Hugh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 There won't be a concept. Fiesta is getting an emergency facelift in Europe because the new one is delayed somewhat as Ford tries to figure out how to make a single Fiesta for markets that are clearly moving in opposite directions. I understand no concept fine. I have to ask wouldn't the market that gets the most sales be the priority in direction? I don't think it would be that hard to create a CUV version if you needed to make it bigger. There are examples from the competitiors and it's the customers money fine. I cannot logically understand why I'd purchase a 'B' segment CUV when I can get a 'C' segment car for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 There won't be a concept. Fiesta is getting an emergency facelift in Europe because the new one is delayed somewhat as Ford tries to figure out how to make a single Fiesta for markets that are clearly moving in opposite directions. I understand no concept fine. I have to ask wouldn't the market that gets the most sales be the priority in direction? I don't think it would be that hard to create a CUV version if you needed to make it bigger. There are examples from the competitiors and it's the customers money fine. I cannot logically understand why I'd purchase a 'B' segment CUV when I can get a 'C' segment car for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 FYI on the person that was comparing the 3.5 eco to the 5.3 Chevy....the 3.5 was the replacement for the 6.2....it should be compared with Chevies LARGER engine... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 There won't be a concept. Fiesta is getting an emergency facelift in Europe because the new one is delayed somewhat as Ford tries to figure out how to make a single Fiesta for markets that are clearly moving in opposite directions. uh-oh. I understand no concept fine. I have to ask wouldn't the market that gets the most sales be the priority in direction? I don't think it would be that hard to create a CUV version if you needed to make it bigger. There are examples from the competitiors and it's the customers money fine. I cannot logically understand why I'd purchase a 'B' segment CUV when I can get a 'C' segment car for example. You have to separate These 4 factors: 1-Interior space 2-Price 3-Buyer preference 4-Fuel economy People choose B-CUVs over C-cars for the same reasons people choose C-CUVs over C/D sedans. You can buy the same Space in a B-CUV as you can get in a C-Sedan but in a preferred seating position and style but lower fuel efficiency. I understand no concept fine. I have to ask wouldn't the market that gets the most sales be the priority in direction? I don't think it would be that hard to create a CUV version if you needed to make it bigger. There are examples from the competitiors and it's the customers money fine. I cannot logically understand why I'd purchase a 'B' segment CUV when I can get a 'C' segment car for example. The best way to reduce risk while maintaining market presence is to source the product from a single location, to reduce the capital Required for the same volume of product. Thus you import the product from the plant that makes the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 uh-oh. You have to separate These 4 factors: 1-Interior space 2-Price 3-Buyer preference 4-Fuel economy People choose B-CUVs over C-cars for the same reasons people choose C-CUVs over C/D sedans. You can buy the same Space in a B-CUV as you can get in a C-Sedan but in a preferred seating position and style but lower fuel efficiency. The best way to reduce risk while maintaining market presence is to source the product from a single location, to reduce the capital Required for the same volume of product. Thus you import the product from the plant that makes the most. From sitting in a Mazda 2 and CX-3 it's a little higher but not too much. Move up to a Mazda 3 hatchback, it is bigger overall then a CX-3 but not so much. The overall footprint of the 'B's are smaller but again not decisively so. There is a noticeable difference in interior size and footprint when you move from a Mazda 3 to a CX-5. I could use the same example for the Fords because they are similar. Once you get into C/D size, it is a very noticeable difference especially in footprint. If it's because of a taller seating position and a different styling than a conventional vehicle, sure whatever the customer wants, I'm not arguing or against that. I'm stating from a B and C segment owner, there's not that much difference until you move to mid-size. As a former mid-size owner I can attest to that. I'll clarify my question regarding the new Fiesta. I feel that the market that the Fiesta and Focus succeeds in the most should have the priority in what future direction the car should go. I am pretty confident that as a compact owner, Ford has been pretty good with meeting most compact customers needs/wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 FYI on the person that was comparing the 3.5 eco to the 5.3 Chevy....the 3.5 was the replacement for the 6.2....it should be compared with Chevies LARGER engine... Well, we know that however for others: You can lead a horse to water... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) Hate to ask, what is the "in-boost" fuel-economy for the EB trucks?, the 5.3 seems to out-pace the 3.5 in fuel for real world use rather then the EPA cycle. BTW how the topic get to trucks?. http://www.autoguide.com/car-comparisons/2016-ford-f-150-vs-ram-1500-ecodiesel-vs-chevy-silverado 3rd So how did the Chevy fare in fuel economy? Unfortunately, the Silverado showed up late to the event, so the empty fuel economy was not logged. With 1,000 lbs of payload in the bed, the truck managed an average of 19.6 mpg, while towing a 6,000-lb trailer brought fuel economy down to 13.5 mpg. It’s also worth mentioning that the other vehicles in the competition varied less than 1 mpg when hauling payload, so the 19.6 mpg figure is likely very close to the Silverado’s empty driving figure. 2nd Fuel economy for the F-150 was measured at 21 mpg empty, 19.8 mpg with 1,000 lbs of payload, and 15.1 mpg with a 6,000-lb trailer hitched to the rear. Those numbers are enough to trounce the Silverado, while providing the fastest acceleration and what feels like the most power of the three engines. 1st Fuel economy for this diesel, as can be expected with this alternative fuel source, is wonderful. In our time with the truck, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel managed 26.5 mpg while driving empty, 27.3 mpg with 1,000 lbs of payload (the increase in fuel economy with payload can be chalked up to drivers having a lighter foot when transporting weight), and 19.7 mpg with a trailer hooked up. Edited April 9, 2016 by jpd80 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.