akirby Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 At the risk of starting this debate up again, care to elaborate what exactly you mean by that? I think mustang will share the new cd6 platform with explorer/aviator and one or two cd sized Lincoln and/or Ford sedans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Curious, what is so difficult about a hybrid that it couldn't be built in an assembly plant along side the Mustang? Or is that plant so outdated that it just can't handle the complexity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 I think mustang will share the new cd6 platform with explorer/aviator and one or two cd sized Lincoln and/or Ford sedans. Let's hope it doesn't turn into a first generation camaro when it comes to weight if that happens 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Let's hope it doesn't turn into a first generation camaro when it comes to weight if that happens I don't think they'd let that happen but it would take a lot of planning. I think it will be more sharing an architecture and components than a platform (whatever that actually means). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Curious, what is so difficult about a hybrid that it couldn't be built in an assembly plant along side the Mustang? Or is that plant so outdated that it just can't handle the complexity? It's not that the plant is outdated necessarily, but there's no room for the extra tooling needed for the electric parts. The whole engine line and the drivetrain mairrage stations for sure would need to be reconstructed and I just don't see them doing that any time soon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 Could it be that Ford is looking to make more production space for Mustang while limiting Fusion builds going into winter and spring? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Could it be that Ford is looking to make more production space for Mustang while limiting Fusion builds going into winter and spring? more MusStangs until they've caught up with GLOBAL demand then add some other model < secret-code-smilie Edited December 26, 2015 by 2b2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Dealers now receiving stock....RHD interior photo at LINK Edited December 26, 2015 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) I keep wondering if fusion could make way for MkC/Escape overflow (perhaps hybrids) I'm not sure if I see them adding another platform there. Oakville to me makes more sense for MKC production, given Flex/MKT will die off about the same time they're talking about moving MKC. Unless they decide to use it as D6/Explorer/Aviator overflow. MAP? Edited December 29, 2015 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 MAP? Yes, that's possible as well. But there's also the Ranger/Bronco rumors for MAP, unless it'd product both Ranger/Bronco and MKC (and other C2/C2 replacement vehicles)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Dealers now receiving stock....RHD interior photo at LINK Who flipped the image? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Just the little things being said about MKC moving and not being part of next Escape production line, I wonder if it's already a mix of C1 and CD4 construction, enough to go down another line with CD4s. Still thinking about splined front hubs found on GT350, could front suspension be shared with C1 /CD4? That would make sense now that Mustang construction is more aligned with that of Fusion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Yes, that's possible as well. But there's also the Ranger/Bronco rumors for MAP, unless it'd product both Ranger/Bronco and MKC (and other C2/C2 replacement vehicles)? Why invest in a new ranger if you cannot find production for the escape? I'll ask the question again, why isn't MAP Overflow production for the Escape right now? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Why invest in a new ranger if you cannot find production for the escape? I'll ask the question again, why isn't MAP Overflow production for the Escape right now? I was simply pointing out the rumors of Ranger/Bronco at MAP.... Does anyone know how MAP is set up? Does it have one line? Or two? Anybody know how many vehicles can it currently produce? Colorado and Canyon combined are on pace to sell roughly 115K this year. Let's assume similar for a potential Ranger, with say a conservative 50K for Bronco. (Wrangler is on pace to just crack 200K for the year). That'd be ~165K of production right there. Even doubling Bronco numbers leaves you at ~215K, and assuming 300K/year production rate (again, someone will need to correct me on MAP's production rate....I used Hermosillo as an example here), that'd leave 85K of production a year they could still eek out, which could theoretically be used as MKC and/or Escape overflow production (personally, wouldn't it make sense to consolidate Escape production in one facility, while as mentioned in the contract, MKC goes to another facility?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Why invest in a new ranger if you cannot find production for the escape? I'll ask the question again, why isn't MAP Overflow production for the Escape right now? Couple reasons...Ford thinks the Ranger will have a higher ATP and setting MAP overflow for the Escape at the moment wouldn't be profitable. I'd rather see them limited and having lower incentives then building an extra 80-100K just to justify an additional production line some where else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) I was simply pointing out the rumors of Ranger/Bronco at MAP.... Does anyone know how MAP is set up? Does it have one line? Or two? Anybody know how many vehicles can it currently produce? Colorado and Canyon combined are on pace to sell roughly 115K this year. Let's assume similar for a potential Ranger, with say a conservative 50K for Bronco. (Wrangler is on pace to just crack 200K for the year). That'd be ~165K of production right there. Even doubling Bronco numbers leaves you at ~215K, and assuming 300K/year production rate (again, someone will need to correct me on MAP's production rate....I used Hermosillo as an example here), that'd leave 85K of production a year they could still eek out, which could theoretically be used as MKC and/or Escape overflow production (personally, wouldn't it make sense to consolidate Escape production in one facility, while as mentioned in the contract, MKC goes to another facility?). When I was there, running at full speed over a 10.7 hour shift we could hit about 650 cars. 10 hours is 605-615 cars (they eventuall slowed the line down a bit earlier this year before they announced the shift reduction). There's only one line, and space is limited for parts, it's very compact. At least in Final. I've never been in the body or paint shop there so I can't speak to that. I'm pretty sure there's only one line in body as well. The only area there's 2 of anything to my knowledge is the Stamping plant, but again I've never been back there so I have no idea what's actually there. Edited December 30, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I was simply pointing out the rumors of Ranger/Bronco at MAP.... Does anyone know how MAP is set up? Does it have one line? Or two? Anybody know how many vehicles can it currently produce? Colorado and Canyon combined are on pace to sell roughly 115K this year. Let's assume similar for a potential Ranger, with say a conservative 50K for Bronco. (Wrangler is on pace to just crack 200K for the year). That'd be ~165K of production right there. Even doubling Bronco numbers leaves you at ~215K, and assuming 300K/year production rate (again, someone will need to correct me on MAP's production rate....I used Hermosillo as an example here), that'd leave 85K of production a year they could still eek out, which could theoretically be used as MKC and/or Escape overflow production (personally, wouldn't it make sense to consolidate Escape production in one facility, while as mentioned in the contract, MKC goes to another facility?). The plant can make 350-400k per year on 3 shifts. It is Already tooled to build C2 vehicles of which the Escape is one of them. Ford Cut production at Wayne in 2015 and is looking to begin production in 2018, or 3 years later of new product. My concerns are why a 3 year gap in production at Wayne While no other source of additional production for the Escape. Why Wasn't escape production considered in-lieu of eliminating a Shift at MAP. Is it a mistake to retool a car plant to build a Truck 2018, When Oil prices are unnaturally Low right know. Couple reasons...Ford thinks the Ranger will have a higher ATP and setting MAP overflow for the Escape at the moment wouldn't be profitable. I'd rather see them limited and having lower incentives then building an extra 80-100K just to justify an additional production line some where else. I don't think it is that simple,Why lose Sales for 3 years in a Growing market While "looking" for a overflow plant. Toyota says that RAV-4 sales will overtake Camry sales in a few years, there Seems to be an insatiable demand for Compact CUVs and Ford is maxed out at LAP, why wasn't MAP ever considered for CUV production back in 2009 when the facility was being planned? The Ranger ATP won't do anything for Ford in 2015, 2016 and 2017 while MAP operates under capacity and LAP cannot meet demand for Escapes. I am not trying to be negative but this decision seems more political than technical., its not like Ford didn't build the Kuga and Focus on the same line before, or the body, paint or Chassis line cannot Accommodate the Escape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The plant can make 350-400k per year on 3 shifts. It is Already tooled to build C2 vehicles of which the Escape is one of them. Ford Cut production at Wayne in 2015 and is looking to begin production in 2018, or 3 years later of new product. My concerns are why a 3 year gap in production at Wayne While no other source of additional production for the Escape. Why Wasn't escape production considered in-lieu of eliminating a Shift at MAP. Is it a mistake to retool a car plant to build a Truck 2018, When Oil prices are unnaturally Low right know. I don't think it is that simple,Why lose Sales for 3 years in a Growing market While "looking" for a overflow plant. Toyota says that RAV-4 sales will overtake Camry sales in a few years, there Seems to be an insatiable demand for Compact CUVs and Ford is maxed out at LAP, why wasn't MAP ever considered for CUV production back in 2009 when the facility was being planned? The Ranger ATP won't do anything for Ford in 2015, 2016 and 2017 while MAP operates under capacity and LAP cannot meet demand for Escapes. I am not trying to be negative but this decision seems more political than technical., its not like Ford didn't build the Kuga and Focus on the same line before, or the body, paint or Chassis line cannot Accommodate the Escape. I agree it doesn't make sense that a seemingly obvious opportunity has been left on the table. I wonder what the cost of adding the Escape to the plant is at this point in the car's lifecycle? As for adding a truck - it'd be a fuel efficient one - (in theory) the most efficient truck on the market, so the fuel prices argument is moot. If anything, that argument would help its case - to have a new even more fuel efficient truck offering in the lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Wasn't there a reason they cannot do AWD (even the RS) at MAP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The plant can make 350-400k per year on 3 shifts. It is Already tooled to build C2 vehicles of which the Escape is one of them. Ford Cut production at Wayne in 2015 and is looking to begin production in 2018, or 3 years later of new product. My concerns are why a 3 year gap in production at Wayne While no other source of additional production for the Escape. Why Wasn't escape production considered in-lieu of eliminating a Shift at MAP. Is it a mistake to retool a car plant to build a Truck 2018, When Oil prices are unnaturally Low right know. 1. They are still building the Focus and C-Max, and will continue to do so until the new product comes in to replace it. Remember, the Ranger is still a rumor at this point, Ford hasn't officially said anything on the matter. 2. I've been over this with you I don't know how many times anymore. The Escape is both taller and longer than the C-Max, and there is not enough clearance for it in the plant (at least in Final) as it is currently configured. What I do know from various people I've talked to is that once Focus and C-Max production is moved there will be major changes to the configuration to account for the new model. 3. Assuming the Ranger is coming to MAP, oil prices are being forecast to stay low for the foreseeable future, meaning the next 3-5 years, then a marginal upward trend afterward. I believe you're focusing too much on that aspect of this debate. I don't think it is that simple,Why lose Sales for 3 years in a Growing market While "looking" for a overflow plant. Toyota says that RAV-4 sales will overtake Camry sales in a few years, there Seems to be an insatiable demand for Compact CUVs and Ford is maxed out at LAP, why wasn't MAP ever considered for CUV production back in 2009 when the facility was being planned? They aren't looking for an overflow plant. They're moving MKC production out of LAP. To where, is unclear at this time but keep an eye on the Unifor negotiations in Canada to see if Oakville is indeed an option. It for sure won't be FRAP like some people are hinting. That place can in no way handle anything taller than a fusion with the hood open. Trust me, part of my job is half closing Mustang hoods so they fit in the next area. The Ranger ATP won't do anything for Ford in 2015, 2016 and 2017 while MAP operates under capacity and LAP cannot meet demand for Escapes. Under capacity at MAP, yes, but keep in mind during the 3 day weekends they are already doing retooling and engineering work (or so I hear). Its a short term hit for long term gain. I am not trying to be negative but this decision seems more political than technical., its not like Ford didn't build the Kuga and Focus on the same line before, or the body, paint or Chassis line cannot Accommodate the Escape. See bullet number 2 in the first section. Not all plants are designed to be equal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Wasn't there a reason they cannot do AWD (even the RS) at MAP? The engine and suspension line isn't equipped to handle an AWD setup and the dynos are FWD only right now. Its much more cost effective to build them in Germany at a plant already set up for AWD rather than interrupt the retooling at MAP for a new model in 2018 for a limited production niche model. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) to further my point of there not being enough clearance for the Escape at MAP, here's the dimensions of it and the C-Max, straight from Ford's website *edit: I threw in the MKC dimensions for S&Gs C-Max: Escape: MKC: Edited December 30, 2015 by fuzzymoomoo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 to further my point of there not being enough clearance for the Escape at MAP, here's the dimensions of it and the C-Max, straight from Ford's website *edit: I threw in the MKC dimensions for S&Gs C-Max: Escape: MKC: The focus The Focus sedan is Longer than the Escape, while the escape is only 3 inches taller than the C-max, and the C-max is Wider than the Escape. I how short sighted was Ford to not provide extra clearance at MAP for another product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The focus The Focus sedan is Longer than the Escape, while the escape is only 3 inches taller than the C-max, and the C-max is Wider than the Escape. I how short sighted was Ford to not provide extra clearance at MAP for another product? you have to include the height with the hood and decklid raised as well. most of the manufacturing process is done with the hood and decklid (or hatch in this case) raised. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) While it looks like LAP can't make enough Escapes, inventory at Dec 1 was over 70,000 so it's not like Ford is desperately short, just very busy making as many as possible. And I betcha Ford would pick that any day over an overflow plant. Given the unprecedented rise in Utes and a corresponding easing of car sales, I'd think that Ford is crying all the way to the bank and could care less about losing some Focus sales, the gains in Utilities more than makes up for that. Bottom line is that slowing production at MAP and redeploying staff is the cheaper option than changing everything around. We're already to 2016, Ford is not going to renegotiate supplier contracts and vehicle production changes this late in the product cycle. Next gen Fiesta arrijves first at Cuautitlan in 2017 and then Focus will joint it there in 2018, vacating MAP. Edited December 31, 2015 by jpd80 1 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.