Like up in three years will be...


Escape
Futura Based Crossover
Freestyle Crossover (Based on Five Hundred)
Explorer
Expedition
Extended Expedition to replace Excursion

Plus I have heard mention of a Focus based SUV.

I don't see how this does Ford any good, the current explorer sells well and one can only guess that the two Crossovers will cannibalize Explorer sales rather than gain new ones.

To me is sounds like cutting your arm off and selling it on the black market so you can afford a prostetic to replace it.

They seem to be doing the same with thier sedan overlap (Futura, Taurus, FiveHundred)...Funny thing is alot of the new models are also badge engineered and require little capital investment. (Futura, Futura Crossover = Madza......FiveHundred and Freestyle= Volvo)


Does this mean that Fords new stratagy is to flood the market with as many badge engineered models as it can at a low cost (by using platforms that it's subsidiaries designed and are currently selling), and prey that a few of them are enough of a hit hit to get the capital flowing and fund future new product?



Does this mean that

 

Yeah, I've noticed this trend in Ford as well. To think the only Ford car I liked, the Probe, got discontinued for this?!

 

That’s pretty much what they offer now except for the 2 crossovers. They aren’t the only one though. Chevy/GM have an abundance of Suv’s and crossovers and the tracker is basically a rebadged Suzuki.

If they can make them differen't, then they wouldn't. I’m sure both crossovers will be smaller and lower in size and will not offer v8 as an option. The Explorer is truck’ish and the crossovers have the DNA of a car in them. The Explorer also has somewhat of a loyal following. And if these crossovers are anything like the crossovers currently on the market, they’ll be ugly as sin.

If it's anything like the mazda6, then the futura will be fairly sporty (others aren’t). The futura will also have an optional 4 banger based off Ford’s global 2.3L I-4, and an optional hybrid engine (not available on Taurus/500) on top of the 3.0/3.5 duratec v-6. A Futura crossover would also mean the availability of AWD, something which can’t be had on the Mazda6. It’d be interesting to see if this AWD system makes its way over to the futura sedan.

The 500 is physically larger than both, has an AWD option, and will most likely have the highest Hp/tq of the group. The taurus will remain the taurus.

I think Ford will try to minimize internal competition. There’s obvious differences between all 3. I think the Futura will be marketed as stylish/sporty and ford expects 50-80% of them to be 4 bangers. The Taurus will be marked as a value/volume v6 sedan. And the 500 will be marketed as luxury/roominess sedan kind of like the Toyota Avalon with an available AWD. Each will be priced differently, therefore minimizing internal competition.

They’re based off those platforms and there will be parts-sharing, but they won’t be near identical twins like the case of Firebird/Camaro or Tracker/Vitara. From what I got though, the 500 and Futura will be built in Ford plants and not Mazda/Volvo plants. If I’m wrong, correct me. So maybe the badging won’t be the only thing different. The futura is also said to look at the 426 concept for styling and not the mazda6 and is expected to look like this: http://www.autoindex.org/images/news...orm_1_orig.jpg

That seems to be a trend with all corporations though as company's think more "global", not Ford alone. Gm too uses a wide range of Global engines/platforms.

But to answer your question, this is what Mays has said:
“This will translate into investment efficiency as good as we can get it”

That about sums it up.

 

just b/c they share a platform doesn't mean they are badge engeneered. Just look at the Golf/Bettle, Monte/Impala, Trailblazer/SSR and PT cruiser/neon.

 

Ford Has to many SUV's? Look at how many variations GM has of one SUV!

Trailblazer
Envoy
Ranier
Ascender
Saab (Name?)
Bravada

I think everyone has too many SUV's. I guess I just don't understand the appeal...

 

So Ford has pioneered this new process of "badge-replacement" and we all find it shameful? ...
Unlike the GTO which was a dedicated design from scratch.
I won't go there.

While I generally agree with your position that there are too many SUV variants in the market today, I can't fault Ford ALONE for that - as WERM just pointed out, I can go to a GMC, Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, or Buick line and find variants of the same platform with different emblems. Just as many if not more in fact.

If the point here is to reward a company for not duplicating it's platforms - we'd have to hand a plaque to Dodge. But then again, we'd have to give them some kind of financial award too, to help keep them in business. You see where Daimler-Chrysler is financially today. GuionM recently posted a great article on their financial position and future prospects which was not very flattering.

So perhaps there is some kind of magical link between maximizing platform utility, common parts, and earning an existance?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ProudPony
So Ford has pioneered this new process of "badge-replacement" and we all find it shameful? ...
Unlike the GTO which was a dedicated design from scratch.
I won't go there./quote]

They will sell 18,000 GTO's a year, Ford plans to move nearly 1,000,000 Mazda6 based cars alone.....big difference.

Quote:

While I generally agree with your position that there are too many SUV variants in the market today, I can't fault Ford ALONE for that - as WERM just pointed out, I can go to a GMC, Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, or Buick line and find variants of the same platform with different emblems. Just as many if not more in fact.

If the point here is to reward a company for not duplicating it's platforms - we'd have to hand a plaque to Dodge. But then again, we'd have to give them some kind of financial award too, to help keep them in business. You see where Daimler-Chrysler is financially today. GuionM recently posted a great article on their financial position and future prospects which was not very flattering.

So perhaps there is some kind of magical link between maximizing platform utility, common parts, and earning an existance?

My point was that GM designed each architechture...then tailored it for each division. What it seems Ford is doing is yanking architectures that it's individuals subsidiaries because it lacks capital (Mazda and Volvo) and badging them to a million different Ford variants hoping one hits the sweet sopt.. My whole point is that GM invested money the money to make it's new Epsion, Delta, Sigma, and Theda architechtures...Ford is using platforms that were developed by companies it own some or all off out of thier own individual budgets.