jonrpatrick

Gag. Same allegations have been laid against every major car news source for 40+ years.

What a fascinating topic and I've been giving it some thought. Yes, it matters. Full stop, period. But it doesn't \*always\* matter. Step back and take a Macro-level look at the question. Is the Ford F150 of today "better" than the Ford Model TT - their early truck based on the Model T? In almost every possible way the F150 is better. More power, more towing, safer, quieter, etc. etc. So, why? Because manufacturing, metalurgy, design, engineering... they all improve over time. A company does it's best (we hope) for a given generation, and over time it all improves. Consider in the late 40's when Hudson introduced it's step-down design, placing the seats between the frame rails and lowering the center of gravity. A platform change, that changed the industry. Thousands of little changes like that modify and improve platforms over decades. Those fixed points for suspension change as suspension design change. New materials add strength and reduce weight while adding interior space. Better design adds safety. So it's obvious, over the long term, new platforms matter. But does it matter from generation to generation? I would argue only sometimes. Consider the "new" Nissan Frontier. The Ranger, Colorado, and Tacoma all ride on newer platforms, and the Nissan is criticised for ride/handling and especially turning circle. To put it another way, compared to it's more modern competitors, it feels "old". But that doesn't mean it's Bad either. In fact some would argue it's desirable.

This article doesn't add much to the conversation, so why did they do it? One big reason, and it's called Slate. Reddit is funny. One comment here questions why they do an article about something not in production, and another comment about focusing on models they're actually working on. Ford is actively working on not just this small(er) truck, but a whole factory and production process for it! But when it's a year away and they're not willing to reveal the styling yet, why bother? Because Slate is coming and Ford is simply trying to stay in the discussion and not have it's future products forgotten about. I look forward to finding out more.

I'm sorry, I had to chuckle. "This transmission is as reliable as a Ford car". Not something I thought I'd read today! 😄

InfiniScion EdgeSoulClubman?

Lexus ES hybrid

I'm glad the cut-away fenders look never caught on, except for those few years they tried.

LOL. I can imagine him coming into work now off his high, looking at this and thinking "WTF? Wait a minute.... there's an idea here."

So that's where the Pacifica came from...

I was afraid I might be the only one here who used that one. Typically the third stanza of 'rubber hose' and 'beer/ear' sonnet. :)

OMG... I want to watch the original TRON so much right now! :)

It "clicked" for me last year. I've wanted a Merc for years, and would love a Beemer to bomb around in. But as I've gotten older, and lamented the loss of big, comfy cars - the Lexus brand has bubbled to the top. The ES is just about perfect and should be reliable for decades; it's easily my #1 choice for a 'car'. Their SUVs are solid if unexciting; I'm a bit obsessed with the NX. Do I think BMW, Audi, and Mercedes offer more panache and higher quality interiors? Sure. At a price. And with the question on long-term reliablity. I'm ready to not chase incremental sports-cred for a comfy front seat.

Came here to say this.

Lightly used Accord hybrid or Camry hybrid. No question. If you want something a bit nicer (more expensive), a lightly loved Lexus ES If you want an SUV - Pilot, Highlander. If you're braver - a Jetta or a Buick SUV. ("braver" - might be more of a reliability risk down the road)

Thank you. :)

Hey! That's my video! :)

OH, I've got 2. First, a Land Rover Disco 3. Just think they're gorgeous (but don't trust them) Second..... Chevy Citation. Other than the verticle radio and the most recalls ever and brakes that might spin you into a ditch, I've always thought they were great looking.

Powerful Federal Government only when it matches the administration. When you can't abuse or exploit the system, it's suddenly "States Rights" all over again.

Yes. Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo don't exist.

I don't get the excitement. While I love retro designs, this looks like an 80's Toyota Crown, a Chrysler New Yorker, and an Eagle Premier had a polyamorous love child.

If you look at the presentation slides they provide, go to the end and the Appendicies, and they have the Q2 broken out. I think Q2 profitability went up from 0 in Q1 to 1% in Q2. :)

Absolutely fantastic writeup. I too have looked at their sales and thought "what's the emergency". Never occurred to me to look at their lease obligations. My one comment would be that what would help this analysis is some context. The picture you paint seems bleak, but how does that multi-billion dollar obligation compare with other companies, specifically Honda? With aggressive lease deals over the years, this may just be business as usual?

Well it's not really fair to talk about how well the Telluride is selling and list to a Top 25 of all vehicles. If we use GCBC and look at their sales in the midsized SUV category it gets clearer [https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2023-us-midsize-suv-sales-figures/](https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2023-us-midsize-suv-sales-figures/) Both the Kia and it's Hyundai (near) twin sell right at 81k units. Combined (as people love to do with Chevy and GMC trucks when they're trying to prove a point), the Kia/Hyundai platform-mates outsell the Grand Cherokee to be #1. Individually, they're only about mid-pack in sales in 2023, but that means they still outsell the Highlander, Traverse, Pathfinder, Atlas, etc. Still, I agree with the assertation, it \*feels\* like they're a top seller because I see them every-darn-where.

The headline made me super-sad... but then I read the article. I love the Maverick, and Ford loves it that other makes aren't going to bring competition (GM... really?) That's why the price of the Maverick has shot up since release. And Toyota has been "talking" about this for a couple of years now. In previous interviews they were looking into a smaller truck based on the Corolla Cross, which should put it directly against the Maverick in price. But the article does NOT say they're not coming out with a competitor, just not an ICE one. And while they discussed electrified, they specifically didn't say "Electric". So maybe there isn't a future Stout with AWD, turbo 4cyl Tremor competitor coming, but it leaves the door wide open for a hybrid smaller truck. Now, Toyota - stop talking and build one!

Mercy. My local dealership has 7 on the lot, in the $44k range, $55k, and one that just breaks $70k.

Waitwaitwait... So the injector that could break and leak is still in there. Their recall "solution" is to route any leakage away from the hot bits (that's good) and update the ECM so it reduces power.... So, you get your recall done, the injector breaks in the future, and then if you're lucky it's a warranty fix OR you the owner end up having to pay for it anyway? Am I reading that right?? Come on Ford...

I'll be honest... if any YTer was to mess up the release date of an embargo, Alex would not even be on the list of those I think would screw it up. Of course... he has "staff". If he sees this and has a "position" in the future, hit me up! :)

It's a bad idea, but not for the reason(s) others have mentioned. GM and Ford decided it was far more profitable to not develop next-gen cars to actually compete with the excellent offerings from Honda and Toyota (and others), and instead tweak and resize CUV platforms to fill in those spaces in the market. Lower development costs, higher prices, no new factories to be built, and best of all they were moving to where 60% or more of the market is. As much as people dislike them, CUVs are here to stay. It's not a fad, it's been a fundamental shift in the buying publics tastes and it's been happening for decades. BUT, it's also history repeating itself. Let's see, a time when American manufacturers make large, less-fuel efficient vehicles and have almost nothing to offer at the smaller, highly fuel efficient end of the market. Why is it a bad idea for Ford specifically and GM to a ever-so-slightly lesser extent to not have cars? Because the next Recession we have ... and there is ALWAYS a Recession .... is going to find buyers rushing once again to small and cheap and efficient, and once again the American's won't have products for them to buy! Those Cars that Honda, Toyota, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan, and the coming Chinese brands will offer will suck up even more marketshare while the Ford/GM/Stellantis guys scream again.

Car: A Drama of the American Workplace by Mary Walton. It's about the ovoid Ford Taurus development and the people behind it all. I'm currently reading it and it's far, far more interesting than it sounds and a fascinating look into how cars were designed and developed and with a large helping of typical American Corporatism weighing it all down.

Lotus Esprit S4

Read "The Millionaire Next Door". one quote from it is the truly rich buy cars by the pound

Yeah but the Ram's are Fiats! /s

Yeah. '57 Chevy. Yuck. :)

OMG, you put these in alphabetical order.... I could hug you right now.

"cults gonna cult" is absolutely entering my lexicon today! Also, hybrid as the mullet version of a car. :)

Sooooo.... The premise of the article is wrong, starting off blaming capitalism. As others pointed out, this type of Marxist speech is common on Reddit; the only thing they missed was blaming the US for everything! :) However, you are correct. If we're all honest, "capitalism" is part of the problem that led to this moment in history. If we're honest, so did humanity settling down to raise animals and agriculture, cities, burning wood for fuel, smelting ore, and ultimately industrialization to produce more/bigger/better. And that's been the case for democracy, fascism, communism, and dictatorships. (there's a chance Pol Pot avoids some blame for global warming here...) The difference is people look at the environmental damage "capitalism" did through about the 1950s, and totally ignore the absolute devastation that occurred in the USSR, China, etc. etc. It is immeasurably better in capitalistic & democratic societies. Because we have feedback loops of free speech, elected officials, protests, and law. Once people became aware of, science could identify the roots of problems, and voters started to care - environmental regulation could start and become ever-increasingly strict. Our cars in the western world are over 90% cleaner than they were just 40 years ago. Much of the Global South, India, China, SE Asia, and Russia can not say that. The article takes the easy and low-IQ way of just blaming 'capitalism' because it's socially acceptable, while ignoring it's stable, wealthy, democratic, and capitalistic societies who've done the most to change.

To the EV Cultists, you're still the problem. You still emit CO2 from your vehicle, and your hybrid is worse than an EV for the complexity of having the battery AND an engine. Sure, it addresses most criticism of both ICE and BEV vehicles, but the EV warriors absolutely refuse to change oil apparently.

Tells me a lot about the r/cars community actually. :(

Summer, sorry you're being downvoted for being just about the only person to read the question.

Thanks but my question wasn't about why they did, but about whether EPA offered CAFE credits as well.

Thanks but my question wasn't about why they did, but about whether EPA offered CAFE credits as well.

Thanks but my question wasn't about why they did, but about whether EPA offered CAFE credits as well.

Two that jump to my mind are Honda and VW. In the US, Honda is considered one of the most reliable cars, but I've heard from Europeans multiple times (including on Top Gear) that they're considered 'old people' cars, junk, or boring. In contrast, many Americans might look at VW as overpriced and unreliable, but to Europeans I've met they're considered among the best affordable cars to buy.

"EV's are less reliable" "of course they have all the new tech!" "toyota introduces new tech and they aren't unreliable?" "HERESY!"

Sounds like a Subaru to me.

I'm not saying the 8th gen was perfect, and I happen to love the 7th gen as well, but the glow-up per the OP.... this was a shocking result from GM

Buick Riviera 7th to 8th generations

Happens near me all the time.

Dingdingding! This right here! I actually did a video about this months ago on my channel - we still have affordable "cheap" cars, but nobody wants to hear that. Yes, there's less selection than the "good ole days", but they're still out there. C: "I wish there were affordable, cheap, small cars out there" M: "Mitsubishi Mirage is..." C: "No. I don't like that. Too small and I read it's not very good." M: "okay, well the Nissan Versa is pretty goo...." C: "No. Not as roomy as a Sentra" M: "okay, well Kia has..." C: "NO." M: "Riiiiggghhhttt. So what do you want?" C: "I just want a Ford Explorer for under $20k, is that too much to ask?" M: "Well, not in 1994"

So I was going to respond with "who cares what other people think", and it's better to walk. BUT.... she might have a point. If we're talking about going to the grocery store or walmart or places like that, have you ever seen those people who park wayat the back, and often take 2 spaces so noone parks next to them, because they are afraid someone's going to ding their 1987 BMW with a whale-tail and primer? Well, there's always that chance that if you park far away some idiot will think you're full of yourself and overly proud of your car, and go out of their way to intentionally harm it. That's my thoughts.