GM November 2016 Sales - Up 10%

[jpd80]

I thought the whole idea was they'd align it more with F-150 so that it could receive more consistently timed updates alongside F-150?

Yes and no, it's possible he's right but for the wrong reason...

 

Clearly, the realignment is cost effective to do now because it's incremental to existing

aluminum stamping and assembly processes and suppliers already in play for F Series.

The alignment of power train (finally) is another example of sca;es of economy.

 

Once Ford moves Expedition and Navigator onto this close cousin platform, it's basically set and forget

for nearly ten years, weight reduction and efficient power trains almost guarantee happy trails for that long.

Edited December 5, 2016 by jpd80

[rmc523]

Yes and no, it's possible he's right but for the wrong reason...

 

Clearly, the realignment is cost effective to do now because it's incremental to existing

aluminum stamping and assembly processes and suppliers already in play for F Series.

The alignment of power train (finally) is another example of sca;es of economy.

 

Once Ford moves Expedition and Navigator onto this close cousin platform, it's basically set and forget

for nearly ten years, weight reduction and efficient power trains almost guarantee happy trails for that long.

 

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Assuming the market for such a vehicle remains healthy, I can't see them neglecting it for so long like they did. Powertrains can be shared, so updates to F-150=updates to Expy/Navi. Body-wise, the body itself could probably live for 8-10 years or so (as its a much more modern body than the outgoing one), but a noticeable (not just barely changing it to where people barely notice it's new) refresh or two within that timeframe will be necessary.

[BORG]

The Expedition and Navigator are related to the F-Series but they are not the same and are on a unique platform and in a separate program. They are funded separately so there is no co-development going on with the F-Series. Re-vamping the Expedition still comes down approving, budgeting, and developing on it's own merits and is not rolled into the F-Series program like it is at GM. This actually has been the case since 2003 when the Expedition completely split off. That's why I'm somewhat surprised Ford took the higher cost route of keeping the Expedition around as a unique program instead of going GM's route, but that does make the Expedition/Navigator a vastly more sophisticated and respectable product.

Edited December 5, 2016 by BORG

[akirby]

The Expedition and Navigator are related to the F-Series but they are not the same and are on a unique platform and in a separate program. They are funded separately so there is no co-development going on with the F-Series. Re-vamping the Expedition still comes down approving, budgeting, and developing on it's own merits and is not rolled into the F-Series program like it is at GM. This actually has been the case since 2003 when the Expedition completely split off. That's why I'm somewhat surprised Ford took the higher cost route of keeping the Expedition around as a unique program instead of going GM's route, but that does make the Expedition/Navigator a vastly more sophisticated and respectable product.

 

Do you have inside information as to how the platform is different (other than IRS)?

[2b2]

...This actually has been the case since 2003 when the Expedition completely split off...

somehow I had the impression that the new Exped/Navi was going to REjoin most of the F-series platform/engineering

[akirby]

somehow I had the impression that the new Exped/Navi was going to REjoin most of the F-series platform/engineering

And if not, why did they have to wait for the new F150 to start working on it?

[PREMiERdrum]

The Expedition and Navigator are related to the F-Series but they are not the same and are on a unique platform and in a separate program. They are funded separately so there is no co-development going on with the F-Series. Re-vamping the Expedition still comes down approving, budgeting, and developing on it's own merits and is not rolled into the F-Series program like it is at GM.

 

This is at odds with what my sources have said. It was approved and coded separately, but development is very much tied together under one architectural concept.

[jpd80]

The point being that everything to do with Alloy body tech cam from F150, expanded to Super Duty

and now the Utes. Similarly power train, front suspension and electronics are all shared with f150.

 

While the big SUVs might have a different platform number to the F150,

that has everything to do with the necessary differentiation of a true derivative.

Edited December 6, 2016 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

The point being that everything to do with Alloy body tech cam from F150, expanded to Super Duty

and now the Utes. Similarly power train, front suspension and electronics are all shared with f150.

 

While the big SUVs might have a different platform number to the F150,

that has everything to do with the necessary differentiation of a true derivative.

You mean like how the Continental program code is D544 even though it sits on the CD platform?

[papilgee4evaeva]

Wirh regards to GM's rwd cars, I think that GM could make better use of the Alphas as Non-Cadillacs

and replace the Alpha ATS/CTS with a new SWB Omega based CT4 to partner with CT6

 

The compact ATS and Mid Sized CTS would be better served as global performance vehicles

if given to Chevrolet and more importantly to Buick-Opel-Vauxhall-Holden where confronting

premium brands with true global vehicles would give GM far more purchase...

 

As I understand it,

1) SWB Omega already underpins the CT6 (there were/are plans for a CT8 above it, using LWB Omega).

2) By some accounts, Omega is basically a 13/10 Alpha. (don't quote me on the ratio )

 

What I don't quite understand is how Cadillac is going to position and market everything once CT4 and CT8 come online. CT6 is already the same size as the big German, British, and Japanese luxury liners (in SWB guise), but they hesitate to call it their flagship model.

[tbone]

I thought the Expedition/Navigator were going to be utilizing the same frame as the F150 modified to accept independent rear suspension.

[PREMiERdrum]

I thought the Expedition/Navigator were going to be utilizing the same frame as the F150 modified to accept independent rear suspension.

 

This is fact as I know it.

[akirby]

The Expedition and Navigator are related to the F-Series but they are not the same and are on a unique platform and in a separate program. They are funded separately so there is no co-development going on with the F-Series. Re-vamping the Expedition still comes down approving, budgeting, and developing on it's own merits and is not rolled into the F-Series program like it is at GM. This actually has been the case since 2003 when the Expedition completely split off. That's why I'm somewhat surprised Ford took the higher cost route of keeping the Expedition around as a unique program instead of going GM's route, but that does make the Expedition/Navigator a vastly more sophisticated and respectable product.

 

 

 

Do you have inside information as to how the platform is different (other than IRS)?

 

 

 

This is at odds with what my sources have said. It was approved and coded separately, but development is very much tied together under one architectural concept.

 

 

[jpd80]

 

As I understand it,

1) SWB Omega already underpins the CT6 (there were/are plans for a CT8 above it, using LWB Omega).

2) By some accounts, Omega is basically a 13/10 Alpha. (don't quote me on the ratio )

Omega was developed by GM Shangai and used the (118") LWB Zeta as a starting point,

my thoughts on a SWB Omega was to revisit the (114") SWB Zeta and evolve it in a similar fashion.

 

What I don't quite understand is how Cadillac is going to position and market everything once CT4 and CT8 come online. CT6 is already the same size as the big German, British, and Japanese luxury liners (in SWB guise), but they hesitate to call it their flagship model.

 

I suspect that strategy was developed before GM realized how quickly buyers were deserting sedans for Utility

and I'm hoping that sanity overcomes ego and that Cadillac pursues less car projects while fortifying its Utilities.

 

If GM is smart, it will skip CT8 and just lengthen XTS as a new "Town Car" for fleets and concentrate

on a CTS replacement (CT5) on Omega. The Alphas (ATS & CTS) are better options for other divisions.

Edited December 6, 2016 by jpd80

[jpd80]

I thought the Expedition/Navigator were going to be utilizing the same frame as the F150 modified to accept independent rear suspension.

Precisely, Expedition/Navigator platform s being merged with F150, so it's

logical to assume that areas like the frame and front suspension will also be

shared with F150 while the rear of the frame is altered slightly to accommodate

the Ute's IRS.

 

Bottom line is that, Expedition and Navigator are not a stand alone projects,

they are made possible thanks to the developments already done with F150

the platform number differs because of the differentiation required to create

a true differential as compared to being just a Crew Cab F150 with a canopy.

 

While Expedition and navigator don't have their own plant like the GM Utes,

Ford has provisioned enough capacity at KTP to ensure that Expedition

and navigator can be built in sufficient quantities - some are not seeing this

yet but I can tell you that it's wrapped up in the new efficient way the body

shop operates and how some per-assembly is done at the stamping plant.

 

It's clear to me that when it comes to combined production and sales of

F Series, Expedition and navigator, Ford will be on a mission to catch GM's

combined numbers by trading on higher truck sales we're seeing that strategy

already as just last month as F Series superor sales helped to close the gap

on fewer full sized SUV sales..

Edited December 6, 2016 by jpd80

[Gnostic]

Imagine the consternation at GM if the expy/navi take a big chunk of their sales. Their plant utilization would take a big hit.

[BORG]

GM sells 4x as many large SUVs.

[papilgee4evaeva]

Omega was developed by GM Shangai and used the (118") LWB Zeta as a starting point,

my thoughts on a SWB Omega was to revisit the (114") SWB Zeta and evolve it in a similar fashion.

 

CT6 wheelbase is 122" or so. I find it strange that they would start with LWB Zeta to create the ostensible SWB Omega.

 

I suspect that strategy was developed before GM realized how quickly buyers were deserting sedans for Utility

and I'm hoping that sanity overcomes ego and that Cadillac pursues less car projects while fortifying its Utilities.

 

If GM is smart, it will skip CT8 and just lengthen XTS as a new "Town Car" for fleets and concentrate

on a CTS replacement (CT5) on Omega. The Alphas (ATS & CTS) are better options for other divisions.

Right, but they're trying to become a full-line luxury manufacturer. It would look bad if they ceded all that ground and then got outdone by Hyundai-cum-Genesis. And I think that an Omega-based CUV is still in the cards, unless something has changed.

 

If they keep XTS as it is, it will be on an orphaned platform just as the DTS and Impala Limited were, because the LaCrosse is moving to a new platform with the upcoming model, and the Impala will follow suit.

 

I'll say this... GM burns through platforms like Hollywood stars run through spouses.

[BORG]

GM's scattered production seems to enable their staggered platforms. Ford's production is so tight they typically can't keep too many aging platforms around, although it's happening now with cars like the D3 Taurus and CD4 Continental...but even in that situation it makes sense because of the products they are built with.

 

Caddy seems to be torn between what they want to be and what they can actually sell...and suddenly they are reluctant to just be what they want to be and ignore their customers...which is probably a good thing. I'm still surprised by how well CT6 is dong, I did not think they could sell such an expensive sedan that looks like every other Caddy. I think what it really reveals is that Caddy's customers are willing to spend so they need to focus on advancing that further.

 

Lincoln Continental likely has the potential to push up a few more notches with each generation. The only concern I have about Continental is that it's really a brand within a brand, like Navigator, the Lincoln brand alone doesn't have the same value. That's not the case with CT6.

Edited December 7, 2016 by BORG

[jpd80]

I really think Ford NA chickened out of the CD4 Taurus, it would have sold OK IMO and allowed for more production at Flat Rock

and also to do some creative things at CAP with added Ute production....Aviator?.

Edited December 7, 2016 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

I really think Ford NA chickened out of the CD4 Taurus, it would have sold OK IMO and allowed for more production at Flat Rock

and also to do some creative things at CAP with added Ute production....Aviator?.

 

I think it boiled down to timing...Aviator isn't coming till 2019 or so with the new Explorer. I don't think it would have been worthwhile to do an Aviator on the current Explorer platform when the Platinum model more or less fills that role at less expense to Ford.

 

As for Flat Rock...something else is going on there and changing the Taurus just to change it at this point in a market that is going to CUV's wouldn't have been a wise investment. I wonder if those rumored clinics that the Taurus had in the US had any role to play into Ford's decision making?

[2b2]

going a 'bit' off-topic but...

I think it boiled down to timing...Aviator isn't coming till 2019 or so with the new Explorer. I don't think it would have been worthwhile to do an Aviator on the current Explorer platform when the Platinum model more or less fills that role at less expense to Ford.

 

As for Flat Rock...something else is going on there and changing the Taurus just to change it at this point in a market that is going to CUV's wouldn't have been a wise investment. I wonder if those rumored clinics that the Taurus had in the US had any role to play into Ford's decision making?

imho Fomoco might've used Oakville's ability to build 117.9" wlb, same as Continental,

to make an MKX-L to fill-in until the AllNew Aviator can be produced...

...the other benefit (imho) would be getting the current MKT out of Lincoln showrooms

[tbone]

Agreed, the MKT has to go. That thing is an embarrassment. It even looks cheap with that big red plastic section in the rear light bar that isn't lit up.

[PREMiERdrum]

MKT got a stay of execution once the D4 Aviator was scrapped in favor of awaiting the CD6 model.

 

Flummoxingly, the MKT has been given 2 MCE's in its lifecycle, and neither has done a thing to address its most glaring shortcoming: The unbecoming, cheap-looking sacrifice panel.

[rmc523]

MKT got a stay of execution once the D4 Aviator was scrapped in favor of awaiting the CD6 model.

 

Flummoxingly, the MKT has been given 2 MCE's in its lifecycle, and neither has done a thing to address its most glaring shortcoming: The unbecoming, cheap-looking sacrifice panel.

 

On the front or back?