Keith Tanner said:Jaguar hasn't been owned by Ford for over a decade.
That hasn't stopped Toyota lately...
Keith Tanner said:Jaguar hasn't been owned by Ford for over a decade.
That hasn't stopped Toyota lately...
My guess is this will be a premium (for Ford, anyway) vehicle on the pricing side, in order to absorb the EV costs. Giving it some of the Mustang branding and styling may help it to justify that price. We can decry the crossover styling all we want, but the fact remains they sell to the masses and it would be foolish of Ford to not go after that market.
We shall see...
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
Thanks, it's heartening to hear some well-informed good news!
Ian F said:In reply to barefootskater :
My WAG: it'll be similar to a BMW X6 in profile.
I hope not. The sketch is vague enough for the real thing to be anything from a real, usable box shape, all the way to the X6's coupe-on-stilts schtick, which appears to vie with my dad's '76 Maverick for the least usable space in the largest container. I'm pulling for the former.
In reply to Duke :
This is all I can think of anytime I look at an X6, or any of the myriad of other SUVs with squashed roof lines:
The current Blazer is clearly a Camaro inspired design intended to look sporty. I expect this Ford to be similar.
The teasers look promising to me. 300 mile range would be a strong effort for the first major BEV from Ford (not counting the Focus Electric as it wasn't designed as a dedicated EV from the start and sold in low volumes). And they're talking like it might have decent performance for a ~5000lb CUV:
In reply to STM317 :
Yes! Back to the positives. 300 miles makes it a real alternative to a long-range Model 3 (though perhaps the forthcoming Model Y is a better comparison?)
Somewhat related:
If Ford made a 4 door version of the mustang that wasn't any longer, I would be very interested in the 2.3 version. Just as if Chevy made a 4 door camaro 2.0. Unfortunately they almost do (ATS), but its like $40k.
In reply to Ransom :
Mustang III
In reply to b13990 :
Mustang Thre-E?
In reply to Ransom :
Yeah, Model Y might be an interesting comparo. I think the next gen Porsche Macan is going all electric as well, and might fit into the same category.
I don't understand the CUV hate to be honest. There's some ugly ones for sure but they seem to do what they were built to do very well. And there's some seriously fun CUV's out there.
I can tell you whenever I drive a regular car I feel like I'm the shortest person in line while I'm on the road. Can't see Nathan!
Anyway, I'm excited to see this new product. A model-Y/Macan fighter from Ford would be awesome.
yupididit said:I don't understand the CUV hate to be honest. There's some ugly ones for sure but they seem to do what they were built to do very well. And there's some seriously fun CUV's out there.
I can tell you whenever I drive a regular car I feel like I'm the shortest person in line while I'm on the road. Can't see Nathan!
Anyway, I'm excited to see this new product. A model-Y/Macan fighter from Ford would be awesome.
CUVs are compromised in many ways, but so are performance cars, and minivans, and body on frame trucks/SUVs. Everything is a compromise, and CUVs make a lot of sense for a lot of regular people even if they're derided by many "enthusiasts".
1) They're taller than a hatchback or wagon, which hurts on-road performance and aerodynamics, but that added height makes them easier to get in/out of and makes loading/unloading easier. And they're more fuel efficient and smaller and easier to park or fit in a garage than most of the BoF stuff.
2) People talk like the vehicle height helps with visibility, and it probably does a bit, but the bigger issue is a more upright and natural seating position than most cars where your feet and legs are extended farther out in front of you.
So basically, they offer less functionality than a minivan or truck, but they offer better on-road performance than either of those options. And while they don't quite equal the on-road performance of wagons or hatches, they offer some offroad ability and are easier/more comfortable to use. If you look back at something like the wildly popular Model T, it was a high riding, versatile vehicle that was the right set of capabilities and ease of use for anybody. It was a general tool intended to appeal to the broadest range of the public, rather than a specialized instrument intended to excel in one area while being compromised in many others. I see CUVs in a similar vein.
Good to see Adrian's comment. I gotta remember to stop and wait before judging this thing too harshly because of a damn name, ESPECIALLY with how Ford "is" as a company- it's always seemed to me they are a little late, but try to take the time to learn their mistakes when it comes to new "things".
yupididit said:I don't understand the CUV hate to be honest. There's some ugly ones for sure but they seem to do what they were built to do very well. And there's some seriously fun CUV's out there.
I can tell you whenever I drive a regular car I feel like I'm the shortest person in line while I'm on the road. Can't see Nathan!
Anyway, I'm excited to see this new product. A model-Y/Macan fighter from Ford would be awesome.
Like STM317, to us "Enthusiasts" and these swiss-army knife vehicles we just see lessons in compromise and don't take a step back at the vehicle as a whole- it can be understandable tho! For every *good* CUV there's two like the Chevy Trax or the BMW X1- CUVs made on sedan chassis that were just embiggened to their current size but with no real upgrade to their suspensions to cope, so they wallow in turns and suffer from dead electric-assist steering. Add that the common driver is the general public- and the fact you WILL remember the one bad driver more than hundreds of good due to human nature- and you have a perfect recipe for scorn. I do the same thing, except it's to lifted trucks instead.
Furious_E said:In reply to Duke :
This is all I can think of anytime I look at an X6, or any of the myriad of other SUVs with squashed roof lines:
If there is an "upright seating position" to be found in that thing, they're going to need Gurney bumps for the front seat and navigator bubbles for the back seat.
In reply to STM317 :
I don't know about the performance difference compared to a minivan. Minivans typically have a lower floorpan and thus a lower COG than most CUVs.
And my comparison to the X6 was less in the actual profile and more in the stance/height. Duke's comment about seating would be valid if it were proportioned like a sedan - but it's not. It's more of an X5 with a different roof line, so the belt line is higher and the seating position is pretty upright. Although the styling is at the expense of rear seat headroom and rear cargo height. But the new Ford profile appears to slope in a more "wagon-esque" way, which will hopefully allow for more rear seat and cargo room.
Mustang wagon?
Some of them are not hateful.
Duke said:
If there is an "upright seating position" to be found in that thing, they're going to need Gurney bumps for the front seat and navigator bubbles for the back seat.
Yeah, the coupe CUVs don't make sense when compared to their standard CUV peers. But they do make sense when compared to their sedan equivalents.
That X6 has more front headroom, more second row legroom, and the second row headroom is within 0.1" of a 5 series sedan, while also having more rear cargo space.
maybe driving 8 - 15 hours a day is getting to me but all I see on the roads can be summed up below.
STM317 said:Duke said:
If there is an "upright seating position" to be found in that thing, they're going to need Gurney bumps for the front seat and navigator bubbles for the back seat.
Yeah, the coupe CUVs don't make sense when compared to their standard CUV peers. But they do make sense when compared to their sedan equivalents.
That X6 has more front headroom, more second row legroom, and the second row headroom is within 0.1" of a 5 series sedan, while also having more rear cargo space.
Hmm just dumped on most of the reasons why ppl try to hate in CUV's.
The X6 ugly though
These renderings that were leaked yesterday are supposedly very close to the production version:
I'm pretty anti-CUV but I gotta admit that I like it so far. It's Mustang-inspired and not a Mustang-wagon.
In reply to stanger_missle :
That could look really sharp. The rear 3/4 view might be helping to hide the tall. I'm concerned about visibility, as with almost everything anymore...
STM317 said:Duke said:
If there is an "upright seating position" to be found in that thing, they're going to need Gurney bumps for the front seat and navigator bubbles for the back seat.
Yeah, the coupe CUVs don't make sense when compared to their standard CUV peers. But they do make sense when compared to their sedan equivalents.
That X6 has more front headroom, more second row legroom, and the second row headroom is within 0.1" of a 5 series sedan, while also having more rear cargo space.
That shoulder line must be at the driver's ear, then.
My boss has an A5 sedan (don't get me started on the nomenclature) and at 5'-10" I can barely get in and out of the front seat. And my hair brushes the headliner in back. PS I'm almost bald.
I recognize it is a different car but I am very suspicious of your numbers.
In reply to Duke :
My dimensions originally came from US News and World Report, but I thought I'd just go straight to the source to confirm.
Straight from BMW USA's website:
I'm not going to pretend to understand why people buy the X6 when the X5 exists and is the much more functional choice. But if the choice came down to X6 and 5 series sedan, I'm not seeing many drawbacks to the X6. Vehicle "H points" matter more than most people realize, not only for driver comfort/ergonomics but also for everything from the roof line to rear seat legroom.
In reply to xflowgolf :
Mach-E Mach? That's how we pronounce it here in Massachusetts anyway.
You'll need to log in to post.
