ZanatWork Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Shared platform. What Richard said. The Flex, MKT, Freestyle, Explorer, Montego, 500, and the recent iterations of the Taurus and Sable are all based off of the old Volvo S80 bones (granted, with varying degrees of evolutionary improvements). In a fairly real sense, the Freestyle (also, Taurus X) split its personalities and became the Flex and the Explorer. All this because American buyers are still allergic to the word "wagon", despite it being all they generally need.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Interesting military vehicle. Bright yellow easy to target paint and is that an auxiliary fan in front of the grille to prevent overheating...then hang a pack in front and block half of it off. The color is off in that photo and that isn't a fan either. Not to mention that on a typical car or even truck most of the intake air for the radiator comes in from the front bottom. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) In a fairly real sense, the Freestyle (also, Taurus X) split its personalities and became the Flex and the Explorer. All this because American buyers are still allergic to the word "wagon", despite it being all they generally need.... Its not that hard...if you can sell something at a 3-4K premium over your sedan model vs 1-2K for a wagon and the market demands it...well wouldn't you do it? There is more to a CUV then it being just a wagon...not just it being on stilts suspension wise. Edited February 15, 2015 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 All this because American buyers are still allergic to the word "wagon", despite it being all they generally need.... Good grief. Crossovers have different styling and more importantly they sit up higher - a lot higher - and a lot of people like that. Would you buy a car you didn't like even if it was "all you need"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 All this because American buyers are still allergic to the word "wagon", despite it being all they generally need.... A significant point of differentiation is seating position relative to the floor. A wagon, based on a sedan, has a much lower hip point than a CUV, which (generally) has a higher roofline. It matters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) Ok, IF Ford would consider doing a new Bronco the first step...and this is critical... is to forget trying to use an existing platform. That means it ain't going to be cheap to build BUT it has to base under $24k. It must be a convertible/removable hard top. It must have standard 4WD (not some limited AWD system) and be an off-road vehicle capable of serious use and easily modified mild to extreme by the owner. The general size has to be small, the original Bronco had a 94 inch wheelbase, the current Wrangler is 95.4. That's what works for this application, sound familiar? The problem is you will be going up against a competitor that built the standard and never left this segment. Think truck buyers are loyal? Ford did exactly this in 1966 but the business case for a separate platform didn't work then and possibly not now. The original But for God's sake the world does NOT need another one of these... Edited February 15, 2015 by F250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Market competitors - ask the people that cross shop them. Certainly they don't have the off-road chops of the Wrangler, but in reality, they have have more than enough to get through plenty of tough trails plus they have the advantage that you don't have to live with a Wrangler. In fact, I don't even know of any trails within a couple hundred miles of where I live that a Wrangler isn't overkill for. That said, as you pointed out, none of them have been setting sales charts on fire. I don't know what the business case is for a Bronco Jeep Wrangler posted 175,328 sales in 2014. Not bad but more importantly it's the foundation of the Jeep brand. I would imagine most of those sales were fairly profitable and the Wrangler's resale value is very healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 If they do go the route of a new Bronco, I wonder if there would be a Sport-trac version... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 There is no way to justify a bespoke platform for a $25k vehicle that would be lucky to sell 20K/year. Ford has both unibody and BOF platforms available. No need for anything bespoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 There is no way to justify a bespoke platform for a $25k vehicle that would be lucky to sell 20K/year. Ford has both unibody and BOF platforms available. No need for anything bespoke. Jeep does it and makes damn good money at it. Wrangler outsold Toyota's Tundra and Tacoma last year. Existing unibody platform=CUV. Ford already has CUVs. Existing BOF too big, Ford already has Raptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 It must be a convertible/removable hard top. It must have standard 4WD (not some limited AWD system) and be an off-road vehicle capable of serious use and easily modified mild to extreme by the owner. No. It needs to do *certain* things better than the Wrangler. Certain things that a sufficient number of Wrangler buyers would like to have. I do not know what those things are, but I can tell you for sure that Cadillac is exhibit A in the gallery of 'reasons why trying to copy another company's formula exactly does not work.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 No. It needs to do *certain* things better than the Wrangler. Certain things that a sufficient number of Wrangler buyers would like to have. I do not know what those things are, but I can tell you for sure that Cadillac is exhibit A in the gallery of 'reasons why trying to copy another company's formula exactly does not work.' That's what Toyota thought when they gave us the FJ40. That didn't end well for Toyota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 That's what Toyota thought when they gave us the FJ40. That didn't end well for Toyota. I'm sure it can't help that the thing was ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Certainly they don't have the off-road chops of the Wrangler, but in reality, they have have more than enough to get through plenty of tough trails plus they have the advantage that you don't have to live with a Wrangler. In fact, I don't even know of any trails within a couple hundred miles of where I live that a Wrangler isn't overkill for. This is the problem when a Wrangler competitive off-road capable vehicle is discussed. Frequently people say "nobody needs that kind of real off-road performance" and very few buyers will really use it's ability so we can go cheap and cobble up something on an existing platform, make a quick buck and if it doesn't work well we haven't invested much in the project anyway. By that logic the new Mustang only needs 140 HP to get to any legal speed, it's only important for the Mustang to look sporty not actually perform...right? The GT350 is an expensive waste never mind the new GT very few buyers will actually take these cars to a racetrack which is the only place their performance can be enjoyed. So why did Ford invest so much in performance real buyers will not, indeed cannot legally use on the street? Linelock so you can do a burnout! Really Ford? When it comes to high performance trucks which was more popular and profitable Raptor or Lightning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) Certainly anything built to go up against the Wrangler needs serious thought put into it. It's definitely not in the realm of "if you build it, they will come". That just ain't gonna happen no matter who you are.What would persuade buyers to consider a vehicle other than the Wrangler? Livability? Price? Ability?Unfortunately, I think the one attribute the to overcome with the Wrangler (in this genre) is its badge. That is the toughest nut to crack.If there's 3 vehicles being developed to go head-on with the Wrangler (should we believe Mr. DeLorenzo) there's going to be 2.5 unhappy manufacturers in a few years. There just isn't enough buyers for 4 of these types of vehicles. Edited February 16, 2015 by Intrepidatious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Some new Wrangler news: http://www.autonews.com/article/20150215/OEM03/302169971 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Jeep does it and makes damn good money at it. Wrangler outsold Toyota's Tundra and Tacoma last year. Existing unibody platform=CUV. Ford already has CUVs. Existing BOF too big, Ford already has Raptor. And just how old are those platforms? They aren't starting from scratch. And just because Jeep can sell 210K Wranglers doesn't mean Ford can (or anyone else). The business case for Jeep and the business case for Ford and others are completely, totally different. Just like the business case for Raptor was much different for Ford than Toyota. Existing BOF is not too big - you're conveniently ignoring T6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Midsize could be a happy medium between the ultra compact original Bronco and the late Full-Size Bronco Just enough room to haul your gear, maybe put a mattress in the back, but still small enough to squeeze through the trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Midsize could be a happy medium between the ultra compact original Bronco and the late Full-Size Bronco Just enough room to haul your gear, maybe put a mattress in the back, but still small enough to squeeze through the trees. Otherwise known as the Explorer Sport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Otherwise known as the Explorer Sport AKA a great vehicle to tear it up at MOAB.... ...said no one ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 That's what Toyota thought when they gave us the FJ40. That didn't end well for Toyota. So, according to you, 100% of all Wrangler buyers are 100% happy with 100% of everything on a Wrangler, and everything on the Wrangler should be copied? Let's face it: The Wrangler is a woefully inadequate daily driver, even by *MUSTANG* standards. Ford owns a company in Brazil that engineers all-terrain vehicles. They have the institutional intelligence to build off-road vehicles. Who's to say that there isn't a market for a more livable but still off-road capable vehicle? I mean, you're insisting that a 'real' Jeep competitor needs removable doors and a soft top, etc. What if it doesn't? What if Ford can sell 100k hard top/sealed door off road vehicles to people who live in the snowbelt and who do *not* like driving Wranglers in winter? "But, then it won't be as capable as a Jeep!!" I hear you say The people that use 100% of a Wrangler's capability will not buy a different vehicle, so there is absolutely *no* need to cater to them, or even concern yourself with what they think of this vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) AKA a great vehicle to tear it up at MOAB.... ...said no one ever Oh I agree, but you missed my point. My point was the vehicle you described was the size of an explorer sport with bronco off road capability Edited February 16, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) I wonder how many Wrangler Unlimited (4Door) buyers are "Hard Core Jeep" buyers? Just back from the Autoshow and the Wrangler Unlimited is now the front runner to replace my Escape. If there were a Bronco it would be my first choice. The new Edge looks great. If I can wait it would probably be my first choice. It annoys me that the only new Edge was locked. 2016 Explorer looks great, GT in Silver/Gray is pure sex. Edited February 16, 2015 by sullynd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) So if Ford were seriously interested in a Mid-size BOF Bronco.......the most logical vehicle starting point would be the Global Ranger? Ford could rebadge the Ranger in North America as the F-100. Thus you have your shared platform, additional numbers to maintain F-Series #1 sales. You have your Hardcore 4x4 covered, and your midsize pickup market taken care of. A future aluminum F-100 could be a great vehicle when gas prices go back up, and they will go back up........so there's also a slight CAFE argument there as well. -Feel free to tear this reasoning apart if I missed something Edited February 16, 2015 by probowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 So if Ford were seriously interested in a Mid-size BOF Bronco.......the most logical vehicle starting point would be the Global Ranger? Ford could rebadge the Ranger in North America as the F-100. Thus you have your shared platform, additional numbers to maintain F-Series #1 sales. You have your Hardcore 4x4 covered, and your midsize pickup market taken care of. A future aluminum F-100 could be a great vehicle when gas prices go back up, and they will go back up........so there's also a slight CAFE argument there as well. -Feel free to tear this reasoning apart if I missed something I believe that "Global Ranger "and "Aluma-150" will converge into one platform in the next 1 to 2 design recycles... 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.