Andrew L Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 I threw this together real quickly from 2017 to 2023 with the numbers I could find. I know sales do not equal how many they built since you can have left overs and such but at least gives us some idea of how many cars were rolling out of Flat Rock from then to now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 46 minutes ago, Andrew L said: My mistake I thought Fusion was going at both Hermosillo and Flat Rock longer than 2016. However in 2016 Ford did sell 5,261 Continentals, was it a hard switch in 2016 from Fusion to Continental? I saw one or two TT builds of the 2017 fusion refresh before the plug was pulled. It was a hard switch, there was a a period of a few months where it was only Mustang. That period is kind of a blur for me, it was right around the time I was told I was going back to MAP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplorerDude Posted May 4 Share Posted May 4 6 hours ago, Andrew L said: Can someone help me understand why something couldn't have been added to Flat Rock? That's one I don't get. There's no way they are anywhere near capacity at Flat Rock with only the Mustang being built there. They had Fusion and Continental being built there along side the Mustang too at one point. I can try and help answer this one. As you probably know Flat Rock has some physical limitations with how tall a vehicle is that they can build there. It literally has to be a car, coupe, sedan, wagon or something that doesn’t have a large height like an SUV. They certainly could have continued or added production of a sedan there. They could bring the Mondeo/Taurus or Zephyr and put it in there but Farley does not want to build commodity products. He does not want a vehicle that won’t provide a significant return on its investment, aka having good margins. That’s pretty much why. My guess is if vehicle height wasn’t an issue then something else (like a SUV) would get built there. If the Mustang didn’t exist, I’m convinced that plant would have been closed or Ford would have let Mazda keep it and not bought out Mazda’s half. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 I think they’ve been trying to close FR for years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew L Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 6 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: I can try and help answer this one. As you probably know Flat Rock has some physical limitations with how tall a vehicle is that they can build there. It literally has to be a car, coupe, sedan, wagon or something that doesn’t have a large height like an SUV. They certainly could have continued or added production of a sedan there. They could bring the Mondeo/Taurus or Zephyr and put it in there but Farley does not want to build commodity products. He does not want a vehicle that won’t provide a significant return on its investment, aka having good margins. That’s pretty much why. My guess is if vehicle height wasn’t an issue then something else (like a SUV) would get built there. If the Mustang didn’t exist, I’m convinced that plant would have been closed or Ford would have let Mazda keep it and not bought out Mazda’s half. Do you happen to know what the height restriction is? Would something like Maverick be too tall? or a compact CUV? Just curious. Thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 52 minutes ago, Andrew L said: Do you happen to know what the height restriction is? Would something like Maverick be too tall? or a compact CUV? Just curious. Thanks for the info! Someone previously said nothing taller than a Fusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 7 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: I can try and help answer this one. As you probably know Flat Rock has some physical limitations with how tall a vehicle is that they can build there. It literally has to be a car, coupe, sedan, wagon or something that doesn’t have a large height like an SUV. They certainly could have continued or added production of a sedan there. They could bring the Mondeo/Taurus or Zephyr and put it in there but Farley does not want to build commodity products. He does not want a vehicle that won’t provide a significant return on its investment, aka having good margins. That’s pretty much why. My guess is if vehicle height wasn’t an issue then something else (like a SUV) would get built there. If the Mustang didn’t exist, I’m convinced that plant would have been closed or Ford would have let Mazda keep it and not bought out Mazda’s half. Fuzzy hinted awhile back that there would be some sort of additional model produced there that would "excite people". Hopefully whatever that is ends up moving forward, because I don't see Flat Rock surviving with just one model for much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 9 minutes ago, akirby said: Someone previously said nothing taller than a Fusion. They should just bring back the fusion imo. It's not gonna have the thick profit margins of their trucks and larger SUVs, but if they use C2, or this new affordable EV platform for it, I don't see them having a hard time turning a profit unlike the previous fusion. Not to mention it would make more sense financially than just leaving flat rock underutilized for the foreseeable future. The new c2 fusion, which it took some time to get used to, looks pretty good imo. I'd like to see the front end, the grille specifically, get a redesign to make it a little sleeker and sportier up front, but it's a sharp looking sedan overall. Throw the 2.5 hybrid into it and you could have a fun to drive, reliable, ultra fuel efficient model that would go beyond being a commodity product. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 7 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: Fuzzy hinted awhile back that there would be some sort of additional model produced there that would "excite people". Hopefully whatever that is ends up moving forward, because I don't see Flat Rock surviving with just one model for much longer. I’ve heard literally nothing about it since then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 (edited) 7 hours ago, akirby said: Someone previously said nothing taller than a Fusion. Correct, at one point when it was the AutoAlliance International they built Mazda MX-6, Mazda 626, Mazda6, front drive Mercury Cougar and Ford Probe there in a JV with Mazda. Well before the SUV/CUV craze took over. Edited May 5 by twintornados Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 8 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: Fuzzy hinted awhile back that there would be some sort of additional model produced there that would "excite people". That was ExplorerDude not fuzzy and he didn’t say Flatrock. He just said the silhouette would make some happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, akirby said: That was ExplorerDude not fuzzy and he didn’t say Flatrock. He just said the silhouette would make some happy. I mentioned a few months ago I heard about what that “mystery program pending approval” was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 17 hours ago, ExplorerDude said: I can try and help answer this one. As you probably know Flat Rock has some physical limitations with how tall a vehicle is that they can build there. It literally has to be a car, coupe, sedan, wagon or something that doesn’t have a large height like an SUV. They certainly could have continued or added production of a sedan there. They could bring the Mondeo/Taurus or Zephyr and put it in there but Farley does not want to build commodity products. He does not want a vehicle that won’t provide a significant return on its investment, aka having good margins. That’s pretty much why. My guess is if vehicle height wasn’t an issue then something else (like a SUV) would get built there. If the Mustang didn’t exist, I’m convinced that plant would have been closed or Ford would have let Mazda keep it and not bought out Mazda’s half. Zephyr seems like a good idea that could generate the margins they want and help utilize the plant, but I suppose not if they aren't doing it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 4 minutes ago, Captainp4 said: Zephyr seems like a good idea that could generate the margins they want and help utilize the plant, but I suppose not if they aren't doing it. Given the current situation at Flat Rock it seems like a no brainer so either they are planning to close FR soon or they have something else to put there - although anything tall requires significant remodeling. It’s one thing to replace factory capacity with something better but that’s not the case for FR (that we know about). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captainp4 Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 minutes ago, akirby said: Given the current situation at Flat Rock it seems like a no brainer so either they are planning to close FR soon or they have something else to put there - although anything tall requires significant remodeling. It’s one thing to replace factory capacity with something better but that’s not the case for FR (that we know about). Where would Mustang go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 8 minutes ago, Captainp4 said: Where would Mustang go? Chicago. It already shares a lot of stuff with Explorer, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, akirby said: although anything tall requires significant remodeling. I thought it was just the body shop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, akirby said: Chicago. It already shares a lot of stuff with Explorer, But why? Chicago has its own challenges and not sure if it can even take in extra production. I can see Flat Rock staying open till next Gen Mustang EV comes out, then it could be built at BOC or Louisville 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said: I mentioned a few months ago I heard about what that “mystery program pending approval” was. I'm guessing it was something s650 based, like a hybrid variant. Unfortunate that you haven't heard anything else, hopefully they're still moving forward with this mystery product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfan Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 47 minutes ago, sullynd said: I thought it was just the body shop? It is the paint shop that is the choke point. Ford twice cancelled a new paint shop for FRAP under Hatchet Hackett. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfan Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 28 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: But why? Chicago has its own challenges and not sure if it can even take in extra production. I can see Flat Rock staying open till next Gen Mustang EV comes out, then it could be built at BOC or Louisville The Mustang will probably be ICE for decades to come given the current slowdown in expected EV adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfan Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 2 hours ago, akirby said: Given the current situation at Flat Rock it seems like a no brainer so either they are planning to close FR soon or they have something else to put there - although anything tall requires significant remodeling. It’s one thing to replace factory capacity with something better but that’s not the case for FR (that we know about). The UAW won the right to strike over plant closings. Shutting a plant will be a lot more painful for the company than in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice-capades Posted May 5 Author Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, Footballfan said: The UAW won the right to strike over plant closings. Shutting a plant will be a lot more painful for the company than in the past. The right to strike over plant closings is just one of many conditions that should never have been included in the UAW contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 41 minutes ago, ice-capades said: The right to strike over plant closings is just one of many conditions that should never have been included in the UAW contract. I hate to see plants close, because I’m very pro American manufacturing, but that was a terrible concession to make. Sometimes economic conditions dictate the circumstances and the closing is warranted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted May 5 Share Posted May 5 1 hour ago, tbone said: I hate to see plants close, because I’m very pro American manufacturing, but that was a terrible concession to make. Sometimes economic conditions dictate the circumstances and the closing is warranted. Yeah I don’t get that one either. That should have been a nonstarter as far as the companies are concerned. 1 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.