RE: Ford drops hatches from US line up
Discussion
Butter Face said:
Er, how? A diesel Qashqai burns less fuel than an MX5 because one has a 1.5 Diesel turbo and the oher has a high revving NA petrol so therefore a diesel Qashqai is cheaper to fuel. NEDC has nothing to do with it.
WLTP is coming anyway which will give more realistic fuel figures, but a diesel Qashqai will still burn less fuel than an MX5....
Current MX-5 weighs less than a ton , has a 13:1 compression engine and is just over 4 ft high. On the other hand it does hit 60 in less than half the time.WLTP is coming anyway which will give more realistic fuel figures, but a diesel Qashqai will still burn less fuel than an MX5....
Looking at fuelly the 1.5 nissan is only getting 45-48mpg where the MX-5 is 37-39(mine is averaging 41mpg)
GTEYE said:
Hugh Jarse said:
GTEYE said:
Okay based on Ford's website, and using like for like engines (not diesel SUV versus petrol hot hatch):
Focus 2.0TDCI 6 speed manual has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 70.6 mpg
Kuga 2.0TDCi 6 speed manual FWD has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 60.1 mpg (4x4 version 54.3 mpg)
All figures I'm sure are unachievable, but even in the laboratory Ford concede that the Kuga is thirstier than the Focus
So less than 15% as I suggested, which you claimed was cobblers.Focus 2.0TDCI 6 speed manual has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 70.6 mpg
Kuga 2.0TDCi 6 speed manual FWD has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 60.1 mpg (4x4 version 54.3 mpg)
All figures I'm sure are unachievable, but even in the laboratory Ford concede that the Kuga is thirstier than the Focus
Invest your energy in visiting your granny.
On the road, the difference will be more significant, and even more so if petrols were compared. So the point stands.
4wd has nothing to do with shape which you were complaining about.
If you are ploughing motorways shape helps, trundling to the shops, hardly at all.
Hugh Jarse said:
Doubtful, what are the figures by comparison? - I bet less than 15%.
People have always wanted cars with space and easy to get in an out of.
The "crossover" merely reflects the shape of a car people want.
The 4wd gubbins that they originally had in the 90s was merely an inconvenience.
The profile of thirties cars is very similar to that of crossovers.
We've just had a daft phase in between where cars were cramp, made people creep along the ground, and a dismal view that cannot see over hedges.
Finally cars are shaped like people need, without the 4WD gubbins.
+1People have always wanted cars with space and easy to get in an out of.
The "crossover" merely reflects the shape of a car people want.
The 4wd gubbins that they originally had in the 90s was merely an inconvenience.
The profile of thirties cars is very similar to that of crossovers.
We've just had a daft phase in between where cars were cramp, made people creep along the ground, and a dismal view that cannot see over hedges.
Finally cars are shaped like people need, without the 4WD gubbins.
The crossover was an inspired invention. Some of the benefits of a people carrier, most of the styling of an SUV all wrapped in a "lifestyle" body so you dont have to look like you've given up just because you've a couple of kids.
ZX10R NIN said:
Compare apples with apples:
SLK250 petrol 42.8/SLK250 diesel 57.5 both make 200bhp & were close on price when new, their respective performance is similar to.
SLC200/300 Petrol 47.9/47.1 SLC250 Diesel 70.6
I thought they were debating the extra fuel consumption of a crossover relative to its non crossover equivalent, not petrol v diesel?SLK250 petrol 42.8/SLK250 diesel 57.5 both make 200bhp & were close on price when new, their respective performance is similar to.
SLC200/300 Petrol 47.9/47.1 SLC250 Diesel 70.6
Jon_S_Rally said:
This move is no great surprise. When you're over there, SUVs and trucks are everywhere. Though I am always surprised by the growing number of smaller cars from the likes of Kia and Hyundai. I guess Ford and GM struggle to compete with them though.
It's all laughable really when you think about it. All these manufacturers claiming that they are driving to reduce emissions and save the planet, while simultaneously making more and more SUVs and crossovers that are inherently poor when it comes to efficiency, thanks to being heavy and not-very-aerodynamic. I am not one for forcing people to make/buy certain things, but it's funny how the war against the SUV has all-but-died and now every sod is driving some ridiculous, jacked up crossover thing. If we want to reduce emissions, a good step would be telling people that their Qashqui/Juke/Kadjar/Q3 is pointless pile of turd and that a Golf would do exactly the same job, only it wouldn't burn as much fuel doing it.
Classic. I think the "war against the SUV" only existed within a niche of terminally pissed off / bitter / intolerant people.It's all laughable really when you think about it. All these manufacturers claiming that they are driving to reduce emissions and save the planet, while simultaneously making more and more SUVs and crossovers that are inherently poor when it comes to efficiency, thanks to being heavy and not-very-aerodynamic. I am not one for forcing people to make/buy certain things, but it's funny how the war against the SUV has all-but-died and now every sod is driving some ridiculous, jacked up crossover thing. If we want to reduce emissions, a good step would be telling people that their Qashqui/Juke/Kadjar/Q3 is pointless pile of turd and that a Golf would do exactly the same job, only it wouldn't burn as much fuel doing it.
They're brilliant as a massively more practical alternative to a Golf and despite having very similar footprints. Our 150ps 1.5 Karoq (a Tiguan under the skin) weighs 1300kgs, 0-60 in 8 seconds, 40mpg real world town consumption, 55mpg on a run. 123g of CO2. 17' balloon tyres give a lovely ride. And it's not even a diesel.
Not sure what's pointless about it. Cheaper than the cheapest Golf on a lease btw.
I like driving, I'm into outdoor sports and I like a bit of utility from my vehicles.
Do I drive an SUV?
No, I drive a (Ford) estate car on standard suspension and 16" wheels.
It will be a shame if we are all forced into SUVs (or humongous US pickups) over the next few years.
Do I drive an SUV?
No, I drive a (Ford) estate car on standard suspension and 16" wheels.
It will be a shame if we are all forced into SUVs (or humongous US pickups) over the next few years.
Edited by MC Bodge on Thursday 26th April 21:20
So having f
ked up the 'world' models by making them suit the US market they then stop targeting the US market. Utterly brilliant. You'd have thought they might have noticed how the rot set in in with certain models.
It'll be interesting to see if this actually works. I suspect stripping your range down to a couple of popular models isn't a great long term plan if you really want to hang onto market share - you end up owning a couple of niches but people can no longer stick with the brand if they want to buy some perfectly normal stuff.
It basically stinks of a bean counter driven decision rather than a great strategic vision.
ked up the 'world' models by making them suit the US market they then stop targeting the US market. Utterly brilliant. You'd have thought they might have noticed how the rot set in in with certain models. It'll be interesting to see if this actually works. I suspect stripping your range down to a couple of popular models isn't a great long term plan if you really want to hang onto market share - you end up owning a couple of niches but people can no longer stick with the brand if they want to buy some perfectly normal stuff.
It basically stinks of a bean counter driven decision rather than a great strategic vision.
GTEYE said:
Absolute cobblers.
It's time we had an SUV tax....or a fuel price crisis.
Just imagine what would happen if the oil price went up again, suddenly these jacked up behemoths would not look so appealing.
I think things would change rather quickly then...
bIt's time we had an SUV tax....or a fuel price crisis.
Just imagine what would happen if the oil price went up again, suddenly these jacked up behemoths would not look so appealing.
I think things would change rather quickly then...
ks. First it would be SUV's. Then it will be fast saloons. Then it will be 2 seaters. Before you know it you'll only be allowed to drive a fvcking Nissan Cube or some crap.So the American manufacturers can't make a Honda Accord/Toyota Camry/Hyundai Thingy cheaply in the US.
Trump says he doesn't want them made in Mexico/Canada.
Ford says "Fine we won't sell them in the US"
It's 1973 all over again, the Americans will end up with a range of heavy thirsty cars, oil prices are rising, come the next recession they'll be doing things like the AMC Pacer and Chrysler Horizon again to try and plug the huge gap in their ranges.
Trump says he doesn't want them made in Mexico/Canada.
Ford says "Fine we won't sell them in the US"
It's 1973 all over again, the Americans will end up with a range of heavy thirsty cars, oil prices are rising, come the next recession they'll be doing things like the AMC Pacer and Chrysler Horizon again to try and plug the huge gap in their ranges.
Alpaca said:
So if the Fusion is getting the chop (and in the process allowing the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, etc., to clean up in the mid size sector) then the Mondeo can't be long for this world. I'd be surprised if a next gen Mondeo would be a viable concern without a North American version.
Accords and Camrys were popular there recently, as far as I know.I believe that the current Mondeo is basically a Fusion and not as good as the Mk4.
I suspect that I'll go for a Superb Estate (or maybe an Insignia Estate) next time.
Hugh Jarse said:
We already have a punitive fuel tax that punishes fuel inefficient vehicles, your wish is granted.
Please supply info of fuel comparison between Focus versus Kuga fuel consumption to prove your "cobblers".
Don't forget what we have is irrelevant - in the US the fuel tax isn't as punitive. Please supply info of fuel comparison between Focus versus Kuga fuel consumption to prove your "cobblers".
You only have to look at the sale of hybrids and EV's in the US - their sales success is linked to the price of fuel, when fuel is high - the US tends to buy more EV/hybrids, when i's cheaper they tend to buy less of them.
This, combined with the fact that the likes of Ford have really lost the battle with the likes of Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the US in the traditional three box car segment is probably more telling
.
Edited by oilit on Friday 27th April 06:34
Hugh Jarse said:
Doubtful, what are the figures by comparison? - I bet less than 15%.
People have always wanted cars with space and easy to get in an out of.
The "crossover" merely reflects the shape of a car people want.
The 4wd gubbins that they originally had in the 90s was merely an inconvenience.
The profile of thirties cars is very similar to that of crossovers.
We've just had a daft phase in between where cars were cramp, made people creep along the ground, and a dismal view that cannot see over hedges.
Finally cars are shaped like people need, without the 4WD gubbins.
In engineering terms, 15% is a vast gaping chasm of a difference. If we could instantly make every vehicle on the planet 15% more efficient, that would be pretty god damn impressive. People have always wanted cars with space and easy to get in an out of.
The "crossover" merely reflects the shape of a car people want.
The 4wd gubbins that they originally had in the 90s was merely an inconvenience.
The profile of thirties cars is very similar to that of crossovers.
We've just had a daft phase in between where cars were cramp, made people creep along the ground, and a dismal view that cannot see over hedges.
Finally cars are shaped like people need, without the 4WD gubbins.
I absolutely take the point that people want these awful cars, but that was missing my point. I was simply observing that there is a certain nonsense in the fact that a manufacturer has claimed to be trying to push for a sustainable, environmentally-friendly future, but has now said it's going to focus its efforts on making vehicles that are inherently less efficient.
GTEYE said:
Okay based on Ford's website, and using like for like engines (not diesel SUV versus petrol hot hatch):
Focus 2.0TDCI 6 speed manual has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 70.6 mpg
Kuga 2.0TDCi 6 speed manual FWD has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 60.1 mpg (4x4 version 54.3 mpg)
All figures I'm sure are unachievable, but even in the laboratory Ford concede that the Kuga is thirstier than the Focus
I was in Germany recently and a friend was in a hire car - a 1.5-litre EcoBoost powered Ford Kuga. It was doing 23mpg running around. He just about managed to get it up to 30mpg with a longer stint on an autobahn, driving sensibly. It was horrendous. Slow and terrible on fuel. Totally incorrect engine for such a car admittedly, but still blinkin' awful.Focus 2.0TDCI 6 speed manual has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 70.6 mpg
Kuga 2.0TDCi 6 speed manual FWD has a Combined fuel consumption figure of 60.1 mpg (4x4 version 54.3 mpg)
All figures I'm sure are unachievable, but even in the laboratory Ford concede that the Kuga is thirstier than the Focus
GTEYE said:
Absolute cobblers.
It's time we had an SUV tax....or a fuel price crisis.
Just imagine what would happen if the oil price went up again, suddenly these jacked up behemoths would not look so appealing.
I think things would change rather quickly then...
Well if we are coming up with stupid suggestions, how about taxing cars by the amount of seats they have? The more seats you have the less tax you pay. It's time we had an SUV tax....or a fuel price crisis.
Just imagine what would happen if the oil price went up again, suddenly these jacked up behemoths would not look so appealing.
I think things would change rather quickly then...
WCZ said:
it's just not the kind of car people want over there, people like proper power - most of the fiesta st's there are tuned up massively!
Like most places though, car enthusiasts are the minority. So, it's all about what the majority of what people want, which aren't cars like these. With that being said, not all hatchbacks are performance-orientated. I presumed that the Focus was still a big seller for them.It's surely a bit extreme though? SUV's, whether it be big or small, are starting to become quite popular over here and manufacturers are now making more of them. However, if certain brands were to get rid of hatches over here, i'd certainly be pretty peeved off!
It's hard to read anything sensible into their decision. Yeah SUV's are certainly all the rage but how much to they lose by having a small car or two? This article did have a couple of telling statements: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/04/...
article said:
Rebecca Lindland, executive analyst at Cox Automotive, said consumers may be purchasing vehicles sooner than expected to qualify for low finance rates before interest rates head even higher later this year.
Still, automakers are healthy and are benefiting from an industrywide transition from passenger cars to bigger and more profitable vehicles.
Customers are paying handsomely for bigger vehicles, which is padding the bottom line. For the industry, buyers paid an average of $35,285 in March, up 2% from a year earlier, according to Kelley Blue Book.
Still, automakers are healthy and are benefiting from an industrywide transition from passenger cars to bigger and more profitable vehicles.
Customers are paying handsomely for bigger vehicles, which is padding the bottom line. For the industry, buyers paid an average of $35,285 in March, up 2% from a year earlier, according to Kelley Blue Book.
ford guy said:
"I've never seen anything like it," said Mark LaNeve, Ford's vice president of U.S. marketing, sales and service, on a conference call.
I think Ford USA are lobbing all of their eggs in the SUV basket and having a side bet on electric. Maybe some thoughts that lower sales are coming so are culling the vehicles they have a lower margin on?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff