Ford Inside News banner

What Do You Think Ford's Future US Lineup Will Look Like?


  • Total voters
    10
21 - 40 of 103 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Nihar, I like those designs. More fitting for Lincoln though. No reason why they both can't have something to that effect. I've always said that mainstream sedans aren't profitable unless they're totally radical, or they carry a prestigious brand name (that can attract a much higher price). Being radical also attracts a premium. When something looks and goes great you're leaving people without much but to want it. Case in point is S550; it's competition looks OK but is dynamically superior, yet can't outsell Mustang thanks to its captivating exterior design, a design bordering on exotic.

At our track recently, I saw the shape of what I was pretty sure was a Mach One BEV running around. If so, I take back my previous comment that it was not unique. This was very unique. I liked what I saw.
This is good news.
Your previous comment had me puzzled as Ford really needs to nail Mach1, even more than they nailed S550. No room for error on this one.
Could you tell if it was 2 or 4 door?

Hoping it cracks 2's to 60 as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Discussion Starter #25 (Edited)

Is this what became the MKZ? Honestly Ford/Lincoln need to revisit their past concepts for new car shapes.

This could work as an A7 competitor:


I've never heard about this:
https://www.carscoops.com/2012/06/lincoln-mkf-concept-could-make/ (A7 too)

Lincoln MKF



Remember the Evos?


This time, make the Evos. 2 and 4 door versions. Maybe you failed by stretching out the back.

I would even call the Iosis a Sportback.

You had the chance to make some great cars, Ford. I've grown up seeing the concepts.

The biggest problem I have with this announcement is the fact that they are thinking of adding tons of traditionally shaped SUVs. I hope they prove me wrong.


After looking back on their concepts, I'm seeing how much potential they had to keep these interesting car shapes that could have become a revolutionary Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, Taurus, etc. and they could have avoided having to make a decision like this because people would love their traditional looking yet surprisingly practical designs.

That is what I want Ford to be, not a blue oval GMC.

In other words, they could have saved their car sales by making more A7/A5 SB style vehicles with more unique shapes and slightly higher ride height.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts
After looking back on their concepts, I'm seeing how much potential they had to keep these interesting car shapes that could have become a revolutionary Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, Taurus, etc. and they could have avoided having to make a decision like this because people would love their traditional looking yet surprisingly practical designs.

That is what I want Ford to be, not a blue oval GMC.

In other words, they could have saved their car sales by making more A7/A5 SB style vehicles with more unique shapes and slightly higher ride height.
I agree but the caveat that is the elephant-in-the-room was that Ford, by their own decision making, became a platform-poor automaker. They could not execute your "could have" strategy because they allowed their chassis architecture to become dated and inflexible.

Many of their best past concepts were RWD designs and Ford gave up on RWD except for Mustang and only the latest Mustang platform, a derivative of a derivative of a borrowed 20th century platform, allowed for Independent Rear Suspension. Can you believe that Ford in its infinite wisdom against all rules of economies-of-scale manufactured a platform for only one model?

Platform wise, Ford had been shooting itself in the foot for decades. Only the development of the CD6 (not even yet arrived) gives us hope. The past is what it is (or was). The future is up to Ford/Lincoln.

BTW, I can see the Eros design language showing up in the Mach One.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
Many of their best past concepts were RWD designs and Ford gave up on RWD except for Mustang and only the latest Mustang platform, a derivative of a derivative of a borrowed 20th century platform, allowed for Independent Rear Suspension. Can you believe that Ford in its infinite wisdom against all rules of economies-of-scale manufactured a platform for only one model?
Remember reading an interview with a Holden Engineer discussing Zeta and developing different vehicles
off the same platform, they saved 8% over developing discreet platform that shares power train,
electrical systems and maybe suspensions.


Platform wise, Ford had been shooting itself in the foot for decades. Only the development of the CD6 (not even yet arrived) gives us hope. The past is what it is (or was). The future is up to Ford/Lincoln.
Made some inquiries regarding CD6 - was ita development of the Ford Aus based GRWD proposal?
The response I got was that it looked more like the early 2000s stuff.......
Revisiting DEW, dust off and upgrade the premium chassis for the easy result?
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
Remember reading an interview with a Holden Engineer discussing Zeta and developing different vehicles
off the same platform, they saved 8% over developing discreet platform that shares power train,
electrical systems and maybe suspensions...
did he mean that they really did NOT save that much at all?
no surprise if so


...Made some inquiries regarding CD6 - was it a development of the Ford Aus based GRWD proposal? The response I got was that it looked more like the early 2000s stuff.......
Revisiting DEW, dust off and upgrade the premium chassis for the easy result?
WOW-but-Yeah,
goes completely along with the scenario of cD6 ALWAYS being as much a S650 as anything else
paging @Andrew L --- your ng.LS is nigh ;)
...I find the great divide on C2=+=CD6 interesting, lots of cool stuff possible.
otoh
I'm getting very suspicious about the non-truck platformitectures C2 / cD6 / E1, esp the mysterious E1
Like if they could really be basically the same thing = small-mid / mid-Lg / with battery surfboard shoved underneath?
:nerd:

It gets me that Ford went to all that effort to revive EUCD and deliver CD4 but kept a lot
of the in built limitations - I mean doing more with a RWD platform like Falcon/Territory
would have yielded Ford their very own multi function RWD AWD architecture years ago...
well, guess I choose to look at it as:
- a learning situation, afaik the 1st time FMC tried a w-i-d-e platformitecture = 10 vehicles originally
- waaaaaaaay better than GM spending 10Billion-a-$hot for multiple[3?,4?] platforms
... that still doN'T sell
>:)
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
all about... ...ALL THAT JAZZ

Remember reading an interview with a Holden Engineer discussing Zeta and developing different vehicles
off the same platform, they saved 8% over developing discreet platform that shares power train,
electrical systems and maybe suspensions...
did he mean that they really did NOT save that much at all?
no surprise if so


...Made some inquiries regarding CD6 - was it a development of the Ford Aus based GRWD proposal? The response I got was that it looked more like the early 2000s stuff.......
Revisiting DEW, dust off and upgrade the premium chassis for the easy result?
WOW-but-Yeah,
goes completely along with the scenario of cD6 ALWAYS being as much a S650 as anything else
paging @Andrew L --- your ng.LS is nigh ;)
...I find the great divide on C2=+=CD6 interesting, lots of cool stuff possible.
otoh
I'm getting very suspicious about the non-truck platformitectures C2 / cD6 / E1, esp the mysterious E1
Like if they could really be basically the same thing = small-mid / mid-Lg / with battery surfboard shoved underneath?
:nerd:

It gets me that Ford went to all that effort to revive EUCD and deliver CD4 but kept a lot
of the in built limitations - I mean doing more with a RWD platform like Falcon/Territory
would have yielded Ford their very own multi function RWD AWD architecture years ago...
well, guess I choose to look at it as:
- a learning situation, afaik the 1st time FMC tried a w-i-d-e platformitecture = 10 vehicles originally
- waaaaaaaay better than GM spending 10Billion-a-$hot for multiple[3?,4?] platforms
...that still doN'T sell
>:)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,893 Posts
I wonder if there is less dollars invested in next gen ICE platforms, because the future will be new EV platforms. And Ford will need a sub-compact, compact, midsize, large and truck EV platform in the next couple years.

I say this because Honda has already announced that they will offer a 150+mile EV at $18k sharing tech with their Chinese partner, and expecting over 100k units to be sold globally. Ford hopefully is doing the same with the Zyote? company. VW has already made the same statement that their upcoming ID models will match the price of ICE models.

Which indicates it's now possible to have a 200+ mile compact or midsize EV for $25k or $30k, and put side by side, based on how comfortable the consumer is with their home or public charging infrastructure, the EV will win for many reasons.

With that being the most logical case, lower expenditures on next gen ICE platforms make sense, and a reduction of those platforms is imperative, since those segment platforms will be replaced by EV platforms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
While the perfect car shape sounds like a good idea, here's the thing: What would you classify it as? What would cars.com, Consumer Reports and US News call it? It's a perfect 33% of all three types of cars, meaning it's as much a sedan as it is a crossover as it is an SUV.


My guess is that it would still be classified as "Sedan" by the EPA and them due to the shape, even though it has the height of a crossover and versatility of an SUV.
 
21 - 40 of 103 Posts
Top