Replace the Ecosport with this... 

This is literally just a hatchback. Look at how much taller the humans are than the CAR. 

Would make sense for the US market, fit between the EcoSport and Escape. Very carlike, like the new Escape.

15 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Would make sense for the US market, fit between the EcoSport and Escape.

That’s only a 17” gap- there’s literally no marketing need to split that and have a CUV every 8 inches longer in length. 155”, 163”, 171”, 179”, 187”, 195”, 203”, 211”, madness.

6 minutes ago, balthazar said:

That’s only a 17” gap- there’s literally no marketing need to split that and have a CUV every 8 inches longer in length. 155”, 163”, 171”, 179”, 187”, 195”, 203”, 211”, madness.

Given the CUV market today, it would sell...and that seems to be the strategy multiple automakers are taking now...fill all the gaps with CUVs. Already saw that Ford said they would be adding 4-6 CUVs for NA---Baby Bronco, Bronco,  Mustangish-EV CUV, etc.   So I can this being added.   

Weird looking auto as the headlights say Porsche to me and the rest says Kia / Nissan of their ugly little crossover coupes.

I honestly have to question if a diesel will show up later in this auto. I think Europe push to go hybrid / EV could very well kill any reason to spend money on having a diesel option.

Crossover-ish styling, check.

Floating Nav screen, check.

Affordable price, check.

They will sell more of these than they sell Mustangs, might as well bring it to the USA where Americans are too stupid to realize it is a Fiesta hatchback with a lift kit and will buy it anyway.

45 minutes ago, balthazar said:

That’s only a 17” gap- there’s literally no marketing need to split that and have a CUV every 8 inches longer in length. 155”, 163”, 171”, 179”, 187”, 195”, 203”, 211”, madness.

 But the bean counters are saying, just imagine if we had a “coupe” version of those 8 SUVs and each one had a 20% price mark up, think of the bottom line!

4 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Crossover-ish styling, check.

Floating Nav screen, check.

Affordable price, check.

They will sell more of these than they sell Mustangs, might as well bring it to the USA where Americans are too stupid to realize it is a Fiesta hatchback with a lift kit and will buy it anyway.

 But the bean counters are saying, just imagine if we had a “coupe” version of those 8 SUVs and each one had a 20% price mark up, think of the bottom line!

That last paragraph sums it up. A very “Mercedes” type of thing to do. If it worked for them why not everyone else?

Not both of these..one or the other........

Looks good but small and not much engine. 

49 minutes ago, regfootball said:

Looks good but small and not much engine. 

155 hp for something this tiny isn't bad at all... 

3 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Given the CUV market today...fill all the gaps...

That was the point - there is no gap there. For if there WAS a gap in a 17" difference, then there likely is still  a gap at 8"- meaning a CUV every 4 inches. 
155”, 163”, 171”, 179”, 187”, 195”, 203”, 211” >> 155”, 159" 163”, 167", 171”, 175", 179”, 183", 187”, 191", 195”, 199", 203”, 207", 211”
...and continuing on such a slant- how to fill those 4-in "gaps".

 It would be ONE THING if these were approached in a 'ATS & ATS-L' manner, but each entry is largely unique. There's simply not enough marketshare for such a monstrous upfront investment.

But even before that- who can't live with a 171" CUV, and NEEDS a 163" CUV instead? It's not driving/parking, it's not garage/lot space, there's no demonstrative reason to have so many mostly-different vehicles that all have the same power trains, same options and do the same things.

Building cars is not the same as printing new bags and running some pineapple-ham flavored potato chips down your assembly line.

Different CUVs of different sizes and price points...no different from how Chevy will have  the Trax, new Trailblazer, Equinox, Blazer, Traverse, Tahoe, Suburban..  

"No different than" is hardly a reason to do something.

6 minutes ago, balthazar said:

"No different than" is hardly a reason to do something.

Non sequitur.. it would sell in this market.  Ford is all in on CUVs, so I suspect this will be here sooner or later.

At what cost to the OEM? 
Why not pair off SUVs that are adjacent to each other in size, and keep a reasonable size/feature difference between each tier? Who's to say what the ROI is in having 8 or 10 or 14 different CUVs under one brand? Ford only made $3.7B last year, is engineering multiple clean sheet 'gap' CUVs going to increase that? 

5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

At what cost to the OEM? 
Why not pair off SUVs that are adjacent to each other in size, and keep a reasonable size/feature difference between each tier? Who's to say what the ROI is in having 8 or 10 or 14 different CUVs under one brand? Ford only made $3.7B last year, is engineering multiple clean sheet 'gap' CUVs going to increase that? 

There probably is a lot of component sharing w/ certain models, though...common dirty bits with new top hat.

So it looks like the 2021 Ford CUV lineup could be, from bottom to top:

EcoSport, Puma, Baby Bronco, Escape, Bronco, Edge, Explorer, Expedition (2 wheelbases).

and then probably more EV CUVs...

Those ‘common bits’ still have to be engineered into a fresh vehicle. With all the Johnny-come-lately consolidation in powertrains and platforms, it’s puzzling how OEMs haven’t upsized that to complete vehicles. Or... how it was done years ago. 

This is why more automakers will merge.  Consumers demand 10 SUV choices per brand but they don’t really care who engineered the 2 liter 4 cylinder under the hood.  Say GM FCA and Renault all merge, they could combine resources and come up with 3 different 4 cylinder engines that power everything Fromm Twingo to a Cherokee to a Traverse.

20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Those ‘common bits’ still have to be engineered into a fresh vehicle. With all the Johnny-come-lately consolidation in powertrains and platforms, it’s puzzling how OEMs have upsized that to complete vehicles. Or... how it was done years ago. 

Ford already plenty of generic power units and fwd transmissions, etc.  it’s not like they have to design a new engine for each new model, plenty of existing crap they can make more of....

Just now, Robert Hall said:

Ford already plenty of generic power units and fwd transmissions, etc.  it’s not like they have to design a new engine for each new model, plenty of existing crap they can use...

Agreed, the idea is 2 to 3 global power train platforms that you just attach a new plastic engine bay cover too give it that new unique look. Only the person looking under the cover will know the truth.

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Agreed, the idea is 2 to 3 global power train platforms that you just attach a new plastic engine bay cover too give it that new unique look. Only the person looking under the cover will know the truth.

And especially for appliance grade CUVs and economy cars, they could use the same generic component set.  Just commodity lease appliances, no one cares who made the parts as long as it is reliable. 

But each one of those has to be thoroughly engineered to work together, then tested & certified in each variant. Even 50 years ago there were 50 different 4bbl carbs @ GM alone. 

31 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

This is why more automakers will merge.  Consumers demand 10 SUV choices per brand but they don’t really care who engineered the 2 liter 4 cylinder under the hood.  Say GM FCA and Renault all merge, they could combine resources and come up with 3 different 4 cylinder engines that power everything Fromm Twingo to a Cherokee to a Traverse.

Nope that would not happen.  More automakers would like to merge, but some of them must go bankrupt and DIE in order to rationalize the world automotive market, not just in North America.

Consumers demand 10 SUV choices per brand

They actually do not. Kinda a good reason no one brand has 10. Cripes- Jeep is a cornerstone of SUVs and they only have 5.

What would make the most sense is for some of the mainstream luxury brands to congeal. MB & BMW as independents merging makes sense- they follow each other move-for-move in the market and they already share 2 of the same letters ('M' and 'B'). 'Bavarian Benz' has a nice ring, and they could use a DOUBLE 'B' and one-up Bentley. 

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

 

They actually do not. Kinda a good reason no one brand has 10. Cripes- Jeep is a cornerstone of SUVs and they only have 5.

What would make the most sense is for some of the mainstream luxury brands to congeal. MB & BMW as independents merging makes sense- they follow each other move-for-move in the market and they already share 2 of the same letters ('M' and 'B'). 'Bavarian Benz' has a nice ring, and they could use a DOUBLE 'B' and one-up Bentley. 

Daimler almost bought BMW in the 1950s.  

Daimler has higher revenue than Ford or GM, not sure why they need BMW.