-
Files
-
Popular Contributors
-
Posts
-
By DeluxeStang · Posted
That's the opposite of what I'm saying. That's just Ford doing the same thing but in the other direction, I favor a more balanced, varied lineup. -
You can't include f150 and super duty and leave out Continental. And Puma and C-Max were way more car than crossover. I don't think there is a lot of overlap in trucks as you say although I said above I think they could replace Ranger with a new unibody like Maverick but more aggressive with more capability closer to Ranger. I think it could be cheaper and more profitable leaving MAP to expand Bronco offerings. -
I think we'll be lucky to get 2 - the truck and crossover. -
The shop did the conversion to show off its 10R control unit can be used in a wide variety of vehicles as others have said the 6R trans in crown BOC makes more sense. more than 20 years ago we had 5.4 Boss and ZF6HP in Aussie Falcon -
And I put it to you that Ford’s deliberate move away from commodity vehicles was also because they tend to be directly affected in uncertain times.
-
I hope so, the way Ford’s engineers were going, vehicles were getting more and more complex, the opposite of what Ford wants with speed and efficiency building them I just hope people stay grounded and ease up on the thoughts of lots of different CE1 vehicles coming in the next couple of years.
-
Exactly - that's why I think it would do better than EcoSport did.
-
Yes an Puma is more upmarket compared to Ecosport which always seemed like it was struggling in the wrong market. chevy Trax was a much better approach
-
By Sherminator98 · Posted
Wishing and actually buying something are two completely different things -
Not trying to be political, but I'd implore you to look deeper into this. What is good for Ford isn't always good for Americans. What is the K-shaped economy, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are struggling? | Fortune
-
-
Topics
-
-
Top Downloads
-
