Why "People Movers" should be built on the Mazda5 platform

[g48150]

It would be too easy to rant and rave, but I'll list my top 5 reasons.

 

1) Gas mileage

2) Seriously, Gas mileage

3) Those Sliding Doors are sweet, not too high, not too low

4) Low maintenance cost for Under Body (i.e. the platform is already mature enough to have parts and suppliers)

5) It wouldn't be out of the question to "stretch" this Upper Body out, giving it a 6 cylinder hybrid option, more (not too much) cargo room, and possibly a "sport" package (ala CX-7)

 

So the first two reasons are the same, but I make up for it on reason 5 (get it?)

 

IMO, the Edge is "pushin it" in terms of size, cost, weight, gas mileage, "overkill" cargo space, etc. The "Fairlane" logically would take all these terms and make them larger, possibly up to 2x the Edge. So used to paying for MORE that we don't use, people don't see the beauty of a "people mover" on a B or B/C platform.

 

Look how ingeniously the Honda Fit stores cargo, and the Nissan Versa is absolutely HUGE on the inside for the driver AND passengers. These cars *start* WAY under $20,000.

[RichardJensen]

Erm. Yeah. That's why Chrysler's dropping their minivans next year, right? Because nobody **needs** a vehicle larger than the Mazda5, right?

[g48150]

Erm. Yeah. That's why Chrysler's dropping their minivans next year, right? Because nobody **needs** a vehicle larger than the Mazda5, right?

 

To me, in a perfect world, your car would adapt to what you NEED at the time. When I used to watch Inspector Gadget when I was a kid, I thought it was great he could change his car to whatever he needed at the time. He wasn't going to chase down Dr. Claw in the minivan, he turned it into the cop car.

 

THAT'S the true spirit of American Innovation, adaptation to/from need.

 

The market with be PWNED by the first car company that can sell a vehicle to a customer and have the CAR adapt to its customers needs. I really think that the Honda Fit was a step in the right direction. I hope an American car company does it first.

[RichardJensen]

Y'mean like the Nissan Pulsar NX?

[Bluecon]

And don't forget

 

6) Ford has know idea how to design and engineer a car so they need to have Mazda do it for them. (or Volvo)

[g48150]

Y'mean like the Nissan Pulsar NX?

 

 

Can you enlighten me?

 

To be fair, if its not sold here, I just don't care.

 

Unless its the Nissan Cube... I WANT that!

[RichardJensen]

Can you enlighten me?

 

To be fair, if its not sold here, I just don't care.

 

Unless its the Nissan Cube... I WANT that!

Do some research.

 

it WAS sold here, and now it's not. That's your first clue.

 

Start with the 1988 model

[g48150]

Do some research.

 

it WAS sold here, and now it's not. That's your first clue.

 

So was the Taurus. What's your point?

[RichardJensen]

So was the Taurus. What's your point?

If you did your homework, you'd understand my point.

 

Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". He might as well have said, in your case, "Those who cannot be bothered to learn about the past are condemned to repeat it".

[g48150]

If you did your homework, you'd understand my point.

 

Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". He might as well have said, in your case, "Those who cannot be bothered to learn about the past are condemned to repeat it".

 

 

The Taurus was awesome until the Camry took it over. I never heard of the Nissan Pulsar NX at all, ever.

[RichardJensen]

The Taurus was awesome until the Camry took it over. I never heard of the Nissan Pulsar NX at all, ever.

There's a lesson from Santayana for Ford too. But you really should look up the '88-91 Pulsar NX.

[igor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Pulsar

 

but do not see its relevance ..

 

G .. in this point I will disagree with you .. the market DEMANDS larger cars . .Ford would be stupid in saying .."WE DO NOT WANT TO GIVE YOU SUCH CARS BECASE ... " balh blah blah .. the coustomers would miss the rest of the explanation, because they would be walking elsewhere.

 

if the Sienna, Sedona, Oddysey and Caravan size people movers sell - it is for a reason - and ford neds to offer a vhicle that size .. this is not to say that they should not offer alternative in the shape of a smaller vehicle, that they think would be JUST FINE for everyone's needs - if only they would realize that - but putting all your stakes onto an experiment is unwise ..

 

I am not sure whether I agre with Richard, because the two of yo ureally jsut engaged in a hissy fight, and your originalpost was the only logical one in this thread.

 

Igor

Edited October 7, 2006 by igor

[Noah Harbinger]

The EXA was spun off as its own model, with an innovative modular rear end: customers could opt for a coupé, hatchback or an open-top car depending on what they put on. This version of the EXA was available in North America under the name Pulsar NX and was sold from 1987 to 1990. The EXA/Pulsar NX was replaced in 1991 with the Nissan NX coupe.

 

I.e. "A car that changes to adapt to your needs."

[RichardJensen]

You could also remove the hatch entirely and have a very tiny truck.

 

And, yes, Noah that was exactly the point I was making. See also the Envoy XUV, or the "Aqua car", which of course, floated like a car and drove like a boat.

Edited October 7, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Guest Sixcav]

First of all I'm not at all sure what the Nissan Pulsar has to do with what q48150 was talking about. The Pulsar was never billed or percieved by the masses to be some sort of "all things to all people" sort of car. It was always an entry level econocar on the level with Cavalier and Escort. Somehow it got interjected into this argument by mister history man and it has nothing to do with the kind of car that was being discussed. So we got of topic. As I recall, what killed the Pulsar was many of them had a problems with warping heads.

[RichardJensen]

http://www.jasonborowiec.com/gallery/exa_b...rochure_lg.html

[waymondospiff]

1) Gas mileage

2) Seriously, Gas mileage

3) Those Sliding Doors are sweet, not too high, not too low

4) Low maintenance cost for Under Body (i.e. the platform is already mature enough to have parts and suppliers)

5) It wouldn't be out of the question to "stretch" this Upper Body out, giving it a 6 cylinder hybrid option, more (not too much) cargo room, and possibly a "sport" package (ala CX-7)

 

Look how ingeniously the Honda Fit stores cargo, and the Nissan Versa is absolutely HUGE on the inside for the driver AND passengers. These cars *start* WAY under $20,000.

Well, I just can't resist a topic about the Mazda5...since mine is calling for me to come outside and wash it right now.

 

My opinion: The Mazda5 is a brilliant vehicle that *would* serve *many* people better than the cars they drive currently, they just don't know it or don't know the vehicle exists. This can be seen in Europe where "people carriers" have been around for ages but only recently have seen sales really climbed. So much so that the "large car" (Mondeo/Vectra) market has shrunk significantly due to buyers defecting to people carriers & SUVs.

 

Anyone currently driving a Civic LX/EX but wanting room to haul? The Mazda5 costs little more and is much larger on the inside. "Active lifestyle" sort who carries bikes/boards/etc? The Mazda5 gets much better mileage than an XTerra or Escape. Aging boomers who don't like climbing in and out of Explorers or Accords will love the seat position of the Mazda5. It's just so right for so many people.

 

Now, less opinion and more facts: 1. The Mazda5 platform is the C1 chassis, which we all know isn't coming to the US. 2. When C2 arrives in 2010-ish, Ford has mentioned the possibility of a people carrier-type vehicle being introduced. However, it would probably be more like the Focus C-Max, which is smaller than a Mazda5. 3. Americans don't really care for small, useful vehicles unless they're attractive for style reasons like PT Cruiser/HHR/Mini Cooper or mini-SUVs like Escape/CR-V/Sportage.

 

I think there is definetely a market for a vehicle like the Mazda5 here in the US. Mazda has done zero advertising beyond product placement and magazine ads leading to very little awareness for the Mazda5. And Mazda's limited dealer network doesn't help when trying to compare to a larger company like Ford. But just from the personal experience of questions I've had and looks I've gotten, people are curious about the Mazda5.

 

My bottom line: Ford should introduce a "people carrier" here in the US to get a jump on competition, but it won't be a big seller. I would expect volume to settle in around 50-60K/year. If Ford could do that profitably, they should jump on it. It is a great concept, and, as evidenced by the Galaxy & S-Max, Ford can do a pretty good job when they put their minds to it. However, probably the biggest obstacle is the lack of a platform to use. C170 makes no sense as it is nearing its demise. C1 isn't coming to the US. C2, as mentioned, will be here but not until early next decade. CD3 might work, but the resulting "people carrier" would be Mazda MPV-sized, more a mini-minivan than a "C-Class Van."

 

And as it relates to the Pulsar...at least I don't have to remove any panels to make my car work. My car is always roomy, always a great handler, always fairly stylish, and always fairly thrifty. Of course, I don't have a "sports car" configuration, but I'll live without it.

 

Scott

[bri719]

So was the Taurus. What's your point?

 

 

it was a smallish, economical Japanese import that tried to incorporate futuristic looking design and came in 2 or 3 different configurations: hatchback, notchback, and wagon. didn't work too well

 

The Taurus was awesome until the Camry took it over. I never heard of the Nissan Pulsar NX at all, ever.

 

 

well how old are you, 11? I can't name every mass-produced import or domestic car over the last 20 years but I've at least heard of / seen pretty much all

[ANTAUS]

I'm sure there's limitations as to how big this platform can be taken, so for bigger size duties, I think the C1 would be quite limited.

 

My bestfriend has a Mazda5 and it's great for the most part, other than her complaint (and mine) is passing power. Hopefully they'll be some sort of engine upgrade in the future, other than when the 2.3L grows to 2.5L I-4.

[g48150]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Pulsar

 

but do not see its relevance ..

 

G .. in this point I will disagree with you .. the market DEMANDS larger cars . .Ford would be stupid in saying .."WE DO NOT WANT TO GIVE YOU SUCH CARS BECASE ... " balh blah blah .. the coustomers would miss the rest of the explanation, because they would be walking elsewhere.

 

if the Sienna, Sedona, Oddysey and Caravan size people movers sell - it is for a reason - and ford neds to offer a vhicle that size .. this is not to say that they should not offer alternative in the shape of a smaller vehicle, that they think would be JUST FINE for everyone's needs - if only they would realize that - but putting all your stakes onto an experiment is unwise ..

 

I am not sure whether I agre with Richard, because the two of yo ureally jsut engaged in a hissy fight, and your originalpost was the only logical one in this thread.

 

Igor

 

Big is all well and good, but:

 

1) Why oh why are the Toyota Camry the #1 and Corolla/Matrix the #2 selling cars in America? They're not anywhere near Ford 500 or even Chrysler 300 sized, they are relatively diminuitive, hence mid-sized car and SMALL car

 

2) Why does every Scion dealership I visit have a waiting list? Is it all about price point?

 

3) Why does every Mini Cooper dealership I visit have a waiting list? Is it all about price point? Albeit MUCH larger than a Scion

 

4) Why DOESN'T VW have the same problem? Is it all about price point? I like those Safe commercials

 

5) There aren't enough boats manufactured in America to warrant pulling them every minute of everyday, THUS needing the "power" to tow a boat isn't needed every minute of every day

 

6) Not everyone buys a LARGE vehicle to haul people, stuff, boats, etc. What's the root cause?

 

There's no need to buy MORE of what you don't need, want on the other hand is another topic. I mean, even Chrysler has publicly stated that the Minivan market is dwindling

[igor]

Big is all well and good, but:

 

1) Why oh why are the Toyota Camry the #1 and Corolla/Matrix the #2 selling cars in America? They're not anywhere near Ford 500 or even Chrysler 300 sized, they are relatively diminuitive, hence mid-sized car and SMALL car

 

2) Why does every Scion dealership I visit have a waiting list? Is it all about price point?

 

3) Why does every Mini Cooper dealership I visit have a waiting list? Is it all about price point? Albeit MUCH larger than a Scion

 

4) Why DOESN'T VW have the same problem? Is it all about price point? I like those Safe commercials

 

5) There aren't enough boats manufactured in America to warrant pulling them every minute of everyday, THUS needing the "power" to tow a boat isn't needed every minute of every day

 

6) Not everyone buys a LARGE vehicle to haul people, stuff, boats, etc. What's the root cause?

 

There's no need to buy MORE of what you don't need, want on the other hand is another topic. I mean, even Chrysler has publicly stated that the Minivan market is dwindling

 

those are good points (althought Civic outsold Corolla so far this year, but that does nothing to your argument) .... The thing is, however, that except for MINI all of those you mentioned still offer the large vehicles - and that exactly what I am arguing about - Ford cannot leave segment, because it feels it is not the best for the customer to be drivign that vehicle. Ford needs to offer competitive product accorss the lineup - from B-car (meybe even A-car if Americans warm up to it) to an E large boat-car, SUV, Trucks, and Minivans ... people want to buy them, so Ford should offer them.

 

There are 2 more pieces to this argument of mine. Ford brand unlike luxury brands and MINI does not command the kind of equity that would have people pay premium - therefore, unlike MINI which can turn decent profit on a single model, Ford needs to spread itself wide - so it captures as many customers as possible - because it commands much less profit per vehicle.

 

secondly - it has for a long time been true, the the larger a car, the more profit it brings - I am not sure how (whether) it will but at this point, even if Toyota, Honda and GM turn profit on their compacts, it is miniscule, compared to the amount of cash they make on a sale of each SUV or Truck or Minivan. I do not have the figures - I am an outsider - so I will gladly say I am using outdated assumptions, but that is what I have been believing in based on published information. Ford needs to offer the small cars - and make them good enough to turn profit on each of their sales, but it alsoneeds the large cars and trucks, because they bring in the bulk of the profit.

 

I do not disagree on the fact that the small cars are in high demand ... part of it is a temporary fad of the combination of good new products and marketing campaigns from Scion, Honda and VW, that combined made the segment attractive again - and part of it is the oil prices ... but part of it is a (at alst) shift from oversized vehicles that Americans have been enjoying and demanding over last 15years to more reasonable vehicles.

 

However, I do believe that FORCING people into something they do not want right now is not an option - Ford is a full portfolio brand - and assuch needs to be all things to all people - unless Fields and Mulally figure out how to make the brand feel exclusive, and turn profit on limited portfolio ( very unlikely IMO) - Ford cannot change from its Full-portfolio position - and thus has to continue offering what the market wants - and if the ystill want a vehicle that is by all meant too large for them - but they are happy to pay real money for it - the Ford needs to build it.

 

We might disagree - and I see where you coming from, but at this point I believe Ford should follow a very strict - market driven product strategy - predict where the market will be in 4-6 years, and build it - whatever it is.

 

Igor

[RichardJensen]

Because telling people that they don't NEED a big vehicle will keep them from WANTING a big vehicle.

 

Didn't you used to say Ford should be market driven?

 

Now they should be driving the market?

[g48150]

However, I do believe that FORCING people into something they do not want right now is not an option - Ford is a full portfolio brand - and assuch needs to be all things to all people - unless Fields and Mulally figure out how to make the brand feel exclusive, and turn profit on limited portfolio ( very unlikely IMO) - Ford cannot change from its Full-portfolio position - and thus has to continue offering what the market wants - and if the ystill want a vehicle that is by all meant too large for them - but they are happy to pay real money for it - the Ford needs to build it.

 

To this argument, I'll repeat a point that I already said:

 

1) Why oh why are the Toyota Camry the #1 and Corolla/Matrix the #2 selling cars in America? They're not anywhere near Ford 500 or even Chrysler 300 sized, they are relatively diminuitive, hence mid-sized car and SMALL car.

 

Thus, no one is FORCING people to buy these cars, they seem to be selling on their own merits. You can't argue with sales numbers.

 

Being that F Series trucks are the #1 selling vehicle in America currently, I have ZERO problem with trucks, I grew up in the country and I understand the allure of a truck in that situation. I GET it, as it were. I also believe that we can build trucks in this country AND still turn a profit on them (even with the UAW).

 

I realize that the ways and means of Toyotas profitability on Camry's and Corolla/Matrix's is:

 

1) Both are mature platforms, parts and suppliers are rather well established. Throwing a new "skin" on them is relatively inexpensive.

 

2) Non-union labor (this is kind of a given), but not in a bad light.

 

3) 20 years of a "good" reputation

 

Given that, Ford doesn't have a chance in hell of getting 20 years of reputation, non-union labor, or a well established supplier base to build profitable PASSENGER CARS in the next 18 - 36 months. Thus, moving production of that segment to a low cost country makes a business case relatively easy to swallow.

 

I feel that Toyota's biggest mistake in capitulation of profit is EXACTLY the reason how they got there in the first place, conservative investment.

 

Although they kind of made a different investment in the Camry Solara and turned the platform into a two seater coupe with an option of a drop top, it was fugly to begin with, not only aestethicly, but engineering wise as well.

 

I would have turned the Camry platform into every kind of vehicle imaginable. Offroad utility vehicle, people mover (i.e. Mazda5-type), some sort of crossover vehicle (i.e. CX-7 type), and just went nuts with beefing up the exterior to make some sort of the next Explorer (think Nissan Xterra, only "beastlier")

 

But that's all off-topic, Ford's going to have to do something drastic to not only replace the lost revenue from Taurus, slipping F Series sales, and "getting there" Fusion/Milan/MKZ sales. It would be nice to have a Ford vehicle have a waiting list that WASN'T a Mustang, I believe that a people mover vehicle like a Mazda5 and every kind of Reflex platform vehicle would do the truck.

 

Because telling people that they don't NEED a big vehicle will keep them from WANTING a big vehicle.

 

Didn't you used to say Ford should be market driven?

 

Now they should be driving the market?

 

To this argument, I'll repeat a point that I already said:

 

1) Why oh why are the Toyota Camry the #1 and Corolla/Matrix the #2 selling cars in America? They're not anywhere near Ford 500 or even Chrysler 300 sized, they are relatively diminuitive, hence mid-sized car and SMALL car.

 

Thus, no one is FORCING people to buy these cars, they seem to be selling on their own merits. You can't argue with sales numbers.

 

How is people buying Camry's and Corolla/Matrix's NOT driving the market?

 

Wow, its rare I can kill two birds with one stone. I sound like one of these now:

[SparcEE]

Being the owner of a Mazda5 I can say that it gives me 95% of what I need in a vehicle. My family drives too many miles to give the $$$'s away in gas, would rather spend it on us...The family was a bit like why would you buy something like that? After a drive in it they understood. I was going to buy an Edge, but factoring initial cost, MPG, no towing, and interior space it was an easy decision. I love the vehicle more every day especially the 2.3L and its driving characteristics.

 

If the vehicle was really marketed like it should it could be a decent seller. However, when I bought mine there was no incentives. Most people ask what the hell it is? Plus it's pretty easy to find it in a parking lot. I would kill for an S-Max diesel...

 

SparcEE

[Edstock]

"1) Why oh why are the Toyota Camry the #1 and Corolla/Matrix the #2 selling cars in America? They're not anywhere near Ford 500 or even Chrysler 300 sized"

 

Why oh why are the Toyota Camry models getting bigger every generation? They're getting to where they're near Ford 500 or even Chrysler 300 sized.