Seems like Ford is backing off EVs for Lincoln for the time being, I think part of it is that the demographic that Lincoln caters to is pretty conservative and isn't really interested in them.
As for the Ford EVs, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt till we actually see what it looks like, looking different normally turns off people.
It’s the right strategy for those products. Why continually reinvent the wheel when buyers have proven they don’t care?
I see no reason to make drastic changes to any of Ford’s current platforms for the next 20 years. And that includes powertrains. Just make incremental improvements. That will also reduce recalls and repair costs.
I had both a cd3 and cd4 fusion and the only difference I noticed is cd4 was heavier (which didn’t help mpg) and it was harder to work on. On my cd3 fusion a cabin air filter change took about 2 minutes and no tools. On cd4 it took 15 minutes with a screwdriver and nut driver.
I have the 3.0T AWD in my MKZ and it has been flawless as well. I have 55k miles on mine. I agree with what @mustang84isu said about the electronics. While nothing has gone wrong on mine, I have seen in the MKZ group about the LED headlights going out on the Z as well and the panoramic sunroof shade breaking.
I really think this whole debacle is just a case of really bad timing with everything. Looking back 2 years ago, EVs seemed like they would continue their parabolic growth, but interest rates, inflation and the economy got in the way of that. I'm guessing that it is cheaper to delay and not make product for a few years to come out with something that will (hopefully) be profitable 12 months after launch, going by Ford's plan.
They went for low initial cost and ease of implementation rather than biting the bullet and doing it right once.
It’s the same way GM makes product decisions.
You can look at multiple platforms or in GM’s case multiple models like Canyorado and easily make an individual business case for each one on its own.
So let’s say keeping platforms 1 and 2 separate nets $1B each over their lifespan. Positive ROI so the individual projects get approved.
But if somebody at a higher level looked at it they see if we spend a little more up front and consolidate to one platform it will delay the 2 projects by a year but in the long run it will net the company $4B. Then it takes a decree from higher up to make that happen.
Mulally was limited on time and money so he did the best he could to consolidate existing platforms so I don’t really blame him. It never should have gotten to that point.
Understood. You've made this point before, and it is a good reminder. Your final comment is also well made, which underscores the series of bonehead decisions that is going to leave their huge Oakville assembly complex idle for up to 3 years.
I recently transitioned to on-screen controls for climate (from a 2019 Nautilus to a 2024 Nautilus), and while the relocation doesn't totally suck they are frankly a pain to use when driving (for adjusting when stopped they are fine). While driving, as I keep having to glance down and keep poking at that barely-visible tiny carrot icon I think of them like of low-flow toilets, which in practice are often better named two-flush toilets.
Those other platforms made sense when Ford had Mazda and Volvo, they were economical use of existing platforms and provided Ford with low cost options. After the rework required on C170 Focus and CDW 27 Mondeo/Contour, Ford wasn’t keen on switching to C1 and EUCD (C1 plus) but those were probably much better choices missed by North America
The T6 Ranger development made sense because at the time Ford was breaking up with Mazda and getting Ford Australia team to do development was a major coup. You’re right because at the kickoff meeting, it became apparent that North America really wanted what amounted to a smaller lighter more fuel efficient Ranger pickup (something like Maverick off C1 Transit Connect). Such a shame they couldn’t convince Mulally to do Maverick years early but he was bent on getting rid of Ranger. Even Bronco was a bad word and everything was all about reusing existing vehicles to get rid of “outdated BOF vehicles” like Ranger, Panther and BOF Explorer.
When Mulally vetoed Ford Australia 2008 proposal for Falcon/Territory/Mustang to coalesce and become Global RWD, that didn’t sit well with Fields who green lit CD6 as soon as Mulally left Ford. He could see the benefit of sharing modules but by the mid twenty teens, it was getting too late to justify the huge expense of a massive all new platform.
Sorry for the big reply but it just shows how Ford’s rather blinkered view of the world and focus on cost savings, walled of some sound, logical vehicles that would have played well for increasing sales and profits. Ford constantly made everything an either or decision to justify the result it wanted, a lot of that worked in delivering recurring savings but I have to wonder if the 2008 cuts were too deep due to an overly pessimistic view of the future. Ford not realising that in a few short years, FSesries sales would be back on top and profits rolling in.