bzcat

I'm not sure I understand the arguments why Ford should use Transit cab for medium duty truck. This thread is 51 pages long and I still haven't read why this is a good idea beside "someone else did it once and Ford should copy it". Ford sold 9,627 F-650/750 last year and 103k E-series. Let's say 30k is E-450... that's 40k volume for medium duty trucks, plus whatever F-450/550 contributes to the table with diesel because E-450 is not available with diesel engine. If Ford is really working on a new medium duty, then between E-450, F450/550, F-650, and F-750, you are looking at more than enough volume to justify a unique cab that is best suited for the application.

Accent and Rio combined also outsell Fiesta. Also, don't forget about Soul, which towers over everyone. And I'm going to bet that the new Mexican Honda Fit will outsell Fiesta in a 12-months period, too. I don't think there is anything wrong with Fiesta either but if Ford is going to design a 2nd B-car (I'm calling it B+ because I'm assuming it will be similar in size to Versa, Accent, Soul, Fit etc) then I think it is a better product for the US market than Fiesta.

I can see E-350 going away soon but E-450 is a tough nut to crack for Ford. T-350 HD cab chassis can probably be up-rated just like the E-series once Ford has better real world durability data from its fleet customers. E-450 with higher GVWR is probably beyond reach for Transit. So if Ford is developing a replacement, it will probably be a dedicated class 4-5 vehicle, which plugs the hole nicely between Transit and F-650.

Ford may call it MKT or Aviator... either way (or both! "Aviator" in the US, MKT in China), the car is coming. Ford can get another $10k on top of Explorer Platinum easily with a Lincoln version so the unique exterior and interior will easily pay for itself. Just have to make sure it looks like a SUV this time, not a pregnant whale.

I think it is obvious that the main growth area in the B-segment is CUV so I would be extremely surprised if Ford doesn't have something in that space by 2017. It's not an either/or situation with the CUV. Ford will have a CUV and a sedan/hatch here. But the question is whether a global Fiesta will continue to be sold here or we get the emerging market cheap sedan/hatch instead.

There is probably another $10k easy profit on top of Explorer Platinum to be mined.

I think there is generally a consensus that traditional European B-segment cars are too small for US market (and many emerging markets). For example, Nissan sells Versa in US but March in EU. Hyundai sells Accent in the US but i20 in EU. VW has a whole suite of cars based on the "B+" dimension - VW Santana and Jetta (China), Skoda Rapid, and SEAT Toledo that are aimed mainly at emerging markets. If Ford is thinking about the market segments critically, I think they may go with the same playbook... a cheaper but bigger B+ car (most importantly, a sedan that doesn't look like an aborted fetus) for US and emerging markets, and a proper B car for EU.

Taurus Titanium has something LWB Fusion Titanium doesn't have - the name Fusion on the badge in the rear of the car. The name Fusion is anchored in the midsize market and people are not going to be sufficiently convinced a LWB version is worth $5k more than the SWB version. I don't think this is news to anyone... I even pointed out a real life example with Camry and Avalon, but you seemed to have miss the point. Fusion has higher ATP than Camry because Fusion has higher MSRP models like Fusion Energi.That has nothing to do with the fact that Avalon is commanding substantially more money than otherwise identical Camry. So question remains the same... you think LWB Fusion Energi will command the same transaction price as Taurus Energi (let's assume Ford will make one... apples to apples comparison). Evidence points to the contrary but we are all entitled to our wrong opinions.

I think it is too soon to say Expedition has gone off the boils... The flooding in Texas (which accounts for vast majority of these fullsize SUV sales) in May and June affected sales (probably pulled down GM sales too). July was off too but I'd wait until later this year to draw any conclusion on the direction of sales momentum. For sure, the 2017 model based on the F-150 is probably worth waiting for if you are in the market. That may also be part of the problem.

With a different nameplate, you can get a higher transaction price. LWB Fusion is still Fusion... LWB Fusion as Taurus is a Taurus. Toyota Avalon is a $33~$46k car with most of the sales in the more expensive end (Limited and hybrid Limited). Camry is $23~$35k car with most sales in the cheaper end (LE and LE hybrid). Do you think LWB Camry can match the Avalon ATP? Comparing apples to apples, meaning don't use hypothetical 2.7 EB Fusion ST as a stalking horse against non-ST (or SHO if you will) Taurus, do you really think Ford can get as much money with LWB Fusion Titanium vs. Taurus Titanium? LWB Fusion SE vs. Taurus SE? LWB Fusion hybrid vs. Taurus hybrid? LWB Fusion Energi vs. Taurus Energi?

The stamping operation must be really complicated... there is a lot of build variation: Mondeo sedan, Mondeo wagon, Mondeo hatch, S-Max, Galaxy, Kuga, Transit Connect SWB, Transit Connect LWB, Tourneo Connect SWB, Tourneo Connect LWB. Good thing they moved C-Max to Saarlouis.

I didn't say anything about new Focus or C-Max in 2017 did I? Production of existing Focus and C-Max will end in 2017 in Michigan to make room for the new PHEV (and Transit Connect/pickup truck as we previously speculated). My guess is there will probably be a couple of months or so without any Focus production in NAFTA zone until the new generation (2018 model year) starts production in Mexico. C-Max is likely not coming back.

How do you conclude that based on a photo of a cab chassis version of GAZelle? I guess that means Transit is body on frame too? The existence of rear sub-frame doesn't mean it is body on frame. The truck is still unibody. GAZelle Next is based on LDV Maxus van so it is unibody. GAZon Next (the medium duty one) is probably body on frame using a cab similar (although looking at it, it's not identical) to GAZelle. The first one is GAZelle Next. The second one is GAZon Next.

It's just cyclical changes... those models were new last year so you have heightened retail demand, plus dumping of old models into fleet. Now things are returning to normal level of sales. GM concentrated all its large SUV productions in one plant so they have a bigger volume issue than Ford, which builds the Expedition and Navigator on the same line as SD pickup trucks. Ford can adjust production volume based on demand of each vehicle line... GM's Arlington plant just cranks out fullsize SUVs and nothing else. Slower sales leads to temptation to fleet dump on a periodic basis. Although to be fair... the profit margin on fleet SUVs (livery cars and Govt fleet, not much rental) is probably very decent.

Continental launch is now moved to 2nd half of 2016? I thought it was going to be a spring 2016 launch? F-150 should get an update in 2018, which is missing in the chart. The "C-Max" date for 2018 is probably correct for the regular gasoline and diesel powered European market version. The US-replacement for C-Max Energi (Focus based PHEV) should be out in 2017 model year. The hybrid C-Max is probably going to replace with more market-friendly Escape hybrid.

GAZelle and GAZelle Next are classified as LCV by EU so they are class 1-3 - basically direct competitors of Transit, Sprinter etc. GAZon and GAZon Next are similar to medium duty in the US so I guess class 4-6.

This tells me you actually never read anyone's post enough to comprehend what people are trying to say

Page 8 (slide 7) is actually a lot more interesting. Guess that pretty much confirms NAFTA spec Fiesta is moving to Thailand... and I guess the days of Fiesta production in Cologne is numbered as well.

That's a hell of a troll job he pulled off

I'm pretty sure it's just something to be revealed at SEMA.

C1 and CD4 maybe different now but they shouldn't be going forward... that's the point I was making. It doesn't make sense for these two programs to diverge... they need to converge. And you can't just have a "RWD version of CD4"... they will require two completely different platforms due to powertrain package and crash safety protocols. Hence this: If you believe CD6 (or D6, whatever) has RWD capability, then it cannot be related to CD4 or its replacements. And if CD6 really is the CD4 replacement, then all this talk of RWD capability is nonsense anyway - we'll be getting another FWD transverse engine platform.

I think we agree... I'm saying Mondeo hatchback will not work in the US. Unlike the Focus or Mazda3 hatchback, which evidently everyone is trying to emulate now.

Let me un-confuse you The speculation is CD6 D6 has RWD capability, which means the engine has to be mounted longitudinally (up and down in the engine bay, not side ways). This is not trivial because it means the CD6 D6 vehicles will have not much in common with the C# vehicles - different transmissions, different sub-systems, different crash protection protocols, different hybrid/EV modules etc. If you accept this premise, then the so called "CD6" cannot possibly be the CD4 replacement because it is a situation that is best describe as the tail wagging the dog... CD4 is married to the hip (actually, head, body, and hip) to C1 so without Edge, S-Max, Fusion volumes, you put the economics of Focus, Escape, C-Max, Transit Connect into delicate balance. Or put it another way... Fusion, S-Max, and Edge trio will follow the form of Focus, C-Max, and Escape trio because that's the only sensible way to do it. Every major volume manufacturer on earth has adopted similar strategy - Toyota TGNA, VW MQB, Renault-Nissan CFM, PSA EMP etc. The future of CD4 is an evolution of the current C# family. And D6 not (CD6) is the future of Ford's large passenger vehicles, particularly SUVs. ~~~~ Alternatively, If CD6 really does exists as a CD4 successor (as opposed to D6), it means it will have transverse engines and is really a version of C#. But that means no RWD capability. So that's the point of the debate... whether you believe D6 (RWD longitude engine) or CD6 (FWD transverse engine) is a the real thing. They can't both exist... at least not in this universe.

I think the business case for D6 rests on having only utilities. If a large car can use the platform, it is probably going to be considered a bonus. Ford wouldn't invest in D6 if Explorer can't pay the bills by itself because Explorer is the only existing volume products that we know that can take advantage of the (little know but widely assumed) parameters of this D6 platform. We are assuming Aviator will happen... and it probably will... but for now, it is also just imaginary. The problem with thinking that Ford will replace CD4 with "CD6" (the C is purely speculative in my opinion) is this - "C" mean C-segment. CD4 is basically LWB version of C1. Ford's vehicle architectural family is fairly well established by now. We know that going forward, C# and CD# family will continue to share almost everything because the economy of scale. Think of C# and CD# as one family like VW's MQB or Toyota's TGNA - Ripping Fusion, Edge, S-Max away from the C family doesn't make any economic sense.

It seems that Americans don't really have problem with C-segment hatchbacks - in fact, everyone is rushing to add more hatchbacks in this size as sedan sales seems to be slowing fading. But midsize hatchback definitely is not catching fire. The only one that will remain after Crosstour is gone are a pair of BMWs... 3GT and 4 GC.