GMC to continue old Acadia alongside new as "Acadia Limited"

[old_fairmont_wagon]

This is a trend that's being picked up more and more throughout the industry. Nissan is doing it with the Rogue as well (and I think the Versa is also split). Its a way of keeping plant utilization up while being able to offer a cost-leader design to get new, price shopping buyers into your storefronts. I can't say that I agree with it, but, it is something to deal with. With Ford likely to keep the PIU and PI going unchanged for many years to come, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be a Taurus and Explorer "classic" at some point to keep that plant's volume up enough to justify the existence of a police product.

[akirby]

If it's a short term thing to keep the plant busy until other products show up or new product volume expands then that may be wise.

 

But if you're doing it just to sell more vehicles (especially "cheaper" vehicles) I'm not sure it's worth the effort. The cost of keeping multiple versions, presumably very low profit margin, confusion to the consumer, loss of sales of the newer models just seems like it would outweigh any additional profit.

 

Then again when does GM make decisions based on profitability?

[silvrsvt]

With Ford likely to keep the PIU and PI going unchanged for many years to come, I wouldn't be shocked for there to be a Taurus and Explorer "classic" at some point to keep that plant's volume up enough to justify the existence of a police product.

 

Given the fact that Chicago is at production capacity and Ford wants to add a Lincoln Explorer to the mix when they are moved to a new platform, I see Taurus going away retail sales wise before the end of CY 2018. Sales keep dropping year to year due to production favoring the Explorer and PIU. The PIU outsells the PI by a considerable margin also.

[Biker16]

If it's a short term thing to keep the plant busy until other products show up or new product volume expands then that may be wise.

 

But if you're doing it just to sell more vehicles (especially "cheaper" vehicles) I'm not sure it's worth the effort. The cost of keeping multiple versions, presumably very low profit margin, confusion to the consumer, loss of sales of the newer models just seems like it would outweigh any additional profit.

 

Then again when does GM make decisions based on profitability?

 

GM can efficient manufacturing system allows them to do what they are doing, and to do so profitably.

 

What GM is doing with the Acadia, would be Akin to Ford replacing the Explorer with the 3 row Edge, expect they are hedging by sell both product side by side.

 

Styling wise I believe that some buyer would prefer the Styling of the 3 row edge over the Explorer, which has the benefit of growing Ford's CUV pie and reducing demand for the capacity constrained explorer, for the less constrained product the Edge (12 months from now when OAC adds a shift or eliminates the MKT/Flex). there is a market for smaller 3-row Crossovers The new GM will prove that with the New Acadia.

[Anthony]

Remember the 2004 Ford F-150 Heritage edition?

[fordmantpw]

Remember the 2004 Ford F-150 Heritage edition?

 

Yes, but that was for a limited time, and was just to keep supply up by changing one plant over at a time (or am I off base?).

 

Another part of the reason was because the '04 did not get a V6 and they kept it around in the Heritage for fleets until the '05 could get the V6.

[akirby]

If you create the right products you don't have to hedge your bets by selling multiple versions at the same time.

[RichardJensen]

 

GM can efficient manufacturing system

 

No matter how much you ride this current hobbyhorse of yours, you're still not getting anywhere.

[bzcat]

 

there is a market for smaller 3-row Crossovers The new GM will prove that with the New Acadia.

 

The market viability for midsize 3-row crossover has been proven beyond a doubt by Toyota Highlander, Kia Sorrento, and Hyundai Santa Fe. Arcadia won't be going to uncharted territory.

 

[akirby]

I expected to see the 3 row edge in NA by now. Seems like a no-brainer since it was already developed for China.

 

It would definitely be needed if Explorer goes RWD and higher performance/higher price.

[RichardJensen]

I expected to see the 3 row edge in NA by now. Seems like a no-brainer

 

Not to me.

 

Where are you going to build it, and why are you going to build that, the Flex and the Explorer and the Expedition all at the same time?

 

I can't imagine any scenario where it would be more profitable than continuing to sell the Flex until it EOLs.

[akirby]

 

Where are you going to build it, and why are you going to build that, the Flex and the Explorer and the Expedition all at the same time?

 

I can't imagine any scenario where it would be more profitable than continuing to sell the Flex until it EOLs.

 

I also expected the Flex to be gone by then, and Expedition is not a competitor.

 

It would be built in Oakville with the standard Edge and it would provide an alternative for folks who want something smaller than an Explorer but still want 3 rows.

 

If Oakville is capacity constrained then that's a good reason. But we already know Explorer is capacity constrained. And I'm assuming CD6 Explorer is more SUV than CUV - 3 row Edge would be cheaper, lower, lighter and get better fuel economy.

 

I was originally against a tweener CUV between the current Ecosport and Escape but it seems that's the way the market is going and having more choices is good.

[BORG]

In-terms of pricing, the gap between Explorer and Edge is small so splitting that tiny gap with a 3-row Edge with it's very cramped 3rd row packaging makes very little sense. China got a 3-row Edge because the Explorer is an expensive import to them, those same conditions don't exist here. A 3-row Edge would basically have to cost the same or less than a 2-row Edge to make sense. Ford already has this figured out, I think people forget they already have a full-range of Crossovers at the top, it's the bottom which is the problem.

Edited March 18, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

Or conversely it would allow Ford to increase the prices on the Explorer, which presumably was one of the reasons they agreed to go CD6 on the new one (that the market would support that).

Edited March 18, 2016 by akirby

[RichardJensen]

 

an alternative for folks who want something smaller than an Explorer

 

Pretty sure the 7 passenger Edge is almost the same size as the Explorer.

 

The new Edge is only 9" shorter than the Explorer, and it sure looks like they added more than 6" to the Edge to make it a 7 passenger vehicle.

[akirby]

Pretty sure the 7 passenger Edge is almost the same size as the Explorer.

 

The new Edge is only 9" shorter than the Explorer, and it sure looks like they added more than 6" to the Edge to make it a 7 passenger vehicle.

Explorer is 3 inches wider.

[Fgts]

 

And if that happens, how do you know that the current Impala won't be continued right along side its replacement? That's the precedent that GM seems to be setting.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/gm-to-boost-crossover-production-saving-jobs-at-oshawa-plant/article29279008/

 

Update, the "Fleetpala" dies this June for Temporary Equinox/Terrain production.

 

This plant been saved several times "last minute" as its capable of making nearly 1 million vehicles, that would be extremely short-sighted to close the plant and lose this massive capability. IMO fullsize, mainstream car production (either fwd/rwd) should be consolidated here like the early 00s or Arlington TX plant in the 90s.

[RichardJensen]

Explorer is 3 inches wider.

 

I don't see how something 3" narrower and ~3" shorter qualifies as a 'smaller' alternative. Especially given the almost certain price overlap.

[sullynd]

Is the interior 3" wider though? D3 is not really efficient when it comes to packaging. At one point it was assumed Explorer would be CD4 too. 7 Passenger Edge could fill that role if Explorer moves up, but you risk making Explorer niche and possibly losing sales if Edge does not sufficiently pick up the slack. It would also mean a second edge plant, as I don't think OAC could handle the volume.

[akirby]

I agree it would only make sense if OAC has capacity to add it and the new explorer moves up a bit in size and price.

[J-150]

Remember the 2004 Ford F-150 Heritage edition?

97 Heritage as well.

[jpd80]

I think the key here is that while 3-row Edge is a good product, it's not really an Explorer replacement.

Should Ford look at a 3-Row Edge or just keep plugging away with Explorer and then just add the slim door tech?

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by jpd80

[fordmantpw]

97 Heritage as well.

Ummm, I don't think there was one. The only '97 was the new style. The old style ended at '96.

[jpd80]

Is the interior 3" wider though? D3 is not really efficient when it comes to packaging. At one point it was assumed Explorer would be CD4 too. 7 Passenger Edge could fill that role if Explorer moves up, but you risk making Explorer niche and possibly losing sales if Edge does not sufficiently pick up the slack. It would also mean a second edge plant, as I don't think OAC could handle the volume.

What Ford could do is end Flex and MKT production, allowing additional production space for 3-row Edge

for Nth American and international sales. A D3 Explorer with CD4's slimmer doors would gain huge space.

Edited March 19, 2016 by jpd80

[sullynd]

Do you think losing ~3k production a month would free up enough capacity? I somehow doubt it.