Ford fanboys (this one included) will finally get the Wrangler-fighting sport utility they’ve been yearning for since the demise of the Blue Oval’s two-door SUV in the mid ’90s.
According to the Detroit Free Press, Ford is looking to get back into the newly re-energized midsize truck game with its global Ranger, and that truck brings with it a sport utility based on the same architecture. It’s widely believed that SUV will be none other than Bronco.
(It bugs me that it’s called Bronco. The long-gone model was based on the F-150 and the Ranger-based SUV was called Bronco II and later Explorer. This makes no sense! But I’ll take it.)
The two new models are to make home the Michigan Assembly Plant that will see its current models — the Focus and C-Max — heading south for a Mexican vacation in 2018. Production of the new models is expected to start sometime before 2020.
Details on the rumored Bronco are scarce, but industry observers believe it will follow a similar recipe used by the Jeep Wrangler.
Other Ford assembly plants will see changes as well, including Chicago, which is slated to lose the full-size Taurus sedan. TTAC’s former managing editor Derek Kreindler had speculated previously on the demise of the Taurus in North America, effectively turning the car into a China-only model. Lincoln MKC production is expected to fill the gap left by the discontinued sedan in Chicago.
The deal between Ford and the United Auto Workers union spells out $10,000 signing bonuses — $8,500 for ratification and $1,500 in advance profit-sharing payments — to approve the contract; a $1,750 annual bonus payout, similar to one in the proposed General Motors contract; a $70,000 early retirement buyout for senior workers; a $9 billion investment plan for Ford factories; and, pay increases for veteran Tier 1 and newer Tier 2 workers.
“The Bronco’s been discontinued. We’re trying to shed that whole fugitive on the run thing. This is the Escape.”
“What a fun name. May I test drive?”
Ah, but ’twas four door full size SUVs that killed the Bronco.
But I hear Kato Kaelin is in the market for a new one.
(Was Arrested Development quote, in case you have not seen that hilarious show.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFp7atlOwI
Pity the video cut out the part right after.
As said by a man who was hiding in an attic from his own family (Well, most of it).
That show was hilarious!
In a way, I’m glad it’s only been 4 seasons. Keeps it from getting stale.
***Meant to put this here, and not under UAW-LGBT article***
In other news, it won’t be long before Ford produces almost no cars (i.e. non-CUV, SUV or pickup) within the U.S.
*Please credit me for hat tip, TTAC – thanks.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/tentative-ford-uaw-contract-moves-most-car-production-outside-u-s/
Viva la Ford!
@Deadweight
From what I heard your pretty much on the money
Derek was talking about it on Twitter last night.
The only car they’ll be building in the US by the end of the decade is the Mustang. That is, unless they decide to keep building a fleet D-platform Taurus.
So U.S. Ford assembly line workers will have little to do during future fuel price spikes and/or business cycle/construction/commercial vehicle downturns?
Wait…they probably think that’s un-possible, right?
SHORT TERM MEMORIES LEAD TO IDIOTIC DECISIONS.
Sadly it makes sense from a business stand point.
Costs to manufacturer in the US are higher than developing nations (Thailand, Mexico) and certainly more expensive than China. It isn’t as expensive as other nations (western Europe) and much can be said for being in the middle (I really don’t care to get into a race to the bottom should we or shouldn’t we discussion).
So building higher margin vehicles here, that sell well when times are good here, sadly, makes sense.
Building lower margin cars, especially the growing in popularity B and C segment models outside of the US cost structure also, sadly, makes sense.
When times get tough, the short term though is you roll it back on the higher margin operations, those with money buy the more economical models, you still make a profit.
The folly in this is if the person laid off from the Ford factory and their supporting suppliers and logistics can’t buy a shiny new Ford Focus – who exactly buys the shiny new Ford Focus?
Ahhhh…the race to the botto…oh never mind.
With the latest & greatest (/s) “free” trade agreement on the horizon, being the TPP, any logical & sane person, whether left, right or center, should be able to agree that labor in all nations has indeed been put into a race to the bottom, and further, much of the middle class and even upper middle class in “knowledge jobs” will find themselves in the same exhausting, punitive race to the bottom soon.
DW, this b*tch is coming down eventually and the fall will be felt around the world.
Sir James Goldsmith warned us we would end up here, it is one thing for wealthy countries to trade with wealthy countries, but once you start trading with poorer countries, well see for yourself:
Most manufacturers have trimmed excess fat from all production processes. The only thing left to trim is wages. If you can’t cut wages then you can shift the work somewhere else.
Anyone out their willing to have the cost of everything double just so we can keep the middle class employed?
“Sir James Goldsmith warned us we would end up here…”
Boom!
Truth!
PROVEN BY HISTORY & ONGOING EVENTS!
A prophetic interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994 Pt1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI
There are more parts if one should care to watch them.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, who is citing my man JG?
youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goldsmith
Sir James was a complicated figure but he predicted all of it and then conveniently died at 64. The timing is impeccable as it was just after he attempted to derail the 1997 British Election with his own Referendum Party and just before Diana Spencer -rumored to be his- is assassinated in France. This man was juiced into some of the most powerful people of his time, and much of his life was spent manipulating stock prices in order to buy existing businesses and then slash and burn them for assets. But then after leaving the business world a billionaire in 1989, he came back in the scene as an opponent to globalism as he believed it would destroy society. But drawing correlations is nutty…
Ford Brass is probably fully aware of that eventuality. It allows them to wait until a downturn to reduce production and lay people off. Then not bring them back when sales improve.
FCA is doing the same thing too. The 200 and Dart are going to Toluca. FCA won’t even have one car made in the US soon.
GM seems to be moving less car production out of the US. But the next Cruze will have some production in Mexico and other cars will be coming from China, Korea, and elsewhere. I wonder how long the Verano and Sonic will be built at Orion Assembly. Right now, GM has been thinning it’s Canadian operations in favor of production in Michigan.
“GM seems to be moving less car production out of the US.”
But GM will be importing a China-made Buick in the near future.
I’m all for it. Better than UAW-made!
In fact, like the people in South America, I think we, the people, should allow for cheap China-made vehicles to be sold in the US.
A lot of people would buy cheap China-made vehicles. They would be the VW Bug of 2016 and beyond.
When we imported cheap Japan-made vehicles in the sixties and seventies, buyers pounced on them and changed the entire US auto industry landscape forever.
@Mark Stevenson
Ford Australia has been testing their Everest in the US. Like the Ranger, it was locally developed . Ford has massively expanded the Design , development and testing facilities in Melbourne.
Like the Bronco , it will be a very capable SUV. Sounds like the new ” Bronco” Older Bronco’s were produced in Australia in the late 1970’s early 1980’s
Ford has also been testing what looks to be a F-150-based Expedition.
Maybe we will get a short-wheelbase Everest called Bronco, a redesigned Everest called Explorer, and the F-150 based Expedition? One can dream.
Mark Stevenson,
It would not make much sense, to have two almost identical vehicles. I go with the Everest becoming the Bronco, seeing they are making the Ranger in the same factory.
The Everest is not becoming the Bronco. The Bronco doesn’t exist yet. All signs point to it sharing architecture with the Ranger and the Everest, but it isn’t going to simply be a federalized Everest.
@BBall,
If it is going to share architecture with the Ranger, pretty limited on how different it is going to be. If it is like the Jeep Wrangler , it maybe.
“Sharing architecture” could be as much as the Bronco having only a unique body, or as little as a shared powertrain and nothing else.
I’m leaning towards a very similar (but not identical) interior, same front doors, close-to-identical front clip, and shared wheels between Broncos and FX4 Rangers (also assuming FX4 will be a package on the Ranger, like Z71 is on both the Silverado and Colorado).
Something like the Holden Colorado 7/Chevy Trailblazer compared to the Colorado pickup.
Drzhivago138,
The Ranger and BT50 are a shared platform and they look very different, even the interior.
I didn’t even bring up the BT50, mostly because it’s a different make. In those cases, it usually tends towards sharing a powertrain and frame.
“Something like the Holden Colorado 7/Chevy Trailblazer compared to the Colorado pickup.”
Which is exactly the same analogy of Everest vs Ranger.
I am curious as to whether they would do a SWB 2-door Bronco; apart from the Jeep are there any other SUVs of this type on sale in the USA that I can’t think of? In Australia we still get the Jimny and old-model swb Grand Vitara, and Toyota sold a swb version of the Prado (aka Lexus GX) for a few years but have since dropped that.
I suppose there may be a niche between Jeep and ‘hardcore’ SUV wagon such as the 4Runner, but it seems an uncharacteristic risk for today’s Ford to take.
I hope (probably in vain) for a two-door model, but I’m not waiting for a shorter WB than what the Bronco will be already (shorter than the Ranger). Shorter WB=higher MPG requirements.
The Ranger has a 126.8″ WB across all cab sizes, the Everest is 112.5″ WB. The only exception is a pickup photographed at Ford’s You Yangs proving ground, which had a single-cab body on an Everest chassis. Maybe they could do an SUV on the 126″ chassis but I expect that would be redundant against the Expedition, and would hinder off-road ability.
Sorry, that was worded ambiguously. I meant that there probably won’t be any shorter WB model than the 112ish” of the Everest/Bronco. An SUV on the 126″ Ranger WB would definitely be redundant.
The next-gen Expy/Navi returning to shared F-150 parts looks to be a done deal now that we’ve seen test mules on public roads.
It is a done deal. They a cutting tooling soon, if they haven’t already. Aluminum body, F150 based. Big step forward.
bball,
I don’t believe that the next Bronco will be F-150 based, unless it is a halo vehicle with a Raptor suspension, etc and they release only a hand full.
The next Bronco will have to be Ranger based and manufactured in the same factory.
It’s a pity these vehicle just can’t be imported. You guys could have the Ranger tomorrow, so to speak.
I never said the Bronco was going to be F150 based. It’s going to share architecture with the Ranger. I have no idea the percentage though. It will be differentiated from both the Ranger and Everest. If it was just a federalized Everest, Ford wouldn’t need 4-5 years of lead time to build the Bronco. The Ranger will be coming here first (2018ish), which the Bronco is getting ready.
That is the Expedition / Navigator and that makes sense. Bronco based on the Ranger?
Navi/Expedition to made in another factory, not the one they are refurbishing
Isn’t a new Expedition based on the new F150 a foregone conclusion?
Yes.
@BIg Al from Murica
Of course it would, but not a Bronco. Bronco/ Ranger from separate factory
Whaaaat??!! I thought the Expedition/Navigator WAS based off the F-150 — of two generations ago. (Starting in..2004, IIRC.) They just haven’t updated them; tooling’s paid for, so more profit. The Excursion was based off the HD (F-250) bones of the generation prior (when the F-150 went for the rounded look in the early aughts).
Am I correct?
Yes you are–in a way. The first gen Expy in 1997 was very clearly based on the F-150–same front clip, same interior. The doors were even used for the F-150 SuperCrew in 2001. In 2003, the Expedition and Navigator moved to the P2 platform one year before the F-150–and they shared no body panels and few interior parts. This same Expedition/Navigator has continued through 2017 with only cosmetic updates in 2007 and powertrain updates in 2015. When the F-150 was updated in 2009, the Expedition did not follow.
In 2018, the Expedition (and Navigator) will return to sharing F-150 body panels, the opposite of what GM did with the K2XX SUVs.
I may have caused confusion bringing the Excursion into discussion. Ignore that, it’s mostly irrelevant.
“it will follow a similar recipe used by the Jeep Wrangler”
Does that mean the availability of a manual transmission?
So if it’s global ranger based, will it simply be a global Ford Everest then? Will definitely be following this, I’d like to see a hard top 4 door variant (ie the Everest in its unmodified form), with the basic corporate 3.5L naturally aspirated V6 as the base engine (I don’t care for turbos or diesels). If they make it strictly too much of a macho lifestyle vehicle ala Wrangler with compromised interior ergonomics and poor cargo space then count me out! The BOF midsize SUV segment may see a rebirth yet, we’ll see.
@gtemnykh
Seems to be the case. Unique platforms for NA only are shrinking . This will save Ford a lot of money and allow it to have a player in the buoyant Midsize Pickup market
No. It isn’t going to be a federalized Everest.
Maybe NA 3.5 as a base engine, but I’d bet 2.3 turbo followed by the 2.7 with maybe a 3.5 TT as the raptorized motor.
Drzhivago138,
The Ranger and BT50 are a shared platform and they look very different, even the interior.
Not sure why you replied twice on different comments.
EDIT: Unless it was a sequencing error or something like RR pointed out.
Everest outside of Australia has a 2.2 Ecoboost base engine. 3.2 Diesel top option
The diesel is solid…I have driven one many times but you know we don’t do diesels here. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bronco get the 2.3 as the base motor, the 2.7 as the optional V6 with the 3.5 naturally aspirated engine limited to fleet-spec Rangers.
Big A from Murica
Asian. Everest different from Aus/NZ version. Different suspension tune. We only get 3.2 Diesel
As you said the diesel is ” solid”
I don’t mind that the Bronco will be smaller than the old F-150-based model. Before the FSB, the Bronco was (more-or-less) a CJ competitor.
@DrZvicago
Could be.a Ford ” Wrangler” for NA. Not much of a market for Wrangler type vehicles outside NA though. Everest definitely
This is a NA vehicle. You understand that One Ford allows for using global architecture for regional models, right? The Chinese Escort and Taurus are good examples of that.
@BBall,
There is no ” One Ford” So many different platforms.
F 150 is a ” regional model” Where they can get away with it ,they will use Global architecture
You still don’t understand how One Ford works. That’s fine.
@BBall
Very much understand how Ford works. They were NOT going to build the Ranger, now all is go.
I was wrong about the Ranger. I’ll admit that. I thought it would come back after 2018 or 2020. I thought there was too many things Ford needed to do before they brought the Ranger back. I didn’t expect them to use the Ranger as a carrot for UAW negotiations. It certainly helped.
Yet yesterday you were touting how “One Ford” meant that the Bronco would just be a rebadged Everest.
It’s spelled “Zhivago.” It’s an amazing movie.
Agree, Omar Sharifs pinnacle as an actor, not as a Bridge player
True story about “Doctor Zhivago”:
Maurice Jarre (famous for doing the music for “Lawrence of Arabia”) completed the theme for “Doctor Zhivago,” and let director David Lean hear it. Lean declared it insufficient, and told Jarre to go hole up in a mountain cabin with his girlfriend for a romantic weekend, and then redo the theme.
Jarre did, and the result was…”Lara’s Theme.” Clearly Jarre had been…inspired.
(And, personally, I thought Sharif was way better in “Lawrence of Arabia.”)
@ Big Al from Oz,
Mazda is not going to base the new BT50 on a Ford wants to use a Toyota base.
RobertRyan,
I’ve read Mazda and Toyota are currently in discussion regarding platform sharing the next Mazda BT50. I do hope Mazda stay with Ford. Ford does make a pretty good pickup.
Unfortunately I’m betting the next Mazda pickup will be based on a Toyota since that seems to be who they are shacking up with now.
Yes Toyota and Mazda will be getting together. Both Japanese,with a similar culture. As well the Ranger, has some nice features, but reliability is not one of them, Mazda’s BT 50 has inherited some of that.. Hopefully
Toyota’s DNA will be ” unbreakable”
So the Bronco comes out right in time for OJ (hopes) to get sprung from jail.
And who says there’s no such thing as kismet?
So you have driven the Everest? So how would you rate it against it’s opposition, or do you have any idea what it’s opposition is?
Huh?
He meant to reply to BAFM just below, I think.
Correct,
The sequencing on this blog is horrendous. Should get new software
You mean like you start to click on a reply button, but then one more plugin loads 5 seconds later than the rest and bumps the page down a bit? Yeah, that’s a problem.
@Dr Z,
Only way to get around it, is to use part or the full name
As far as that style rig goes, we got the Everest, the 70 series Land Cruiser, Defender, and a little Toyota…I want to say the ForeTrek or something. The Toyota is likely the only direct competition as the Defender and Land Cruiser are different sort of vehicles. I thought the Everest to be superior to the Toyota just as the Ranger felt better to me than the HiLux. Both of those trucks were above the smattering of Mahindra’s, TaTa’s, Navarras (D40 model), and the occasional Great Wall.
@Big Al from Murica
Sure you were in Australia? Sounds like you were not
He didn’t explicitly say he was.
These were all new vehicles imported by the State Department to various places in Afghanistan.
I have driven the global Everest. Good basic little SUV’s but I would bank on it leaning to the 4-Runner side of the midsize BOF SUV versus the Wrangler. Certainly though there will have to be a Raptorized version to bring some offroad cred. FWIW, the 2.7 ecoboost would be a hoot in that sort of rig, especially if a stick makes it’s way to North America.
Curious though, the year I have seen bantered about is 2020. Will it even be the same platform globally by then? The Ranger is not brand new as it sits. As for the Bronco versus Bronco II debate…I am probably one of the few Bronco II lovers out there. If it shares the Ranger bones and likely has at least an option for 4 doors it may be closer in size to the fullsize Bronco than the Bronco II. Certainly will be comparible to the old school first gen models. Good News though. I think both nameplates have a lot of brand equity still so hopefully they dont screw it up.
Any word on if these will adopt the Aluminum of their larger sibling?
You are correct, it will be an updated/new platform by then. The current T6 Ranger isn’t coming here. It will be the next version.
Will it be bigger or the same size? Some of these mid-sizers are pushing the boundaries of “mid-size” already. I need a replacement for Dakota Quad Cab (4.7 V8) and would love a diesel powered version. My truck is used for towing duty and I have no desire to get a CUV or Wrangler type vehicle… I want the pickup. I owned a Ranger Splash in the past and generally liked the truck, but the 4.0 V6 didn’t really have the power I needed. My boat is light in terms of weight, its the wind resistance that kill ya. I had to keep my foot to the floor with V6 while my current V8 cruises without complaint. I don’t want a full size truck – way too big (in all dimensions), I need something that fits in the garage. Even with a small/short bed the pickup is more useful then an SUV. I owned an Isuzu Rodeo at one point and will not repeat that mistake!
I wouldn’t expect dimensions to change much at all. There isn’t much room for the Ranger to grow.
Yeah, but that old 4.0 was like 160 HP. A modern 4.0 would be different. Even the not even close to new 4.0 in my Frontier had 260hp. And my Frontier barely fit in the garage too. But that 4.0 was based on the 2.8 that was not new when it was being installed into Pintos. Different times.
Big Al from Tanzania,
You have not driven the new Ford based Everest.
There is no comparison.
Like trying to compare a 1960s car to a car of today.
Yes it will have a full chassis. The Ranger does in which it is based.
Well, if they have changed it since MY 2014 then you are correct. The ones I drove were 14’s.
The 2014 would have been the previous generation, the new one has only been released in the last couple of months.
Size-wise the Everest has a 112.5″ wheelbase and is 193″ long overall.
With respect to the Taurus and all of this Ranger/Bronco nostalgia, would it be too much to ask for a fullsized ride based on the upcoming Continental wearing Crown Vic badges to fill the gap?
Welllll, if the Taurus is leaving…
SUV’s are killing large cars here and in the US
You’ll have to wait until the D6 platform comes out with the Explorer/Aviator. That platform should spawn some sedans. No idea of a timeline though. Not in the next few years at least.
Probably for the best. A FWD Crown Victoria would make heads explode around here.
D6 will have FWD/AWD/RWD capability, so who knows.
@BBall
Be waiting a very long time for any sedans. I would expect it would not be feasible. China is the market for larger sedans
Lincoln will still have sedans. Ford US will eventually get a large sedan again. There are other, more important, products to take care of first.
@BBall,
If Lincoln and Cadillac are still around . They. are on deaths door at the moment, cannot see that changing
If Lincoln dies, Ford will have even more reason to have a large sedan.
@BBall,
It will be like Midsize Pickups too them. There is no market. Outside of Australia there are no large Ford sedans being built
Well the Fusion is as big as the US Taurus, so we have a sedan of that size (same wheelbase, but the Fusion is a foot shorter). There is a market for large sedans in the US. It’s certainly smaller than it used to be though.
What is wrong with this site?
Why is this site so hard to use over the past couple of months?
Mark can you remove the ads, find out why the site is so slow. Why it is so difficult to post a comment.
Once I log into TTAC to make a comment I have to go back and log back onto my service provider.
What has TTAC done?
It’s BRUTAL on a mobile device.
Yup – about unusuable on iOS.
I have found that the Ad Block browser on iOS helps here a lot – but it tends to crash.
Really? I have a 5S and its fine in safari. Works fine in Chrome for Windows too.
Basically, 0 problems from my spot.
I hate to throw a wet towel on the Bronco celebration, but given how the subcompact CUV category is EXPLODING in popularity and more players are jumping in, Ford is the only one of the big 2-1/2 without an offering. Of say the biggest players, Ford and Toyota are the only ones without a subcompact CUV.
Isn’t it possible the new SUV/CUV will be in this segment, to the lament of the B&B?
It seems they have all the bases covered right now between Escape, Edge, Explorer, and Expedition. The logical direction to go is…gulp…smaller.
That would be a new version of the EcoSport (which is currently not up to U.S. crash standards, IIRC).
@ATT
Ecosport and other small Fords have a bad rep as far as reliability goes. Most people here buy Asian
This is all about contract ratification.
Note it said that the plant *may* get the Ranger and Bronco. Don’t hold your breath for a Ranger in the US. When push comes to shove Ford will cite the dismal sales in the segment and kill selling the Ranger in the US. The Colorado has already peaked in sales. The new Toyota will cause a bump in segment sales and it too will taper off.
What happened is some people waited for the Colorado once it was here some bought it while others went to Toyota after seeing the Colorado in person. That is why the segment sales went up and why it looks like the segment is booming on the surface. The reality is that it pushed out some demand and concentrated it.
The new Toyota is having a slightly different effect. You’ve got a few that are purchasing the current vehicle now while they can get it because they fear the new one will be too big, ugly, expensive or all 3. Others are waiting for the new one. Overall we should see another bump in Toyota sales that will also taper off quickly.
Too late! The hype train has left the station. Ain’t no stopping it now.
Also, what surety do we have that the Colorado has peaked in sales for good?
Agreed, inventory turn is right around 30-35 days (Colorado/Canyon combined) and GM still sells every Colorado/Canyon about as fast as they can build them. According to Auto Trader there are about 15.5K new Colorado/Canyons on dealer lots, 2015-2016 models in any trim and any body style – inventory at Chevy dealers is thinner (about 9.5K units) than at the smaller GMC network of dealers.
Landing on the CR 20 worst for quality list isn’t going to help – but GM could very likely crank production and still move more metal. The Colorado/Canyon is doing better than I had predicted, where I had speculated low fuel costs would hurt the midsize truck segment.
@ Drz, Of course it is impossible to say that the demand has peaked for the long term but I’m betting that it has. It is called pent up demand caused by a lack of a product in that segment for as long as it has been missing. The people who had waited for it have mostly got one and are good for several years or they didn’t like what they saw and have either moved to something else or decided to hang on to what they have. So naturally the demand will taper off. You might see a little bump with the beginning of the 2016 models for those people who still believe in the don’t buy the first year mantra.
Mark, the most desirable vehicles named Bronco were the 1966-1977 1st generation which were not full size. A Bronco smaller than a F-150 is less strange than a Bronco with 4 doors.
I don’t have a personal connection with anything but the ’90s Broncos, so I am sticking by my words.
Are you trying to say that because you don’t remember any Broncos before the F-150-based ones, that the old ones 1966-1977 don’t exist?
I was there at the time. The general feeling among auto enthusiasts at the time was that the new enormous Bronco was not as good a truck as the small original one. (Now that I think about it, given the incredible growth in full size trucks, what we thought was the “enormous new Bronco” in 1978 would probably not seem all that huge today.)
The Ranger based Bronco was actually a return to more of the size of the original.
I also remember that for a bit there Chevrolet had a full size truck based Blazer and an S-10 based Blazer, simultaneously. I might be wrong about that, but I don’t think so.
That’s right. When the S-10 Blazer was introduced, Chevy advertised the FSB as the “K5 Blazer” more heavily than before.
I’ve been a Ford man for 21 years or so, but I think I gave up on them yesterday. ’08 Lincoln MKZ required $1,100 worth of air conditioning work earlier this year, and then over the weekend something started to chatter and squeal under the hood. Turned out to be a water pump, and of course it couldn’t just bolt on to the engine, it’s practically INSIDE the freaking engine. Dealer quoted me $2000 to replace it, and the service advisor seemed really disappointed when I told them to put everything back together and said I’d be taking the car (I wasn’t aware they were on commission, but maybe they are). Car had less than 100,000 miles on it.
Signed a lease on a BMW 320i later that afternoon, and don’t think I’ll ever be back to Ford after having the single greatest dealer experience of my lifetime – and the car is a hoot to drive.
Such a shame, enjoy your new purchase.
“Turned out to be a water pump … Dealer quoted me $2000 to replace it”
There’s something wrong with this.
Ford’s reliability, build quality, materials quality and quality control all suck, and have for a long time.
But this is TTAC, so don’t expect TTaboutFord in the same way as you’d get about GM.
We in the Church have been pushing Zephyr for some time. I do hope the 3.5 V6 is better designed for servicing than the earlier 3.0?
The right answer is 10-12 MKZephyr.
Remember how much Consumer Reports liked the 2008 Fusion/Milan/MKZ. Only the Prius was ranked ahead of the CD3s in reliability that year.
There are select Ford products that are reliable to very much so (09 to 12 Fusion, Rangers, Crown Vics, old Escape/Mountaineer, current Taurus as well as 500 that preceded it, Flex, etc.), but many others are scrap (Focus, new Escape/MKC, Fiesta, Edge, etc.).
No issues with my 2010 F150. That year was the peak for reliability though.
@Deadweight
You have a very low threshold on reliability in the US. Explorer and Taurus, were detested here . No promising for the post Falcon era
Hmm I’m not so sure, I’d call the CD3 Fusions merely “okay.” 6F35 (co-developed with GM) has valve body issues in the Ford application, Ford kept issuing TSBs to reflash it but the real problem is mechanical (an aluminum valve bore wearing). Some other niggling issues like idler pulleys that crap out early but that’s a cheap and easy fix.
I think domestics have gotten a lot better, and every time I car shop I force myself to consider a domestic vehicle, but it is enough to start digging around on owner forums to see that the big 3 aren’t out of the woods yet. For example even something stone simple like a 2010 vintage w-body impala has more issues than a similar year Camry or Accord.
Google (insert car here) and transmission problems and you will find issues. Most reliability data shows that the CD3 Ford vehicles were very reliable, especially the refreshed versions. Danio has talked before about the 6F transmission being as reliable as the competition, based on data that public. The 6F transmission is certainly the most reliable FWD automatic transmission Ford has ever produced. I wouldn’t tell someone to avoid a 6F product.
I’m not saying that it’s a perfect product or transmission, but I recommend the refreshed CD3 cars often. They are an especially good used buy. If something does happen with the transmission, the fixes are usually relatively cheap.
I guess it is all relative and TrueDelta gives the 2010-2012 refreshed cars rock solid marks. Overall the cars are pretty sure bets, albeit it’s not quite the stupidly bombproof and troublefree Aisin transmission that you might find in a 4 cylinder Camry. Like you said, they are a strong value proposition.
Right, you buy a 2012 I4 Fusion used because the 2012 I4 Camry costs way more. I do expect the Camry to be a bit more reliable over the long haul though.
A water pump replacement on a Fusion/MKZ should have about $160 in parts costs, tops. I would expect labor at a dealer to be about $200. That’s a long way from $2000.
Edit: I looked it up and a Motorcraft water pump for a 2008 MKZ costs $78.23
Unfortunately on the V6 models it is an 8-10 hour job as it is deep in the engine. So unfortunately it is a $1250-$1500 job and that is what repair pal shows as the nationwide average cost. Of course you can buy a Japanese car and never worry about replacing a water pump when it fails because many consider replacing it every 60-80K as “normal maintenance” .
The BMW is not going to be any better, $2500 is what it will cost to fix the AC on a mid 00’s model and unless they’ve stopped sourcing their cooling system from china you’ll need a new radiator, fan/clutch, water pump, and thermostat and you really really want to make sure to do that before 100K so you don’t turn that $2000 job into a head gasket new head ect. Good thing it is a lease.
I didn’t know it was that long of a job on the V6. It was a 3 hour job on my father in law’s I4 Fusion.
As my wife and I have progressed in our careers, we’ve become very busy people. That is the #1 reason a lease appealed to me. The salesman told me all I have to do is put gas in it and replace the tires if I wear them out. ANYTHING else I bring it in and they will take care of it, and give me a BMW loaner to boot.
This is opposed to my local Ford dealer who doesn’t do loaners, but will “give you a ride.” My ride came in the form of a used Edge with 22-inch after market wheels, piloted by one of the young errand boy/part fetchers at the dealership, and I had ride around with two other dudes who got dropped off before me.
I may never purchase a car again. It’s too bad for Ford. I really liked the new Mustang.
Which is exactly why Ford should ahve kept Mercury so that there were still Lincoln Mercury dealers. Now most Lincoln franchises are stuck in the corner of a Ford store and are far from living up to a luxury car dealer experience.
If you lease just about any car then yea you’ll only have to worry about wearing out the tires and damage to it. Most warranties are as long as most leases. As far as loaners go that is heavily dependent on the individual dealers for most makes. I know of independent Volvo and Subaru specialists around here that have loaner cars.
The advisor said that it was “14 book hours” and would take two days. He practically pouted when I told him no and asked him how much I owed for the diagnostic (the answer was “I’ll give you a break on that, $98”).
14 book hours?!?! Holy d@mn.
That’s ridiculous. Water pump failures are far too common to be burying them that deep.
BMWs have had some low quality water pumps and I did one on a 3 series that required pulling apart most of the frontend. 100,000 seems pretty standard but burying it that deep is silly. Right up there with my old Saturn Vue’s 800 dollar thermostat.
The 3.5 was kind of shoehorned into those cars so Ford put the water pump under the timing cover and it’s driven by the timing chains.
“And Dingo, Palomino, Bronco, Colt, and let’s not forget – Carl on drums…” “
The late 1980s/early 1990s era, Korean made, Mazda based Ford Fiesta, with a manual transmission, was one of the most, if not the most, reliable vehicles ever made.
Correction – *Festiva, not Fiesta*
Of course you can buy a Japanese car and never worry about replacing a water pump when it fails because many consider replacing it every 60-80K as “normal maintenance” .
FYI almost all Japanese cars short of the J-series V6 in the Accord have switched to timing chain engines since the mid-2000s. On my older vehicles, I’d check the water pump bearing for play when things were apart for a t-belt change. If it was smooth, I’d leave it in and just swap the belt and belt tensioner. The OEM pumps last just fine for double-interval duty.
Make sure to have your 320i blessed, just in case. But why would anyone ever go back to ANY dealer (service) *after* the warranty is up???
And independent shop might have been 1/3 the price or less. Dealers are thieves and criminals. My friend lost the keys to her Matrix and the Toyota dealer quoted her $2,000+, saying its keys were out of production and it needed a new cylinder and wiring harness or some garbage like that.
I directed her to the local locksmith and it was $250 for keys, no remote, just keys. Full retail. Well we weren’t really ‘friends’ at the time, or the dealer visit would’ve never happened.
By the way, small repairs covered by the warranty, I’ll gladly pay an independent or do it myself, just because I hate going back to the damn dealer. Free oil changes from my dealer, they can keep. I don’t want them even breathing on it.
I get that Alan Mulally has left the building, but did they forget his phone number?
This is almost pre-bankruptcy-GM-like in its intentional overlapping of product. Somebody must have forgotten about the Explorer that will be parked on the same lot.
Fields & Co see FCA and Toyota raking in cash with the Wrangler and 4Runner that sit on lots with the Jeep Grand Cherokee/Durango or Highlanger. They want a piece of the action.
I know what they’re thinking (and to be fair, it isn’t quite as bad as old GM if they can use a global platform for this exercise.) But it still reeks of mission creep, the sort of initiative that will puzzle everyone years down the road when they wonder how the lineup became so bloated.
I doubt that the Bronco if it materializes will really overlap with the Explorer. The Explorer will continue to be the family truckster while the Bronco will aimed at the lifestyle off roader market. Again I’m not so sure this isn’t just the carrot to get the contract signed and the agreement to offshore more production. For may then “reevaluate” the market for the Bronco and Ranger and say that the business case does not exist for bringing them to the US. I’m almost certain that will be the case for the Ranger.
The people I know that are working on Bronco work on every RWD Ford product for the US. They aren’t working on the Ranger and have not confirmed that it’s happening. They have confirmed the Bronco. That doesn’t mean the Ranger won’t happen, but it certainly backs up what you are saying.
@BBall
If it is already signed off elsewhere ,I guess they would not be developing it.
Or, because the Ranger was originally designed with NAFTA regions in mind, the federalizing process won’t take long. If the Ranger is going to be sold here, and it appears that it is, that group will work on it in some capacity. I don’t expect them to develop a product that already exists though.
Mulally is over-rated.
So Taurus is leaving Chicago and the fusion based Conti goes there. Assume a next gen T6 Ranger goes to Michigan Assembly along with derivative Bronco (in the mold of the first generation and Bronco II) Where is Explorer (and the Aviator) going in terms of platform and assembly? I read at GMI that one of the future products listed for an existing axle plant is a new Explorer axle. Could it be that Michigan Assembly gets the Ranger/Bronco but Ford will also use this platform for the Explorer/Aviator (which could also provide a global Everest). TTAC speculated before that the Explorer would return to a RWD platform. There is also the rumored D6 platform that could be under the Conti, Explorer and Aviator. Will be interesting to see this all shake out…
The Explorer/Aviator is expected to be a uni-body RWD biased, so no it will not be based on the new Ranger/Bronco though they may share power train components.
Then these would be on D6 along along with future Lincoln sedans (or the new Ranger could be unibody like a Honda Ridgeline and not BOF like Taco and Colorado/Canyon – ha). Automotive News had it that the first D6 sedan would be the MKZ replacement. But wouldn’t this also mean that the Fusion ends up being a D6 platform?