It still seems like getting rid of the Fusion was a mistake.

[Rick73]

43 minutes ago, grbeck said:

 

According to the Honda website, Temple of vtec, the next Accord will not be a sedan. It will have a configuration along the lines of the old Crosstour (one hopes it has a considerably better proportioned design). 

On subject of tall sedans, Mercedes and BMW already have new designs in 59~61 inch range, making them pretty close to old Honda Crosstour.  I suppose it’s not entirely surprising when we see how buyers prefer Tesla Model Y over Model 3 even though they are similar in many ways with biggest difference being height.  A tall sedan in middle may very well be a great compromise.

[silvrsvt]

17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

We're already seeing mavericks at race tracks, including racing around the 'ring. If the maverick can handle track duty, so can the escape, they're the same platform. 

IIRC the AWD system in the Maverick isn’t the same as it is in the Escape. It shares it with the Bronco Sport, which uses the system originally used in the Focus RS. 

[jpd80]

When it comes to a crossover alternative, Maverick is Ford’s point of difference but is there also room for a modern take on the five door hatchback or would offering too many choices be counter productive to focusing the customer’s attention?

[silvrsvt]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

When it comes to a crossover alternative, Maverick is Ford’s point of difference but is there also room for a modern take on the five door hatchback or would offering too many choices be counter productive to focusing the customer’s attention?

 

I think Maverick price isn't as great as people make it out to be-but that is a good thing.

 

Yes you can get a stripper model Hybrid for $24K, but a mid range XLT with just AWD and the 2.0L Ecoboost is 31k! Not "cheap"

 

The main difference is the Maverick offers a small but useful bed on it, its basically an Escape with a bed on it. I know my father in law complained about how much pickup trucks are and we where trying to get him into a Maverick, but the demand made it impossible. Not sure how you can make a hatchback different that would draw in customers without making it cheap

[fuzzymoomoo]

On 10/21/2023 at 7:13 PM, Gurgeh said:

 

When I put in my order last spring, initially I cared -- I wanted it to be built in the U.S. but I really liked the new design (compared to all the competitors) and decided that all things considered it was the best option for a luxury mid-sized two-row crossover. Now, a month into the strike I find that I now care even more than I did initially, but in the opposite direction. I'm glad that the 2024 Nautilus I ordered isn't going to be facing potentially long delays and won't be built by a radicalized, disgruntled workforce.

Except Nautilus was never built in the US. It’s built in Canada until 2024 comes out. 

[rperez817]

20 hours ago, Rick73 said:

A tall sedan in middle may very well be a great compromise.

 

Compromise, for sure. Great, not at all. Designing sedans with a taller height will raise the H-Point for those vehicles. Lower H-Point is one of the main advantages sedans have over crossovers/SUV, pickup trucks, and vans on average or median.

 

[silvrsvt]

13 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Compromise, for sure. Great, not at all. Designing sedans with a taller height will raise the H-Point for those vehicles. Lower H-Point is one of the main advantages sedans have over crossovers/SUV, pickup trucks, and vans on average or median.

 

Its also why its "harder" to get in and out of Sedans too. as the market gets older, ease of entry is vauled over styling.

 

Plus a sedan with Command seating and a high roofline was tried with the Ford Five Hundred and Montego and they didn't sell that great

 

I personally hated the seating position in them-I felt like I was in a high chair. The 2010 Taurus lowered the roof and seating position an inch or two and it was much better in my 2013 SHO. 

[Rick73]

14 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Compromise, for sure. Great, not at all. Designing sedans with a taller height will raise the H-Point for those vehicles. Lower H-Point is one of the main advantages sedans have over crossovers/SUV, pickup trucks, and vans on average or median.

 

rperez817, I may not be following your point correctly.  If issue is that buyers won’t buy sedans anyway (partly because they are too low), what’s wrong with making a sedan a little taller and more like SUV or Crossover?  Granted, it will lose some “sedan” advantages, but won’t have as many height-related SUV disadvantages.  That’s what I meant by compromise — not that it would be better than a sedan, just not as bad as SUVs and Crossovers in other ways.  Why not offer buyers a middle ground?

 

Pictures of tall Mercedes and BMW I have seen don’t appeal to me, but then I rarely like any of their cars to start with, particularly the largest.  As I mentioned above, I like Tesla 3 but find it too low (hard to get in and out) and Model Y seems taller than necessary which makes it look a little bloated. In middle of those two could be functionally ideal, provided it looked right.  The new Tesla Model 2/Q is rumored to be smaller version of Model Y so may very well be in that height range.

[LSchicago]

On 10/21/2023 at 10:58 AM, ice-capades said:

 

Obviously, you were dealing with the wrong Dealer and fortunately not all Dealers operate like that. In some states, Dealers are prohibited from trying to force customers to purchase aftermarket products such as appearance packages, VIN etching, etc. Dealers claiming ignorance or denying Ford's decades long price protection policy are just trying to gouge their customers. You said that you refinanced 2 week later. With the same Dealer?   

The first dealing with this dealer was in 2018. Everything went great. I traded my 6 year old F150 STX 5.0 for a 2018 Mustang GT. I only lost $6,500 after driving the F150 for 6 years, and got $5,000 off the 18 Mustang GT. Same guys were there at the dealer when I ordered the Maverick, so I felt good about ordering with them last September. By the time my Maverick arrived, the dealer replaced EVERYONE in the front of the dealer. From management to sales people. Owner was unhappy with the slow sales and decided to replace everyone, which is where things went south. I refinanced with a local bank, not giving that dealer another penny. 

[LSchicago]

13 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I think Maverick price isn't as great as people make it out to be-but that is a good thing.

 

Yes you can get a stripper model Hybrid for $24K, but a mid range XLT with just AWD and the 2.0L Ecoboost is 31k! Not "cheap"

 

The main difference is the Maverick offers a small but useful bed on it, its basically an Escape with a bed on it. I know my father in law complained about how much pickup trucks are and we where trying to get him into a Maverick, but the demand made it impossible. Not sure how you can make a hatchback different that would draw in customers without making it cheap

 

Only cheap way to get a Maverick is to order one. I got my XL Hybrid with spray in bedliner, CP360 & 3 other options for $25K. I did change the wheels though. I paid $750 for the BS take offs, and got $500 for my steelies. A nice upgrade for $250. 

[rperez817]

53 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

rperez817, I may not be following your point correctly.  If issue is that buyers won’t buy sedans anyway (partly because they are too low), what’s wrong with making a sedan a little taller and more like SUV or Crossover?  

 

About 20 years ago, automakers started the unfortunate trend of jacking up the H-Point for their sedan models, partly a response to the SUV craze back then. Ford was the most egregious offender with Five Hundred and Montego as silvrsvt mentioned, but other automakers were guilty too. More recently, automakers realized that sedan buyers appreciate the advantages of low H-Point combined with other elements that contribute to improved driving dynamics compared to crossovers/SUV. The current generation of the most popular compact and midsize sedans (Corolla, Civic, Sentra, Elantra, Camry, Accord, Altima, Sonata, etc.) tend to have H-Point lower than their predecessors in the 2000s and 2010s though in some cases the difference is slight.

 

One exception to this is Toyota's discontinuation of its excellent TNGA GA-K platform Avalon last year for the U.S. market in favor of the Crown Crossover Sedan that uses the same platform. That may have been a result of Toyota wanting to free up production capacity at TMMK for RAV4 Hybrid.

[akirby]

Average midsized family sedan buyer doesn’t give a rats ass about performance and handling.  Most buyers do care about easy entry and exit, especially older buyers.  Compromised depends entirely on your personal needs and desires.

[silvrsvt]

33 minutes ago, akirby said:

Average midsized family sedan buyer doesn’t give a rats ass about performance and handling.  Most buyers do care about easy entry and exit, especially older buyers.  Compromised depends entirely on your personal needs and desires.

 

Dont forget price too lol

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

One exception to this is Toyota's discontinuation of its excellent TNGA GA-K platform Avalon last year for the U.S. market in favor of the Crown Crossover Sedan that uses the same platform. That may have been a result of Toyota wanting to free up production capacity at TMMK for RAV4 Hybrid.

Thanks for sharing.  That’s exactly the kind of middle ground I was thinking may be possible to offer buyers; a taller sedan yet lower than SUVs to reduce frontal area and additionally allow a sleeker and more sloping roof to reduce Cd beyond what is normally possible with Crossovers and SUVs.  Using Tesla as reference (only because they are still in demand), the Avalon was +/- 57 inches high which is equal to Tesla Model 3, but new Crown is 60.6 inches which is lower than Tesla Model Y by over 3 inches.  It’s interesting though that Crown is almost identical to new BMW i7 which is 60.8 inches.

 

Toyota Crown fuel economy at 42 City and 41 Highway isn’t bad for an AWD vehicle weighing almost 4,000 pounds, but obviously not as good as Camry or Accord hybrids.  Still should be plenty good for most buyers.  I don’t like Crown front end styling, nor that Toyota didn’t make it a liftback to improve hauling cargo, but maybe Ford could improve on those with its own tall sedan.

 

 

[T-dubz]

I’ve always liked the lifted sedan concept ever since Lincoln came out with the navicross concept. If Volvo made the S60 cross country still, I’d definitely consider buying one.

 

[rperez817]

29 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I don’t like Crown front end styling, nor that Toyota didn’t make it a liftback to improve hauling cargo

 

I agree Rick73. Interestingly, Toyota Motor Sales USA released a teaser photo today of what's probably a Crown SUV.

 

 

When TNGA platform Crown was initially announced, Toyota planned 4 different models. Today's teaser should be #4.

1. Crossover sedan (brown color)
2. Compact crossover SUV (red color)
3. Sedan (gray color)
4. Midsize crossover SUV (bronze color)

[rperez817]

22 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

If Volvo made the S60 cross country still, I’d definitely consider buying one.

 

SPA platform S60 is no longer available in Cross Country trim, but V60 is.

 

[T-dubz]

36 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

I agree Rick73. Interestingly, Toyota Motor Sales USA released a teaser photo today of what's probably a Crown SUV.

 

 

When TNGA platform Crown was initially announced, Toyota planned 4 different models. Today's teaser should be #4.

1. Crossover sedan (brown color)
2. Compact crossover SUV (red color)
3. Sedan (gray color)
4. Midsize crossover SUV (bronze color)

That red one looks like it could be a winner here.

[rperez817]

33 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

That red one looks like it could be a winner here.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that variant becomes an addition to the Lexus product lineup in the U.S., maybe slotting between UX and NX.

 

By far the best looking among the 4 Toyota Crown models is the regular sedan. It's unlikely this variant will be offered in the U.S. market.

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

I agree Rick73. Interestingly, Toyota Motor Sales USA released a teaser photo today of what's probably a Crown SUV.

 

 

When TNGA platform Crown was initially announced, Toyota planned 4 different models. Today's teaser should be #4.

1. Crossover sedan (brown color)
2. Compact crossover SUV (red color)
3. Sedan (gray color)
4. Midsize crossover SUV (bronze color)

Thanks again for information.  Toyota also builds the Venza which has similar 2.5L AWD Hybrid Powertrain as the new Crown, so I was curious how much difference a tall sedan versus crossover could make.  The Venza is about 100 pounds lighter but 5 inches taller than Crown, and its rated economy is 40 City and 37 Highway.  The lower-profile and sleeker Crown sedan is 42 City and 41 Highway.  There may be other minor differences, but roughly 5% City and 10% Highway improvement seems pretty good to me unless owner needs the added cargo space.

 

I expect that in Interstate driving at higher steady speeds of 70~75 MPH, difference between Crossover and tall sedan may be greater that 10%.

 

[DeluxeStang]

5 hours ago, LSchicago said:

 

Only cheap way to get a Maverick is to order one. I got my XL Hybrid with spray in bedliner, CP360 & 3 other options for $25K. I did change the wheels though. I paid $750 for the BS take offs, and got $500 for my steelies. A nice upgrade for $250. 

Not bad, those wheels look surprisingly natural on the mav. I personally think the XLT in area 51 is the most unique and best looking spec. But I'm a bit biased ?.

[Trader 10]

On 10/15/2023 at 9:31 PM, akirby said:

Model E financials have nothing to do with whether Mach-E itself is turning a profit.

Of course they do. Ford says the Model E division will lose $2.5 billion in 2023, after it lost a total of 3 billion combined in 2022 and 2023. Apparently Ford is saying most of the losses are in research and development. You can’t just ignore them. Without them MachE, Lightning, and the E Transit don’t exist. The costs have to be apportioned to those models.

 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

Of course they do. Ford says the Model E division will lose $2.5 billion in 2023, after it lost a total of 3 billion combined in 2022 and 2023. Apparently Ford is saying most of the losses are in research and development. You can’t just ignore them. Without them MachE, Lightning, and the E Transit don’t exist. The costs have to be apportioned to those models.

 

All the people working on the new BEV pickup and Aviator/Explorer  are a huge expense with zero revenue but none of those people or expenses are directly related to engineering or building Mach-E.  They could cancel those projects and not affect Mach-E.  But they’re obviously included in the financials and the loss per unit calculation.  It’s entirely plausible that Mach-E and Lightning are making a small gross profit on each sale but that’s dwarfed by the costs for all the other vehicles that aren’t on sale yet.

 

Another analogy would be a dealership selling new vehicles for $1000 over cost (gross profit) and after paying overhead and commissions they make a $5M net profit.  Then they decide to spend $10M on a brand new showroom.  Now they’re losing $5M, but the vehicles are still making $1000 gross profit on each sale.

[Trader 10]

45 minutes ago, akirby said:

All the people working on the new BEV pickup and Aviator/Explorer  are a huge expense with zero revenue but none of those people or expenses are directly related to engineering or building Mach-E.  They could cancel those projects and not affect Mach-E.  But they’re obviously included in the financials and the loss per unit calculation.  It’s entirely plausible that Mach-E and Lightning are making a small gross profit on each sale but that’s dwarfed by the costs for all the other vehicles that aren’t on sale yet.

 

Another analogy would be a dealership selling new vehicles for $1000 over cost (gross profit) and after paying overhead and commissions they make a $5M net profit.  Then they decide to spend $10M on a brand new showroom.  Now they’re losing $5M, but the vehicles are still making $1000 gross profit on each sale.

There’s no doubt the new vehicles are incurring big costs but I don’t believe they would total $ 2 1/2 billion this year alone. Your analogy brings up another point. The cost of the new dealership would be capitalized, not expensed (probably over a 30 year period). This would leave a profit of $5 million less one year’s depreciation of $333,333. I’m not an accountant but I would imagine that a significant portion of the costs of the new vehicles will be capitalized over a several year period. If so, the losses look even worse since only a portion of the costs are being recognized this year. 

 

[akirby]

7 hours ago, Trader 10 said:

There’s no doubt the new vehicles are incurring big costs but I don’t believe they would total $ 2 1/2 billion this year alone. Your analogy brings up another point. The cost of the new dealership would be capitalized, not expensed (probably over a 30 year period). This would leave a profit of $5 million less one year’s depreciation of $333,333. I’m not an accountant but I would imagine that a significant portion of the costs of the new vehicles will be capitalized over a several year period. If so, the losses look even worse since only a portion of the costs are being recognized this year. 

 

Yes the factories would be capitalized but none of the labor and other expenses like utilities.  Not sure what point you’re trying to make - whatever is causing the costs you have an entire division that’s building factories and battery plants and at the same time developing at least 5 or 6 new vehicles for NA plus whatever they’re doing in Europe and Asia Pacific but only getting a little bit of revenue from a few vehicles.  Don’t forget they’re also engineering and developing the BEV platforms and batteries.

 

Its like building a grocery store, hiring a full staff and stocking all the shelves but only selling ice cream and breakfast cereal.