Jump to content

Ford Confirms Plan: More SUVs/CUVs, Fewer Cars


Recommended Posts

 

Yup. ODOT is pushing for it to become law and replace the states gas tax... The state passed a massive vehicle / toll tax transportation package last year that is headed towards the state supreme court over the states authority to create the taxes they did... if it gets overturned the state will likely do what ODOT is asking and force a mileage tax.

Do you live in Oregon? If so, I was curious if you ran the numbers to see how it impacts you. Usage taxes are technically the most effective way to tax people who use things but it doesnt spread the expense over the populace as a whole for those roads less traveled. Just curious. Edited by tbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usage taxes are technically the most effective way to tax people who use things but it doesnt spread the expense over the populace as a whole for those roads less traveled. Just curious.

How is it any different than a gas tax? If you drive an ICE vehicle you buy gas. You buy gas because you’re driving and incurring mileage. The only difference is the mileage tax is the same regardless of mpg. That doesn’t spread the cost to the populace any less than a gas tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it any different than a gas tax? If you drive an ICE vehicle you buy gas. You buy gas because you’re driving and incurring mileage. The only difference is the mileage tax is the same regardless of mpg. That doesn’t spread the cost to the populace any less than a gas tax.

 

VMT taxes using GPS and electronic funds transfer can easily accommodate variable pricing based on time, location, vehicle mass, congestion level, etc. This is very difficult to do with excise and sales taxes on motor fuels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VMT taxes using GPS and electronic funds transfer can easily accommodate variable pricing based on time, location, vehicle mass, congestion level, etc. This is very difficult to do with excise and sales taxes on motor fuels.

That’s unnecessarily complicating the problem. The purpose of these taxes should be to support the road infrastructure period, not to use as a tool to change driving habits or drive social change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fusion/Mondeo hatchback looks fine to me.

 

ford-mondeo-st-line-2-0-tdci-150ps-5dr-h

I used to see these all the time around Dearborn, They actually look better than the regular Fusion. Always thought it was sad Ford never offered them here, they would have offered something different from the Camry/Accord crowd.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the state of Oregon is involved; you can bet you hiney that there will be no benefit to the public, just to Oregon.

 

Oregon has been screwing truck drivers for decades, and continues to do so.

 

They do not participate in IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement). When you go into Oregon; you must have a permit filed declaring your weight and miles traveled on which routes. You then pay for that amount (excess amount). If with-in 30 days you return and you have a higher weight; then not only do you have to pay that charge, but you have to pay for your weight being upgraded from your previous trip as well.

 

Here is an example with a comparison. I went to Salem, OR with a load of electronics. I grossed 51,000 lbs. My charge for running 822 miles was $78.50 I averaged 6.8 mpg. I actually dead headed (empty trailer) back to ID to back haul. Two weeks later; I returned with another another load of electronics and grossed 49,000 lbs. Again, I paid $72.00. I was able to secure a load from Lacey, WA back to the east coast. I grossed 78,260. In order to get back through Oregon, I had to up my declared weight to 80,000 lbs and pay for both trips @ 80K. This come to $89.00 over and above the $150.50 I had already paid. I averaged 6.2 mpg on that trip.

 

So....I paid $239.50 in fuel taxes for roughly 1675 total miles. The pump price for diesel is $2.919 in Portland, OR today @ the T/A. Pump price in Boise, ID is $3.199 @ T/A. It's a $.28 per gallon difference.

 

On those two trips; I averaged 6.5 mpg. I burned about 258 gallons of fuel in Oregon. That comes to $.93 per gallon fuel tax.

 

Virginia is $.193 per gallon fuel tax. NY (if not the highest in fuel tax is one of the top 3) is $.479 per gallon.

 

The net effect of Oregon's fuel tax is $.65 per gallon (Money paid in OR @ pump vs money money paid in ID @ pump) above what you normally pay at the pump. Big advantage to OR; none to the trucker.

 

When you cross a scale, they punch your tag into their system and you had by golly better be compliant or there will be a $10,000 hole in your pocket. They have scales about every 100 miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

VMT taxes using GPS and electronic funds transfer can easily accommodate variable pricing based on time, location, vehicle mass, congestion level, etc. This is very difficult to do with excise and sales taxes on motor fuels.

 

Variable pricing? Based on congestion, etc? No thank you.

 

Aka look there are lots of cars right now - lets skyrocket the rates to make more. Then we can divert those funds into our lovely pet projects for mass transportation that nobody wants/uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Variable pricing? Based on congestion, etc? No thank you.

 

Aka look there are lots of cars right now - lets skyrocket the rates to make more. Then we can divert those funds into our lovely pet projects for mass transportation that nobody wants/uses.

No different than the pay lanes on the expressways around Atlanta. Instead of making an entire lane available for all traffic relieving congestion for everyone they make it a variable rate pay lane that hardly gets used. It makes overall congestion worse and is nothing more than a money making scheme either for the government or private contractors.

 

Same issue with red light cameras. Contract with a private company for the cameras in the name of safety. Company gets a percentage of ticket revenue with a minimum payment. Camera doesn’t generate enough revenue to meet the contract minimum so they shorten the yellow light. More revenue for the gov’t and contractor but certainly not safer.

 

Funny thing is many cities figured out all you have to do is lengthen the yellow lights and red light running almost disappears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No different than the pay lanes on the expressways around Atlanta. Instead of making an entire lane available for all traffic relieving congestion for everyone they make it a variable rate pay lane that hardly gets used. It makes overall congestion worse and is nothing more than a money making scheme either for the government or private contractors.

 

Same issue with red light cameras. Contract with a private company for the cameras in the name of safety. Company gets a percentage of ticket revenue with a minimum payment. Camera doesn’t generate enough revenue to meet the contract minimum so they shorten the yellow light. More revenue for the gov’t and contractor but certainly not safer.

 

Funny thing is many cities figured out all you have to do is lengthen the yellow lights and red light running almost disappears.

 

Yup, they're doing that up just about the entire I-95 corridor here. From Miami to Boca it'll run. The Miami segment, they "added" a lane by narrowing the other lanes and altogether removing the shoulders on BOTH sides of the road (meaning anyone that has to stop for a problem blocks an entire lane), so there's now 2 express lanes and 4 regular lanes. The Miami to Ft. Lauderdale segment, they did legitimately add a lane there, and certain parts of it have 1 express lane (and 3 regular), while other parts have 2 express lanes (and 4 regular). The problem is, traffic backs up horrendously when the express lanes have an (limited) exit, as nobody can merge to save their lives.

 

There are three segments on my daily commute - The Miami segment is almost always in the $7-9 range, while the Miami to Ft. Lauderdale part is just 50 cents for now. There's also a segment in between those for about a mile, where they charge $2-3 just for that segment.

 

They're currently constructing the part to Boca, and there, they're also adding an additional lane.

 

Basically, in adding these express lanes, they take away lanes for regular traffic, which can be great if you're in the express lane, but sucks for the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The definition of fusion is "the process or result of joining two or more things together to form a single entity". I could see the next gen Fusion become a cross between a sedan/hatchback and an CUV. Basically a Toyota Venza, but done better.

 

The Taurus would be a better nameplate for a car like that as there was already a Taurus wagon.

 

Keep Fusion a sedan.

Edited by atomcat68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No different than the pay lanes on the expressways around Atlanta. Instead of making an entire lane available for all traffic relieving congestion for everyone they make it a variable rate pay lane that hardly gets used. It makes overall congestion worse and is nothing more than a money making scheme either for the government or private contractors.

 

Same issue with red light cameras. Contract with a private company for the cameras in the name of safety. Company gets a percentage of ticket revenue with a minimum payment. Camera doesnt generate enough revenue to meet the contract minimum so they shorten the yellow light. More revenue for the govt and contractor but certainly not safer.

 

Funny thing is many cities figured out all you have to do is lengthen the yellow lights and red light running almost disappears.

Trust me, Im well aware of red light and speed camera schemes living in Chicagoland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know there has been a Mondeo/Fusion wagon available for years in Europe right? Along with the hatchback.

 

Yes I know. The first generation Mondeo was the Contour/Mystique here, it didn't do well and we got the Mazda based Fusion here until the platforms merged and we got the Contour's descendant years later the Mondeo again but now named Fusion due to the brand equity of the name.

 

Now that the American market ONLY knows our version of the Mondeo as a sedan, it would make more sense to continue it as a sedan and apply another name as a CUV if Ford eliminates a sedan, making Taurus a better choice for a CUV as the rest of the world was pretty much deprived of the privilege of the Taurus in the line up and the USA has had a wagon and CUV (Taurus X/Freestyle) of this nameplate, so no new precedent would be started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the American market ONLY knows our version of the Mondeo as a sedan, it would make more sense to continue it as a sedan and apply another name as a CUV if Ford eliminates a sedan, making Taurus a better choice for a CUV as the rest of the world was pretty much deprived of the privilege of the Taurus in the line up and the USA has had a wagon and CUV (Taurus X/Freestyle) of this nameplate, so no new precedent would be started.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Taurus X was a precedent but not in a good way. Fusion has built up a much better reputation in the midsized space than Taurus so I don’t see any problem with simply adding a Fusion Saloon. Cancelling Taurus then putting the name on a wagon version of Fusion would be much more confusing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Taurus X was a precedent but not in a good way. Fusion has built up a much better reputation in the midsized space than Taurus so I don’t see any problem with simply adding a Fusion Saloon. Cancelling Taurus then putting the name on a wagon version of Fusion would be much more confusing.

 

I mentioned nothing of a Fusion wagon. That wouldn't sell here in this market anyway. That Buick Regal wagon will tank and Ford needs no competitor to that. If the Explorer moves to a RWD/AWD platform like we suggest here and Ford decided a CUV in the current Explorer/Flex segment is needed, then a Taurus nameplate would be better than discontinuing the Fusion sedan and placing that name on a CUV.

 

I was responding to the talk of dropping the Fusion from the lineup which in my opinion is a really bad idea. I am only saying that Fusion must remain the mid sized sedan segment. it they choose to add wagons and hatchbacks in addition to the sedan, that's fine, but I don't think either of those options would work in this market unless the wagon or hatch are for a hybrid model where these body styles are useful in overcoming some of the trunk space issues a hybrid option creates. And if you want to play around with nameplates, putting Taurus on a CUV would be a better option than Fusion or Mach 1 or anything else.

Edited by atomcat68
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha - totally misunderstood that one. I don’t think they should drop Fusion or use the Fusion or Taurus name for a new crossover.

 

I don’t think they need a new crossover though - Ford already makes a 3 row Edge for China. Just bring that over and call it a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Fusion Wagon should have been sold here as an Outback Alternative. Made it AWD only, body kit, and raise the suspension 2". It would have sold well in the PNW, East Coast, and Denver areas as well as all over Canada.

Buick Wagon is more than it should be, that is going to be its downfall. A nice middle Outback is 27K, the Buick is 9K more than that.

Edited by jasonj80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the Fusion Wagon should have been sold here as an Outback Alternative. Made it AWD only, body kit, and raise the suspension 2". It would have sold well in the PNW, East Coast, and Denver areas as well as all over Canada.

 

Fusion seems quite a bit larger than outback. Plus I don’t see Subaru buyers wanting Fords.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fusion seems quite a bit larger than outback. Plus I don’t see Subaru buyers wanting Fords.

The Subaru buyers I know buy a Subaru only because that's what is out there in the AWD segment. They love Subaru because it offered them what they want at a price they can afford, if there was something else that was similar the ones I know would look at it. Ford has one tiny and one small sparsely equipped AWD utility in the 27K range - Subaru has 4 and they all have a reasonable amount of equipment on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...