akirby Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 I just read an article that said basically what fuzzy said about redoing the original BS design around the same time as the Mach-E redesign. So I guess it is similar to Mach-e in that regard. I thought they created the small utility based on the rejected Bronco design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 42 minutes ago, akirby said: I could be wrong but that’s not the version I heard. I heard they had multiple designs for T6 Bronco and obviously chose the current one. But they liked the BS design so they decided to create a new C2 based utility to use it. I’ve heard that version too. I’m not entirely sure which one is 100 percent accurate so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 41 minutes ago, akirby said: I just read an article that said basically what fuzzy said about redoing the original BS design around the same time as the Mach-E redesign. So I guess it is similar to Mach-e in that regard. I thought they created the small utility based on the rejected Bronco design. I remember the original “E-Max” sketches that came out. Definitely would’ve been a compliance model Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, rmc523 said: I remember the original “E-Max” sketches that came out. Definitely would’ve been a compliance model I saw it. Say what you will about using the Mustang name, the design itself is FAR better than it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-dubz Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 I’ve always liked any poster who brings us news of future product. I don’t even care if it’s not right, half the fun is the speculation and the discussion it inspires. I personally think it’s a good idea to delay these evs. If it was released with a questionable design, or subpar range due to old battery technology, it could be a major flop and cost ford a ton of money. Waiting on the ev market to change and battery improvements would give it the best chance to succeed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) Internally, there’s a strong competition going on between traditional project development of BEVs versus a more start up oriented Tesla style clean sheet approach. Love it or hate it, I think the smaller more efficient development teams are going to win out over Ford’s internal desire to keep reusing already developed modules and systems. What Ford needs is a watershed moment where it throws out 75% of the crap it thinks is needed to develop vehicles and just goes with a more minimalist approach that isnt clogged up by Ford’s big book of rules aka the book says you can’t do it that way… The biggest thing holding back Ford is its slavish devotion to multi-level bureaucracy. Edited March 1 by jpd80 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 17 hours ago, akirby said: I just read an article that said basically what fuzzy said about redoing the original BS design around the same time as the Mach-E redesign. So I guess it is similar to Mach-e in that regard. I thought they created the small utility based on the rejected Bronco design. Where did you see that? I know about say 6-7 years ago there was an internal name for what became the Bronco Sport for it being know as Gen Y C/SUV going around. So I found this post here So back then the information was getting mixed up-the Maverick, BS and Mach E where getting mixed together, especially the names. CX727-Mach E CX430-Bronco Sport I'm guessing the other C product development codes where the Focus Active or similar that never came about. The Maverick became the P758. Edited March 1 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 17 hours ago, rmc523 said: I remember the original “E-Max” sketches that came out. Definitely would’ve been a compliance model It's not going to be exactly the same, but it sounds like the ford three rows look roughly like those original e-max sketches. I wouldn't mind if it looked something like this top right white sketch, that's pretty sharp imo. But with our luck, it's probably gonna end up looking like the blob on the left. Hopefully it doesn't look any worse than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said: It's not going to be exactly the same, but it sounds like the ford three rows look roughly like those original e-max sketches. I wouldn't mind if it looked something like this top right white sketch, that's pretty sharp imo. But with our luck, it's probably gonna end up looking like the blob on the left. Hopefully it doesn't look any worse than this. That bottom thing is horrid lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 36 minutes ago, rmc523 said: That bottom thing is horrid lol. Agreed, the only decent sketch is that white one. I see that as a more attractive, and distinct take on the edge's design. If the three rows crash and burn, they should design something that looks similar to that to be the true edge replacement. But of course they won't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, rmc523 said: That bottom thing is horrid lol. 46 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: Agreed, the only decent sketch is that white one. I see that as a more attractive, and distinct take on the edge's design. If the three rows crash and burn, they should design something that looks similar to that to be the true edge replacement. But of course they won't. As I see it, the big design and styling issue was that the E-Max was based on the C-Max “minivan” instead of using the Escape. The reason that misstep was due entirely because it was using out of date data. When Hackett and Farley rose to power after Field’s removal, the C-Max is cancelled because the market had already shifted to utilities like Escape, so more $$$$ were spent doubling down on the project tinkering with proportions that fortunately resulted in a more attractive vehicle but as it turns out few buyers want the Mach E these days….. A lot of Ford’s missteps can be traced back to its long product cycles and equally long product development times, evolution of the electric Focus was tortured by using C-Max instead choosing a Focus & Escape combo like Ford is developing at Cologne albeit with VW MEB toolkit. It all gets back to a totally disfunctional Ford and it inability to quickly design and deliver important products, the one exception is the Maverick, an example of what can be achieved by a smaller more efficient team. I shudder to think of what the total development costs were by the time Ford launched the Mach E Edited March 1 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 12 minutes ago, jpd80 said: As I see it, the big design and styling issue was that the E-Max was based on the C-Max “minivan” instead of Escape. The reason that Ford did not use Escape as the starting point was due entirely because it was using out of date data. When Hackett and Farley rose to power after Field’s removal, the C-Max is cancelled because the market had already shifted to utilities like Escape, so more $$$$ were spent doubling down on the project tinkering with proportions that fortunately resulted in a more attractive vehicle but as it turns out few buyers want these days….. A lot of Ford’s missteps can be traced back to its long product cycles and equally long product development times, evolution of the electric Focus was tortured by using C-Max instead choosing a Focus & Escape combo like Ford is developing at Cologne albeit with VW MEB toolkit. It all gets back to a totally dis functional Ford and it inability to quickly design and deliver important products, the one exception is the Maverick, an example of what can be achieved by a smaller more efficient team. I shudder to think of what the total development costs were by the time Ford launched the Mach E What I find crazy is that they were able to very quickly develop/approve Maverick, and that somehow remains the only product to come from that "faster thinking" process - everything else has reverted back to ancient timelines and never-ending delays. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 18 minutes ago, rmc523 said: What I find crazy is that they were able to very quickly develop/approve Maverick, and that somehow remains the only product to come from that "faster thinking" process - everything else has reverted back to ancient timelines and never-ending delays. The crazy part is that’s the way most vehicles should be developed for scales of efficiency but so much bullshit goes on inside Ford because of the inherent culture and bureaucracy. Fast forward to now and you’re right, where did all that fast thinking go? Ford doesn’t learn anything, they’re still searching around for basic vehicle combinations to bring to market, omce they look at vehicles other than trucks, they seem to be all at sea making any kind of good decisions. Edited March 1 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 34 minutes ago, rmc523 said: What I find crazy is that they were able to very quickly develop/approve Maverick, and that somehow remains the only product to come from that "faster thinking" process - everything else has reverted back to ancient timelines and never-ending delays. 27 minutes ago, jpd80 said: The crazy part is that’s the way most vehicles should be developed for scales of efficiency but so much bullshit goes on inside Ford because of the inherent culture and bureaucracy. Fast forward to now and you’re right, where did all that fast thinking go? Ford doesn’t learn anything, they’re still searching around for basic vehicle combinations to bring to market, omce they look at vehicles other than trucks, they seem to be all at sea making any kind of good decisions. What's surprising about the maverick is that it's not a complete dumpster fire either. So often with those shortened vehicle development programs, the end product is this rushed abomination with never ending quality issues, and terrible attributes. That doesn't seem to be the case with maverick, a few years in, and it's shaping up to genuinely be a decent product for the most part. Whatever development process they used, it seems to have worked. Not only did it keep costs down, but it delivered a compelling and desirable product. It's mind numbing to think Ford has essentially abandoned this process, and reverted back to their old ways. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 37 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: What's surprising about the maverick is that it's not a complete dumpster fire either. So often with those shortened vehicle development programs, the end product is this rushed abomination with never ending quality issues, and terrible attributes. That doesn't seem to be the case with maverick, a few years in, and it's shaping up to genuinely be a decent product for the most part. Whatever development process they used, it seems to have worked. Not only did it keep costs down, but it delivered a compelling and desirable product. It's mind numbing to think Ford has essentially abandoned this process, and reverted back to their old ways. The key for Maverick was that they leveraged an existing platform and essentially made a new top hat for it. I fully understand BEVs are a whole different animal and require a re-thinking, but I feel they absolutely could fill in some gaps with the "Maverick" approach in the meantime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 32 minutes ago, rmc523 said: The key for Maverick was that they leveraged an existing platform and essentially made a new top hat for it. I fully understand BEVs are a whole different animal and require a re-thinking, but I feel they absolutely could fill in some gaps with the "Maverick" approach in the meantime. Precisely and I think this underscores the value of projects like the skunkworks at Irvine developing compact BEVs. Major projects often get bogged down on product envelopes but I feel like that’s of less importance when you’re not try to build something for everyone. There are certain valuable niche vehicles/segments that Ford should go after and back itself. I do wonder if some of the delays with future BEVs has to do with Ford continually discovering better more efficient ways to design and develop products. Maybe done with fewer impediments exactly because it isn’t trying to chain itself with how it currently builds and uses parts suppliers. Maybe it’s also an evolution process that Ford explains to itself why many of its current staff may not be required in the near future… Edited March 1 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 On 2/29/2024 at 1:40 PM, ice-capades said: I understand the discussion and comments, but can we please stop with the off-topic posts about a former member that was barred for cause. Next, they're gonna talk about P71_CrownVic 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 (edited) If you don’t like Ford’s plans, just wait a couple of months, you’re bound to find one you like… Edited March 2 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oac98 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 On 2/27/2024 at 8:11 PM, Trader 10 said: Remember that Ford in October announced it was postponing $12 billion in BEV investment. We have no idea what it would cost to postpone production another 24 months, but I don’t think it would be billions. It will cost billions to retool the plant and get the new models out. If the currently planned models aren’t competitive Ford will never make a profit building them. 1.8 billion Canadian to retool OAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 (edited) 8 hours ago, Oacjay98 said: 1.8 billion Canadian to retool OAC Don’t forget that part of that money also goes towards an on-site battery plant Ford release at the time stated that Oakville would manufacture high volume BEVs Ford is investing C$1.8 billion to transform Oakville (Ont.) Assembly Complex into a Canadian hub of electric vehicle manufacturing that will include vehicle and battery pack assembly; site transformation key to Ford’s plan to reach a global production run rate of 2 million EVs annually by the end of 2026 The new campus – to be renamed Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex – will be a high-volume manufacturing hub for North American EV production, repurposing existing buildings into a state-of-the-art facility that leverages Oakville’s experienced workforce Ford will begin to retool and transform the Oakville complex in the second quarter of 2024 to prepare for production of next-generation electric vehicles beginning in 2025 Ford is the first full-line automaker committed to producing passenger EVs in Canada for the North American market Quote https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/ca/en/news/2023/04/11/ford_s-oakville--ontario--complex-prepares-to-build-next-gen-evs.html The current 487-acre Oakville site includes three body shops, one paint building, one assembly building. The transformed campus will feature a new 407,000 square-foot on-site battery plant that will utilize cells and arrays from BlueOval SK Battery Park in Kentucky. Oakville workers will take these components and assemble battery packs that will then be installed in vehicles assembled on-site. Edited March 3 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 On 3/1/2024 at 11:02 PM, jpd80 said: If you don’t like Ford’s plans, just wait a couple of months, you’re bound to find one you like… Hmnn...could be a sign..too many people trying to justify their existence??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 On 3/1/2024 at 2:47 AM, jpd80 said: Internally, there’s a strong competition going on between traditional project development of BEVs versus a more start up oriented Tesla style clean sheet approach. Love it or hate it, I think the smaller more efficient development teams are going to win out over Ford’s internal desire to keep reusing already developed modules and systems. What Ford needs is a watershed moment where it throws out 75% of the crap it thinks is needed to develop vehicles and just goes with a more minimalist approach that isnt clogged up by Ford’s big book of rules aka the book says you can’t do it that way… The biggest thing holding back Ford is its slavish devotion to multi-level bureaucracy. Bingo. I had a boss and one of his favorite sayings was..."Paralysis through analysis." My view has always been.."staff disease". On my favorite subject of heavy trucks, a good example is Ford's ongoing delay of offering air brakes on a 750 equipped with the 7.3 Godzilla. This option has been delayed ever since the 7.3 came out as an alternative the the $10k+ premium for the Power Stroke. I've been led to believe they didn't have the money to engineer this option in. If you offer air on a 750 with a 33,000lb. rating, should not take a lot of effort to put that compressor on a 7.3. Unless too many clueless people are involved in the approval process. One long time retired Ford poster has said "commercial trucks" was a dead end career wise. Well now we are led to believe Ford Pro is the new cash cow. Most likely however the decision makers in that organization are an in-house product of the bureaucracy many here have referred to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 On 3/1/2024 at 3:15 PM, jpd80 said: Precisely and I think this underscores the value of projects like the skunkworks at Irvine developing compact BEVs. Major projects often get bogged down on product envelopes but I feel like that’s of less importance when you’re not try to build something for everyone. There are certain valuable niche vehicles/segments that Ford should go after and back itself. I do wonder if some of the delays with future BEVs has to do with Ford continually discovering better more efficient ways to design and develop products. Maybe done with fewer impediments exactly because it isn’t trying to chain itself with how it currently builds and uses parts suppliers. Maybe it’s also an evolution process that Ford explains to itself why many of its current staff may not be required in the near future… The problem is, they'll constantly be finding ways to do it more efficiently.....at some point you need to come out with product and THEN improve it. It's like if you want the new iPhone, you can always make an argument for "I'll wait for the next one" ....except you do that for a few years and suddenly you have an iphone 7 that barely works when they're on iphone 54......at a certain point you just need to pull the trigger and make improvements from there. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oac98 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 On 2/28/2024 at 9:01 PM, pffan1990 said: He did come back here with a new username of 'Assimilator' and then left on February 4, 2020. As for Ford EV plans, who knows what's going on since Ford will likely change these new plans in just a few months from now. lol It's certain that the F-150 T3 project is still set as planned at BOC in Tennessee. Same with the Kentucky battery plant (1st is almost complete, if not already, with the 2nd plant delayed). The Ford 3-row EVs, is still a mystery. ExplorerDude said above that Job 1 is around March of 2025 at OAC. I feel for the OAC workers who are still out of the loop as to what's going on there regarding re-tooling plans, what the EVs look like, etc. It’s BEYOND frustrating!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 12 hours ago, Oacjay98 said: It’s BEYOND frustrating!!! I’m beginning to wonder, maybe do your own digging, if planned demolition is still on track, that’s probably a good sign.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.