Home for the Interceptor & MKR

[NickF1011]

The Interceptor and MKR concepts are based on variants of the D2C Mustang chassis. However, if they are to sell at any significant volume, Ford faces a dilema on where they are to be built.

 

1. Auto Alliance - It would make the most sense long-term as the platform-sharing with the Mustang would make assembly and parts sharing/distribution as simple as possible. However, the plant would seemingly not be large enough to build the other vehicles there in any significant (profitable) volume as long as the Mazda6 is sharing floor space. Ford would need to find an alternate location to assemble the Mazda. Assuming the Mazda6 and Fusion are going to be migrating to a common platform in their next generations, this would make sense. However, being that the next generations of these models are a few years away, this would leave the newer Interceptor and MKR in limbo until that time.

 

2. St. Thomas - This plan hinges on the Interceptor in fact being a replacement for the Crown Victoria. In order to effectively utilize the space at St. Thomas, Ford would need to assemble more than just these two models here in the Panther's place. A Mercury and Lincoln sedan variant would be a must in order to bring production volume up to a viable level to justify its own assembly plant. This plan goes against the rumors that the Panther platform will be spared until at least past 2010.

 

3. Use one of the mothballed facilities slated for closing: Wixom? Atlanta? Twin Cities? St. Louis? Norfolk? - Would it be wise for Ford to re-tool one of its plants slated for closure in order to produce new product that may or may not be successful enough to justify the costs of keeping another plant open? In order for this to be a viable solution, it would also likely hinge on Ford releasing more models on this platform in order to utilize the space. None of the plants slated for closure are exactly small in size, and the last thing Ford needs at this point is another plant running at 50% capacity.

 

4. Flex It - Is there another plant where Ford could flex manufacture these cars? Perhaps throw it in Louisville with the Explorer? But that would rely on the Ranger not moving there. Chicago with the D3's? That would assume there won't be the MKS going there and that the D3's continue to languish in sales despite the '08 refreshes. Anywhere else that may be possible? Oakville perhaps?

 

An interesting dilema for sure.

 

Of course, this is all irrelevent if Ford lacks the balls to build them. :rolleyes:

Edited January 3, 2007 by NickF1011

[JETSOLVER]

Louiville is a truck plant, and the next Explorer is a unibody derivitive. Can shrinking F- series support Norfolk as well?

 

Oakville has bet the farm on Edge and MKX future derivitives on that platform. I'm thinking whatever the Fairlane turns out to be, what with the death of the Freestar.

 

Mazda would love nothing more that for Ford to take Mustang out of Flat Rock, as Mazda has some things it would like to do as well in North America. Although I doubt that Mustang assembly would make much sense with anything else right now, perhaps in 2010. It is just to darn specific as to volume and parts. Interesting to see how they think on this. Is Mustang volume constant enough, even with a radical redo? You just know they would like to have some movement on volume, as it so dependant on whim buying.

 

I can almost guarantee that Ford is in some very low key discussions about some very large tax concessions from either Atlanta, or Wixom as a prelude to recreating either of those as flex build. I'll wager a private beer that proximity to Clevland is an issue. As well Atlanta did the Taurus, so a retool looks good timewise for a 09/MY10 intro. I wonder if Ford can squeeze the locals like the import's seem to be able to at will. That should be good for some sparks in a Democrat controled Congress.

 

That leaves Wayne, although I have to believe they will leave it alone until the retool for the next Focus/C3. It does offer some clues about any C1/C2 product though. Any idea how ready Wayne might be for a serious redo ala Flexible ?

 

Fire away!!

Edited January 4, 2007 by JETSOLVER

[pcsario]

AA.

 

Ford has been building something massive in Mexico for a while now, but because of the upcoming UAW negotiations, that might end up being a Mazda plant instead. Rumors persist the next gen Focus will be built in Mexico, so whatever brand it'll end up being, it'll be a flex plant.

 

If the Milan is indeed getting the axr, that frees up capacity in Hermosillo to build the next Mazda6 on the CD3 platform.

[falcon lover]

The Interceptor and MKR concepts are based on variants of the D2C Mustang chassis. However, if they are to sell at any significant volume, Ford faces a dilema on where they are to be built.

 

 

 

2. St. Thomas - This plan hinges on the Interceptor in fact being a replacement for the Crown Victoria. In order to effectively utilize the space at St. Thomas, Ford would need to assemble more than just these two models here in the Panther's place. A Mercury and Lincoln sedan variant would be a must in order to bring production volume

 

3. Use one of the mothballed facilities slated for closing: Wixom? Atlanta? Twin Cities? St. Louis? Norfolk? - Would it be wise for Ford to re-tool one of its plants slated for closure in order to produce new product that may or may not be successful enough

 

4. Flex It - Chicago with the D3's?

 

Of course, this is all irrelevent if Ford lacks the balls to build them. :rolleyes:

 

Ford need to build the Ford, Mercury and Linconl variants from this platform. In 2-door and 4 door coupe (Linconl), 4 door sedan ( Ford ,Mercury and Linconl) and wagon ( Ford) . That is enough for fill a big plant.

Mazda will look another place...the Mustang plant is the logical site for this cars.

 

And why you have doubt about the success of this cars? They have the rigth style, the right platform ,the rigth engines .The Mustang is selling in order of 200000 anually. The sedans version of the cars will sell at 400000 anually....remember, the 4 door sedans versions of the all nameplates sell better than the coupes ......remember Camry, remember Accord, etc, etc...

And forget the D3 cars..... the 500, Montego and upcoming MK S are dead cars....are boring, underpowered and must be killed as soon as possible. May be, the MK S must be killed before birth day....

[igor]

I say Wixom .. with the Mustang Volume, 100k of Interceptors and 40k MKR's will get the plant close to capacity.

 

Igor

[NickF1011]

And why you have doubt about the success of this cars? They have the rigth style, the right platform ,the rigth engines .The Mustang is selling in order of 200000 anually. The sedans version of the cars will sell at 400000 anually....

 

That's highly optimistic, and exactly the kind of optimism that landed Ford with all their current excess capacity. Ford hasn't produced over 200,000 Mustangs in a single year since 2000, and I believe that was the only time in the past 20 years. 400,000 units from the sedan versions would be assuming Ford could move 250,000 of them and relying on L-M to move another 150K or so. That's just not going to happen with Ford's current market presence. Ford should be content with selling about 300-350K TOTAL D2C-derived vehicles, including about 180,000 Mustangs and 120,000-170,000 of the sedans in all three Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury variants combined. If they use flex manufacturing, that should be plenty of volume to keep them safely in the black.

[wescoent]

Well, first is a question of volume. For production, we'll assume the Interceptor will get a 3.5L V6, as well as a 4.6L V8, and priced $25,000 to about $38,000. It'll have a fun Mercury twin (Marauder) with the same deal. I'd say with the right advertising, Ford could move around 75,000 annually, and Mercury could move another 15,000 or so. The MKR can get the 3.7L V6 as the baseline motor, with the TwinForce as the uplevel option, and priced $45,000 to about $60,000 fully loaded. Lincoln could probably move around 20,000 of them if they set their minds to it. So that's 110,000 units of volume. I say just build them at Flat Rock, and toss on another shift to handle it all.

 

In turn, this will free up enough volume at Chicago to build the Fairlane/Lincoln van there, with Five Hundred and Montego sales deflated.

[RichardJensen]

I just think it's cool Ford has managed to keep "Interceptor" as a trademark.

[JETSOLVER]

Did Ford ever decide on the southern states/UAW plant or the Mexico expansion? Those were on again off again several times in the fall, and I do not recall reading about a final decision.

 

And thank you Pioneer, it has been hard to keep up with all the closings. There is a lot of manufacturing capacity that has recently become history.

[RichardJensen]

What good is a name, if you don't ever use it?

Actually, that was kind of my point: They've called their police cruisers "interceptors" off and on for going on fifty years now, so they've got that name locked up.

[NLPRacing]

Why is the D2C platform all of sudden flexible enough to spawn a two different 4 door sedans, one of which is a luxury sedan with IRS? We've been told over and over again that the D2C would not be able to support a sedan due to this reason and that reason and blah blah blah...

 

I personally wouldn't be surprised to find out that these concepts were built on heavily modified D2C's just for show, but will probably be built an a different platform. For example, the Fairlane concept was built on a CD3, but the production version of the P.M.F.K.A.F. will be built on the D3. If I had to guess, the production version of the Interceptor & MKR and possibly the next Mustang & Explorer will end up on the E8, not the D2C.

 

Ford has plenty of places to re-tool and build these vehicles. The question shouldn't be where will they build them, it should be will they build them and what platform will they be built on?

[BlackHorse]

I'd just be curious to see how much this "Interceptor" would cost once built. Ford seems to have problem right now convincing the buying public to spend much more than about 20 to 25 thousand for their cars. While this Interceptor certainly has some appeal, I suspect that given it's mechanical underpinnings it's also going to be priced in the low 30 thousand range. Sadly I envision dealers have to lay a lot of money on the hood in order to move them. I'm not sure now is the right time for this kind of car from Ford.

[JETSOLVER]

Why is the D2C platform all of sudden flexible enough to spawn a two different 4 door sedans, one of which is a luxury sedan with IRS? We've been told over and over again that the D2C would not be able to support a sedan due to this reason and that reason and blah blah blah...

Ford has plenty of places to re-tool and build these vehicles. The question shouldn't be where will they build them, it should be will they build them and what platform will they be built on?

 

Unfortunately, I suspect "where" is as big as "if" and "how" for this company right now. There is a bit of bad blood around the closings, and a lot of good press for the rise of the south and Brand X manufacturing. These decisions are not made in a vacumm, and things like this Autoweek/Production in mind make me think that there is some thought being given to the how.

 

That is a darn good piece in Autoweek by the way, as it seems to show more of the inside than Bold Moves has in a while.

Edited January 4, 2007 by JETSOLVER

[DCK]

Not to go totally of subject.

 

I didn't really give my judgement on the 2 concepts so I feel I would like to add them in

 

With the MKR, I admit when I first seen it in the tomatoe red color, I didn't like the over bearing grill and it didn't do much for me.

 

But after a few days of looking at it I am trully stunned by its designed, especially in the dark maroon. Fantastic job, I can honestly say I love it, every aspect of it, it is spot on, the gestures, the lines the bumps..........it is perfect to me!

 

The MKR has kind of spoiled the intercepter for me, I like the gestures on the intercepter, but the rear and front end need to change for production IMO, the front I just don't like the super chief grill and the old chevy silverado headlights, not terrible but the fact that it could be better is why I want them changed. The rear though is the killer, it seems like they couldn't settle on a design language and I don't think it goes well with the rest of the vehicle.

 

[falcon lover]

Well, first is a question of volume. For production, we'll assume the Interceptor will get a 3.5L V6, as well as a 4.6L V8, and priced $25,000 to about $38,000. It'll have a fun Mercury twin (Marauder) with the same deal. I'd say with the right advertising, Ford could move around 75,000 annually, and Mercury could move another 15,000 or so. The MKR can get the 3.7L V6 as the baseline motor, with the TwinForce as the uplevel option, and priced $45,000 to about $60,000 fully loaded. Lincoln could probably move around 20,000 of them if they set their minds to it. So that's 110,000 units of volume. I say just build them at Flat Rock, and toss on another shift to handle it all.

 

I see this car like the old Taurus, in that place. One step above the Fusion. Why Ford cant move 300000 or 400000 of this cars? I see 250000 Fords (LTD ,sedans and wagons for retail, Galaxies sedans for fleets and Police depart.), 80000 Mercurys (Marquis sedan and wagon, and sport Marauder sedan), 20000 Linconl 2 door coupes (Mark IX), 30000 Linconl 4 door sedan and coupes (Continental-Versailles??)..... 400000 cras anually!!!!!

Think big, and you will be big!!! Put the muscle in the cars and the advertising...not in the burocracy.....

[silvrsvt]

Why is the D2C platform all of sudden flexible enough to spawn a two different 4 door sedans, one of which is a luxury sedan with IRS? We've been told over and over again that the D2C would not be able to support a sedan due to this reason and that reason and blah blah blah...

 

I personally wouldn't be surprised to find out that these concepts were built on heavily modified D2C's just for show, but will probably be built an a different platform. For example, the Fairlane concept was built on a CD3, but the production version of the P.M.F.K.A.F. will be built on the D3. If I had to guess, the production version of the Interceptor & MKR and possibly the next Mustang & Explorer will end up on the E8, not the D2C.

 

 

The D2C not being flexible was spawned by self-proclaimed Internet experts saying it wasn't.

 

There still hasn't been any firm word if the E8 (assuming that's the OZ Falcon) has been even considered for NA, where as the D2C is here now and nearly paid off, thus exploring a serious update (with the costs spread over 3-4 nameplates instead of one) more valible.

 

As for the Fairlane, I'll go with the fact that the CD3 was too small and D3 was a better platform for it.

[silvrsvt]

I say just build them at Flat Rock, and toss on another shift to handle it all.

 

From what I understand, Flat Rock is already running 3 shifts with 3 Mustangs built for every Mazda 6 built, I'm sure that once the M6 is updated next year, Sales will be going up

 

In turn, this will free up enough volume at Chicago to build the Fairlane/Lincoln van there, with Five Hundred and Montego sales deflated.

 

Oakville is getting the Fairlane...their is also a rumor that Chicago will be building another model besides the 500/Montego/MKS/Freestyle, based on the D3 and its not the Fairlane/Lincoln van

[silvrsvt]

I'd just be curious to see how much this "Interceptor" would cost once built. Ford seems to have problem right now convincing the buying public to spend much more than about 20 to 25 thousand for their cars. While this Interceptor certainly has some appeal, I suspect that given it's mechanical underpinnings it's also going to be priced in the low 30 thousand range. Sadly I envision dealers have to lay a lot of money on the hood in order to move them. I'm not sure now is the right time for this kind of car from Ford.

 

If they do it right and start the pricing in the Mid-25K range and top out in the High 30K range, they won't have any problems at all selling 80-100K of them a year.

 

Leaves room for the D3 and CD3 cars so they don't trip over one another in pricing.

[NLPRacing]

The D2C not being flexible was spawned by self-proclaimed Internet experts saying it wasn't.

 

There still hasn't been any firm word if the E8 (assuming that's the OZ Falcon) has been even considered for NA, where as the D2C is here now and nearly paid off, thus exploring a serious update (with the costs spread over 3-4 nameplates instead of one) more valuable.

 

As for the Fairlane, I'll go with the fact that the CD3 was too small and D3 was a better platform for it.

 

I was always suspect of the "D2C is not flexible" naysayers around here. I for one would be more than happy with a D2C based sedan, even with a SRA. But, by the time these sedans would become available, the D2C will be 5 years old already. It would either be a great idea to keep costs down or a horrible idea to have an "all new" product based on a 5 year old platform. That's why I thought they might actually get built on Ford's next RWD platform (E8) instead of the D2C.

 

Does anybody know if the D2C would be AWD compatible?

[bystander]

I'd just be curious to see how much this "Interceptor" would cost once built. Ford seems to have problem right now convincing the buying public to spend much more than about 20 to 25 thousand for their cars. While this Interceptor certainly has some appeal, I suspect that given it's mechanical underpinnings it's also going to be priced in the low 30 thousand range. Sadly I envision dealers have to lay a lot of money on the hood in order to move them. I'm not sure now is the right time for this kind of car from Ford.

 

If the Interceptor could make it to showrooms with minimal watering down from the concept, early adopter gadgetry, and a hairy-chested V8 option, I think Ford could easily get mid 30s for the top of the line models. The Chrysler 300C sells for mid to upper 30s. The key to avoiding incentives is building cars and trucks that customers want on an emotional level. Not many of Ford's products (save the Mustang) can claim that level of desirability, hence most Fords must be heavily incentivized to move. Ford does not have the reputation of sterling quality (real or imagined) that Honda and Toyota enjoy, and in general people are not willing to blindly fork over sticker price for cars and trucks that have the emotional appeal of an appliance unless they think they're getting top-notch quality.

[silvrsvt]

Well looks like our answer might be Louisville Assembly Plant

 

A Ford insider over on Edmunds said this about the new explorer:

 

It's ironic how the media reported that the Explorer would be car-based, everyone perceived it to be D3 based. Has anyone Intercepted the idea that the next Explorer could be a RWD offspring of something else? I mean, the Freestyle was/is an offspring of the 500.

 

 

Get it? Intercepted? If this is true then I think that makes the Interceptor a done deal for production - only question is when.

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=128342

 

If you really thing about it, its mind boggling what Ford could be doing here...They can sell 250-300K Explorers, 100K Interceptors, 30K MKRs, and 150K Mustangs off a single flexible platform