2024 Ford Edge Production Will End In Late April

[tbone]

7 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:

We get unemployment from government and we get supplemental  unemployment benefit from ford. It will be the equivalent of 70 percent of regular wage. 

Like I said, seems like poor planning by Ford to have such a long downtime, and likely replacing existing products with products that have lower demand.  Just seems like an unforced error, and it sucks that you will lose 30% of your pay.  

[tbone]

4 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Is it possible for Ford to bring the evos here? 

 

So Ford doesn't want to keep producing the edge as is, but their more exciting offerings in the two row space aren't really appealing to edge owners either. An evos design with the maverick hybrid system could be something that captivates edge buyers without cannibalizing bronco and mach-e sales, but Ford seems opposed to bringing the evos here. 

Been asking the same question for a while.  Ford really doesn’t have that many products to sell and this would be a very complimentary.  Makes no senses. 

 

3 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:

Take a careful look at the Evos, it looks very much like an ICE MACH-E. You may disagree with me but it does look like the Mach-E. It would’ve been nice if Ford had put Hybrids in the Edge/Nautilus years ago not wait til they discontinue them in N/A them import the Nautilus.

I agree with you and I think it would sell here. I don’t think it’s too late for it if they really wanted to. 

[Ares]

Personally would prefer the Everest to come over and fill the role of the Edge, but the Evos works too.

 

Edited January 31 by matt6

[akirby]

9 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Is it possible for Ford to bring the evos here? I know initially, they said they didn't have plans to. But it's been well received, it's c2 based so it can use many of those components, it has sportier and more aggressive styling than the edge that would appeal to American consumers more than the current edge does. Seems like it would go over well here. 

 

Ford already has multiple midsized two row passion oriented utilities in the form of the bronco, and mach-e. The challenge as I see it, is Ford doesn't want to make boring appliances anymore, but the bronco and the mach-e don't appeal to a lot of the edge owners I've talked to for a variety of reasons. So Ford doesn't want to keep producing the edge as is, but their more exciting offerings in the two row space aren't really appealing to edge owners either. An evos design with the maverick hybrid system could be something that captivates edge buyers without cannibalizing bronco and mach-e sales, but Ford seems opposed to bringing the evos here. 

I floated the Evos as an edge replacement in a couple of edge groups and forums and the response was a hard no thanks.  I think it would do ok but not as a direct Edge replacement.  And neither is Bronco or Mach-e.  
 

Part of the problem is a lot of current edge buyers love the 2.7L which won’t be available with C2.  But I think having a hybrid and the high tech dash would bring in new buyers and keep it from being a commodity.

[akirby]

5 hours ago, tbone said:

Like I said, seems like poor planning by Ford to have such a long downtime, and likely replacing existing products with products that have lower demand.  Just seems like an unforced error, and it sucks that you will lose 30% of your pay.  

Not poor planning on downtime.  It’s a huge effort to rebuild a plant for EV production.  Not a simple retooling.  When you factor in the startup of the new models the timeline seems reasonable to me.  It is unfortunate they have to lose production for that long though.

[Oac98]

5 hours ago, tbone said:

Like I said, seems like poor planning by Ford to have such a long downtime, and likely replacing existing products with products that have lower demand.  Just seems like an unforced error, and it sucks that you will lose 30% of your pay.  

The long downtime isn’t necessarily poor planning. The plant has to be gutted and all the tooling from the four vehicles brands we built removed. It’s a big project and it’s gonna take time. They’ve already started doing work in there but the major work doesn’t start till after we leave on April 26th. As for the lower demand, I totally agree and hope that the vehicles don’t bomb. 

[akirby]

4 hours ago, matt6 said:

Personally would prefer the Everest to come over and fill the role of the Edge, but the Evos works too.

 

Everest with 2.7 or 3.0 would work well as an Edge ST alternative.  But I don’t see enough factory space for it.

[fuzzymoomoo]

56 minutes ago, akirby said:

Everest with 2.7 or 3.0 would work well as an Edge ST alternative.  But I don’t see enough factory space for it.

Agreed. So many people miss the old BOF Explorer and don’t want a Bronco for whatever reason. I think it could do really well. 

[Rick73]

14 hours ago, Willwll313wll said:

 

Expect it to be a full EV with more than 200 miles.

Are there not already plenty of choices with 300 miles or greater, and not doing great in sales?

 

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of middle ground, and that’s a huge problem for manufacturers in my opinion.  For local trips when charging at home, almost any modern-day-BEV range will do, making it a good fit (even 200 miles).  On the other hand, for long highway trips, even the best BEV are undesirable for most owners.  Granted, anyone can take a long road trip in a BEV, but why would most buyers want to?

 

Car and Driver tested a new Tesla S with 405 miles of “combined” range, 390 miles “highway” range, but only got 280 miles at steady 75 MPH.  To save time on a long road trip, charging would be limited to 80% state of charge, and on average may run down to 20%, depending on how close Superchargers are located.  Anyway, 60% (80-20) of 280 miles is only 170 miles.  In cold winter conditions, heavy rain, etc. that will drop even lower.  Just saying difference between EPA rated range and what owners can actually expect in normal use can be very different.

 

I happen to agree with BoomerSooner’s concern for there being enough demand for a 7-passenger BEV, and that a conventional replacement may be less risky at this time.  I’m certain there would be some buyers who would purchase a 7-seat BEV knowing they would not take it on long trips, but I expect those numbers must be small.  Sadly, these decisions were made years ago before market conditions changed, so we may find out soon enough.

[fuzzymoomoo]

56 minutes ago, akirby said:

Everest with 2.7 or 3.0 would work well as an Edge ST alternative.  But I don’t see enough factory space for it.

Agreed. So many people miss the old BOF Explorer and don’t want a Bronco for whatever reason. I think it could do really well. 

[silvrsvt]

Just as a frame of reference, if my memory doesn't fail me, it took roughly a year or so for Edison to retool from building FWD Escorts to Rangers back almost 35 years ago. They also had to build a new paint booth, because the Escorts at the plant only could do single stage paint and had to move to two stage paint (basecoat/clearcoat) due to EPA regulations and being generally a better paint system. 

 

So the timeline (which you also have to include preproduction runs that will last anywhere from 30-90 days) isn't too out of line with a major rebuild. 

[Rick73]

17 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

So many people miss the old BOF Explorer and don’t want a Bronco for whatever reason.

Maybe it’s polarizing, and some find it too different?  I like Explorer, Bronco not so much.

[Oac98]

51 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Are there not already plenty of choices with 300 miles or greater, and not doing great in sales?

 

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of middle ground, and that’s a huge problem for manufacturers in my opinion.  For local trips when charging at home, almost any modern-day-BEV range will do, making it a good fit (even 200 miles).  On the other hand, for long highway trips, even the best BEV are undesirable for most owners.  Granted, anyone can take a long road trip in a BEV, but why would most buyers want to?

 

Car and Driver tested a new Tesla S with 405 miles of “combined” range, 390 miles “highway” range, but only got 280 miles at steady 75 MPH.  To save time on a long road trip, charging would be limited to 80% state of charge, and on average may run down to 20%, depending on how close Superchargers are located.  Anyway, 60% (80-20) of 280 miles is only 170 miles.  In cold winter conditions, heavy rain, etc. that will drop even lower.  Just saying difference between EPA rated range and what owners can actually expect in normal use can be very different.

 

I happen to agree with BoomerSooner’s concern for there being enough demand for a 7-passenger BEV, and that a conventional replacement may be less risky at this time.  I’m certain there would be some buyers who would purchase a 7-seat BEV knowing they would not take it on long trips, but I expect those numbers must be small.  Sadly, these decisions were made years ago before market conditions changed, so we may find out soon enough.

Original projection by Ford was 100,000 units of Ford/Lincoln 7 seater. I have my doubts based on the current scale back by this company.

[Oac98]

51 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Agreed. So many people miss the old BOF Explorer and don’t want a Bronco for whatever reason. I think it could do really well. 

If the Everest ever did come here they would have to build it at your plant since it’s basically a Ranger SUV.  

[akirby]

45 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

Maybe it’s polarizing, and some find it too different?  I like Explorer, Bronco not so much.

They don’t want or need a removable top or off road capability and/or they just don’t like the styling.

 

Wife had 2 explorers starting in 93, then an expedition and an aviator before moving to edge and MKX/nautilus.  She has zero interest in a Bronco.

[fuzzymoomoo]

57 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

If the Everest ever did come here they would have to build it at your plant since it’s basically a Ranger SUV.  

yeah I have no idea how that would work. Space is tight to begin with. 

[Rick73]

59 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

Original projection by Ford was 100,000 units of Ford/Lincoln 7 seater. I have my doubts based on the current scale back by this company.

I can understand how auto buyers in general initially had unrealistic expectations of BEV capabilities, which may have led them to express interest in buying BEVs based on flawed knowledge that would later change based on actual use experience, but what I struggle understanding is how manufacturers did not anticipate adjustment coming.  Unless senior management did not listen to engineers, or engineers were clueless to how BEVs would perform in the real world, it’s hard to comprehend that manufacturers did not see demand slowing somewhat.  

[akirby]

39 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

I can understand how auto buyers in general initially had unrealistic expectations of BEV capabilities, which may have led them to express interest in buying BEVs based on flawed knowledge that would later change based on actual use experience, but what I struggle understanding is how manufacturers did not anticipate adjustment coming.  Unless senior management did not listen to engineers, or engineers were clueless to how BEVs would perform in the real world, it’s hard to comprehend that manufacturers did not see demand slowing somewhat.  

The main driver, at least initially, was expected government regulations.  Especially in Europe.  And CAFE and CARB regulations in the U.S.   Engineering and customer preferences weren’t that important.  They had to be prepared for possible govt mandates.  The rest was based on reservations and sales.

[Oac98]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

yeah I have no idea how that would work. Space is tight to begin with. 

Yup I’m aware you guys are right for excess capacity.

[Oac98]

41 minutes ago, akirby said:

The main driver, at least initially, was expected government regulations.  Especially in Europe.  And CAFE and CARB regulations in the U.S.   Engineering and customer preferences weren’t that important.  They had to be prepared for possible govt mandates.  The rest was based on reservations and sales.

Very good points.

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Agreed. So many people miss the old BOF Explorer and don’t want a Bronco for whatever reason. I think it could do really well. 

Perhaps because it's BOF, and has that more rugged look, Ford could rebrand it as a slightly more upscale extension of the bronco brand or something? Offering a new product that appeals to some edge buyers, but also the bronco buyers who want a more upscale bronco with an enclosed roof. 

 

I will be honest, I see the Everest appealing to bronco and explorer owners more than edge owners. If they didn't want to brand it as a bronco, perhaps they could call it explorer classic or something to call back to the explorers more rugged roots. It sounds like these edge buyers are particularly picky, so selling them on the rather unrefined nature of a BOF truck would be an uphill battle. 

 

At this point, edge buyers are reminding me of that cat waiting at the door saying. They don't know what they want anymore. 

[silvrsvt]

15 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said:

I will be honest, I see the Everest appealing to bronco and explorer owners more than edge owners. If they didn't want to brand it as a bronco, perhaps they could call it explorer classic or something to call back to the explorers more rugged roots. It sounds like these edge buyers are particularly picky, so selling them on the rather unrefined nature of a BOF truck would be an uphill battle. 

 

At this point, edge buyers are reminding me of that cat waiting at the door saying. They don't know what they want anymore. 

 

I dunno-BOF isn't unrefined anymore-my Bronco handles just as well as my SHO does in every day driving and is just as comfortable. Yeah there is some issues with additional wind noise and squeaks but that is due to having a removable top. Or you can get pedantic and start bitching about interior plastic quality if that is your thing.  

 

BOF Trucks aren't 1998 Rangers any more

 

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Is it possible for Ford to bring the evos here? I know initially, they said they didn't have plans to. But it's been well received, it's c2 based so it can use many of those components, it has sportier and more aggressive styling than the edge that would appeal to American consumers more than the current edge does. Seems like it would go over well here. 

 

Ford already has multiple midsized two row passion oriented utilities in the form of the bronco, and mach-e. The challenge as I see it, is Ford doesn't want to make boring appliances anymore, but the bronco and the mach-e don't appeal to a lot of the edge owners I've talked to for a variety of reasons. So Ford doesn't want to keep producing the edge as is, but their more exciting offerings in the two row space aren't really appealing to edge owners either. An evos design with the maverick hybrid system could be something that captivates edge buyers without cannibalizing bronco and mach-e sales, but Ford seems opposed to bringing the evos here. 

 

6 hours ago, akirby said:

I floated the Evos as an edge replacement in a couple of edge groups and forums and the response was a hard no thanks.  I think it would do ok but not as a direct Edge replacement.  And neither is Bronco or Mach-e.  
 

Part of the problem is a lot of current edge buyers love the 2.7L which won’t be available with C2.  But I think having a hybrid and the high tech dash would bring in new buyers and keep it from being a commodity.

 

I mention it every time Evos is brought up as an Edge alternative......Evos is not a proper Edge alternative - it is more of a Fusion alternative with the rear hatch.  Edge buyers want something that sits higher - neither Evos NOR MME fit that profile, IMO.

 

4 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Agreed. So many people miss the old BOF Explorer and don’t want a Bronco for whatever reason. I think it could do really well. 

 

I think it has to do with the perceived lack of refinement of Bronco.  While I like mine, there are definitely some things that I think could be improved at the upper pricepoints especially.  These limitations don't appeal to those that don't want a more rugged type vehicle.

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

Perhaps because it's BOF, and has that more rugged look, Ford could rebrand it as a slightly more upscale extension of the bronco brand or something? Offering a new product that appeals to some edge buyers, but also the bronco buyers who want a more upscale bronco with an enclosed roof. 

 

I will be honest, I see the Everest appealing to bronco and explorer owners more than edge owners. If they didn't want to brand it as a bronco, perhaps they could call it explorer classic or something to call back to the explorers more rugged roots. It sounds like these edge buyers are particularly picky, so selling them on the rather unrefined nature of a BOF truck would be an uphill battle. 

 

At this point, edge buyers are reminding me of that cat waiting at the door saying. They don't know what they want anymore. 

That's good to see BOF has improved in recent years. Perhaps I need to revisit the idea of owning a BOF vehicle in the future in that case. On the topic of interiors, I don't dare insult the bronco's interior, my maverick is all plastic after all ?. 

 

Edit:I don't know why me quoting someone else who was quoting me is only showing my portion of the post, by I'm just gonna leave it haha. 

Edited January 31 by DeluxeStang

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

I think it has to do with the perceived lack of refinement of Bronco.  While I like mine, there are definitely some things that I think could be improved at the upper pricepoints especially.  These limitations don't appeal to those that don't want a more rugged type vehicle.

That makes perfect sense.