow for more sustainable RWD architecture that could be used for the next few decades?

 

Does the investment in RWD/AWD architecture mean a Global Lincoln wont be limited to China and move into other markets as the lineup grows?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not here to start an argument with anyone, but I think one major fact that a lot of people are overlooking is that Ford is going to be making a substantial investment in ALL of their products over the coming decade to transition almost all of them to aluminum intensive construction to save weight. We know that, for Lincoln, there is a lot of change coming. The MKS is going to be moving to the Fusion/MKZ platform. The MKT is dead soon (as is Ford's flex). The Navi is getting a stop-gap facelift while it waits for the AIC Expedition platform model. There's already going to be a LOT of investment pouring into them as a result of massive changes in the platforms underneath each one. So, given that these changes HAVE to happen, you might as well pour some additional money into them to make Lincoln variants.

We know that there is space in Lincoln's lineup for an Aviator (3 row, mid to large, unibody CUV). We know that Ford has an ideal platform to base one off of, the Explorer. What we don't know, for certain, is if the Explorer will switch from FWD/AWD Transverse to RWD/AWD Longitudinal for its next revision. If it does, and there is precedent in that market segment (The Durango is RWD/AWD, as is the Jeep Grand Cherokee), then we know that Ford is well prepared for the change. They already have a trio of high efficiency engines ready to go for Longitudinal application, development of which is amortized through the Mustang and F-150 platforms (2.3L EB, 2.7L EB, 3.5/3.7L N/A). The only expensive new development for Ford that's over and above what they currently are facing is the transmission for them that will support the AWD component of the front axle. Remember, the next Explorer will be on a new platform (D3 is going away), so its roughly going to be clean sheet, and its going to be aluminum. Choosing Longitudinal over Transverse isn't going to affect the overall price of the platform to any major degree.

Here's my speculation on what's going to happen with the Explorer/Aviator. It will get two powertrain options, maybe 3. The basic will be the 2.3L EB in RWD only. The option will be either a 2.7L EB for a sport model or a 2.3L EB (Maybe 2.0L) Hybrid that runs a generator on a PTO off the transmission and uses in wheel electric motors on the front wheels to give it AWD capabilities too. My only concern on execution here is battery pack space. The idea is to save unsprung weight and total system mass. In wheel electric motors would move that weight to the wheels, helping handling, and the weight of the batteries and generator would be offset by the savings of not having a front differential, three drive shafts, and a transfer case. This avoids tearing up the oil pan and complicating the front suspension and steering. Also, having two different front drive motors means that you can play with power splits to improve handling and further modify its off road traction and terrain handling capabilities. This isn't overly complicated or pie in the sky thinking, its all just follow on developments to stuff that they already have in one way or another.

The great thing about that setup is that it also makes sense for a sedan. Battery packaging gets to be a pain, but, with lower total mass, you can use a smaller battery pack for the same motive range. As has been said before, a lot of this development has already been done through the F-150 and the Mustang for the drivetrains. The grunt work is getting the platform right, and the control logic for the AWD setup.

I'd also like you all to consider this, if this AWD system is developed, it can be retrofitted to other platforms. Imagine a mustang based Lincoln coupe with a 2.7L EB engine with this AWD system in it. A higher performance based option could be centered around the 3.5L EB. I'm not saying its a certainty, but, its a possibility that could bring some more volume to the mustang plant and a nice vehicle for Lincoln dealers.

[akirby]

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not here to start an argument with anyone, but I think one major fact that a lot of people are overlooking is that Ford is going to be making a substantial investment in ALL of their products over the coming decade to transition almost all of them to aluminum intensive construction to save weight. We know that, for Lincoln, there is a lot of change coming. The MKS is going to be moving to the Fusion/MKZ platform. The MKT is dead soon (as is Ford's flex). The Navi is getting a stop-gap facelift while it waits for the AIC Expedition platform model. There's already going to be a LOT of investment pouring into them as a result of massive changes in the platforms underneath each one. So, given that these changes HAVE to happen, you might as well pour some additional money into them to make Lincoln variants.

 

We know that there is space in Lincoln's lineup for an Aviator (3 row, mid to large, unibody CUV). We know that Ford has an ideal platform to base one off of, the Explorer. What we don't know, for certain, is if the Explorer will switch from FWD/AWD Transverse to RWD/AWD Longitudinal for its next revision. If it does, and there is precedent in that market segment (The Durango is RWD/AWD, as is the Jeep Grand Cherokee), then we know that Ford is well prepared for the change. They already have a trio of high efficiency engines ready to go for Longitudinal application, development of which is amortized through the Mustang and F-150 platforms (2.3L EB, 2.7L EB, 3.5/3.7L N/A). The only expensive new development for Ford that's over and above what they currently are facing is the transmission for them that will support the AWD component of the front axle. Remember, the next Explorer will be on a new platform (D3 is going away), so its roughly going to be clean sheet, and its going to be aluminum. Choosing Longitudinal over Transverse isn't going to affect the overall price of the platform to any major degree.

 

Here's my speculation on what's going to happen with the Explorer/Aviator. It will get two powertrain options, maybe 3. The basic will be the 2.3L EB in RWD only. The option will be either a 2.7L EB for a sport model or a 2.3L EB (Maybe 2.0L) Hybrid that runs a generator on a PTO off the transmission and uses in wheel electric motors on the front wheels to give it AWD capabilities too. My only concern on execution here is battery pack space. The idea is to save unsprung weight and total system mass. In wheel electric motors would move that weight to the wheels, helping handling, and the weight of the batteries and generator would be offset by the savings of not having a front differential, three drive shafts, and a transfer case. This avoids tearing up the oil pan and complicating the front suspension and steering. Also, having two different front drive motors means that you can play with power splits to improve handling and further modify its off road traction and terrain handling capabilities. This isn't overly complicated or pie in the sky thinking, its all just follow on developments to stuff that they already have in one way or another.

 

The great thing about that setup is that it also makes sense for a sedan. Battery packaging gets to be a pain, but, with lower total mass, you can use a smaller battery pack for the same motive range. As has been said before, a lot of this development has already been done through the F-150 and the Mustang for the drivetrains. The grunt work is getting the platform right, and the control logic for the AWD setup.

 

I'd also like you all to consider this, if this AWD system is developed, it can be retrofitted to other platforms. Imagine a mustang based Lincoln coupe with a 2.7L EB engine with this AWD system in it. A higher performance based option could be centered around the 3.5L EB. I'm not saying its a certainty, but, its a possibility that could bring some more volume to the mustang plant and a nice vehicle for Lincoln dealers.

 

I think this is a very plausible and logical scenario.

 

Richard still says we're nuts......

[PREMiERdrum]

How on earth would PD possibly know that it was a 'different' source?

 

The guy who is telling me this says he's said nothing to TTAC, but he says this program is fairly well known about internally.

 

It sounds to me like they see a huge opportunity with this setup to expose flaws they see coming in the new Pilot and the Lambda replacements (which currently has a variant for all 4 brands).

 

Keep in mind: They have become quite attune to identifying and exposing flaws in large players in the segments they review. The inherently flawed floor design and packaging in the new K2xx SUVs was enough to get the greenlight solidified for the next-gen Expedition and Navigator after they were placed "under review". I reported that here long before we knew that the GM SUVs would debut with the ridiculous raised, false floor.

[RichardJensen]

how can Nissan do AWD on a RWD CUV and Ford can't?

 

By spending much more money per unit than Ford.

 

I never said it was impossible. I said it was foolish for a mainstream brand.

Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

 

they see a huge opportunity with this setup to expose flaws they see coming in the new Pilot and the Lambda replacements

 

So, Ford's response to the "flaws" of GM's lambda products is to build a 3-row CUV with a more expensive standard drive train, a more expensive AWD drive train, and a more difficult to package drive train FOR THE SAME PRICE?

 

Yeah. That sounds *totally* logical.

[RichardJensen]

If the Explorer moves up market does it open up room for a 7 passenger Edge?

 

That's about as stupid as your V8 Explorer idea.

Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Does the investment in RWD/AWD architecture mean a Global Lincoln wont be limited to China and move into other markets as the lineup grows?

 

Lincoln in Europe? I can't think of a more stupid way for Ford to waste money.

[RichardJensen]

The only expensive new development for Ford that's over and above what they currently are facing is the transmission for them that will support the AWD component of the front axle.

 

And that's going to be more expensive on a *per unit* basis, as will the RWD drive line. Yet it will add ZERO perceived value to the vehicle. Not to mention it takes away hundreds of thousands of units of amortization volume for the FWD AWD system rendering THAT system more expensive as well.

 

Please explain to me why a responsible business would add significant unit cost to a product (in fact, several products) without adding a dime of perceived value to it?

Edited October 8, 2014 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

(The Durango is RWD/AWD, as is the Jeep Grand Cherokee)

 

The Durango is going away, and the Grand Cherokee has solid axles front and rear. Should Ford copy that as well?

[PREMiERdrum]

 

So, Ford's response to the "flaws" of GM's lambda products is to build a 3-row CUV with a more expensive standard drive train, a more expensive AWD drive train, and a more difficult to package drive train FOR THE SAME PRICE?

 

Yeah. That sounds *totally* logical.

 

Then you must accept one of the following:

 

- The information is wrong, despite the apparent presence of multiple sources saying it isn't.

- Ford is making a drastic and uncharacteristic mistake in product planning

- Or maybe, just maybe, the people who do this for a living and have thus far have performed a nearly flawless execution of a solid product plan have weighed the positives and negatives of several options and have decided to go this way?

 

Look... I can't say that is IS happening, but I can say that this source was last wrong back in 2010 with the shuttering of the Mercury brand. As we now know, that decision was a quick reversal that was kept extremely quiet inside the company until the announcement was made.

Edited October 8, 2014 by PREMiERdrum

[RichardJensen]

 

Then you must accept one of the following:

 

- The information is wrong, despite the apparent presence of multiple sources saying it isn't.

- Ford is making a drastic and uncharacteristic mistake in product planning

- Or maybe, just maybe, the people who do this for a living and have thus far have performed a nearly flawless execution of a solid product plan have weighed the positives and negatives of several options and have decided to go this way?

 

Look... I can't say that is IS happening, but I can say that this source was last wrong back in 2010 with the shuttering of the Mercury brand. As we now know, that decision was a quick reversal that was kept extremely quiet inside the company until the announcement was made.

 

Where's that minivan we were promised in 2012?

[PREMiERdrum]

 

Where's that minivan we were promised in 2012?

 

I don't remember ever getting info that "promised" a minivan? Galaxy was under review for US production and sales with the redesign as a Flex replacement in the lineup... still could be coming for all I know.

 

It's not very often he has said that something "is" happening. This is one of those times.