This refers to sedans and coupes, excluding crossovers, trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. But it does appear they will create new "silhouettes" between cars and crossovers. From the Press Release [1]:
> Building a winning portfolio and focusing on products and markets where Ford can win. For example, by 2020, almost
90 percent of the Ford portfolio in North America will be trucks, utilities and commercial vehicles. Given declining consumer
demand and product profitability, the company will not invest in next generations of traditional Ford sedans for North America.
Over the next few years, the Ford car portfolio in North America will transition to two vehicles – the best-selling Mustang and the
all-new Focus Active crossover coming out next year. The company is also exploring new “white space” vehicle silhouettes that
combine the best attributes of cars and utilities, such as higher ride height, space and versatility.
EDIT: The press release from which all this interest is coming may only refer to Ford North America's development goals. Ford Europe is almost a different company and is responsible for most (all?) of the Focus and Fiesta's development. Perhaps Ford NA will stop bringing new sedans/coupes to market (excepting Mustang and Active) and simply import the smaller vehicles.
> vehicle silhouettes that combine the best attributes of cars and utilities, such as higher ride height, space and versatility
Subaru has been successful in this zone for decades. In fact I'd hazard to say that they set the standard for this and would be the point of comparison if Ford launches a model like that.
As a part-time Vermonter I'd also attribute Subaru's (niche) success to it being one of the first to fully embrace 4WD/AWD. Yes, along with functional body styles, as well as general higher quality.
You don't buy a Subaru to impress anyone. And that's precisely the point ;)
Subarus are very popular in Seattle, though there are two distinct groups that own them, those that want to get over the mountain passes without chains (skiers and the like), and less clued in people that just like the style. Most of the latter group wish they'd never bought a Subaru after a few years, as the repairs can be eyewatering when your head gasket go, followed by a shoddy repair at your local stealership that wrecks your engine.
Even when a head gasket replacement goes well, the gasket will degrade again in due time and your right back where you started. 300k miles in a newer Subaru without major work just isn't common.
Its $4k minimum here on the outer fringes of the greater Seattle area to get your head gasket done if you go to a stealership (eg: using a dealership in Kent). In town you'd be up at $5k, though an independent shop will do it for $3500. Most of the latter category I outlined will never set foot in an independent shop though, due to their own shitty preconceptions.
Additionally, the oil consumption and leakage seems to start a bit after 70k miles. I don't know anyone who made it to 100k before needing the head gasket done, my aunt generally parts with Subarus right before they hit 65k due to this. Its an expensive addiction if your a skier.
Comparatively, a serpentine belt (rated to 100k, can easily do 120k) on a Lexus engine will run you $1200, and is one of the few things you'd need to change besides oil as you get up there in mileage.
Who in the hell is charging $1200 to install a serpentine belt? In every car I've seen it's a $20 part and maybe 1-2 hours of labor depending on how annoying the engine design is.
1200 is a lot but it might include other things like water pump. And definitely some engines (my Honda Civic) are very difficult to access the belt path. Still 1200...
Not quite 300K but I've personally driven several 90s/early 00s cars well past 250K. Usually obtained extremely cheaply with at least 200K already on them.
Ford basically makes all of their money on the F-series pickups, and the Escape/Explorer/Expedition SUV series.
One thing I've never quite understood is how Ford has managed to maintain a stranglehold on the police department market for my entire lifetime. Crown Victorias were ubiquitous until just a few years ago, and now seem to be universally replaced with Explorers. Outside of a few state highway patrol units that use Mustangs or Dodge Chargers.
> Crown Victorias were ubiquitous until just a few years ago
these were also in one form or another the standard for any sort of livery -
taxis were very often Crown Victorias, sedan-style limos used lincon continentals which were basically the same car only the luxury version..
not an expert, but personally I think this is basically a lineage of domestically produced V8 sedans going back to the dawn of automotive times; the large installed base and relatively decent reliability / price / passenger size meant they had a good balance of functionality and lots of of parts, trained mechanics, etc. around. they were also the standard issue car of retired americans :B
probably plus union influence.
IIRC the last plant making the basic chassis (winsor ontario) for these was restructured out of existence as a result of the gov't intervention following the 2008 crisis.
Retired Crown Victorias were commonly used as taxis because they were inexpensive when purchased at auctions. When I first started driving for the taxi company (2012), they still had a few Crown Vics with police-style lights on the A-pillar [0].
> Prius is a much better taxi than the Crown Victoria. .
Prius has one of the lowest operating costs of any car out there. Not just because of the good gas mileage but also the service and maintenance costs are really low.
Dodge seemed to have the bulk of LE business with the Charger after ford quit building the Crown Vic from about 2008ish until the last few years. Most of the Police Departments around here went with the Charger, but now almost all of them seem to be moving to the Explorer. One of the reasons that was cited at a city council meeting was that the Explorer had a lower TCO, especially when it came to maintenance packages, and repair costs.
I'm not sure if that is the general trend everywhere or just here. Because living in a smaller city 30k in the city, 70k total in a fairly large land area county. A SUV seems like it might be more versatile in a more rural setting.
It's not just Ford, the Chevy Impala and Dodge Intrepid were also popular PD picks.
Whether they use cars vs SUV is an interesting division. Some departments in rural areas only have SUVs (since they have a lot of unpaved roads), while some departments in suburban areas issue SUVs to captains only. It varies by state, city and department, but the one thing they all have in common is that they only buy domestic.
For $F to stop selling trucks in North America would be financial suicide. They sell on average an F series every 30 seconds. F series numbers for 2018 are trending up, with this March being the largest March month they've had in five years[1]. Not to mention, trucks are really expensive. A nice loaded F-150 can easily cost $40k and above.
This. Automotive industry media in general had me confused with the terms.
"SUVs" are absolutely cars. Most utility vehicles are cars. Even "passenger cars".
Dumb terminology but TC is perfectly in line with the industry.
Not just them but my buddy calls his Jeep SUV a "truck". Some of this is history. I have an original Jeep Cherokee which is built on a truck platform. His is a Grand, which is built on a car platform. I'm always like, yours is a car, mine's a truck. Then I realize this is dumb to argue about. Just a bad headline.
It depends on the SUV in question. Old school body on frame SUVs are most definitely trucks. The jacked up cars with extra head room (Ford Kuga/Escape) are not. The only reason why those things are considered trucks at all is to game the CAFE emissions requirements.
I can't speak for nodesocket, but I noticed the $SYMBOL convention become popular to denote a ticker symbol when Twitter started treating $SYMBOL as a hashtag (often called a "cashtag") a few years ago.
Actually the $ helps with search engines and actually helps to indicate to me that the author meant a stock symbol instead of a bunch of random letters.
Well if you where an employee of a listed company and did not know your employers SEDOL (or eqvielent) id start to question your commitment :-)
I have had a job where I quickly scanned the FT copy on reception as a regular thing - just in case they had brought another acquisition and our team (in house consultancy) needed to get involved with them.
Didn't the US auto industry make this same mistake before? Gas was ~$1/gallon in the 90s, so they neglected everything to focus on the (truck-based) SUVs that were then popular and profitable. Then gas prices went up and they were totally unprepared.
The US car industry has made that mistake multiple times.
But, even when gas prices were climbing, Ford made most of their profits on trucks. They kinda own the US truck market, making about a third of all trucks sold (as I recall, anyway), and more than any other make, by far. I don't know what it is in the international market, but I think Ford trucks are strong in a lot of other markets, too.
I don't know that you're wrong, but I am holding some F lately (mostly because it went on sale on disappointing earnings last quarter), so I kinda think that in the short term it's a good move. The writing has been on the wall for a while about this move, though it's more dramatic than I expected. I thought they'd drop to a lineup of four cars, instead of just two.
They have begun focusing on hybrid and electric drive trains for their trucks, and they already have probably the best economy option in pickups with the EcoBoost 6 cylinder that tows like a big V8 (an F150 with EcoBoost and tow package has a tow capacity similar to my older diesel F250), and gets car-like MPG. So, it's not that they're ignoring efficiency, it's just that they're acknowledging that American consumers like big-ass vehicles for their big asses to ride around in (I make fun of American consumer culture and its dumb choices, but I have an F250 for towing my house, so I'm included in that demographic).
So...it could play out like the 70s and early 80s did, but I'm not so sure it will. I think we're going to see car makers take a beating on other fronts, but I dunno exactly how it'll play out. Fewer young people are buying cars and more are opting for transit and Lyft/Uber. More young people are moving to cities where that's a feasible lifestyle choice. So, the pool of people buying cars is looking like it's gonna shrink. Cars are lasting longer, too, and quality has gotten pretty good across the board. So, cars made today might make it through to the end of car ownership as we know it. Again, I don't know how it'll change exactly, but it's looking like fleets of self-driving cars owned by Lyft/Uber/Tesla/GM/etc. are gonna replace a lot of current car ownership within the next decade.
One other point about trucks: People outside of cities buy trucks at a much higher rate. Vehicle ownership in rural areas is still very, very, high, by necessity, due to no mass transit and inconvenience and expense of ride sharing services when the trips are very long and far out. So, Ford may just be acknowledging that city driving by individuals is on the way out, while we have a few more years with a solid rural truck market.
I believe I've read that when gas prices fall, US car sales almost immediately noticeably shift toward cars with lower gas mileage, and when gas prices rise, sales almost immediately shift to cars with better gas mileage.
I think that shows that gas price is a significant factor in car buying decisions.
(It also says some unflattering things about the rationality of buyers that they let short term price variations greatly influence buying an expensive item they will be using for years).
(It also says some unflattering things about the rationality of buyers that they let short term price variations greatly influence buying an expensive item they will be using for years).
I don't know - at least for those without any specialist knowledge, retail fuel prices can likely best be approximated as a random walk, for which the best estimate of future value is the current value.
A 2018 F-150 with EcoBoost will essentially get the same MPG as a 2018 Ford Taurus. I suspect the Focus Active will be their high efficiency vehicle and they'll continue to increase the MPG on SUVs and certain trucks.
I'm in the market for an SUV or crew cab truck for weekend road trips (I walk to work) and have been impressed with the 2015+ F-150s. If I actually did commute every day I could just buy a 10 year old Honda or Toyota and have the best of both worlds.
But how does that mileage compare to a Taurus with Ecoboost (I don't even know what that is -- a fuel efficient engine or a hybrid drivetrain?) -- surely any technology that improves gas mileage in a 5000lb, 80" wide x 78" high truck would do even more to improve mileage in a 4000 lb 76" wide x 60" high sedan?
Comparing an efficient truck to an inefficient car seems like an unfair comparison unless your goal is to justify buying the truck.
Ecoboost is Ford's name for using smaller displacement turbo engines to replace larger naturally aspirated ones. My experience with these types of cars is that with typical real drivers they do not deliver anywhere near the EPA fuel economy numbers, because they're essentially designed to make the turbo never spool up in the EPA tests. You can get the EPA numbers if you drive very slowly though.
The Mondeo is apparently the UK version of what's known as the Fusion in the US, maybe the UK has more accurate fuel economy testing than the US. Or everyone I know who complains about not getting EPA numbers just has a lead foot.
I recall the summary phrase from an article about Ecoboost a while ago: "You can have Eco, or Boost, but not both."
It's possible to get better fuel economy with a larger engine than a smaller one, since the larger one won't need to be flogged a lot to get the needed power. The old American cars with big V8s could get surprisingly high (20+mpg) mileage this way. Of course, the trick with a big powerful engine is to resist the temptation to use all that power all the time. ;-)
Its more like traditional buyers of a Taurus are buying an Explorer instead. The new Explorers drive much better than the old truck-based models, and get about the same MPG as the Taurus, but carry 7 people or 5 people and all the luggage and christmas presents for the week with grandparents. I've got a track focused mustang and the explorer is surprisingly fun to drive, both around corners, on the freeway and around big bear.
But does the Explorer get the same MPG as a Taurus with the same fuel efficiency technology? That's the comparison that people should be making if they care about gas mileage.
The Taurus is rated 18/27mpg, the similarly sized Honda Accord is rated 30/38. (though with less horsepower with a 4 cylinder than the Taurus's V6 -- but that's the problem with lax fuel economy standards, manufacturers will sell horsepower over mileage... until the next fuel crisis, then they'll whine that no one wants to buy their cars)
Car companies sell what people buy. We replaced a 35mpg Kia Rio with a V6 AWD Explorer. That was my choice. It wasn't because Ford don't make a hybrid focus or efficient fiesta. My mustang gets about 11mpg also, and race gas is $10/gallon.
Something that is stupid though, is that I would prefer to use E85 in my mustang, but it would be illegal in california for me to modify the car to be able to do so. Bigger fuel injectors and a tune, costs about $500 to do, but nope, illegal.
Which is my point -- people, by nature, are selfish, and don't mind using up scarce resources and continue to kick the environmental disaster tin can down the road. E85 in this country is a farmer subsidy, it's not a more environmentally friendly choice.
If you were taxed by engine displacement and/or were paying $6/gallon for gas, you might make a different choice. And when most of the cars on the road were smaller, more fuel efficient cars, you wouldn't feel like you need to buy a big car for defense against the other large cars on the roads.
I agree that government disincentives would reduce gas use, and also that people are selfish. You, for example, are using electricity, the manufacturing and commerce systems that produced your computer, and all the infrastructure of the internet to make a post on a little known website for hackers, that will ultimately have zero impact on the result of things.
Now, you could go live in a cave, and it would reduce your consumption footprint more than if I drove a Kia. Yet you don't. Nobody does. Either we will figure out how to control climate change with world-scale engineering, or we will cease to exist as a species. My Mustang, my neighbors 7000lb hybrid truck (lol), they aren't going to make the difference. So yeah, I'm having fun while Rome burns. Probably going to drive the V6 up to mammoth for the weekend too, and the ski lift will consume energy to lift my fat ass to the top just so that I can slide down a hill going "wooohoooo".
Now, you could go live in a cave, and it would reduce your consumption footprint more than if I drove a Kia.
I wonder if that's true? My household energy consumption is around 250KWh/month, which is around the amount of energy in 8 gallons of gasoline. My laptop can run for nearly 3 months on the amount of energy in a single gallon of gasoline.
Of course, the difference is that living in a cave is a huge difference in lifestyle, but is switching to smaller/lighter more energy efficient cars really a significant change in lifestyle? I've lied in countries where small cars are the norm, yet people seem to get by.
If only police departments didn't love them so much. Seems like I end up with one in my rear view mirror every other day and half the time can't tell whether it's an undercover patrol car or not.
It's true that the Taurus is a ridiculous fuel burner but to get the same fuel inefficiency out of the focus you have to move to the rs super hot hatch.
It gets the same mileage on paper. It gets nothing remotely close in the real world. Read how the EPA tests mileage and you'll realize Ford is just gaming the system. How often. Do you do 55mph and take 5 minutes to get to that speed in normal driving? Ya, me too.
And, that EcoBoost will haul as much as an F250 from a few years ago, which is pretty incredible. It's my next truck, if I keep hauling an RV around (currently in an old F250, but it needs enough work now to where I'm shopping for something else rather than repairing it).
What is the point of getting a truck for weekend road trips? Do you own a trailer or boat? Plan on off roading? Otherwise I’d get a fuel efficient vehicle. If you’re going to bite the bullet on an F-150 to own a weekend fun truck get a Raptor.
EPA rating is a joke. On Fuelly F150 Ecoboost drivers report 18 MPG which is rather less than the 27 MPG reported for my Crosstrek which can also tow, although not as much.
I mention it because hardly any cars come factory-equipped for towing these days. And FYI the Outback tows 2500lb and gets 25 MPG. Considering that th typical trailer weight even for F-150 drivers is zero, 2500 covers many use cases
> A 2018 F-150 with EcoBoost will essentially get the same MPG as a 2018 Ford Taurus.
My brother in law has a 2.7 EcoBoost F-150 that's getting about the same gas mileage as I got in my old 2010 Mazda 3.... the Mazda isn't close to the most fuel efficient in its class, but the F150 isn't in that class at all.
They'll still be selling their cars in Europe. The latest gen Focus and Fiestas all came from their European divisions, if problems occur they could theoretically reintroduce them quickly - although they would have lost all their brand momentum in the small car market.
I think the fact that the Focus and Fiestas sold from 2011-2016 had defective transmissions (complete with class action settlement) already destroyed their brand momentum in the small car market.
what destroys the brand momentum for me is that the cars look dated (even in the updated versions) and the company seems technologically behind (no real electric car).
The quality is really bad. Maybe they've improved in the past few years but one of my friends has a 5 year old Focus that he bought new and is total garbage. The doors don't lock half the time, the transmission craps out once every 6 months, sometimes the engine won't start without wiggling the battery cables, the plastic trim around the windows keeps falling off.
I think their quality in the late 90s/early 2000s was really good. I've known a lot of people that drive Fords from that era and a lot of them are still around. Not sure when but it seems to have gone massively downhill at some point at least for the Focus, though maybe they're back to being decent again.
Of course this is the problem when looking at the reliability of old cars, it says nothing about what the company is actually currently producing.
From what I've heard the safety standards are so different and often conflict that it would be difficult for the exact same car to sell in both markets. Bumpers are mandated to be higher in the US because the average car is much bigger. I remember hearing a few others due to Americans being fatter on average and Americans tending to drive longer distances (maybe it was EU focusing more on pedestrian collisions where as the US focused more on car-to-car?)
Is that supposed to show improvement or something? I think that's pathetic. The equivalent sedan of today, Fusion Hybrid, gets 45 mpg, a ~50% improvement from 2000. Meanwhile the F-150 has eked out a 20% improvement because of fundamental issues with SUVs & Trucks being aerodynamically inefficient.
This is a real loss for the environment and cutting greenhouse gases.
Yep. In addition, a modern plug-in hybrid gets over 50mpg on gas alone and ~110mpge on electricity. (something like a Chevy Volt or Hyundai Ioniq or Toyota Prius or similar)
You don't even have to go full electric -- If the average driver just switched to driving a plug-in hybrid and charged roughly nightly on a regular 120v US household outlet, you could erase ~75% of all emissions from personal vehicles nationwide, without changing anyone's commutes or driving patterns in any way. (Even if we still use dirty sources for the electricity during the switchover to renewable electricity)
Or you could buy a 2018 F-150 pickup truck with the fuel economy of a 20 year old sedan -- a fuel economy so low it's actually slightly below fleet average for all existing US cars driven today...
I think it's somewhat of an exaggeration to say "a modern plug-in hybrid gets over 50 mpg" rather than "the Prius Prime gets around 50 mpg". The Honda Clarity and the Chevy Volt are more like 40 mpg, I believe. I'm not sure of the reasons, but both seem to have larger batteries than the Prius.
Why wouldn't the increased electricity demands negate most of the environmental benefits of hybrids versus similarly-sized fuel-burning vehicles? The same work is being done to the vehicle cabin, no matter whether the fossil fuels are being burned at the vehicle or at the powerplant...
There are two reasons: (1) electricity can be, and often is, produced using methods such as hydro and nuclear that use less carbon and produce less pollution, and (2) pollution control on carbon-intensive sources can be more effective at a central location.
I don't think that stated figures for Ford hybrids are representative. I rented a Fusion Hybrid and got more like mid 30s. Really, no better than a non-hybrid Altima. It's been widely reported in the automotive press that the Fusion and C-Max don't live up to their EPA figures.
And my figure is based on the mpg computer - in every car I've ever calculated using actual gas put in vs the tripmeter, mileage is even less than the automatically calculated figure.
I know for a fact that gas was $0.98/gallon in the late 90s, at least in my hometown. We went on a trip to Montana and I remember wondering how people afforded to drive with gas at the $1.28/gallon or whatever it was there.
Perhaps you were using 82 octane gas? When you get into parts of the Southwest, gas stations down there offer some really low octane gas. I personally always go for premium (92 octane) at a large chain like Costco when going cross country if the local gas stations are slinging anything below 87 octane gas (which is the lowest commonly offered on the West Coast), as it leads me to think the gas offered at that station/in that city is all of lower caliber. Obvs not selling lots of high or normal octane gas at least!
I have seen 85 octane, never 82. Probably in Colorado. The theory seems to be that lower octane is tolerable at high altitude, so you see it in some of the western mountain areas. But there seems to be some dispute over whether lower octane is acceptable in modern cars.
It pretty much doesn't matter in a fuel injected engine. The non-design octane can be lower efficiency/lower power/worse emissions, but the engine management system prevents knocking, so it isn't a big deal.
Putting higher octane fuel in an engine that isn't designed for it is just a waste because the engine won't develop more power with it (the whole point of higher octane).
I use higher octane fuel than necessary for one of my cars, because I feel it's prudent to use ethanol-free gas which is only available at the highest octane level. According to what I've read, the ethanol that's standard today can degrade the rubber in older cars' fuel lines sometimes and that can lead to a leak and catastrophic fire. It's also rumored that higher octane gas may (sometimes) have more detergents or something.
In any case, I wouldn't trust even a modern engine computer to handle gas that is definitely too low in octane, because as far as I know, it's going to compensate after it detects pre-ignition, which is suboptimal.
I filled up for less than a dollar in AZ in the very late 90s. It was a temporary phenomenon though, and may have never gotten that low in some parts of the country.
Although they're rolling out a half-ton diesel F150 which will help a bit. Still I'd wager that most people who buy one rarely put it to use. The number of commuters in the city I see with F150s/1500s/etc is pretty staggering.
They still have the Focus and as I understand it the margins on the other vehicles are just crazy high that hedging your bets with other models about possible fuel prices .... would cost a lot.
SUV's are a lot different now than they were then... many of them are basically station wagons stretched up a bit, and the truck-style body-on-frame designs much less common. (For many good reasons.)
Yep. And not having many affordable models as well. When the economy inevitably “corrects” they will be saying “Oh crap who could have seen this coming!” Again.
Only tangentially related, but at the ARPA-E Summit this year, there was a company demonstrating an opposed cylinder, 2-stroke, compression ignition engine that they had placed in an F-150 as a test bed. They were claiming something like 37 MPG.
"ABSTRACT: Achates Power has spent the past 12 years modernizing this historically efficient engine architecture to deliver a step-wise improvement in brake thermal efficiency (BTE) over the most advanced conventional four-stroke engines. In addition, with the elimination of parts such as the cylinder head and valve train, it is also less complex and less costly to produce - making it even more appealing to manufacturers.
This paper highlights the work done, to date, on the Opposed-Piston Gasoline Compressions Ignition engine and discusses the advantages of the OP engine as an ideal platform for incorporating gasoline compression ignition (GCI) technology, the study of which recently was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy."
Ford caters more to the business market who are buying these vehicles due to their usage in heavy duty hauling. The fact that they are focusing on trucks/SUVs doesn't have to exclude moving to electric vehicles in the future. It's the same as any company focusing on enterprise customers rather than consumers.
Even Subaru retailers and corporate that I've spoken to as a Subaru ambassador are still not sure why the hatch was discontinued and it is still one fo the most requested things from Subaru.
Not many Subaru enthusiasts that I've talked to want the BRZ to continue. It's a fun little car, but since it is not AWD it just doesn't really feel like a Subaru and the fact that it is also sold as a Toyota and a Scion really detracts from it.
I expect it to continue being a naturally aspirated engine with no STI badging, but I may be surprised.
My WRX was just getting to the end of its life (in terms of rock-solid dependability) when I moved to Texas. And at that time I no longer needed the AWD. So I went shopping for something else fun without that requirement, and BRZ was high on that list. But I wanted rather more power. I even put the decision off for awhile when I saw rumors of a BRZ STi.
But in the end, I went for a Hyundai Genesis Coupe, which has all the power I could ever want. It seems like there's a sizable chunk of GenCoupe drivers who got there through a similar path.
Nah, the 2.5L engine days are done. The new engine design is much better, only 2.0L, and can do much higher numbers than what Subaru has tuned them for. The power comes on quicker so it's got the same 0-60 as the 2.5L in the STI due to turbo design. the EJ25 has served its time, it is time to retire it.
By both performance and price range, I wouldn't put the STI and the RS (~$40k) in the same category as the GTI(~30k). The Golf R is more directly comparable. And with regards to the lower end market, we may be losing the Focus ST, but we still have the Civic SI, and Hyundai is putting out their new i30n this year as well. You can include the Veloster in that list as well, if you don't mind the weird 3 door thing going on. In the higher end of the market, competing with the STI and the RS, we have the Golf R, the Civic Type R, and the Audi S3 off the top of my head. Although to be fair, the Civics are getting less and less hatch-y every redesign.
I've got an FoST and I don't think it compares with the Civic Si or i30n/veloster turbo at all. It's a full 5-door, and the civic Si is only available in 2 or 4 door sedans, and with barely 205hp to the ST's 250. Basically the same with the Hyundai. Since the WRX Hatch got the axe the Focus ST is really the only hot hatch on the market. Everything else is an underpowered sedan or a coupe (until you hit RS/Golf-R/STI territory, but that's out of my price range).
I drive a Focus ST and I think it's the perfect bay area car. It's large enough (bigger than Fiesta) to fit me and 4 friends in relative comfort, or fold the back seats flat and fill it with skis and other gear for a weekend trip to Tahoe.
The clutch has a hill-assist so it's a breeze to drive even in hilly SF, and on a sunny weekend 250hp is more than enough to have a blast taking the 1 down the coast to Half Moon Bay.
I'm so glad I got my '17 when I did, with this news.
Interestingly, that's what Subaru and others learned long ago, make the backseat floor flat, and it's an SUV. Subaru made a lot of money by skirting fuel economy standards before it became popular.
True, but VW grants a lot more in the way of rebates than Honda or Toyota. A manual Golf Sportwagen (lowest trim) quotes right at $20,000 on Truecar (where I live), and a manual Civic hatchback (lowest trim) is at $19,700. Not much of a difference (both prices including destination).
Most americans don't want to buy manual cars. The in-laws actually got $8k off on their new Accord due to it being a manual, extremely hard to sell in Seattle.
VW and Audi are both considered upmarket, but Audi has a bad rap for the whole "plastic gears" shenanigan, and VW's emissions scandal still dogs them. Most people go with BMW's if they don't care about maintenance and want to buy upmarket.
Look at the Ford Flex and squint. It's the same as the old Ford Country Squire station wagon, just in a slightly different form. Faux wood paneling optional.
Oh, I didn't mean difficulty of performing the parallel parking (that's straightforward with a modern car with rear camera), but the difficulty of finding a parking spot that fits your car length.
They meant car to be interpreted as Ford, the subject of the article, interprets car. Ford classifies their non-commercial vehicles into 3 categories. Trucks/vans, SUVs/crossovers and cars. It is the line up of what Ford considers cars that is getting reduced.
It has a small interior. When I tried Ford sedans at a dealer last summer, the Taurus had the least head room. The others were bad too; it seems modern cars have shrunk. I had a Taurus from the 1980s and it was fine.
> The others were bad too; it seems modern cars have shrunk.
Modern American cars. To my untrained eyes, it looks like a common design language in American cars is to lower the roof and sometimes simultaneously raising the body (exemplified by the Chrysler 300). This leads to very limited fields of views - rear windows are almost vestigial at this point. After driving a Charger, being in a Prius feels like you're driving an all-glass car with panoramic views.
I agree with you up until you posit the Prius as a counter example. It caught my eye that you mention rear windows in particular - do you really think a Prius has good visibility behind? I test drove the new Honda Clarity and it similarly has questionable rear visibility because of the aerodynamic hatchback shape's rear windows.
One car that is commonly cited as an example of good visibility is a Subaru Forester, although I haven't driven one to see.
Something I noticed while driving a 30 year old car with spectacularly good visibility is that one factor is the skinny A and B-pillars compared to modern cars. I imagine that might be related to (lack of) rollover protection, not to mention airbags.
> do you really think a Prius has good visibility behind?
No, I wouldn't say it has good rear visibility, objectively. However, my statement was explicitly comparative, and I think the Prius has better all-round visibility than a Dodge Charger.
I haven't driven a Charger, so maybe you're right. Based on test driving both the current generation Prius and the last one, and looking at the Charger, it would surprise me though.
The most annoying thing about my 2016 Honda Accord coupe is the massive A- and B-pillar blind spots. It's got one of the rare all-around 5 star ratings for crash tests, including rollover, and has lots of airbags, so of course you can't have everything. I don't think I ever notice any issue with the rear window.
I think fatal accidents have been decreasing for a while, so it's probably the case that objectively we are optimizing the right thing overall with safety regulations.
On the other hand, I am enjoying having an old car, and sometimes I think if we allow motorcycles and three-wheelers on the roads, why not allow recreational four wheel cars that are exempt from most safety equipment (other than say, seatbelts). Beyond just grandfathering them in, that is.
Clickbait? Taurus is their full size sedan. The PDF linked in the story points out that the Fiesta which their subcompact, the Fusion which is their midsize, and Taurus, are not getting refreshes. Now when the model cycle runs out I did not find.
If anything it represents the legacy of their prior CEO's failure to keep Ford competitive in that segment. 2017 they sold over 200k of the Fusion and 150k of the Focus. the profit margin on SUV and trucks has always been higher. They sold over 300k Escapes which is a small SUV and over 270k Explorers which is fairly large.
Maybe after all the years under Fields they decided they needed something radical to move the company forward. Like about every other manufacturer they plan on more EVs by 2020 but the big rollouts are not till 2022
No; they're taking the next few design cycles for IC sedans and putting them into IC crossovers. It's what people want to buy right now - they're keeping the Mustang, a car bought primarily by people who would never buy a crossover, and the most crossover-like version of one of their hatchbacks.
I am surprised that Ford didn't mention their electrification plan their internal "Team Edison"[1] is working on.
Contrary to many have believed, the fuel efficiency doesn't really matter for bigger and heavier SUV segments after electrification of their fleet. Tesla Model X proved that all-electric (aka BEV) SUV is a viable product.
And if you're wondering how dangerous Ford thought it was: After a nice letter from my lawyer, they offered to buy back my 5 year old Focus SE for essentially full price. (Plus covering lawyer costs)
This is very disappointing. I really love the Fusion hybrid (close to 50 MPG on mine, very smooth ride and good low-end off-the-line torque due to the electric).
I was really hoping they would do a plug-in version that got more than 21 miles on a charge in the next 10 years (when I'll be due for another car).
Agreed. I think looks wise, Fusion has been one of the better of their offerings (granted, didn’t love the switch to the blimp looking/rounded grill). I’d think it would make sense to keep the Fusion line.
Cost? Hybrids are ballpark $10K cheaper than electric.
For example the Ford Fusion Hybrid starts at $25,390 and Prius V at $26,675, the only fully electric vehicle at that price point is the Smart ForTwo electric drive, but the ForTwo Electric has a terrible 58 mile range, only two seats, missing quality of life features, and arguably poor fit & finish (similar to a $13K new car level). A good electric vehicle, like the Bolt, is in the mid $30s ($34-36K ish).
A plug-in hybrid offers a good compromise between features and cost. You'll get similar mileage to a ForTwo Electric (50 miles on electric) but with fewer of the compromises (unlimited gas range after that, more features, nicer finish, four seats, etc).
I'm not sure all electric is a logical progression from plug-in hybrid. Adding battery capacity to go from running 95% on electricity to 100% doesn't seem to me to logically be an economic or an environmental win, necessarily. There are always some trips you can't take on a single charge, so it seems wasteful to invest in battery capacity beyond what you use the vast majority of days.
If I was dictator of everything, and wanted to fight pollution and global warming, I would institute a big carbon tax, and let markets work out how to respond, but my expectation would be that the end state would be plug-in hybrids.
The maintenance costs of a combustion engine on a vehicle is significant compared to an EV, which is why a battery electric vehicle is superior to a hybrid if range isn’t an issue (ie fast charging and/or SuperChargers).
Do you really think so? What significant maintenance costs are you thinking of? Do you consider oil changes and spark plugs significant costs?
I just looked for long term tests of the Chevy Bolt to see what sort of issues have been appearing on them when driven for a while. Tire failures, battery failures and power steering issues seem to be among them. Of course some of that is under warranty, but also involves leaving the motorist stranded. So maybe focusing on the engine or motor is ignoring the source of most issues.
My 2016 gas-powered Honda has had a few issues, but the one that left me stranded was an electrical issue - the issue with the engine itself did not prevent me from driving to the dealer.
Overall, I think it's pretty rare to have significant work done to a modern gasoline engine - I was recently startled to discover a mechanic I'd been to in the past wouldn't touch my car's engine and referred me to the dealer.
Finally, if you own an all electric vehicle and rent a car for long trips, I'm not sure why that is going to be better than owning a hybrid with a gas engine. You may say the gas engine doesn't have to be hauled around all the time, but then again, the extra batteries don't either, and the rental probably uses more gas and resources per mile than the hybrid running on gas.
In regards to maintenance costs, if a plugin hybrid is driven on electric 95% of the time (i.e, if it has a 60 - 100 mile electric-only range) then the gas engine won't need maintenance that much (assuming things like oil changes and spark plugs are based on engine-running mileage).
As far as overall complexity, a regular hybrid with a modern ECVT transmission (like Ford and Toyota have) is actually a lot simpler than a traditional automatic transmission. Then the plugin version is the same thing but with a bigger battery.
For weight, a plugin-only with 350 mile range would have as much weight as a plugin-hybrid with a 60-100 mile electric range and a low horse power gas engine (the gas would be used to maintain highway speed and trickle charging the battery, and electric used for acceleration).
But they are safer for the occupants, which are the people buying the cars. I think the focus for a lot of AI like safety systems should be for the bigger vehicles, which can be harder to control in a number of situations.
The Obama era fleet efficiency standards don't bode well when looking at big heavy trucks. If they could put their efforts primarily behind one car, they could come out ahead on profitability.
Doing so would greatly reduce the supply chain complexity, part variety (though shared parts across models has gotten much better in the last decade), inventory costs, etc. This would help service shops, suppliers, and their logistics.
I find it interesting to think about this as a branding decision. Ford has never established a strong brand identity for trucks. Sure, the F150 has a strong identity. But it's just one model within the F-series...necessary because it's not the E-series or a car. Even with this new strategy, the same branding drag will continue. A car, the Mustang, will still be the brand icon because it has a consistent profile not a jumble of ride heights and cab sizes and bed lengths.
I think Fiat Chrysler made a good branding move by spinning off trucks and vans into the Ram Truck badge. It's a good branding move because the brands reflect a natural market segmentation. Most people are out "shopping for either a sedan or a pickup truck" at the point they walk into a show room with their checkbook. Ram and Chrysler brands are backed by distinct marketing persona sets. On the other hand, after this move the Ford brand will still be lumping those separate personas into a single set.
Ford has never established s strong brand identity with trucks?! In what universe? The Ford F series truck is the best selling vehicle in America (yes, including cars) and has been for many years. A picture of one is at the top of the Wikipedia page for “pickup truck”. Chevy and Ram have been chasing Ford for decades. They’re the Coca-Cola of trucks.
Perhaps this is regional but I strongly disagree that ford doesn't have strong brand identity in trucks. Wars have been fought over Ford v Chevy in parts of Texas :)
"First on race day" [1] ain't about trucks. I'm not saying that the Ford brand isn't recognized for trucks. I am saying it's diluted. Ford is still going to make cars and so the brand identity will continue to be diluted. Even GM has GMC as a truck brand (and at one time Hummer). Fiat Chrysler has Jeep in addition to Ram.
Ford used to own ~30% of Mazda before selling the shares back to Japanese entities. Because of that, they were able to share engines and platforms. For example, the Mazda 3 and Ford Focus shared the Ford C1 platform and Mazda MZR engine. The Mazda 6 and Ford Fusion shared the Mazda G platform and MZR/Duratec engines. The Mazda 2 and Ford Fiesta shared the Mazda D platform.
Since the breakup, Mazda has moved onto their newer Skyactiv engine/platforms, but lost access to the Ford Duratec V6 and C1-platform (the current Mazda3 sits on top of a Miata derived platform I believe). Ford is still using the older MZR designs as a basis for their EcoBoost I4 engines, but lost access to the Mazda G and D platforms underpinning the Fusion/Fiesta (and the Volvo derived D3 platform for the Taurus). I guess they decided to discontinue those lines instead of developing a new platform/engine for them. The C1 platform was a joint Mazda/Volvo/Ford venture, Ford may have decided that it's too expensive to develop an update to it on their own.
Once you remove all vehicles that use the MZR-I4s and non-Ford platforms, the only car you're left with is the Mustang.
The Mazda 6 and Ford Fusion shared the Mazda G platform
The Mazda 6 platform of the early-mid 1990s was shared with the Ford Probe; the MX6-LS was the same as the Probe GT underneath. (Ford didn't even have a 24V V-6 of its own at the time.)
My understanding from this article is that Ford will continue to sell SUVs, Trucks and Crossovers. They are only decreasing the size of their "Sedan" portfolio. Basically they are discontinuing those vehicules : Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, C-Max and Taurus. They are keeping everything else (including F-150, Mustang, Explorer, Escape, Bronco) as well as adding a new "Ford Active" car.
I’ve enjoyed driving a rented a CMAX hybrid on a few occasions, great mileage and convinced me to switch to electric. Only downside is nav/entertainment system froze and rebooted while driving. I understand they’ve switched to QNX from Windows Embedded in newer iterations.
Given how ubiquitous some of the cars Ford has stopped making such as the Crown Victoria are e.g fleets, police, taxis, it’s incredible to think it’s not financially worth it. Would be interesting to see the in-depth financials involved.
Not too surprising to me as the only popular American brand cars I see are muscle cars (Mustang, Challenger, and Charger). Thought that might be just a California thing, but looks like Ford thinks it is the trend for all of N. America.
Some of that might be the fact that Japanese and Korean automakers don't compete in that space. From anecdotal experience in North Carolina, plenty of folks would buy, say, a new Fusion over an Accord, whether out of brand loyalty ("I'd rather push my Ford than drive a Chevy" shirts are real and worn by actual live people), "patriotism", or a desire for a softer ride. There are still more Accords or Camrys, though.
Traditionally, the much maligned V-6 Mustang sold more than the V-8 version. I don't think that's the case any more (even if you replace V-6 with turbo 4). Of course, modern V-6's make as much power as the V-8s of a few decades ago.
So I would say the various V-6 coupes compete in the space the Mustang used to be in, but now Ford has ceded that. On the other hand, Honda has quit making V-6 coupes, and I don't think Toyota does either these days.
What about the:
-Toyota Avalon
-Lexus ES
-Lexus GS
-Lexus LS
-Audi A6
-Audi A7
-Audi A8
-BMW 5 series
-BMW 6 series
-BMW 7 series
-Nissan Maxima
-Hyundai Genesis G90
-Tesla Model S
-Mercedes CLS class
-Mercedes E class
-Mercedes S class
-Cadillac CT6
-Cadillac CTS
-Cadillac XTS
-Lincoln Continental
-Acura RLX
-Porsche Panamera
-Jaguar XJ
-Maserati Quattroporte
-Infiniti Q70
Unless you think less of a Toyota Prius and more like a Honda/Acura NSX. I would be shocked if ford stuck a hybrid system in the Mustang and at some trim level didn't offer a performance hybrid system.
Porsche has shown that hybrid technology can be used to enable the very highest performance such as with the 918 supercar.
I would like to see more performance hybrid options where cars get roughly the same mileage as conventional cars, but have increased torque and performance, while not shifting gears. But then, I like CVTs in general, like the current Nissan Maxima.
The Mustang has always been about a big engine. It's supposed to be cheap power and a great exhaust.
I'd love to see an electric vehicle that captures the idea of cheap power. Fast off the line, fast to 60, good enough handling, looks good, and sacrifices enough to be within reach for most people.
But the mustang... eh. 4 cylinder turbo is one thing. That's cheap efficient power. You buy it for 20-25k and you have a nice reasonably quick car that you can mod the hell out of.
I've always found it funny that CVTs which are so popular in economy cars are banned in almost every form of racing like F1, and Le Mans in order to control costs.
> Building a winning portfolio and focusing on products and markets where Ford can win. For example, by 2020, almost 90 percent of the Ford portfolio in North America will be trucks, utilities and commercial vehicles. Given declining consumer demand and product profitability, the company will not invest in next generations of traditional Ford sedans for North America. Over the next few years, the Ford car portfolio in North America will transition to two vehicles – the best-selling Mustang and the all-new Focus Active crossover coming out next year. The company is also exploring new “white space” vehicle silhouettes that combine the best attributes of cars and utilities, such as higher ride height, space and versatility.
[1] https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
EDIT: The press release from which all this interest is coming may only refer to Ford North America's development goals. Ford Europe is almost a different company and is responsible for most (all?) of the Focus and Fiesta's development. Perhaps Ford NA will stop bringing new sedans/coupes to market (excepting Mustang and Active) and simply import the smaller vehicles.