goinbroke2 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 All I know is I see rwd chargers/challengers/sport pickups/etc coming out of mopar and I scratch my head and wonder why ford has the mustang...that's it...Yes there are some raptors driving around so I'll give them that, but it just seems mopars are painted brighter colours and are more in tune with performance. I don't care how fast/quick an interceptor is (and they certainly are) all I see is fwd fords poking around while other makes have several "sporty" type vehicles. Yes the charger is junk...but they sure have a following! Same as the jeep, why the hell is ford not building the bronco yet? ranger, same thing In theory you can get a rs focus...never saw anything like that around here, dealerships included. I don't care if it's a hot hatch or a larger performance vehicle or hell even a performance option on all fords! A Fusion gt? And not a freaking paint job but actual performance parts! Ford has put all it's eggs in the mustang basket and that needs to change. BUILD A RWD CAR BESIDES THE MUSTANG DAMN IT!!!!! Oh, by the way...I'm back! LOL. (been what a couple years?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I doubt very much that you can achieve any meaningful amortization with a Ford badged 100% unique sheet metal niche product slotted 'well above' (e.g. >$50k) the Fusion Sport. No, the Fusion Sport STARTS at $37K. This one could start at $40K and go over $50K with a more powerful drivetrain (3.0EB or even a 5.0L Coyote) and better handling dynamics. The market may be small but as long as the basic platform was shared with Lincoln it wouldn't cost much and the profits would most certainly help amortize the platform. You're not going to be adding any more 5K/month cars so this is how you grow revenue and profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 No, the Fusion Sport STARTS at $37K. This one could start at $40K and go over $50K with a more powerful drivetrain (3.0EB or even a 5.0L Coyote) and better handling dynamics. The market may be small but as long as the basic platform was shared with Lincoln it wouldn't cost much and the profits would most certainly help amortize the platform. You're not going to be adding any more 5K/month cars so this is how you grow revenue and profits. I don't consider $40k to be 'well above' $37k, but whatever. You're looking at a pretty poor case to justify 100% unique sheet metal on a Ford product that will sell for $5-$10k less than a comparable Lincoln. It's the Chevy SS/Pontiac G8 all over again: If there's such a slim margin for error in an entry-level badged premium sports sedan, there's a real question of fiduciary responsibility in gambling low nine-figures on hitting that window. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Maybe they're also planning to use it for the PI replacement. Mark Fields has already shown a desire to have a lot more high performance vehicles. This is not too much of a stretch to believe (for normal people). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Maybe they're also planning to use it for the PI replacement. Mark Fields has already shown a desire to have a lot more high performance vehicles. This is not too much of a stretch to believe (for normal people). A >$100,000,000 gamble on discovering the secret formula for 'expensive yet successful Ford performance sedan' is not smart, regardless of who's making it or how much of a penchant he has for such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 (edited) Rumor and conspiracy is running away with car-guy fantasy in here and we should all know by now that Ford is far too sensible for some of the crazy theories that come out of here. A B-Segment Bronco is absurd but a 4-door Thunderbird is not...m'kay. I can't make sense of a Midsize Bronco alongside a Midsize Explorer, this really is a carguy fantasy more than a sensible business strategy. I really doubt Ford is interested in making a Wrangler competitor, the Wrangler is a phenomenon and Ford won't be able to touch it, nobody ever has without directly duplicating it. Bronco was historically a VERY small SUV, a B-Segment SUV would almost certainly be bigger. The Bronco concept was based on a compact! It's a great name to use for a critical segment to launch. That's just my instinct on this, when I hear Bronco but no news about a B-Segment Crossover then my assumption is that the Bronco name is just confusing people. We still don't know what the next-gen Ranger will be about, don't assume it's just what we have now. As for Thunderbird, there is NO way Ford is resurrecting the Thunderbird name for a premium sedan...when Thunderbird is a LONG defunct name belonging to a VERY different product. That's like using "Tempo" on a Crossover. Never mind that the large sedan market is now smaller than the minivan market in the US and Ford doesn't even have an entry there. Edited May 12, 2016 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Rumor and conspiracy is running away with car-guy fantasy in here and we should all know by now that Ford is far too sensible for some of the crazy theories that come out of here. A B-Segment Bronco is absurd but a 4-door Thunderbird is not...m'kay. I can't make sense of a Midsize Bronco alongside a Midsize Explorer, this really is a carguy fantasy more than a sensible business strategy. I really doubt Ford is interested in making a Wrangler competitor, the Wrangler is a phenomenon and Ford won't be able to touch it, nobody ever has without directly duplicating it. Bronco was historically a VERY small SUV, a B-Segment SUV would almost certainly be bigger. The Bronco concept was based on a compact! It's a great name to use for a critical segment to launch. That's just my instinct on this, when I hear Bronco but no news about a B-Segment Crossover then my assumption is that the Bronco name is just confusing people. We still don't know what the next-gen Ranger will be about, don't assume it's just what we have now. As for Thunderbird, there is NO way Ford is resurrecting the Thunderbird name for a premium sedan...when Thunderbird is a LONG defunct name belonging to a VERY different product. That's like using "Tempo" on a Crossover. Never mind that the large sedan market is now smaller than the minivan market in the US and Ford doesn't even have an entry there. Well, I'd point to the fact that both the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee do just fine next to each other. I don't see why a Bronco and Explorer couldn't co-exist, with Bronco pointed more toward the lifestyle and, while Explorer stays more mainstream. Also, consider a 4 door is a must. A 2 door would do poorly, no matter what size it is. Now, wouldn't I be completely surprised if it were a tweener B/C-size vehicle? No, but I also think it'll be closer to a midsize. Here are a few thoughts to consider... 1) If they can make it a midsize, they can charge more for it, and theoretically make more on it. 2) Using the Bronco name on a b/c-size vehicle would allow them to charge more for that product. 3) If Bronco is indeed b/c-sized, that means Ranger is on its own platform (at least here), which calls into question of plant usage at MAP. 4) Perhaps our Ranger won't be the global one, and as I've suggested before, is in fact a truck version of the Bronco (this theory aligns more with the midsize size) Regarding Thunderbird. The Thunderbird name is not some unknown name as you imply. And I think if made in the style of a 4-door coupe, it could work. You're also missing the point of the vehicle. It would be a high margin offering to help amortize costs of CD6 across multiple vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 @BORG: we know Ford tends to be sensible with their decisions, but it's damn fun to speculate and debate anyway! @rmc: rumor is the Bronco, whatever size it may be, will probably be derived from the Ranger platform. Whether it's the current T6 or next generation is still unknown at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 And they'll never build a Ford GT or a Mustang GT350 with a flat plane crank either. This isn't 2009 and Ford isn't fighting for its life. There are niche markets for premium vehicles and Ford is going after them whether you guys want to admit it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Well, I'd point to the fact that both the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee do just fine next to each other. I don't see why a Bronco and Explorer couldn't co-exist, with Bronco pointed more toward the lifestyle and, while Explorer stays more mainstream. Also 4Runner and Highlander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Maybe they're also planning to use it for the PI replacement. Mark Fields has already shown a desire to have a lot more high performance vehicles. This is not too much of a stretch to believe (for normal people). Does PI (Non-Utility) warrant such investment? How many PI did they sell last month compared to PIU? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Does PI (Non-Utility) warrant such investment? How many PI did they sell last month compared to PIU? Probably not. Ford can always make the PI from Fusion if enough police departments want a sedan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Not saying they do or don't, but if they do want to keep a PI then CD6 could be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 And they'll never build a Ford GT or a Mustang GT350 with a flat plane crank either. This isn't 2009 and Ford isn't fighting for its life. There are niche markets for premium vehicles and Ford is going after them whether you guys want to admit it or not. Ford didn't spend over $100M on the Mustang GT350. And it's not a question of whether Ford has the means to pursue unwise business opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Bronco was historically a VERY small SUV, a B-Segment SUV would almost certainly be bigger. Firstly, the Bronco was a lot of things; secondly, just about every small car is larger than its original instance, so there's nothing to see here. Dismissing a new Bronco because it would be larger than the original is like saying that any new Mustang would be a bad idea because it would be larger than the '65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 No, the Fusion Sport STARTS at $37K. This one could start at $40K and go over $50K with a more powerful drivetrain (3.0EB or even a 5.0L Coyote) and better handling dynamics. What are you smoking, it starts at 33k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Firstly, the Bronco was a lot of things; secondly, just about every small car is larger than its original instance, so there's nothing to see here. Dismissing a new Bronco because it would be larger than the original is like saying that any new Mustang would be a bad idea because it would be larger than the '65. Some historical background: 1966-1977 Bronco: Wheelbase 92 in Overall Length 151.5 in 1978-1996 Bronco: Wheelbase 104 in Overall Length 180 inches 1983-1990 Bronco II: Wheelbase 94in Overall Length 158.3 to 161.9 inches Current Ford CUV/SUV Ford Ecosport WB 99.3 in Length 167.1 in Ford Escape WB 105.9in Length 178.1 Ford Edge WB 112.2in Length 188.1 in Ford Explorer WB 112.6 in Length 197.1 in What is slightly shocking is the Escape is nearly the same size as the F-series based Bronco! Like Richard said, cars have gotten larger in the past 30 years....just take a look at the Fiesta: 1979 Fiesta WB 90 inches Overall length: 140.4in width: 61.7 in 2016 Fiesta WB 98 inches Overall Length 160.1 width: 67.8 If they are planning on using the Ranger/Everest Platform, this is the current dimensions of the Ranger at least: WB: 127.0 Inches Length: 211.0 Inches Width: 72.8 The Troller T4 dimensions: WB: 101,7 inches Length: 161 inches Width: 73.5 inches They added about 10 inches to the Troller setup, you'd have a nice mid-sized SUV that can do both 2 and 4 doors if they wanted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 What are you smoking, it starts at 33k I was looking at a build and price but I don't know how I came up with $37k. So Tbird could start at $38K and still represent a significant increase in ATP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Ford didn't spend over $100M on the Mustang GT350. And it's not a question of whether Ford has the means to pursue unwise business opportunities. You don't know that it's an unwise business opportunity. Don't we defend Flex's low volumes because it brings in new buyers and it's built on an existing platform in an existing plant and it demands higher ATPs? It makes just as much sense as Bronco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) You don't know that it's an unwise business opportunity. Don't we defend Flex's low volumes because it brings in new buyers and it's built on an existing platform in an existing plant and it demands higher ATPs? It makes just as much sense as Bronco. Experience at GM and FCA suggest that it's at best a high risk maneuver (the 300 worked--eleven years ago, the Charger, G8 and SS didn't). And don't include me in the 'we' with respect to the Flex. And I doubt that Ford is pleased with how the Flex turned out. The Bronco makes much more sense than any putative large performance sedan. The Bronco slots into a growing segment. Edited May 13, 2016 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Don't we defend Flex's low volumes because it brings in new buyers and it's built on an existing platform in an existing plant and it demands higher ATPs? Do we? I think there is clearly an argument for continuing to build the Flex until the platform is dead, or OAC has a better use for the volume, as the design/tooling is "bought and paid for". If it requires significant reinvestment then I think it should die. I love our Flex. That said, if Ford were deciding to come out with it today as a new vehicle, knowing it would be a niche market, I would say they're nuts, even with being on a shared platform, with higher ATPs, and conquest sales. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Experience at GM and FCA suggest that it's at best a high risk maneuver (the 300 worked--eleven years ago, the Charger, G8 and SS didn't). Lets see...the big problem with the G8 and SS is that they have styling that is leftover from the 1990s and it didn't help that G8 was a Pontiac that died shortly after it came out. 300/Charger/Magnum sales over the years: 300 Charger Magnum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 A vehicle like Flex would make sense IF you want growth AND you've already shored up all of the other pressing needs in terms of high volume platforms and vehicles. It would not have made sense necessarily back when it was launched if they had known the volumes would be that low because that money could have been spent on something else more pressing. Likewise IF you're investing in a new car platform for Lincoln AND you have manufacturing capacity available AND you're killing D3 Taurus AND the company is committed to more high performance vehicles throughout the lineup......then it would seem to make sense to me. I don't think Bronco is any more a growing segment than medium sized trucks (Ranger). Didn't we write them off a few years ago? The market doesn't have to be growing - it just has to sustain enough volume to justify the cost. You could never justify a RWD high performance Tbird if it was built on a bespoke platform but that's not the case here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Lets see...the big problem with the G8 and SS is that they have styling that is leftover from the 1990s and it didn't help that G8 was a Pontiac that died shortly after it came out. 300/Charger/Magnum sales over the years: 300 Charger Magnum I think you need to fix your images, you have the Charger numbers in there under the Magnum section (the Magnum was discontinued after 2008 MY). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 (edited) Lets see...the big problem with the G8 and SS is that they have styling that is leftover from the 1990s and it didn't help that G8 was a Pontiac that died shortly after it came out. 300/Charger/Magnum sales over the years: 300 Charger Magnum I would have bought a 2015 Magnum if such thing existed... You have to take Chrysler's large sedan sales in context... their midsize offerings were miserable and in fact, FCA is killing the last remaining one. Ford has different set of investment options to weight... a RWD large sedan at Ford will probably cannibalize some Fusion sales so it's not a straight up question on how much volume you can achieve with this new car. Edited May 13, 2016 by bzcat 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.