Ford China launches 2020 Mondeo with new interior

[akirby]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

I think this could have been an acceptable proposition for the Fusion to help maintain lower costs, however Ford has done a terrible job managing the Fusion’s progress with minimal changes  over the past several years.  The argument the public was no longer interested in sedans isn’t completely legitimate when they never changed the Fusion enough to entice new or repeat buyers.  It was a self fulfilling prophecy.  

For the millionth time, ALL sedan sales dropped considerably during the same time including Camry and Accord.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

Ford did the Toyota thing keeping the floorpan or whateever you want to call it... CD4 is the same thing as EUCD. 2013 model year CD4 Fusion was basically a mid cycle update of the 2008 EUCD Mondeo. We never got the EUCD one but that doesn't mean CD4 was brand new. Basically, CD4 Fusion should have not lived beyond 2018 model year but Ford kept it going with yet another late cycle update that was so mild no one even noticed.

 

2008-2012 Original EUCD Mondeo

2013-2020 Mid cycle update CD4 Mondeo/Fusion (probably should have come out with a new one in 2018 at the very least)

 

 

Same thing with Escape. The 2013 C1 Escape we got was basically mid cycle update of 2009 C1 Kuga. We never got the original 2009 Kuga but doesn't make the Escape brand new either. By the time Escape was replaced in 2019 (for 2020 model year), the European Kuga had gone almost 11 years with the same general shape. 

 

2009-2013 original C1 Kuga

2012-2019 mid cycle update C1 Kuga/Escape

Whether the platform was all new or not isn’t the point.  They spent considerable time and money changing platforms in NA on Escape, Focus and Fusion and got basically nothing in return.  They could have kept the old redundant platforms and just done new top hats.

[rperez817]

54 minutes ago, akirby said:

They spent considerable time and money changing platforms in NA on Escape, Focus and Fusion and got basically nothing in return.  They could have kept the old redundant platforms and just done new top hats.

 

Alan Mullaly said that the One Ford approach using global platforms like CD4 allowed the company to cut months of development time, reduce costs, and bring vehicles to market faster.

 

Sure Ford could have kept the old redundant platforms, but that would have resulted in even more process inefficiencies than Ford has now. 

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Alan Mullaly said that the One Ford approach using global platforms like CD4 allowed the company to cut months of development time, reduce costs, and bring vehicles to market faster.

 

Sure Ford could have kept the old redundant platforms, but that would have resulted in even more process inefficiencies than Ford has now. 

 

 

Not to mention the Escape platform would be going on something like 20 years old if they kept the old Mazda 626 platform it was based on. 

 

Ford has been paying for shitty decisions that where made 22-25 years ago or so (lack of investment in sedans)...and events in 2007/8 didn't help much and was further compounded by product plans in 2015 or so. 

 

[jpd80]

53 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

Not to mention the Escape platform would be going on something like 20 years old if they kept the old Mazda 626 platform it was based on. 

 

Ford has been paying for shitty decisions that where made 22-25 years ago or so (lack of investment in sedans)...and events in 2007/8 didn't help much and was further compounded by product plans in 2015 or so. 

 

Understand that the reason that Ford rode those platforms into the ground is that the vehicles could barely self fund let alone add profit.

Focus built at Wayne AP was a loss maker, a cafe offset for the larger Panthers that were being built in Wixom while Hermosillo

Looked after cars built at Saint Thomas. You get a picture of how Ford contorted itself to conform to torturous legislation.

 

Mulally had an opportunity to do way more than just cut all the duplicated platforms and engines but then, given the vision in 2008,

small cars were the future....a mistake that was quickly recognised once the economy recovered. Not the first time that Ford misread

the tea leaves and got future plans a bit wrong.

[tbone]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

For the millionth time, ALL sedan sales dropped considerably during the same time including Camry and Accord.

Yep, I know I was beating a dead horse, however there are still sufficient sedan sales to justify a model.  

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, tbone said:

Yep, I know I was beating a dead horse, however there are still sufficient sedan sales to justify a model.  

As covered in other threads, Ford was not prepared to spend $500 M to produce C2 Focus in Mexico 

Cancelling CD5 Fusion in Hermosillo was the same deal, Ford wanted to import both from China

and save close to $1 billion in set up and another $1.6 billion on adding production capacity

to cover its other new products at San Louis Potosi.

 

I get what you're saying but Ford and GM seem to be set for a future without sedans.

Edited June 10, 2020 by jpd80

[akirby]

I seriously doubt they got enough process efficiencies to offset the cost of changing platforms twice in 8 years.

 

I’m not saying it wasn’t a good decision at the time - keeping duplicate platforms didn’t make sense.  But in hindsight they would have been better served waiting for C2 and maybe accelerating it.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

I seriously doubt they got enough process efficiencies to offset the cost of changing platforms twice in 8 years.

 

I’m not saying it wasn’t a good decision at the time - keeping duplicate platforms didn’t make sense.  But in hindsight they would have been better served waiting for C2 and maybe accelerating it.

 

What platform are you talking about? 

 

Just talking about platforms...the Fusion should have never been on the Mazda 6 platform to start with when they had the Mondeno already to go. 

The problem is that Ford EU and Ford NA have been doing their own thing for almost 30-40 years at that point, when they could have been working together to save money by not duplicating the same efforts in the Small/mid size Sedan market 20-25 years ago. Ford NA had zero investment in sedans in the late 1990s/2000s and went oh shit, and thats how we go the Fusion and Five Hundred. 

 

I guess 20 years later we are finally at that point and if the market in NA wants sedans again, it won't be as painful as it was in the past. 

[rperez817]

48 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

The problem is that Ford EU and Ford NA have been doing their own thing for almost 30-40 years at that point, when they could have been working together to save money by not duplicating the same efforts in the Small/mid size Sedan market 20-25 years ago.

 

Yes sir, this prolonged poor business practice almost caused bankruptcy for Ford in 2008. 12 years later,  it's now up to Ford to put more effort into optimizing its product development and manufacturing processes globally.  

Edited June 10, 2020 by rperez817

[akirby]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

What platform are you talking about? 

 

Just talking about platforms...the Fusion should have never been on the Mazda 6 platform to start with when they had the Mondeno already to go. 

The problem is that Ford EU and Ford NA have been doing their own thing for almost 30-40 years at that point, when they could have been working together to save money by not duplicating the same efforts in the Small/mid size Sedan market 20-25 years ago. Ford NA had zero investment in sedans in the late 1990s/2000s and went oh shit, and thats how we go the Fusion and Five Hundred. 

 

I guess 20 years later we are finally at that point and if the market in NA wants sedans again, it won't be as painful as it was in the past. 

I agree having redundant platforms in NA and Europe to begin with was the root cause.

[bzcat]

Mazda6 was itself a curiosity because Ford had complete control of Mazda at that time and it was really strange that Mazda6 did not align with EUCD program like Mazda3 was part of C1, and Mazda 121 was part of B3 (or rather EUCD didn't align with GG/CD3 Mazda6). One of the quirks that we have to remember is that Mark Fields was running Mazda at that time and I'm sure he had his reason but in retrospect, the timing was unfortunate: GG/CD3 platform began development several years before EUCD and so by the time Ford US had to make a choice, it was already too late... there were 2 separate programs going one championed by Mazda and one championed by Volvo/Ford Europe. 

 

CD2 Escape WAS part of a worldwide program. It had participation from Mazda, Ford US, Ford APAC, and Ford Europe (to replace Maverick which was a rebadged Nissan). It was based on GF Mazda 626 platform but it was still a global product. The issue is that when the next generation was contemplated, US opt out of C1 (so we didn't get Focus or Kuga based Escape replacement); and Mazda decided if US was out (Tribute was left adrift) they would go their own way as well (CX-7) and that left Ford APAC out on its own... a fragmented approach that while made sense in regional accounting income statement, made no sense at a consolidated cooperate level - Ford was spending 3 times the money to update Focus and Escape size vehicles than what a global platform approach would have cost. That was the mistake. Mullaly fixed that by realigning product development so platforms are reunited - C1.5 (for lack of better term) for compacts and CD4 for midsize.

 

But after that, Ford didn't follow thru. Once you are on a shared global platform, you are supposed to frequently update the products and localized it to meet market tastes and demands. Instead, Ford did basically nothing and left C1.5 and CD4 vehicles (which were all mid cycle updates of C1 and EUCD) unchanged for far too long. Meanwhile look at Mazda once it left the Ford orbit... Mazda3, 6, and CX-5 got updated every 5 years like clockwork...

Edited June 10, 2020 by bzcat

[akirby]

I’m thinking C1.5 wasn’t conducive to electrification and cd4 was too heavy thus they were merged to C2.

[passis]

If you try to find silver-linings in this platform mess, maybe all this "cross-fertilization" made it possible to combine the best parts of each to create a highly evolved architecture, the C2. (just wishful thinking maybe).

[jcartwright99]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

I agree having redundant platforms in NA and Europe to begin with was the root cause.

 

Wasn't the Controur and Mistake, I mean Mystique a combo platform for NA and Europe? It was great in Europe but the cost cutting here and smaller footprint pretty much doomed it here. Great car new, especially with manual (even more so SVT model), but horrible reliability. You barely see them on the road anymore.

[silvrsvt]

4 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

Wasn't the Controur and Mistake, I mean Mystique a combo platform for NA and Europe? It was great in Europe but the cost cutting here and smaller footprint pretty much doomed it here. Great car new, especially with manual (even more so SVT model), but horrible reliability. You barely see them on the road anymore.

 

What hurt them was poor interior packaging. The Focus more or less replaced it in 1999, it was the same size front seat wise. I believe the Mondeo corrected that. 

 

Do remember at the time the Taurus was large/midsized car and was selling "well", but losing its grip to the Camry and Accord, which where slightly smaller. Ford didn't have a direct equivalent to the CamCord til the 1st gen Fusion. 

[bzcat]

CDW27 (Mk1 Mondeo and Contour) had a problem. Ford Europe actually wanted a slightly larger car but Ford US insisted the car be an EPA compact because EPA midsize was Taurus and Ford US's internal structure would not have allowed Contour to be right sized to compete with Accord and Camry. GM had the same problem too which resulted in a logjam of A, L, and N body all trying to split the limited real estate between compact and midsize.

 

So essentially, it was doomed to fail in the US. Ironically, the 2nd gen Mondeo that came out in 2001 which was Ford Europe only project fixed the size problem once Ford US was no longer involved. The 2nd gen Mondeo had similar wheelbase and length as 6th gen Accord (1998-2003) and probably would have been EPA midsize in the US but it was never Federalized so we can only guess.

 

As silvrsvt mentioned, CD3 Fusion will eventually went on to replace Taurus properly and Focus basically replaced both Escort and Contour in the US. CD3 Fusion was a little bit bigger than 2nd gen Mondeo. When Ford Europe started working on 3rd gen Mondeo (EUCD), CD3 was already in final engineering (which is what my previous post was about) so they were never in sync to be replaced together until Mulally put a stop to this nonsense. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by bzcat