Thursday 26th April 2018

Ford drops hatches from US line up

Mustang and Focus Active to be only survivors as Ford prioritises SUVs and trucks

---

Yes, we understand the announcement that Ford is drastically shrinking its range in America won’t seem of paramount importance to enthusiasts in the UK. However, it certainly looks like a major move, and it could signal the start of a major shift in approach from US manufacturers.

The specific news is that all cars bar the Mustang and forthcoming Focus Active are being culled from the North American line up. So as of next year there will be no Fusion, Taurus, Fiesta, or Focus sold by Ford in the United States – that includes the current Focus RS, with absolutely no variants of the next generation Focus being taken stateside at all.

Ford had already announced that the new Fiesta ST would not be crossing the pond due to a lack of interest in the segment, but the main justification is, understandably, profit. Big trucks and SUVs generate more dollars per unit than cars, indeed Dearborn predicts that, by 2020, 90 per cent of its range will be “trucks, utilities, and commercial vehicles.” Expect more crossovers and SUVs, then, or cars that Ford describes as combining "the best attributes of cars and utilities”, as the brand switches focus. Up to five hybrid-electric SUVs as well as a hybrid Mustang are also projected to be on sale by the end of the decade, as new technologies increasingly break the link between a vehicle's size and performance and its efficiency. 

While it doesn’t currently have any ramifications for the UK market, the decision by Ford does appear significant. Of course we know that trucks are popular in America, but this move demonstrates manufacturer belief that the current desire for SUVs shows no signs of abating either. With the financial implications being what they are, and bigger cars making bigger profits, it will be interesting to see if any other big players follow suit, and how the ripple effect of a US move away from regular cars impacts the global market.

"We are committed to taking the appropriate actions to drive profitable growth and maximise the returns of our business over the long term," is the view of Ford CEO Jim Hackett. With a plan to cut $5 billion in planned spending on his shoulders, it seems that now is the time for drastic measures.

Can you see Ford’s competitors following suit? Would a hybrid Mustang be of interest to you? Just think of the drag strip potential! And what should Ford's UK future look like? Over to you...

[Source: Road&Track]

 

[The Hypno-Toad]

There are all already very strong rumours that the Mondeo is to be dropped kicked at end of the year....

[WCZ]

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!

[Jon_S_Rally]

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.

[Hugh Jarse]

Jon_S_Rally said:

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.

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.

[GTEYE]

Hugh Jarse said:

Jon_S_Rally said:

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.

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.

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...

[Hugh Jarse]

GTEYE said:

Hugh Jarse said:

Jon_S_Rally said:

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.

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.

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...

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".

[Integroo]

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...

A diesel qashqai is considerably cheaper to fuel than an mx5...

[J8 SVG]

Integroo said:

A diesel qashqai is considerably cheaper to fuel than an mx5...

Yeh, my Kadjar uses half the fuel of my Clio 197.. its way comfier on the motorway and was great in the snow too! (it is 4wd tbf)

[LarsG]

Americans are getting bigger, at least 2" wider a year, hatchbacks are too small.

[Butter Face]

Jon_S_Rally said:

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.

What are you warbling on about?

Most of, if not all of those cars are as efficient as a Golf (pretty much any golf) cost the same to tax, give the same or more space inside and in lots of cases cost less money too

Hilarious.

[GTEYE]

Hugh Jarse said:

GTEYE said:

Hugh Jarse said:

Jon_S_Rally said:

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.

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.

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...

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".

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

[Integroo]

GTEYE said:

Okay based on Ford's website:

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

And a Mustang V8 gets 20mpg. Should we ban those too?

[GTEYE]

Integroo said:

GTEYE said:

Okay based on Ford's website:

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

And a Mustang V8 gets 20mpg. Should we ban those too?

Who said ban them? But if Ford were forced to make it more efficient, then its a win-win situation

[Hugh Jarse]

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.
Invest your energy in visiting your granny.

[JMF894]

J8 SVG said:

Integroo said:

A diesel qashqai is considerably cheaper to fuel than an mx5...

Yeh, my Kadjar uses half the fuel of my Clio 197.. its way comfier on the motorway and was great in the snow too! (it is 4wd tbf)

Likewise my 220d GT and E46 cd M Sports are peanuts compared to my stage 3+ 9-5 Aero.

[GTEYE]

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.
Invest your energy in visiting your granny.

15% for the FWD, 23% for the 4x4 - both diesels, and in the unrealistic world of the lab.

On the road, the difference will be more significant, and even more so if petrols were compared. So the point stands.

[TheDrBrian]

Integroo said:

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...

A diesel qashqai is considerably cheaper to fuel than an mx5...

That just proves how broken NEDC is.

[luke g28]

Car tax should be based on vehicle weight.

This would push manufacturers to develop lighter vehicles that therefore use less energy, do less damage to the roads and are safer in accidents.

That's got to be better than gaming an emissions test.

[ChocolateFrog]

Surprised it's not worth their while selling the Focus.

I guess it's more to do with taking up valuable manufacturing space in US factories rather than a business case for actually selling them.

[Butter Face]

TheDrBrian said:

Integroo said:

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...

A diesel qashqai is considerably cheaper to fuel than an mx5...

That just proves how broken NEDC is.

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....