-
Files
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
-
Posts
-
By twintornados · Posted
I am talking about maximizing through shared body panels and interior items. I am sure they do share parts, but by sharing panels and interiors, it spreads out the economy of scale significantly. -
By fuzzymoomoo · Posted
There’s already a lot shared between the two… -
Bronco pickup only makes sense if Ranger gets replaced by a unibody version. I don't see how Ford can make all new affordable pickups at TTC unless they're small and midsized unibodies to replace Maverick and Ranger.
-
Sunk costs, dealers, Bill Ford, potential future EPA regs, UAW
-
By Sherminator98 · Posted
CAFE and other tax on engine sizes in other parts of the world. -
The pink ones, obviously......
-
them whompies are closing up my sinuses. You better back off another 10...
-
Interesting discussion point: If Ford was completely about profit, it would shrink the business to just F Series and large SUV plants and skip the rest…….maybe keep Explorer/Aviator, Transit and T6 products. The business would be highly profitable with a very small manufacturing and engineering footprint so why don’t they?
-
By twintornados · Posted
Better then the Jimmy haulin' hogs I guess.... -
By twintornados · Posted
I see a Bronco pickup moving the needle toward 75K+ sales, mostly at the expense of Gladiator The limitations would be less because any Bronco pickup truck would share more parts as opposed to Ranger that shares absolutely zero body or interior parts.
-
-
Topics
-
-
Top Downloads
-
