akirby Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 6 hours ago, tbone said: BTW, your statement” Lower prices always bring more volume,” sounds like a commodity product😉 Commodities bring lower prices because there is nothing compelling about the product to support higher prices so price is the only factor. Nobody is going to buy premium ketchup - lowest prices always sells more. Maverick is a perfect example of a non commodity lower priced vehicle. It basically still has no real competition but started out at the low end of the market. They've been able to raise prices and maintain sales because it's not a commodity and that yields healthy profit margins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 21 hours ago, bzcat said: Ford owned small stakes in both Hyundai and Kia at different stages. Ford exchanged technology license for small stakes in Hyundai in late 1960s and Hyundai began by assembly and selling Fords in Korea. Ford broke up with Hyundai around 1980 after they couldn't work out a renewal on technology cooperation - Hyundai wanted in on Ford's next gen engine and platform (they were mainly interested in FWD Mk3 Escort) but that didn't fit with Ford's plan which was to switch to Mazda platforms in APAC region. Instead of introducing next gen Escort and Sierra in APAC, Ford went with Mazda based Laser and Telstar. Ironically, Hyundai decided to just reuse what it had already so Stellar was basically a Mk5 Cortina with a new body on it and Mitsubishi engine. Ford invested in Kia with Mazda a few years later. Kia had an existing partnership with Mazda but Kia was shut down by the Korea Govt in 1981 as the military junta favored Hyundai monopoly for passenger cars. in 1986, Kia was allowed to restart car production so Mazda and Ford both invested in Kia to help it restart operation. Around the same time, Ford commissioned Mazda to design a subcompact car to slot below Escort for US market (Festiva) and they farmed out the production to Kia that became Kia's first real success. Ford and Mazda remained Kia's main foreign investors and technology partner until Kia's bankruptcy. When Kia when belly up in 1998 as fall out from the Asian financial crisis, Ford was the only other bidder for the business besides Hyundai. In fact, Ford's initial bid was higher than Hyundai which didn't really wanted Kia but was forced by the Korean Govt to submit a competing bid. Ford was seen as the odds on favorite to gain control of Kia but Ford wouldn't guarantee that it will not shut down the Kia brand or layoff any Kia employees so the Korean union lobbied hard against Ford. Eventually the Korea Govt basically told Hyundai to match Ford's offer and Ford knew it had no chance and withdrew its bid. Around the same time Mazda got into financial difficulties and Ford gained effective control of Mazda with 1/3 ownership. So after the unsuccessful Kia bid, Ford plowed a lot of resources into Mazda instead, including combining Mazda and Ford in Taiwan and expanding Auto Alliance in Thailand. Goes without saying that Ford's footprint in APAC would be a lot different if it had gain control of Kia. Thanks for the history lesson. I don't think I could have found a better and more concise bit of info anywhere else! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 9 hours ago, tbone said: there has been virtually no change to the public charging infrastructure in my area since I stopped using the Mach E. This is clearly an anecdotal observation, but I am skeptical there has been substantial improvement around the country. What part of the country are you in? My experience in Indiana (my home), Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee is that public charging infrastructure in the parts of these states where I travel regularly has improved dramatically since I bought my F-150 Lightning in 2022, and keeps gettin' better. The number of public charging locations has gone up a lot, Ford sent me a NACS adapter allowing use of Tesla Superchargers with the truck, and reliability of the non-Tesla charging providers (especially Electrify America) has improved a lot too. Nationwide, the number of public charging ports increased to more than 235,000 total (L2 and DC Fast) as of November 2025, and to almost 66,000 for DC Fast ports specifically: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan20 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 13 hours ago, akirby said: Nothing is guaranteed, but they've been working on it for almost 3 years now and building actual vehicles. This isn't vaporware. Yea, that's why I'm cautiously optimistic that Ford will succeed with CE1 products, Universal Electric Vehicle Platform, and Universal Electric Vehicle Production System. And at least some of the Ford big shots understand that if it doesn't succeed, competing with Toyota and Hyundai will be the least of Ford's concerns. Edited January 3 by morgan20 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 4 hours ago, akirby said: But that is the reason whether you agree with it or not. You have new models to build so you either have to expand and build a new factory or free up an existing one. Ford chose to build one new plant but decided it was too expensive to build 2 more so they killed edge and nautilus to build the 3 rows and killed escape to build ce1. It's corporate finance 101. I'm sure edge and escape were profitable but at very low margins so they were the easiest to get rid of. Without the EVs they would not have killed them. Other automakers don't sacrifice viable products for new products. Honda didn't sacrifice the Accord or Civic to build their new EVs. GM stopped Bolt production at its peak, even extending the stop date due to delays in retooling for the product that would replace it, and resumed production at a different plant shared with other products 18 months later. Ford seemingly isn't building in flexibility in their planning. OAC stopped producing the edge and MKX to retool for a product that was cancelled. I can imagine Honda doing this to a profitable product. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 (edited) 6 hours ago, Biker16 said: Other automakers don't sacrifice viable products for new products. Honda didn't sacrifice the Accord or Civic to build their new EVs. GM stopped Bolt production at its peak, even extending the stop date due to delays in retooling for the product that would replace it, and resumed production at a different plant shared with other products 18 months later. I think the truth is much simpler, Ford is done expending lots of funds and resources to get what it considers merger returns and Ford has definitely made product decisions that come down an either/or choice, replacing the products it no longer supports. Originally these decisions came with a confidence that buyers would migrate from cars to Utilities meaning no lost sales. When that didn’t happen, the claim was that higher transaction prices were the point. When those vehicles were used up, they are now replaced the the next new things…coming with a similar message but as a promise of increased profits …….we will see. 6 hours ago, Biker16 said: Ford seemingly isn't building in flexibility in their planning. OAC stopped producing the edge and MKX to retool for a product that was cancelled. I can imagine Honda doing this to a profitable product. Decision on OAC go back years, it’s like watching the proverbial dog with a block of ice that’s literally more than five years in the making… Originally, CD4 Edge/Nautilus were to be replaced by CD6 RWD version but that was cancelled late in development and CD4 was warmed over as a “get through” until the now cancelled GE2 3-row Utilities were ready. Then Ford gets the brilliant idea to produce Super Duty at OAC but then Tariffs became a problem and the whole show turns into another fiasco…. In the end, it would have been less disruptive to have rolled production to four new C2 products: - Ford Equator as new Edge and Nautilus - Ford Territory as new Escape and Corsair most of these are already developed as are hybrids and either PHEV or EREV depending on battery size. Edited January 3 by jpd80 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 11 hours ago, morgan20 said: What part of the country are you in? My experience in Indiana (my home), Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee is that public charging infrastructure in the parts of these states where I travel regularly has improved dramatically since I bought my F-150 Lightning in 2022, and keeps gettin' better. The number of public charging locations has gone up a lot, Ford sent me a NACS adapter allowing use of Tesla Superchargers with the truck, and reliability of the non-Tesla charging providers (especially Electrify America) has improved a lot too. Nationwide, the number of public charging ports increased to more than 235,000 total (L2 and DC Fast) as of November 2025, and to almost 66,000 for DC Fast ports specifically: I’m in the Midwest, primarily Iowa and Illinois, along the I80 corridor. Ford had not provided the NACS adapter by the time I turned the MME in, so I was never able to utilize the Tesla chargers. Because I turned the MME in, I haven’t been trying to find new chargers but on the well traveled routes, I haven’t seen anything new. There may be more new ones, but I just haven’t seen them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 14 hours ago, akirby said: Commodities bring lower prices because there is nothing compelling about the product to support higher prices so price is the only factor. Nobody is going to buy premium ketchup - lowest prices always sells more. Maverick is a perfect example of a non commodity lower priced vehicle. It basically still has no real competition but started out at the low end of the market. They've been able to raise prices and maintain sales because it's not a commodity and that yields healthy profit margins. If they could generate a profit off the Maverick, I cannot see why they cannot do it with the Escape. Regardless whether the Maverick has a lot of competition, it is a compelling product. If you build a compelling product it will sell well and not need a ton of incentives. The Escape was hobbled by plain styling and questionable interior and drivetrain choices, which impacted its sales. It went from 307k sales in 2016 to around 140k this past year. Those sales were close to the segment leaders in 2016. 2020 is when the Escape lost its appeal and thus a ton of sales. That was on Ford. They could have solved this problem but they quit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 14 hours ago, akirby said: But that is the reason whether you agree with it or not. You have new models to build so you either have to expand and build a new factory or free up an existing one. Ford chose to build one new plant but decided it was too expensive to build 2 more so they killed edge and nautilus to build the 3 rows and killed escape to build ce1. It's corporate finance 101. I'm sure edge and escape were profitable but at very low margins so they were the easiest to get rid of. Without the EVs they would not have killed them. Well, it’s pretty evident I don’t agree with it. I’m being lazy at the moment to confirm this, but there aren’t any Ford plants that are running at 100% capacity correct? Didn’t they just build a massive factory with nothing to put into it? Ford is the absolute worst at long term planning. It’s like it’s being run by a bunch of children that react to the latest shiny new toy, yet nobody is ever held responsible for wrong decisions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 9 hours ago, tbone said: If they could generate a profit off the Maverick, I cannot see why they cannot do it with the Escape. Regardless whether the Maverick has a lot of competition, it is a compelling product. If you build a compelling product it will sell well and not need a ton of incentives. The Escape was hobbled by plain styling and questionable interior and drivetrain choices, which impacted its sales. It went from 307k sales in 2016 to around 140k this past year. Those sales were close to the segment leaders in 2016. 2020 is when the Escape lost its appeal and thus a ton of sales. That was on Ford. They could have solved this problem but they quit. Part of the reason they “quit” is because of what was coming at the time with EV regulations and retooling the plant. Same thing happened to Oakville IMO as for the 2020 redesign-I’m not 100% sure how successful they where in addressing cost issues with it, but it was a major problem from 2013 til 2020-I saw it personally between my parents 2013 titanium and my wife’s 2017 SE- the SE actually was better equipped then the Ti model outside of the 19 inch tires for $5k less, which is insane. Not to mention the Bronco Sport costs more then the Escape starting MRSP and has less equipment then say an Escape SE when using the Big Bend trim (which my wife has). Also I need to dig into Kuga/Escape sales overseas since 2020 to see if it was actually styling or what that impacted its sales positivity or negativity The biggest issue is that it’s going to take Ford 36-48 months to address this-I don’t see why they couldn’t put out something that slots into the larger ICE C2 segment that would fill that Escape/Edge range by 2027/28MY using the TTP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Sherminator98 said: Part of the reason they “quit” is because of what was coming at the time with EV regulations and retooling the plant. Same thing happened to Oakville IMO as for the 2020 redesign-I’m not 100% sure how successful they where in addressing cost issues with it, but it was a major problem from 2013 til 2020-I saw it personally between my parents 2013 titanium and my wife’s 2017 SE- the SE actually was better equipped then the Ti model outside of the 19 inch tires for $5k less, which is insane. Not to mention the Bronco Sport costs more then the Escape starting MRSP and has less equipment then say an Escape SE when using the Big Bend trim (which my wife has). Also I need to dig into Kuga/Escape sales overseas since 2020 to see if it was actually styling or what that impacted its sales positivity or negativity The biggest issue is that it’s going to take Ford 36-48 months to address this-I don’t see why they couldn’t put out something that slots into the larger ICE C2 segment that would fill that Escape/Edge range by 2027/28MY using the TTP. You have to add AWD to Escape for a valid comparison ($1400) which makes the BS slightly more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 10 hours ago, tbone said: If you build a compelling product it will sell well and not need a ton of incentives. That's what they tried with the 2013 Fusion. I bought a Titanium. It was a great vehicle. Still the best looking mid sized family sedan IMO. But buyers only wanted cheap SE models and they had to put $4k on the hood to compete. Better styling would have increased Escape sales for sure but not necessarily increased profits. They are working on a new utility to replace Escape - either a C2 to build in Hermosillo or some joint venture with Nissan. I've advocated for a longer Bronco Sport. The problem is it's taking way too long to get here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 10 hours ago, tbone said: Well, it’s pretty evident I don’t agree with it. I’m being lazy at the moment to confirm this, but there aren’t any Ford plants that are running at 100% capacity correct? Didn’t they just build a massive factory with nothing to put into it? Ford is the absolute worst at long term planning. It’s like it’s being run by a bunch of children that react to the latest shiny new toy, yet nobody is ever held responsible for wrong decisions. That I agree with. Farley likes to swing for the fences with new ideas with no backup plan. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 4 Author Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: The biggest issue is that it’s going to take Ford 36-48 months to address this-I don’t see why they couldn’t put out something that slots into the larger ICE C2 segment that would fill that Escape/Edge range by 2027/28MY using the TTP. I'll bet you $1000 that those plans will change. My frustration, as many know, is the pattern of committing to something, decommitting, and committing to something else. Over and over again. So much so that the products that are planned to arrive 4 years from now. Never get there because the plans change. And four continues to invest in things. Cancel it only to invest in something else, and then cancel that. The example is that Honda didn't discontinue the CR-V while it rolled out an all-new EV platform. They were able to build existing products in the plants that are being converted to build EVS without discontinuing the existing product. It doesn't seem that difficult for them. Why is it so difficult for Ford? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Biker16 said: t doesn't seem that difficult for them. Why is it so difficult for Ford? Because cR-V is more important to Honda than Escape is to Ford and Honda is more conservative. Ford did the same thing with Lightning because f150 is important. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 BTW just because I explain why Ford does something doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it. But sometimes mistakes of the past force less than ideal decisions now. I think the biggest goof other than EVs was not doing an even cheaper version of c2 a decade earlier and using it for edge, escape, fusion, focus, maverick and bronco sport with hybrid powertrains and having 3 c2 plants. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Biker16 said: I'll bet you $1000 that those plans will change. I don't even think those are the plans-what they put out is nebulous at best, given past history. The only thing that has changed is that we finally have an extra plant that Ford could have used the past 15-20 years for other product. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, Sherminator98 said: Part of the reason they “quit” is because of what was coming at the time with EV regulations and retooling the plant. Same thing happened to Oakville IMO as for the 2020 redesign-I’m not 100% sure how successful they where in addressing cost issues with it, but it was a major problem from 2013 til 2020-I saw it personally between my parents 2013 titanium and my wife’s 2017 SE- the SE actually was better equipped then the Ti model outside of the 19 inch tires for $5k less, which is insane. Not to mention the Bronco Sport costs more then the Escape starting MRSP and has less equipment then say an Escape SE when using the Big Bend trim (which my wife has). Also I need to dig into Kuga/Escape sales overseas since 2020 to see if it was actually styling or what that impacted its sales positivity or negativity The biggest issue is that it’s going to take Ford 36-48 months to address this-I don’t see why they couldn’t put out something that slots into the larger ICE C2 segment that would fill that Escape/Edge range by 2027/28MY using the TTP. To be fair, I don't know how much styling is playing a role with the escape's struggles. The biggest issue with the current escape imo was the front end, and the refresh they gave it looked considerably more attractive. It's not the most unique design in the segment, but the facelifted escape certainly isn't an ugly vehicle by any stretch, it's just one of those "Meh, it's ok" kinda designs. I personally believe the greatest thing working against the escape is it's reputation. Ford's reliability is very hit or miss, some vehicles are great, some aren't, and the escape is seen by many as being one of their least reliable vehicles. Buyers see how reliable something like the rav 4 is, and find that more appealing. While improved styling would help the escape, I believe moving it over to an EV platform, and marketing it as being an insanely reliable, virtually unkillable, vehicle would appeal to a lot of buyers who would otherwise go with a Toyota or Honda. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 25 minutes ago, DeluxeStang said: I personally believe the greatest thing working against the escape is it's reputation. Ford's reliability is very hit or miss, some vehicles are great, some aren't, and the escape is seen by many as being one of their least reliable vehicles. Buyers see how reliable something like the rav 4 is, and find that more appealing. Ford vehicle reliability is crazy I think-My wife and sister both had 2010 Escape and my sisters car was pretty much identical to my wife's car outside of it being a limited vs XLT that my wife had -they where even the same color-she had a shit ton of problems with hers, while my wife's car was decent to good for the most part. We had a water pump go on it while visiting family in VA and nursed it home to MD. She had some recall issues with it, but it was resolved without any major problems. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 (edited) 17 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: While improved styling would help the escape, I believe moving it over to an EV platform, and marketing it as being an insanely reliable, virtually unkillable, vehicle would appeal to a lot of buyers who would otherwise go with a Toyota or Honda. This is the thing. If Ford maintained a 3-year refresh in a 5-year redesign product cadence, as they do for the F-150. Would the Escape be as unlikable? Think about it: it takes 36 to 48 months to design a new vehicle; the Escape has been on the market for 7 years. The announcement of its discontinuation occurred roughly in year 5 of its product cycle. That means Ford, at year two or three of the Escape, decided it wasn't going to get redesigned. If Ford had maintained a product, Cadence for the Escape at Toyota, we would have had a vehicle with styling that better matched the buyer's expectations. I don't like being negative about this. I know it's a surprise, but if you don't update your products, you can't blame your products for not being successful. The neglect drives sales declines, not an intrinsic failure of a nameplate, factory, or workers; it is the neglect that kills the product. I'll believe Ford is on the right path if they can get the basics of maintaining their products right. And not base their neglect on the level of effort required to keep that product. Edited January 5 by Biker16 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 On 1/3/2026 at 7:17 AM, Sherminator98 said: Two different things I can come up with- The Edge went away because sales were dropping towards the end of its life and other new products like the Bronco and Mach E would occupy its price range, while not being an exact replacement. The Escape “died” (at least in North America) so they could build the CE1 products in the plant and the Bronco Sport/Maverick hopefully fixed the pricing/profitably issues C1 was experiencing. The CE1 is hard reboot of the building process of small vehicles. Hopefully lower prices will make EVs more desirable for buyers. I’m also going to assume that some sort of ICE/hybrid product is coming in the next 24-36 months that will slot into the Escape/Edge market because the situation has changed. I'd argue that Edge sales were dropping because it was due for an update that it didn't get. It was all new for 2015, got a refresh in 2018, and should've been redesigned for 2021 or maybe 2022 if you gave it a regular 6-7 year cycle. Instead, in typical Ford fashion, they pushed an aging product out for years past its due date, and then wonder where sales go. 23 hours ago, akirby said: That I agree with. Farley likes to swing for the fences with new ideas with no backup plan. I feel like their home runs come when they don't try to hit one - i.e. Maverick. I don't think they were expecting a home run, but it's wound up being one. They like to back themselves into a corner and then get stuck for years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) On 1/2/2026 at 7:52 PM, akirby said: That would be made at MAP. Not enough volume to be in Tennessee and it doesn't fit the affordable moniker. A new affordable truck model has to be unibody and compact and/or midsized. It's the only thing that makes sense given the new direction with ce1. You know....I just had a wild idea. What if we're crossing rumors? Remember how early on in Bronco rumors, there was talk of a Gladiator-style Bronco truck? But that they couldn't make the business case work? Gladiator sales haven't lit the world on fire either.......Have market conditions changed that much since then? Now, fast forward, and there's the rumor a Bronco truck is back on the table. Ford said the new product at TTP will be a new nameplate. Ford also announced that the truck product at TTP will be "affordable." And while they might be able to skirt in that definition with a base "Bronciator", that's somewhat questionable.... What if these rumors are actually combined in that they're making a Bronco Sport-based truck (Bronco Sport Trac?)? Maverick could be the more street/light off road duty truck, with BST being more off road/tough oriented like BS was to Escape. The problem with this theory is a lot of overlap with Maverick, but regardless in the few scenarios we've come up with, Ford is going to overlap themselves in the truck market. It'd fit the bill of new nameplate and affordable. So let's say it becomes a C2 plant essentially, but for "truck" purposes.......The Tennessee Truck Plant designation could be used to make the new rumored van too, which would allow them to keep Maverick/Bronco Sport at Hermosillo? That doesn't answer the Ranger question with the Lincoln Bronco. Unless they feel this Bronco product can replace Ranger, and maybe they give the CE1 truck the Ranger name? Edited January 5 by rmc523 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 33 minutes ago, rmc523 said: What if these rumors are actually combined in that they're making a Bronco Sport-based truck (Bronco Sport Trac?)? Maverick could be the more street/light off road duty truck, with BST being more off road/tough oriented like BS was to Escape. The problem with this theory is a lot of overlap with Maverick, but regardless in the few scenarios we've come up with, Ford is going to overlap themselves in the truck market. It'd fit the bill of new nameplate and affordable. So let's say it becomes a C2 plant essentially, but for "truck" purposes.......The Tennessee Truck Plant designation could be used to make the new rumored van too, which would allow them to keep Maverick/Bronco Sport at Hermosillo? From the way i'm interpreting things, the C1/Maverick based van is going to OHAP, not Mexico. That would help with the Tariff situation. OHAP has built unibody platform vans before and I'm pretty sure that it could handle 50-100K units a year without a sweat. I do like the idea of a Bronco styled/influenced Maverick based vehicle-that makes the most sense out what has been thrown out so far if they are going unibody with TTP. Ford still has a gaping hole in the long C CUV market since the Escape and Edge are gone. I guess a CE1 EV CUV could fill that hole to a point, but i'd like to think that their newest plant can built more than just one product at a time on the same line. I'd assume it would use as much of the same processes that Louisville plant will be using with the CE1 production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherminator98 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 38 minutes ago, rmc523 said: That doesn't answer the Ranger question with the Lincoln Bronco. Unless they feel this Bronco product can replace Ranger, and maybe they give the CE1 truck the Ranger name? I seriously doubt that a Lincoln Bronco would sell anymore then say maybe 20K units or so a year, assuming the price is over 70-80k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AM222 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: To be fair, I don't know how much styling is playing a role with the escape's struggles. The biggest issue with the current escape imo was the front end, and the refresh they gave it looked considerably more attractive. It's not the most unique design in the segment, but the facelifted escape certainly isn't an ugly vehicle by any stretch, it's just one of those "Meh, it's ok" kinda designs. The refreshed Escape is definitely better looking than the pre-facelift model, but its overall bloated jellybean body looks dated... ....compared to these. The C2 architecture is good, it's already designed to accommodate hybrid powertrains. What the Escape really needed was a reskin. Give it a more contemporary look. Edited January 5 by AM222 2 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.