GM November 2016 Sales - Up 10%

[BORG]

The 3-Row Crossover is not exactly a boom segment, even Lexus doesn't have one. Sure they have large SUVs that do the job but Navigator is here for those who have deep pockets and/or need comfortable space. But I know as a Lincoln owner I want something larger than MKX just for the space and height, not necessarily for the raw utility.

 

The MKT had one MCE in 2013, the 2017 grille insert is really nothing at all. That's like saying the new deckled on the 2015 MKS was an MCE.

 

I'm not sure why Lincoln continues to sell and produce the MKT, especially since it's mostly a fleet vehicle at this point and is poised to sell less than 100 a month. It must be profitable or they are trying to pay the bills on that investment. The same goes for the Flex which is cheaper than Explorer and can't be turning much profit. The thing about the car business is that some of this is just plant welfare.

Edited December 7, 2016 by BORG

[jpd80]

 

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

GM Shanghai did the evolution work starting with the LWB Zeta as an inspirational large car in as much as

the original brief with Zeta was that the three main sections of the car the front, the cabin and the tail could

all be made longer/shorter as required to create the desired body shape.

 

With the CT6, this philosophy was embraced to increase the front rails, accentuating the hood length while

decreasing the cabin length on the previous Zeta design, the whole thing was then transformed to Omega

by applying GM's layer build and composite material strategy upgraded power trains and electrical systems

and suspensions similar in design to Alpha. The nett result being the car is now unrecognizable compared

to the Caprice starting point..

 

When you consider the weight saving that was achieved with this sized vehicle (~600 lbs less than Continental)

It truly beggers belief that GM even bothered to develop the Alphas n the first place. Applying the same Omega

logic to Zeta Commodore/SS would have given Cadillac an almost ideal CTS replacement at a fraction of the

cost spent on the poor selling Alphas.

(Holden had begun similar development work on a next gen Commodore proposal before it was canned)

Edited December 7, 2016 by jpd80

[PREMiERdrum]

 

On the front or back?

Rear.

 

The expanse of cheap, red plastic was far below their own visual identity when the dang thing was new. The fact that they elected never to address it frustrates me to no end.

[jpd80]

I'm not sure why Lincoln continues to sell and produce the MKT, especially since it's mostly a fleet vehicle at this point and is poised to sell less than 100 a month. It must be profitable or they are trying to pay the bills on that investment. The same goes for the Flex which is cheaper than Explorer and can't be turning much profit. The thing about the car business is that some of this is just plant welfare.

what you need to understand is that the development costs have already been spent years ago,

Flex and MKT did not sell in the volumes hoped but since they are made in a shared plant, that

unused production capacity was given over to more Edge and MKX production, so combined,

all those products add up to around 21,000 builds a month, Flex and MKT are purely incremental

product that have high enough ATPs to keep the ROI coming - all the MKT stock I've seen on

dealer listings has been mostly AWD Ecoboost models with prices in excess of $46K before

any incentives....similarly Flex inventory is biased towards the more expensive models too.

 

The other thing to consider is the recent UNIFOR contract agreement probably included an

undertaking to keep Flex and MKT production for the duration of the contract.

 

I would love to see an Explorer based Aviator replace MKT tomorrow but the logistics

probably don't support that happening with it so late in the product cycle. The other issue

I see with an Explorer based Aviator is its length as a 3-Row SUV is similar to the Navigator

so perhaps long term, doing more with MKX as a 2-row and a 3-row SUV would achieve similar..

Edited December 7, 2016 by jpd80

[630land]

Ford 'chickened' out on any new Taurus to save money that would go to huge rebates and fleet dumping. Only if they made it a CUV would a new one sell.

[tbone]

Why wouldn't they have just brought out the Chinese version of the Taurus since the work has been done already and they continue to sell it? I wasn't too enamored with the update but at least it was marginally different and could draw some new attention.

[jpd80]

No perceived need by Ford, it wants D3 Taurus to continue for now as LEV contracts keep regularly rolling in

so there's actually good reason not to disrupt, change vehicle commonality at this point - D3 is becoming Panther II, LOL

Edited December 8, 2016 by jpd80

[2b2]

Ford 'chickened' out on any new Taurus to save money that would go to huge rebates and fleet dumping. Only if they made it a CUV would a new one sell.

 

s'funny

if instead of fighting against the Cuv characteristics of the Volvo donor-platform, esp how they did with the 2010 refresh,

IF they'd gone ahead and made a taller-but-swoopy-Cuv out of it, they'd've been ahead of the current trend...

 

[RichardJensen]

Why wouldn't they have just brought out the Chinese version of the Taurus since the work has been done already and they continue to sell it? I wasn't too enamored with the update but at least it was marginally different and could draw some new attention.

 

I think they couldn't make the numbers work to build it at Flat Rock along with the Conti & Mustang. Both of them are being built for global export right now, and I'd expect that they didn't want to add a vehicle that couldn't fit into a two shift program and would lead to a poorly utilized third shift. Esp. since the segment itself is fading (for now--might make a comeback in the future).

[rmc523]

No perceived need by Ford, it wants D3 Taurus to continue for now as LEV contracts keep regularly rolling in

so there's actually good reason not to disrupt, change vehicle commonality at this point - D3 is becoming Panther II, LOL

 

Well, part of that is because Explorer is still on D4 until its redesign. When that happens, D4 Taurus will fade away too.

[jpd80]

 

Well, part of that is because Explorer is still on D4 until its redesign. When that happens, D4 Taurus will fade away too.

Apparently, not until some time after 2020 because the PI Sedan is staying, I'm wondering if Ford is simply going

to evolve D3/D4 and just keep going, that would suit their basic MO, just do some lightening of D3's heavy doors.

[rmc523]

Apparently, not until some time after 2020 because the PI Sedan is staying, I'm wondering if Ford is simply going

to evolve D3/D4 and just keep going, that would suit their basic MO, just do some lightening of D3's heavy doors.

 

I didn't know they were supposed to be around that long.....unless you're just saying that's the Explorer replacement timeline, at which point, it still makes sense.

[2b2]

Why wouldn't they have just brought out the Chinese version of the Taurus since the work has been done already and they continue to sell it?...

imho cuz

the existing suppliers & factory are around/at least 6,000 miles away from Michigan

 

[tbone]

imho cuz

the existing suppliers & factory are around/at least 6,000 miles away from Michigan

 

Valid point and I'm just not sold on Chinese quality in a lot of cases. Edited December 9, 2016 by tbone

[BORG]

One of the industry reports suggest that Taurus has been pushed out all the way to 2023. It's also being suggested that CD6 remains a very distant project and Explorer may remain on D4 instead of moving to an all-new product well beyond 2020. If that is the case, it might make sense to keep some of these products around that long despite their age, especially since Ford is growing their fleet business once again.

Edited December 9, 2016 by BORG

[tbone]

As a driver of a fleet vehicle, I would gladly have another fleet Taurus in lieu of this POS Chevrolet Impala "Classic" that I'm driving currently. My last Taurus with 100000 miles was a much better car than this car, and not just because I like Fords. So bring on more Fleet Ford's.

[jpd80]

One of the industry reports suggest that Taurus has been pushed out all the way to 2023. It's also being suggested that CD6 remains a very distant project and Explorer may remain on D4 instead of moving to an all-new product well beyond 2020. If that is the case, it might make sense to keep some of these products around that long despite their age, especially since Ford is growing their fleet business once again.

Or that CD6 is less than what people expect and more like a clever evolution of the existing D4

that adds more of the CD4 features to it...a bit like how Volvo upgraded P2 to P24.

 

It's so much easier to brownfield evolve an existing platform both technically and financially,

the whole logic fits to what Ford hopes to achieve in the next 5-10 years.

[ehaase]

This whole FWD, AWD, RWD CD6 wonder project has always seemed far fetched to me. CD6 being an evolution of CD4 or D4 makes more sense.

[2b2]

Or that CD6 is less than what people expect and more like a clever evolution of the existing D4

that adds more of the CD4 features to it...a bit like how Volvo upgraded P2 to P24.

 

It's so much easier to brownfield evolve an existing platform both technically and financially,

the whole logic fits to what Ford hopes to achieve in the next 5-10 years.

just-imho, Jpd,

your brown D4+CD4 = "CD4+3" like Conti&Taurus.cn / for the next 4-&or-8 years;

not to be confused with cD6 = on indefinite hold

[jpd80]

just-imho, Jpd,

your brown D4+CD4 = "CD4+3" like Conti&Taurus.cn / for the next 4-&or-8 years;

not to be confused with cD6 = on indefinite hold

was that indefinite hold the as a result of the recent review of all projects, perhaps electrification is now key?

Edited December 11, 2016 by jpd80