![]() |
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#61 | |||
Virtuous Bogan (TM)
![]() Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TAS
Posts: 27,567
|
Quote:
It would be great if we got rid of a couple of other models in the Ford range and got a larger 7 seat 4x4.
__________________
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#62 | |||
Peter Car
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
|
Quote:
The problem is the US already has large SUV's that could do that job like Expedition. And they won't want to do duplicates, when one would do the job. But that doesn't take into account that they don't even make the bloody thing in RHD ![]() But the reality is the market for a larger T6 SUV is pretty slim, and could never generate sales numbers big enough to justify it's creation. And they won't build it alongside Ranger in North America because of the duplication. Just like they don't build Everest there because it's a similar size to Explorer. Even though ones a crossover and the others a 4x4. Everest only gets in here cause it's mostly Ranger, except for the back half, so it's reasonably cheap to do. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |||
Virtuous Bogan (TM)
![]() Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: TAS
Posts: 27,567
|
Quote:
Im finding it hard to fault Toyota's business model, One Ford had so much promise that they royally stuffed it up.
__________________
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#64 | |||
Peter Car
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
|
Quote:
But Toyota are a great business. With Farley being a former Lexus USA exec he might be able to bring some of that Toyota knowledge to Ford. I'm already seeing some signs that he is much more open to ideas than Hackett. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#65 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,293
|
Quote:
or out of date because the market shifted more quickly than Ford imagined. That in a leader is an important quality, sometimes those captain's calls are what gets the juices going again with buyers, Ford cannot, must not be high priced vanilla products. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melb.
Posts: 4,442
|
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#67 | |||
Thailand Specials
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Centrefold Lounge
Posts: 49,086
|
Quote:
Australia is in the 'too hard' basket, it's also the arrogance of US companies, they have a terrible business culture that the world centers around themselves. I hate dealing with US based suppliers, hands down the worst, followed by Spanish companies. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
4 users like this post: |
![]() |
#68 | |||
Peter Car
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
|
Quote:
But I think a lot of it comes down to being willing to lose money on certain products to build the companies image, and spread their reach. I have no idea what their finances are like either, how successful they are at making money on car sales. Obviously they have a very strong home market. But they have also admitted they lose money on passenger vehicles here, and only make money on SUV sales. The profit margin on i30's is reported to be nothing more than a couple of hundred dollars per car. I can't see how they can make a RHD version of a large SUV that will probably sell in small numbers, and make any form of profit on it, let alone pay back what it will cost in R&D to get it to production. I'd love to know how they can do it. US companies are probably too conservative and risk averse though for sure. I think Farley might change this though. He's saying the right things. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#70 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melb.
Posts: 4,442
|
Was it Jack Nasser (I use his original first name lol) that once tried explaining why Ford wasn't able to do something their opposition could/did by saying "their math must be better than ours"
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#71 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melb.
Posts: 4,442
|
Quote:
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#72 | |||
Chairman & Administrator
![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 1975
Posts: 107,049
|
Quote:
Everest / Kluger (except Grande) / Prado: Green is most, Orange is middle, red is worst. Front Headroom: 1017 / 1017 / 1040 Front Legroom: 1058 / 1035 / 1070 Front Shoulder Room: 1440 / 1470 / 1460 2nd Row Headroom: 978 / 1012 / 1035 2nd Row Legroom: 939 / 925 / 795 2nd Row Shoulder Room: 1432 / 1448 / 1460 3rd Row Headroom: 928 / NA / 925 3rd Row Legroom: 797 / NA / 517 3rd Row Shoulder Room: 1303 / NA / 1260 .. so front shoulder room is a 30mm difference from best (Kluger) to worst (Everest). 2nd row shoulder room is 28mm difference from best (Kluger) to worst (Everest). Everest has the best 2nd and 3rd row legroom and by a fair bit compared to Kluger (144m extra in the 2nd row and 280mm in the 3rd row). There are no doubt other models with more or less of each but I used the best selling models as the comparison.
__________________
Observatio Facta Rotae
|
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#73 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,363
|
One been in an Everest once, the headroom in the back is not enough if your over 183cm.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#74 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,293
|
The one area where Ford could really best the competition is by making Ranger and Everest slightly wider.
By that I mean widen the body by about 50-70mm and reduce those add on wheel arches making the hip and shoulder room more like Territory. A roomier Ranger and Everest probably answers a lot of the wants of some buyers infatuated with Ram and F150. |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#75 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melb.
Posts: 4,442
|
Quote:
I have a strong suspicion the incredibly thick interior d-pillars/tailgate inside trim and narrower rear window also add to the feeling of being smaller for the Everest. One area where the more squared off rear glass and general greater glass to body ratio of say the Territory is superior. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#76 | ||
Peter Car
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
|
Have to wait and see if the new gen grows wider. Can’t tell just by looking at it. Have to wait till they release dimensions.
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#77 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canberra Region
Posts: 8,943
|
Quote:
__________________
2016 FGX XR8 Sprint, 6speed manual, Kinetic Blue #170 2004 BA wagon RTV project. 1998 EL XR8, Auto, Hot Chilli Red 1993 ED XR6, 5speed, Polynesian Green. 1 of 329. Retired 1968 XT Falcon 500 wagon, 3 on the tree, 3.6L. Patina project. |
|||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
This user likes this post: |
![]() |
#78 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,293
|
|
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() |