The 2010s are over. It truly was a period of great upheaval for the auto industry. Sexy electric cars! Crossovers! The death of the sedan! All these trends will continue to impact automakers in the coming years. And the vehicles that influenced the changes likely got their start between 2010 and 2019. Which were the most important?
I’ll discuss my picks, in no particular order. Then I want to hear from you.
Tesla Model 3/Tesla Model S
I’d like to get these cars out of the way because they are pretty much everyone’s top picks for the decade, for good reason. Which Tesla sedan is the most important? A case can be made for either one. The Model S signified the coming age of the EV. It proved that electric vehicles could be sexy, stylish, and fun-to-drive. It also established Tesla as the undisputed champ of YV drive train efficiency. Automakers are still playing catch-up with the Model S, a car that debuted almost ten years ago. That’s extremely impressive.
And the Model 3? It’s the first mass produced EV that can truly replace a mainstream internal combustion vehicle on the merits. It matches the performance credentials of the BMW M3 while costing the same as a regular 3 Series. It’s a legitimate luxury car and the longest range EV currently on the market. That’s revolutionary.
2016 Toyota Rav4 Hybrid AWD
Toyota sold about 93,000 examples of the Rav4 Hybrid in 2019. That number alone puts it ahead of many cars currently on the market. Most importantly, it thoroughly vanquished the Prius as Toyota’s best selling hybrid. The first generation Rav4 hybrid isn’t earth-shattering. But it solidified Toyota’s commitment to hybrid technology and carried the torch for the current model, which boasts far more impressive fuel economy. The Rav4 hybrid is further proof that buyers are perfectly willing to adopt alternative energy vehicles as long as they look good. And it represents what has made Toyota so successful in America: steady improvement and unbeatable reliability.
2013 Ford Fusion
The 2011 Hyundai Sonata was the first sign that Korea could build a sedan that wasn’t simply a facsimile of an established Japanese nameplate. But its driving dynamics left something to be desired. By contrast, the 2013 Fusion resurrected the spirit of the original Ford Taurus by blending Euro-inspired looks with a competent ride and handling balance that was available at any trim level. Its styling clearly influenced future mid-sizers too. Plus, it neatly represented Ford’s rapid rebirth after a period of stagnation and near death.
That being said, its cancellation is the real reason why it deserves a spot as one of the most influential vehicles of last decade. The demise of the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 weren’t nearly as shocking because those cars were the last in a long line of mediocre sedans from Chrysler. But the Fusion had steadily built a reputation for itself since 2006 and it was one of the top sellers in the segment. Suddenly, anything less successful than the Ford had the potential to be eliminated. Mid-size sedans were often used by critics to judge the overall health of an automaker. That’s not the case anymore. The Fusion’s cancellation was absolute proof that sedans were officially taking a back seat to crossovers.
2018 Honda Accord/2018 Toyota Camry
The 2013 Ford Fusion injected some much-needed soul into the mid-size sedan segment. And its positive reception clearly influenced the two sedans most responsible for killing it: The 2018 Accord and 2018 Camry. They succinctly represent an important axiom of the American automotive market: Any headline grabbing or revolutionary American vehicle will almost inevitably have an extremely competent (and more reliable) Asian competitor breathing down its neck in a few short years. I have no doubt a next-generation Fusion sedan would have been a worthy competitor to the Japanese entries. But Ford ruined their chance at having the top selling mid-size sedan decades ago. Nothing could change that now. The Big Three still haven’t fully grasped how the Japanese became so competitive. It may be their undoing. The Accord and Camry always built upon the groundwork laid by their predecessors. And now they’re institutions. The duo always threatened vehicles like the Malibu and Taurus, but they earned a place among the most influential cars of last decade because they finally knocked a big player out of the game.
2018 Volkswagen Tiguan/2018 Volkswagen Atlas
Remember Dieselgate? For a short while, it really seemed like Volkswagen might pull out of the American market. Their sedans began to fizzle out and their most loyal customer base suddenly had little reason to stick with the company. The brand was in deep trouble. Then two vehicles appeared that would quickly turn their fortunes around. The Tiguan and Atlas aren’t the absolute best at their jobs, but they’re resonating with buyers at a time when the company needs to sell profitable vehicles, especially in America. They’re proof that crossovers are essential to any automaker looking for a prosperous future before EVs become popular. With apologies to John Lennon and The Beatles: Love isn’t all you need. All you need are crossovers.
I could probably add a couple of more vehicles to this list, but that’s all I got for now. Thoughts?
The most important new car of the decade is the one I put my own money on and is in my garage, 2014 Acura TSX Sportwagon.
A wild card….the 2011 Ford F-150.
Why? It introduced the smaller displacement engines (3.7 NA and 3.5 Ecoboost, followed by the 2.7 EB a few years later) in what has been the best selling vehicle in North America for how many years? It was a gamble but it paid off as the bulk of F-150s now have something other than the stereotypical V8.
Another wildcard….Volkswagens with the TDI engines. It was important but for a different reason (had you said “influential” I would have answered differently). It was the diesel scandal that really illuminated the inherent limitations of diesels, particularly to those who don’t pay as much attention to such things. No doubt opinions will vary about this one.
There’s no doubt more and I’m looking forward to seeing responses.
I agree the introduction of the EcoBoost to the F-150 was very important, particularly since the take rate far exceeded Ford’s internal predictions. The Aluminum 150 was also very important.
Agreed on both the F150 and TDIs. Very consequential.
Opinions do vary!
What inherent limitations? With DPF filtering and associated systems, there is (theoretically) no problem. In a place like Oz (and Europe), the diesel sells because of efficiency: in the real world, it works out at about 40% of the consumption of the petrol version, and when your fuel is $4.80USD per US gal here, and often $7.5USD in Europe, if you can reduce your bill by 60%-odd, you’d be dumb not to.
VW chose to act criminally. It was hugely important morally and legally. But as vehicles, I can’t see the significance. TDi is till being built in collossal numbers.
Gen-2 Prius put hybrids on the map.
*2010s
Built in 2000s not 2010s
Got it —
Caught me napping.
While I wouldn’t necessarily say important in a disruptor, prophet sort of way, the Hellcat Chargers and Challengers deserve a nod. Not only to represent a sort of last blast to the ICE powertrain but to be the cars most often pitted against Tesla’s P100d to get its performance cred.
I don’t know which particular vehicle was most important (maybe some Tesla), but in my hunch most important thing was the death of the Diesel engine for cars.
Quote from Spamelot – ” not dead yet “….
A mere flesh wound, that somehow is the powerplant of the top-selling cars in Australia and the UK.
Reports of death not entirely accurate, in same way as reports of faked moon landing not entirely accurate.
I agree with the Tesla Model S, probably the most influential car of 2010s. I disagree with the 2019 RAV4 hybrid because other hybrid CUVs were built before it. Some even using Toyota’s own hybrid technology, like the 2005 Ford Escape hybrid.
In the 2010 Toyota’s hybrid technology was no longer cutting edge, sometimes even falling behind competitors like the Chevrolet Volt which could go further on a single charge than a Prius Prime. Not to mention pure electrics like the Leaf, Bolt, Kona, and of course the Tesla.
The first RAV-4 Hybrid certainly wasn’t a leap forward as it didn’t get any better real world MPG than the first generation Escape Hybrid. However it did jumpstart the Hybrid CUV segment and the 2019 was a leap forward. However the Revived Escape matches it in MPG. Ford would have got there first too, if they didn’t get distracted by the energy crisis and bring the C-Max to the US killing the Escape in the process.
Ford and Toyota hybrid systems were developed independently, the solutions they arrived at essentially converged. Neither “uses” the other’s system.The facts about the early hybrids:https://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/
Interesting, learned something new. Thank You. The WSJ story has been widely circulated without many people correcting it.
In other parts of the World (South America, Europe, India) in my opinion the most important car of the decade is the Renault / Dacia Duster, a very versatile, simple crossover. This car has been a huge success for the Renault group, and has received mostly positive comments. (Picture from Wikipedia)
The Duster looks a lot like my ’09 Forester, which is similarly simple and versatile.
I’m considering a new vehicle but I’m reluctant to give up something so straightforward and practical for touchscreens and a lot of potentially glitchy new tech. Maybe that’s the big story of the 2010s. Cars became smartphones.
Good News! (sorry I couldn’t hep it)
Agreed, Juan.
The arrival of designs like the Duster in places that aren’t America or Europe is really important. Crap old designs from “the West” just won’t ever be viable again, a good thing.
I am going to put a word in for the Ford Mustang S550 EcoTech, introduced in 2015.
With the introduction of Independent rear suspension, this car offers handling, steering feel, power — the whole driving experience — competitive with the BMW 3 series. Ford succeeded where so many other “BMW killers” in the mid-range market failed. Acura and Infiniti, I am looking at you.
I acknowledge the interior quality was awful on introduction with some improvement over fhe years. (For what it’s worth, I am not a pony car guy, closest thing to a pony car I have owned is a Saab 900 turbo convertible, old gen.’
Also the first global Mustang, definitely a notable pick. And I’m not even a fan of the S550, it’s too sporty and exotic for what I desire in a Mustang.
I acknowledge the interior quality was awful on introduction with some improvement over the years
I always chuckle at this because reviews say this with each successive Mustang update. ‘05 improved on ‘04, ‘10 improved on ‘09, ‘15 improved on ‘14, ‘18 improved on ‘17… I never noticed a difference in *quality* in any of them, just finicky design details and the ergonomic leap in the switch from SN95 to S197 platforms.
There may have been ergonomic improvements between the S197 and S550 Mustangs, but the visibility of the latter is approaching Camaro-like annoyance levels. Don’t get me wrong, I like the newer Mustangs, but I’ll take my 2007 over one any day.
FWIW though, Ford’s always done good with their ergonomics (at least the ones I’ve had).
That’s what I mean about them going too sporty with it, the S550 reminds me of the 71-73 sportsroofs. S197s were much better visibility wise, all things considered.
Ergonomics drastically improved on the S197 from the SN95. I fit in them fine at 5’8″ but a lot of taller people found their interior space deal breaking, the shifter seemed too far forward too. S197 and S550 seem identical in seating position from my limited seat time.
I’m not sure the decade is over yet ( when I count to ten, I start at one ) but I’ll go along with the question , and agree it must be the Tesla ‘S’. For folks with deep pockets there is a pure electric car that makes some kind of sense. Hate the ergonomics, and the lack of ICE, but there is a lot to love.
Can we really not agree on simply facts any more? So because you weren’t taught to start counting at 0 you are proposing that 2020 is part of the 2010’s? And that the year 1990 is part of the Eighties, etc?
No.
From Dictionary.com:
decade[ dek-eyd; British also duh-keyd ]
noun
(1) a period of ten years
(2) a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero
Engineers count from 1; computer scientists count from 0. (And after 40 years of working I’m still not sure how accountants count…)
From profits.
There is some controversy about this. However, consider that:
1. each month begins with 1, not zero.
2. going back to the beginning, there is no year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD.
3. this first century AD is consider to be the years 1 to 100 (or zero to ninty nine). We are now in the twenty first century, not the twenty second.
Hell, I’m with you Uncle, though I am appallingly inept at maths. I too think the decade must include the last year of the ten.
But I must emphasize, I began asking “why?” in Grade 1 maths, something maths requires you do not do – “It just IS!” – so my view doesn’t count. Literally.
Among others, I would nominate the 2014 Chevrolet Impala, the last full-size car made by General Motors. Overwhelmingly competent (received a score of 97 out of 100 by Consumer Reports) if not absolutely perfect, the last Impala arrived just in time to see GM (and Ford and FCA) kill traditional sedans in favor of a focus on trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. Timing is everything!
I like your list, and the reasons you chose the vehicles that you put on it.
I don’t really pay attention to new cars because I don’t buy them new.
I’ll nominate the Chev SS Sport Sedan, née Holden VF Commodore SS-V Redline – end of the line for Holden cars (and domestic production of any car in Australia), and the last sub-$50K sport sedan offered in the US with a NA V8, RWD and a manual transmission.
Certainly significant for Australia. Most of us can’t remember a time without Holden.
Nah, Ed, that’s nostalgia talking.
But it’s undoubtedly the nicest artefact in the museum of the dinsosaurs that the ’10’s saw out.
I agree with the importance of Toyota’s 2019 RAV4 hybrid because its sales success surpassing Prius represents the mainstreaming of the full hybrid drivetrain. That was the long range objective all along.
Prius was supposed to ramp hybrids up to mainstream volume, which it did handily. The idea of hybrids in all cars didn’t get as much attention, but now it’s true for Toyota: Corolla, Camry, Avalon, RAV4, Highlander all have hybrid models. Hybrids are spreading through many other brands’ product lines too.
The Jeep Wrangler must have a spot, and one of the higher ones. Jeep has been a juggernaut in the US and the Wrangler is the one that keeps the gravy train rolling. It is the one that lends credibility to all of the other models and keeps the Jeep mystique alive and healthy.
Jeep retains its offroad credibility while becoming easier to live with on the road. Plus it has done much of the heavy lifting of keeping FCA a viable company.
I think all your points are true, but it’s role in WWII far surpasses it’s role in keeping an Italian American conglomerate afloat. It was the most important car of the 1940s
Some interesting suggestions here, and I can’t add much new. Tesla Model 3 probably deserves the top spot. I like Jason’s mention of the EcoBoost F150. Twin turbo, V6, aluminum body all were significant disruptions for the best-selling American vehicles, full-size pickups. However, apparently not very influential as GM and FCA continue with more conventional trucks and are doing OK with them. Along similar lines, the Ford Transit took the concepts introduced to the US market by the Sprinter, and finally tipped us over to the global van architecture here. Tall, and no V8. Finally, in a few years it may be forgotten, but the Dacia Duster is an interesting addition to the list. On our two most recent international vacations, in Turkey and Ecuador, these cars were very common … a surprise to me as I assumed that Japanese/Korean cars would pretty much dominate the low-end space in these countries.
Jeep Wrangler.
I still cant understand why us carmakers cant see the japanese formula to success for cars but they can when it comes to pickups. The f150 ram and silverado use the same formula toyota honda amd subaru use to improve their products over time while sticking true to their roots and not alieinating their loyal customers. They always have. The american carmakers get it but wouldnt apply it when it came to cars. Instead theyd cheap out blow up the old model and try to hit a home run with some new model/nameplate. F150 is always f150 and always will be. Just like civic will always be civic amd camry is camry. Why the us carmakers couldnt apply that to CARS ill never understand.
The Civic and Accord for example did retain their positions in the hierarchy, but a new Civic is a lot bigger than the original Accord and for years didn’t have a hatchback on offer but turned into 3-box sedans. So a lot of evolution over the years. The first few Corolla generations were really small and rode on miniaturized Detroit style live axle RWD platforms, later switching to IRS and FWD. And got twice as big.
The biggest thing the Japanese did was run their factories on different principles and pay attention to putting cars together properly and engineering for reliability. Eventually the reputation stuck and was hard to kill even as others copied these principles, if slowly and incompletely.
The Big 3 didn’t alienate their traditional sedan customers, except with some shoddy quality. Their traditional sedan customers, and the personal coupe buyers, changed what they wanted. Eventually, the shrinking pool of traditional buyers died out.
The first guy I knew who bought an Accord sedan was a doctor. He’s 68 years old now. That’s how long “traditional American sedans” have been on the skids.
I’m amazed the big 3 haven’t learnt their quality lesson by now. The Japanese don’t have to relearn quality every decade or so, it seems baked into their psyche. Quality should be a non-negotiable thing. Nobody wants to something that feels shoddy or keeps breaking.
I agree that the Tesla sedans are the definitive cars of the decade. But what I can’t understand is why they can sell an American sedan while no one else seems to be able to.
Yes! That’s always been my thing too – the sedan is dead, dead, dead. Oh wait, unless it’s a Model3. When the small Crossover is released we will see if the 3 just dies or not. Or perhaps they can make a station wagon version with a more or less vertical liftgate for greater utility than anything else they make.
2011 Town Car. The last real car built, and the last ever unless people come to their senses.
Bring back 1965 era engineering! It’s clearly the wave of the future.
Yeah because in 1965 all cars had rack and pinion steering, coil overs, Watt’s linkage (6 link) rear suspensions, air suspension and hydroformed box section frames. Oh wait they had recirculating ball steering boxes, springs separate from their shocks, leaf springs or 4 link, with maybe a Panhard rod and C-channel frames.
2011 Town Car is one of the most important cars of the 2010s? Come on now. I understand being enamored with proven, simpler machinery (I’ve got a 4Runner), but the only relevance the Panther platform had over the last decade was to remind manufacturers of what the automotive market and regulatory environment no longer wanted.
I like my 4Runner but would never claim that it is a top-10 important vehicle in the 2010s.
As much as I don’t want to admit it, the Tesla Model S was the most important vehicle last decade. That’s all I’m going to say about the subject.
A town car might be significant in that it was the last of its type. But I don’t think that’s the same as being an important car of the decade.
The 2011 Town Car was my only thought for this decade. I owned 2 Town Cars. I liked them. That being said, I know that the Town Car out lived it’s time. The reason that it is a significant car of the decade is that Lincoln let it die. It’s like an alcoholic that comes to the realisation that if they are going to survive, the bottle has to be left in the past. The Town Car was Lincoln’s bottle. Some rough years followed but after much soul searching, it appears that Lincoln has found a new direction that is working for them.
I dunno. I think Ford crunched the numbers and decided that, as significant as the Town Car might have been, it was wiser to kill it. They were on the cusp of needing to spend a whole bunch of money to make it compliant with future safety regulations and upgrade the technology stack.
Beside that, the Town Car was a sort of discount luxury car. It was nice and cushy enough, but it didn’t hold a candle to any of the more desirable luxury cars, and neither did its transaction prices. Ford was never going to be able to charge real luxury dollars for a car with that nameplate, and it was probably starting to damage their brand.
No, the real issue is that the D3/D4-based MKS and MKT were poor substitutes. Even if you could remember which model code represented which product, the MKS and MKT lacked all the charm of the Town Car, and were equally “second-rate” (see my ownership of a 2014 MKS, which was a perfectly fine car, but highly unlikely to capture anyone outside of Lincoln’s traditional demographic). The MKS killed any chance Lincoln had to save its sedan presence.
Now, they have a striking and competent luxury sedan in the Continental, but it’s not good enough, either. It’s doomed to compete with other slow-sellers, like the RLX, S90 and Q70L (which is gone as of 2020). The Continental, or something like it, should have come out in 2009, and they should have improved on that by 2017.
But I’m sure Ford is happy to be finished altogether with sedans. I don’t know if they confirmed the Continental’s discontinuation or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it disappeared after another year or two. At least the Aviator should sell as fast as they can make it, once Ford irons out the quality issues and subpar dealership experience.
“The Fusion’s cancellation was absolute proof that sedans were officially taking a back seat to crossovers.”
I think we will need to agree to disagree here. I believe that the most significant reason the Fusion is supposedly dead is because Ford can’t build it cheap enough to sell it at a big enough profit, which is doubly shocking seeing as how it isn’t even built here but in Mexico. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Nissan, even Subaru and VW haven’t cancelled their sedans yet and the vast majority are built in the U.S. and there isn’t anything in a Fusion that obviously costs more from a materials standpoint than the others (leaving the Hybrids aside)
As someone else noted above, if sedans are taking a back seat, how and why is it that Tesla can’t seem to build enough of them?
While volumes are lower than before the absolute number of sales in the class is still huge if I’m not mistaken, and an additional reason that the “mid-size” sedan is currying less favor is due to the class below (i.e. Civic, Corolla, Mazda3, Elantra etc) having grown in size and also usurping some of the sales, eventually perhaps a midsize sizes out of its class, although that’s not the Fusion’s issue. Ford’s related problem is that they themselves killed demand for their smaller car, the Focus, with their well-publicized transmission issues. Ford cancelling the Fusion was an absolute gift to everyone else and the Focus being gone may just add the cherry on top.
The Fusion DID drive well, but the Accord has never had serious issues in that aspect either (in fact was one of its biggest draws for decades) and the Camry has earned kudos in that department with its most recent re-design as well. The main reason the Fusion sold what/when it did is two fold – 1) rental fleets and 2) dealers in rural locations where there is less foreign-label competition. Drive across Iowa or Nebraska and marvel at the quantity of Fusions you see. Drive within 50 miles of a coast and marvel at most every Fusion having a bar code sticker in the rear side window.
I do not dislike the Fusion at all and agree it drives well (and got close to purchasing a used Hybrid one last year), but I am not aware of anyone that owns one that they purchased new with their own money. My one neighbor that had one was given it by his company to use for work.
Ford did make good money on the Fusion, particularly in CA where the Energi version gave car pool lane access. The reason that Ford canceled it is because they didn’t believe the volume would be there in the future to provide a reasonable per car amortization rate over the expected life of the platform.
Drive around the west coast and the majority of Fusions you find will be Energis and Hybrids, or at least top trim versions, not rental cars. The Hybrid was popular with gov’t fleets though.
Yeah the Focus’ demize was their fault for believing Getrag that a dry clutch would be fine. The Fiesta and C-Max never should have came to the US.
“particularly in CA where the Energi version gave car pool lane access”
That right there though is an external stimulus to the sales, i.e. the people are buying it perhaps not because it’s a great car or drives good or whatever but because they can get in the carpool lane with it. Now that carpool lane access in CA at least seems to have had the rules changed in regard to hybrids it’s convenient for Ford that they are cancelling it I suppose.
I just drove around the lower west coast last week and did see a fair number of Fusion hybrids and Energis along with many of the rental ones I saw actually being Hybrids as well. I didn’t notice any Titanium trim non-hybrids though.
The last government auction I attended about eighteen months ago was notable for the number of Sonata Hybrids that were there, I’m assuming there may have been a US-assembly requirement in that case (and assuming that the hybrids are actually built in Alabama as well)? I did not see any Fusion Hybrids in that particular auction.
The Hybrid access went away long ago, it was the Energi that earned that bonus. In WA there is no car pool access and yet the Hybrid and Energi Fusions are quite common.
Yes in CA the car pool access is an external stimuli, it isn’t like the Camry Hybrid didn’t exist and that is also shown in model 3 sales and Mach E reservations of which CA is accounting for 25% of the reservations, meanwhile CA represents about 12% of the market.
My state did add the Sonata Hybrid to the available cars, but it was too recent for them to be showing up at auction just yet. Right now for some particular reason there are a lot of Fusion Hybrids coming through, but not nearly as many as the Escape Hybrids that are still filtering out.
The Federal Govt also bought a fair number of the Hybrids. But also seems to have switched to the Sonata Hybrid based on the local parking lot where the cars are kept during non business hours.
The Ford Fusion Hybrid and Energi deserve to be on the list – the hybrid was the car that knocked the Prius out of the hybrid top spot and that, alone, makes it a candidate. I’m still a little puzzled why Ford cancelled the Fusion. Has the domestic, mid-size sedan market died that much that they can’t afford to develop a next generation Fusion?
And that’s the issue with nominating the Tesla Model S; while it’s true it was the most advanced production vehicle for its time, it was still too expensive for mass appeal.
But the Model 3? That’s the most advanced, pure EV that a lot of people can afford (although those strippo, black-only, $35k versions are pretty much a unicorn).
Well, the dry-clutch might have actually worked. The concept itself wasn’t flawed. Ford’s main issue was that the executives imposed a super-tight deadline on the transmission’s development. The engineers warned them that they hadn’t worked out all the kinks, that this was too short of a development time, and that they knew of specific points of failure…and the Powers that Be decided to push ahead anyway.
They had a capable engineering force; they just chose not to use it.
It also would’ve worked better with an on-or-off gas pedal, making it “creep” like a conventional wet automatic was a big mistake. You can have cutting-edge tech or familiarity, pick one. EVs give each individual driver the choice but I don’t know any EV owner who uses the creep-in-Drive feature much, or at all, after the first couple days.
No, Kyree. There’s a well-accepted upper limit for DSG dry clutch operation, beyond which the heat variation is too unpredictable to handle without oil. The engineers didn’t try to tell them they needed more time, just that it couldn’t be done.
That said, if it ends up breaking Ford, you’d have to wonder what Getrag’s liability might be.
People buy Teslas despite generally preferring SUVs, not because they want sedans.
The Model S is a weird product: It’s a prestige luxury fastback hatchback. The technology sells the car.
The Tesla’s design is essential to its success. For most vehicles, the operating inefficiency of SUV design is just extra cost. For new vehicle buyers in the luxury class, burning a little more fuel is just a nuisance. For Tesla, a 10 percent loss of range because of SUV design will cost a significant number of sales.
I think that “fastback” says “future.” Most people don’t want to live in the future. Tesla buyers are the tiny slice that do.
I believe that the most significant reason the Fusion is supposedly dead is because Ford can’t build it cheap enough to sell it at a big enough profit, which is doubly shocking seeing as how it isn’t even built here but in Mexico.
I don’t believe that at all. There’s absolutely no reason why it should cost more to build than a Camry or Accord. There’s no secret to that anymore.
The problem is not the cost to build, but the ATP (Average Transaction Price) to sell. That’s pretty much always the problem these days. As you point out, except for pockets in the Midwest, the Fusion (and any domestic sedan) is nigh near impossible to sell on the West Coast, and mostly the same for the East Coast. Factories have to run at certain volumes to be productive, and Ford obviously was having to put ever-larger incentives to sell them, mostly to fleets. That’s how a car line becomes unprofitable.
This has been the case with domestic sedans since the ’80s: inability to sell at comparable ATP to the Japanese. Ford thought they had it figured out during the Mulally era, when the demand was still barely big enough. But as sedan demand has continued to shrink, the domestics had to drop their pants to move them. They’re tired of that. It doesn’t work anymore.
The whole car business revolves around ATP. This is what’s killing Nissan: Ghosn set a ridiculous etched-in-stone US market share target (10%) some years back. His yes-men delivered, by dropping their ATPs, drastically. They bought market share. But at huge losses. What’s the point to that? This is largely why the wanted rid of him. It was a stupid demand that has destroyed Nissan’s perceived value and residuals.
The Big Three learned this lesson the hard way, and for the most part have given up playing that dead-end game. So they just ditch car lines that don’t pay anymore. There’s no good reason not to. CAFE is not as onerous as it once was.
Besides the semantics of the statement the result is the exact same though.
For Ford either the sales price needs to be higher (which is apparently not possible to achieve) or the cost needs to be lower (which is also difficult, but by building it in Mexico it surely is already cheaper from a labor perspective than building it in the US.) but it can’t be built at a low enough cost to compensate for the low sales price.
To make a profit you need to sell at a price higher than cost. With there not being enough spread between cost and sales price in this case, the car went away. I agree that it should not cost Ford any more to build the Fusion than it costs anyone else to build their competitor. But the reason they can’t charge more (enough) should be the subject of some intense navel gazing at Ford HQ as well as some serious long term changes.
I also understand that production capacity is technically finite and if you can build product X at a higher profit than product F then you perhaps should. That being said though, if Ford all of a sudden was able to sell a million Fusions a year and also a million of whatever product X is, they’d find a way to quickly build or buy another factory in order to produce both.
As Paul said, the image problems that leave Ford in 2020 without a seat in the game of Musical Sedan Chairs began a long time ago. “Intense navel.gazing” on the subject in 2020 is a waste.of time. It happened. Deal with it now. Worry.about current jackassery, not stuff that happened 25 years ago.
Ford generally is competitive or a leader.in trucks and SUVs, so they aren’t total boobs.
. But the reason they can’t charge more (enough) should be the subject of some intense navel gazing at Ford HQ as well as some serious long term changes.
That should have happened in the 60s by the Big Three instead of ignoring W. Edwards Deming at the time. His highly analytical approach to quality that was originated by Deming’s mentor, Walter Shewhart during WW2 was a key component to wining the war. Their programs were widely adopted by war defense contractors, largely because of a push by the defense dept.
But once the war was won, American industry shunned Deming. They knew it would be a seller’s market for years to come. Who cares about quality? Not in Detroit, thank you! We don’t need no stinkin’ quality.
Deming was devastated. His processes could be readily adopted but only if it was truly embraced from the very top. Sloganeering about quality wasn’t the real thing (“GM Mark of Excellence”).
The Japanese found out about him by accident just as they were trying to build up their industries after the war, and shake a reputation for poor quality. He was embraced and soon became a semi-god. It’s exactly what they needed in their industrial quest at that time. The rest is history. And it’s too late now. Quality in the domestics is better, but they’ll never catch the Japanese.
The overwhelming majority of Americans see domestic cars as inferior, in image as well as in quality. At this very late stage of the game, the image is enough; the quality may well largely be there (or not).
The story of the Big Three is a lot like that of Xerox or Kodak or Motorola. If it wasn’t for their big trucks and SUVs and Jeeps, they’d all be dead by now. The Japanese obviously haven’t been able to penetrate that segment of the market, because it would take too much capital, but most importantly, would almost certainly trigger a major political blow-back. Can you imagine how Trump would be reacting if the Big Three’s truck sales were being seriously threatened?
The lack of embracing quality as an absolutely critical component of every product is still playing out in America, Boeing being the current poster child.
I agree, you’ve long seen me posit that the only reason Toyota (and Nissan to a lesser extent) aren’t more competitive or offer more variety in full size trucks is purely due to their choice as well as awareness of politics. It’s certainly not that they wouldn’t be able, worst case they could hire the necessary know-how. They’ll give that portion of the market up (for now) but wipe the deck with most everything else.
Jim, That doesn’t mean I think the Japanese could readily take a big chunk of sales out of the full-size pickup market even if they wanted to. Much of that market is very America-centric and loyal, and it might be very difficult to sway them in considerable numbers.
Another factor: you can’t make a dent in the very large (and lucrative) truck fleet sales market unless you have a full range, including medium-duty trucks. That’s precisely why Ram added them a few years back and why GM is now adding them. Fleet buyers want to deal with one company/one contract to cover the full spectrum of their needs, and not having a MD truck means not being cut out on a lot of fleet purchases. I doubt either Ram or GM will make any/much money on their MD trucks per se, but it’s what it takes to make big fleet sales.
There’s no way the Japanese are going to go down that route anytime soon. For that matter, they don’t even have proper “3/4 ton” pickups, which are of course a very big chunk of that market. I think not having the bigger trucks is a negative image thing, mostly, but that’s important in the truck market.
I think Toyota will try to expand their little share to a bit more with their next gen Tundra, but I don’t see them wanting to take on the Big Three. The quality difference isn’t as big as it once was, so that angle is not going to be enough to win over Big Three loyalists.
It’s the same problem Kaiser-Frazer had in 1947: they can’t get enough scale without investing absurd amounts of capital. The Big Three will spend what it takes to keep their trucks successful. Toyota is too conservative a company to do that. It’s not worth it to them, for the foreseeable future. Especially now, when everyone is under profit pressure and needs to allocate huge amounts of capital for EVs and such.
No argument about US makers _ultimately_ not adopting Deming’s methods but, in mitigation, I would say the quality gap only became an issue in the 70s. Growing up in Israel in the 60s I assure you US-made vehicles were head and shoulders above anything else available on the market in so far as reliability and longevity were concerned; arguably it was the _others_ who needed to improve. I can see why Deming was ignored at the time, given how bad cars coming from the UK, Germany (yes, even Germany), Italy and certainly Japan were back then.
“I also understand that production capacity is technically finite and if you can build product X at a higher profit than product F then you perhaps should. That being said though, if Ford all of a sudden was able to sell a million Fusions a year and also a million of whatever product X is, they’d find a way to quickly build or buy another factory in order to produce both.”
That is almost it in a nutshell, though it is development money and return on that investment resource that is the bigger concern.
To put it another way, say you have $X to invest in a property. You find two prospects at a similar price. House A is in Sedanville and House B is in Utility City. You start doing the math and find that house A has a 4% Cap rate and B has an 8% Cap rate.
Of course Cap rate alone isn’t the only consideration so you do some digging and look for an upside in house A. However what you find is that vacancy rates are increasing in Sedanville due to shrinking population and values have been stagnate at best. Over in Utility City vacancy rates are dropping and rents increasing despite the fact that new construction is at an all time high due to a rapidly increasing population.
Then there is Electric City who’s Cap rate is low right now but there are lots of indications that it could have a huge upside.
So do you see the same thing happening with SUV/CUV’s as the market gets ever more saturated, i.e. the coasts will not be buying those Fords either and while there may now be new Escapes for example running around the middle parts of the country, it’ll be comparatively shunned elsewhere? After all, sure it has a hybrid version as does the Explorer but so does everyone else or surely will within a few years. Then what, cancel SUV/CUVs too because the prices will start to come down as manufacturers all chase that same pie? Once everyone has 5 or 6 or 7 or more different CUV lines some will start to reduce prices or add more incentives and then inevitably the margins will reduce on those as well. Ford HAS to commit to improving their quality or they won’t be around forever. Or be less than half the size as you don’t need all the engineering staff or other plants if all you are producing are F-series trucks.
I’m really curious how the Mustang Mach EV thing is selling/reserving on a geographical basis, i.e. is the majority centered in Ford country (many of which are places that are more range-sensitive as well as generally being more traditional/conservative) or is it on the coasts as well, i.e. more evenly spread out.
So do you see the same thing happening with SUV/CUV’s as the market gets ever more saturated?
Yes. Initially with the smaller ones.
The reason the Explorer went with a new RWD-based platform was because Ford’s future is as a truck/commercial company, and this way the explorer can share the drive trains of the other trucks and vans.
As to their smaller FWD-based vehicles, I’m not very sanguine about them long term. But it might take a while. I would not be at all surprised to see Ford eventually share FWD IC platforms with VW. Neither one has enough scale in the US to be truly profitable with them.
GM? They’ll eventually go the same route: consolidate their true truck families to maximize efficiencies, and possibly eventually find partners for their FWD-based vehicles, depending on what kind of volumes they can maintain.
Neither of them is making any real coin off these vehicles already; it’s all coming from the real trucks.
FCA: obviously they’re already there. Ram and Jeep. And everything else will be PSA platforms, as long as they can sell enough volumes to make it worth it.
Obviously I’m not very bullish on GM and Ford. And neither is the stock market.
No Ford didn’t go RWD with the new Explorer because their future is as a truck mfg. It went RWD because they decided the Continental had to go RWD as did the Police Interceptors and that platform was supposed to underpin the still borne 2020 Conti.
Good luck proving that. What 2020 Continental? 🙂
My point is that it made lots of sense for the Explorer to share drive trains with the truck regardless of any possible Conti. And Ford has made it clear that they see their future as primarily a truck/commercial company. That’s where the profits (still) are.
Well there is a 2020 Conti but not the one that it was initially supposed to be.
“The original plan for the Continental was to move it to the new rear-wheel-drive based CD6 platform that is going to underpin the Aviator, Explorer, and next generation Mustang but it has now been removed from that discussion according to a source that spoke with Jalopnik. ”
https://jalopnik.com/the-lincoln-continental-is-probably-dead-by-2020-1828811167.
Also note the platform was named CD6 when development started indicating intentions for a car variant.
The Explorer will move significantly more volume than the Continental was destined to move in the most optimistic of expectations, I don’t see an automaker compromising a key high volume model to fit the needs of a low volume model, especially one in a brand that had dud after dud in the sedan market for two decades. Mustang maybe, since it does act as a strong halo for the Ford brand regardless of volume.
This isn’t a new strategy, look at everything that utilized the longitudinal 4.6/4R70w – Explorer, Mustang, Tbird, Town car, F series, E series etc.
The fact remains that the platform carries a “car” designation despite the fact that the Explorer was destined to be the volume product.
Also it is not like you can’t share engines between RWD and FWD platforms. The F-150’s 2.7 EcoBoost ended up in the Fusion Sport and the F-150’s 3.5 EcoBoost debuted in a FWD platform. Even the 4.6 went into FWDs. Those are just the most recent examples.
“Obviously I’m not very bullish on GM and Ford. And neither is the stock market.”
Total value of Ford stock is US$37 billion. Tesla is worth $80 billion. Rivian’s well financed at over $4 billion invested so far, executing sensibly so far, and could see a similar increase in value in the next 5-10 years. Also, Rivian is getting involved with Ford’s sales channel.
Care to predict who owns who in 2030?
Carries the car designation, how? In the CD6 platform name? I don’t put too much stock into Ford platform designations, the first generation Escape was on the CD2 platform, what “car” shared it? The CD3 and CD4 underpinned both cars and Crossovers, they were modular from the start, not car based.
And yes, the 4.6 was used in the Continental, but not the 4R70w transmission, and the block was a substantially different casting than the longitudinal castings.
The CD2 Escape was based on the 626.
The CD3 also started as a 626 and it wasn’t until 5 model years later that they introduced a CUV on that platform.
Yeah but Ford still didn’t pair the CD2 designation with any other car model, that it’s Mazda derived is irrelevant, Ford used their own chassis designation for it, just like D3 based on the Volvo derived P2. In its case the car and crossover designations weren’t even distinguished by the class prefix, but by the number – D3 for cars D4 for SUVs.
CA represents about 25% or Mach E reservations but accounts for only about 12% of the US market. Of course it benefits from the car pool access just like the Model 3.
If they have to reduce margins on the CUVs they won’t exactly be hurting. It really doesn’t cost much more to make a CUV than a sedan, if both are FWD but they can sell them for several thousand dollars more and many people are willing to spring for AWD which adds more profit.
True re CUV profitablility but that was my point above, if they can’t get higher prices for them than the others and as the market gets every more saturated, then the others can just reduce their prices as well until Ford cries uncle. Same as sedans.
Interesting re ME 25% in CA, thank you for that info.
Some other facts about Mach E reservations that have been released.
~80% have the big battery
~55% have AWD
~30% are GT
So not too many are opting for the base model, which bodes well for profits.
Regarding the Mach E: The majority (30k) of Mach E sales in its first year will be going to Europe, to enable Ford to meet the stringent EU CO regs. That means only 20k will be available for the whole US. That’s peanuts. And it means it will essentially be a compliance mobile until such time production is substantially increased.
No Ford actually cut Fusion sales to fleets well before it was leaked that they were stopping development of the next generation, which preceded the announcement that it was being discontinued.
The Fusion Energi Titanium is pretty darn common in the Seattle area and other than around the time they announced they were going away were there any significant discounts on them.
Meanwhile Toyota kept the Camry in the lead with its constantly advertised $199/month leases. Not surprisingly that has gone away once it became clear the RAV-4 was going to pull ahead.
The Fusion Energi Titanium is pretty darn common in the Seattle area
It’s a well-known phenomena: we see what we want to see.
Ford is killing the Fusion because they were tired of struggling to keep up with the demand from Seattle, right?
Sure I might notice more Fusions than most but once I notice them fact is they are more likely to be the high margin Energi Titanium or at least a SEL Hybrid.
I traveled to Detroit in 2019 and yes Fusions were more common but they tended to be ICE and S or SE models. Meanwhile they weren’t very common in Houston or San Antonio where pickups and large SUVs rule something Texas has been at the forefront of.
“I am not aware of anyone that owns one that they purchased new with their own money. My one neighbor that had one was given it by his company to use for work.”
This is the simple reason for any choice that any OEM has made on whether to keep producing a product or killing it. When Fleet sales are the main sales, profit goes away and death of that model is inevitable. Every enthusiast will say how much they like some particular car but oddly enough they rarely own one, and even more rarely bought one new. It’s why we keep hearing about brown diesel manual station wagons, yet there aren’t any being built, are there?
After thinking about this and reading the replies above, I have two suggestions.
1. Tesla’s Supercharger Network – Not a vehicle per se, but having recharging stations available coast to coast is a monumental achievement that greatly helps Tesla maintain its electric vehicle market share in the North American Marketplace.
2. The Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon re-launch, it forced Toyota to revise the Tacoma, Ford and Jeep to re-enter the market.
3. The Jeep Gladiator, c’mon look at it! It’s a factory brodozer! and sales will continue to trend up as supply increases and incentives begin to roll-out. I am already seeing 299 a month leases deals advertised but around 4,500 down. When the down payment decreases or 0% financing comes on-board watch out.
4. Forgot about the Cybertruck. Still a concept, however still released in the 2010’s barely. Another entry in the mid-size pick-up market. For the first time in a long time, GM was ahead of the curve in a market segment and I have not heard any horror stories about durability or reliability of the Canyon or Colorado either. A double win for the General.
I very much like the idea of nominating Tesla’s Supercharger network as the most significant ‘vehicle’ of the 2010s. It’s the key to Tesla’s success and the company would have quickly folded without it.
I’d have to say Tesla, as that’s where all of this is headed in the decades to come, and they seem to do it better than anyone else.
I’d also like to nominate the 2016 and up Civic. First turbocharged Civic (for the masses… not counting past generation Type-R(s) here).
40+ mpg (when you keep your right foot out of the turbocharger), and when you want it, plenty of power for most normal spirited driving situations.
It launched a global platform that now includes the aforementioned 2018 and up Accord, and let’s not forget one of (if not) the most popular crossovers out there, the CR-V which is also on that same platform.
this may not count but people lining up to pay over list for a KIA Telluride is a milestone for the Koreans
This thread is so depressing.
The “Most Important” vehicles of the last ten years, and I’d rather pinch zits than drive most of them; and no way on Earth do I want to own one. I don’t even want to be SEEN in most of ’em.
Tesla has proven that a megazillionaire with aerospace interests can’t launch a car company unless the Gummint bribes people to buy his product, or legislates against his rivals via CAFE or EPA. At least we’re FINALLY past the point where parasites who buy electric vehicles also get a free pass on paying the equivalent of fuel taxes.
Volkswagen. Ha. Beetle, with single-panel fenders and no self-adjusting brakes in the ’60s. Rabbit, with wiped-out valve guides in the ’70s. Dieselgate.
Ford’s “most important” news is that they quit building cars. I’ve been waiting for that since Pinto Flambe was news. ONE sheet-metal panel between gasoline and passenger compartment. The CEO and Board of Directors should STILL be in prison (or dead.)
Crossovers: All the faults of crappy, mid-sized-or-smaller cars, coupled to all the faults of mini-vans. Light-duty everything; lots of cup holders, but a trans overhaul will cost you six months pay.
Jeep. Part of Chrysler, dumped by Mercedes, now owned by Fiat, and soon to be destroyed by PSA. Look what the French did to AMC. Who used to own…Jeep.
Until this article, I hadn’t fully realized how horrible it’s gotten to search for a new car (but I did have some idea.) I mostly don’t know what I’m gonna do when SWMBO tells me it’s time to replace the ’03 Trailblazer. (only 230K, she’s still young, yet.) I don’t really WANT a Tahoe or Suburban, but there’s nothing else left with an engine and a frame; and by the time I’m ready to buy, GM may have gone Unibody and four-popper on them, too.
This is a pretty good counterpoint, the idea that the most significant vehicle of the 2010s may be no vehicle at all, i.e., the rise of ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft.
but there’s nothing else left with an engine and a frame –
Check out the Toyota 4Runner and/or Lexus GX. Those are still BOF and similar footprint to the Trailblazer.
Also Infiniti QX80 / Nissan Armada a little bigger but probably less expensive then the 4Runner/GX after incentives.
Oh, yeah. One more thing. We pay money to companies to get rid of spyware on our personal and work computers.
Then we get into a car or truck to go home, and the on-board computer is so full of spyware it’d make your head spin; and there’s no way to delete it or over-ride it.
Given on-board navigation and positional awareness, we’re about two steps away from having the car’s on-board computer e-mail the police to testify that the driver was speeding, or blew a stop-sign. Then the cops will make you pay the fine before the gas cap will unlock for re-fuelling. Or the car next to you will video-record your speed based on vector-analysis from the backup camera, or the cameras that are soon to be deployed instead of side-view mirrors, and rat you out to the Fuzz. Policing-for-Profit is going to become EXTREMELY lucrative.
While vehicular spyware wasn’t invented in the “2010s”, it wasn’t nearly as ubiquitous or as powerful as it became in the previous ten years.
X2.
Quite possible, all this, but you say it as if it’s bad. Is it?
Cars are a way of getting around. Whilst they seem very free, they really do no more than the same thing a decent public transport system does, with the addition of private space. They’ve entered our consciousness, me included, as if they are a freedom device.
But they’re not. They’re a transportation device, and to 80% of consumers, about as interesting as a fridge.(The rest read CC).
Considered as a method by which we can go from A to B, they produce a bunch of risk. Despite my most fervent wishes, the vast bulk of that risk is caused by the movement of the car: and the higher velocity of that movement, the more the risk. Speed limits, dull and chafing as they are, impose a risk-dilution on that movement of great effectiveness. That is, the bastard things work, and there’s ample proof of such.
Most folk, even CCérs, want to live a decently long life, and most folk care not one shit about cars in themselves, so if our future cars dob us in for risk to ourselves and others, is that bad?
I think the Nissan Qashqai/X-Trail/Rogue/Rogue Whatever was quite an important car.
In Europe it (and, to a lesser degree, the VW Tiguan and Ford Kuga) helped start the shift towards crossovers by introducing an utility that wasn’t pretending to be a mighty offroader, and instead was just a taller hatchback advertised as “urbanproof”.
In the US it launched Nissan pretty high up the sales charts, allowing them to rake in money in what could otherwise have been a mediocre period.
I recently nominated the Nissan Rouge as my third place choice for “greatest hit” of the last 50 years behind the Ford Explorer and the GMC Acadia. However, the Nissan Rouge debuted in 2008.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-asian/curbside-classics-1992-lexus-ls-400-the-industrys-greatest-hit-of-the-last-50-years/
But the 2010s were a time when the crossover revolution it helped popularize really took off, so I think it’s even more of a 10s hit than an 00s one.
1. Tesla Model S (2012) The (practical) electric car is introduced.
2. McLaren P1, Ferrari LaFerrari, Porsche 918 Spyder (2014, 2014, & 2015, respectively) In which we discover that supercars can be hybrid too!
3. Tesla Model 3 (2017) Hugely popular EV that supposedly starts at $35,000.
4. Lamborghini Urus (2018) Lamborghini pulls a Porsche. Go, crossovers!
5. Toyota Mirai (2018) The first production hydrogen-powered vehicle for many a year.
6. Bugatti Chiron (2017) Arguably the most popular and recognizable hypercar ever. And the first one to break 300mph. But not the first production car to do so, because the Chiron Super Sport 300 actually has a lower top speed than the regular version!
7. Rimac Concept One (2017) Hypercars can be electric?!
8. And the Phantom Corsair, one of the coolest cars from the 1930s. Wait, what?
XC90
Crossovers, particularly luxury ones, were never the same after it. Totally ahead of its time in 2014.
Tesla.
All subjective and ideological and personal stuff aside, not one established corporate auto entity has made a vehicle as good – and all are trying fiercely so to do, without yet equaling the capabilities.
Only a true innovator changes the market into which it sells, which Tesla has. Forever.
Any other pretenders to being important across this timeframe are just that.
This.