xctasy":wfdco3jl said:All companies want incentives, and tell you they'll pack up and get the low hanging fruit else-ware. Rio Tinto wants to pull out of Tiwa point at Bluff and stop smelting bauxite for Australia, and it threatens the Government here. It's called economics. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/04/tiwai_point-2.html
The point I made is that China doesn't cost out HS&E, as there is none to speak of, so any short fall in the general ledger for Ford, Toyota, Holden or CCA in Aussie is as a result of higher costs in those three segments, which cannot be amortized. That's why multinationals ask for money.
Pretty simple. Its time to do the Merv Hughes sledge. If you want cheaper production costs and not to pay, the Fat controller has to collect the tickets some place else. You won't be selling 65000 Falcons this year, and 65000 units is a minimum for break even, so let us sell something that makes the volume. Ford saw this in 1981, when it saw the next Falcon as a front drive LWB Telstar. The fact that China is reselling Rover 75's as the switchabe to rear drive MG 6 should be a clue.
The Government funded T6 is doing it, and the American populace is perplexed as to why Ford doesn't offer it in the US. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/tru ... rst_drive/
If the 126.8 wheel base was cut, and the basic parts used elseware like Ford did in the 60's, smaller segment cars could be serviced from the same production tooling and get the volume back up. An IRS with 112" wheel base 5 dr wagon and 3dr wagon on 105" wheelbase would be killer Territory replacement, and that short wheelbase be the form-work for a cut-down Falcon sedan. Since the side impact crash rules, cars have been getting wider and much longer. This isn't a Leyland p82 style dream its economics and sales.
The Mondeo is now Falcon sized
I think the following proves the point I was making about volume sales back two years ago. Fords design and economic center is the USA, and the decisions to axe the long wheelbase Fairlane/Ltd and replace it with Territory volume was the right one, but then the growth Falcon and Territory numbers failed to perform to get the required 140 000 units to break even.
The way they s/could have done it was like I suggested, to down grade the capacity of thr I6 to XK-XP levels 144/170/200, and then cross over the body engineering. Sort of like taking a Toyota Altezza/ Lexus IS200 and crossing it over to higher volume 4x4 and commericials. Switchable platforms are what Mazda and Isuzu, the minor players in the shot gun weddings, are now doing. So its AMC 1981 all over again, taking a know base, and reheating it. The BT50 was never really Mazdas own. The Isuzu D max was.
The Jeep style SUV-ing Chrysler saved Chrysler America.
Crossovers with shared platforms are it, and Ford Australia lost its opertunity to make them in Australia. The proof is the shear volume sold already in the whole T-6 platform. I'm pretty proud at how this SR5 verses Hlix Surf thing is paying out.

The Ford Endeavour and Ford Everest are cut down T-6's. Government money was channeled to Ford Australia, now the T-6 platform is making enough volume in Thailand.
Its basically the AMC Eagle Concorde process of reworking a Rambler Hornet all over again.

Now, it just neeeds an AMC Eagle SX4 coupe concept to make the iceing on the cake. Imagine taking Phil Zmoods VA Holden Torana and the related W car concept, such non masculine cars, and letting it live. The effeminate HQ then begat the planned VA and W car concepts, and then...GMH went bankrupt.

Zmood had it nailed. Over 50% of decisions are made to suit ladies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjBoPC5fDIU

The platform has given birth to record volume, and Ford Australias loss is the South East Asian and Asia Pacific gain.