It's Official: Ford's Killing ALL of Their Cars--Except Mustang

[ZephyrEFI]

The thing about the Focus, and other small cars is that THEY ALREADY ARE DESIGNING AND ENGINEERING THEM. Ever heard of the European market? They (mostly) put their best foot forward bringing us the same Focus and Fiesta they sell in Europe back and the beginning of this decade. The reason those models didn't do better is because Ford sabotaged them by using an unproven, half-baked DSG. And Americans are lame and want automatics, so they developed a bad reputation. You'll notice the Escape (same chassis) didn't get that same transmission. That's because Ford actually WANTED it to succeed, unlike the Focus and Fiesta.

You don't hear anyone saying ANYTHING about the actual performance of a Cayenne because its buyers only care about status. It's cheaper than a 911, so it's an easier way to get that.

[82gt50]

Car And Driver said this about the Cayenne "The 434-hp Cayenne S bolts to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds. Its twin-turbocharged 2.9-liter V-6 crashes the quarter-mile in 12.8 seconds at 109 mph."

But it's a pig CUV.

You said "And Americans are lame and want automatics"
But you are in Minnesota which is still in America so...

Modern automatics like the 10-speed in the Mustang GT are faster and more durable than manual transmissions albeit I personally prefer a manual transmission in a car like the Mustang for the fun of driving. But in any other type of vehicle ask dealerships how hard it would be to sell a vehicle with a manual. This isn't 1969 automatics especially with modern computer controlled engines are the logical choice.

[ZephyrEFI]

You'd hope a Porsche would actually be fast. But it still doesn't give you the experience of driving a sports car, which is what Porsche is really about. It's a cash cow that allows them to build sports cars. Ford would do well to take note of that strategy. They didn't scrap the rest of their models in favor of CUVs, they SUPPLEMENTED them.

I didn't say I wasn't an American. It's tough to quantify with manuals though. People that would buy them don't because they're no longer available, so it slants the stats against them.

I don't think I'd go so far as to say autos are more durable. Look at the Focus DSG, or the trans that was in the first gen Fusion. They had terrible reputations. Ford has a history of questionable automatics too, especially in the last 30 years. AXOD anyone? JUNK. CD4E? JUNK. And you mention Car and Driver's opinion about the Cayenne. Ask any car magazine writer how they feel about manuals going away. No one cares that autos are faster. It's about driving enjoyment, not what puts down the best numbers.

[gr79]

My personal choice would be manual in the Mustang, auto in my Ranger.
Could not find an Ranger 2.3 std cab long bed auto in the car lots.
Both are now made more fun with Hurst mechanism, especially the truck.
A 10 speed auto in the truck would be the bomb. Hurst shifter makes it bearable now.


Though was fun when dating and having to shift between date's legs in the truck. Ohlala.
Which had another rarity = a bench seat. No console to get in the way of possible intimacy.

Manual shifting is done by hand.
Bucket seats the norm as is a console, another dash with items.
Console is now a wall between passenger. Cant seat 20 anymore.

How inefficient to use both hands, feet, eyes, ears, to simply operate a vehicle.
Nothing left for operating distractions, electronic multitasking, or pushing buttons?

How ya gonna steer when most phones are permanently held in one hand?
Takes 2 hands to text, scroll, at the red light and another to grab the drink cup.
Supposed to drop everything just to shift a transmission when that can be done for you?
Or hesitate, having a slower reaction time to put in gear and move, with horns instantly honking behind yu?
Or 'gulp' hold the clutch pedal in for a minute waiting for something?
Or dealing with the crisis of jumping and stalling car in intersection? Or accidentally shooting out into traffic?

Already expected do 2-3 jobs at work and home. Driving is a time out?

[82gt50]

To me Ford did the right thing discontinuing slow selling or marginal profit sedans. Yes, there are a few Americans who actually want a Focus, you know they had pictures of Foci on their walls as a kid and dreamed of buying one as soon as they got their first job...(cant even type that with a straight face) the reality is they bought one simply because they could get it cheap that's all. Back to reality, these sedans are not selling in spite of Ford doing a good job with performance versions like the Fusion Sport and dumping standard models at fleet prices to rental companies is counterproductive. Why buy one new when you can get the same car with only 10k miles on it when Hertz rolls their fleet for a crushing discount because they hold little resale value, and you have the remainder of the factory warranty.

Comparing a SUV like a 3-row seating Explorer to a sport or performance car is apples to oranges, two entirely different tools. Families need a vehicle that can do almost everything in one package. Haul a bunch of kids, pick up stuff or tow a 5,000 lb trailer all of this the Explorer can do and it's available in 4wd/AWD sedans are simply nowhere near as versatile. The new Explorer hybrid gets 27/29 mpg city/highway and the standard 300hp 2.3L Ecoboost doesn't do bad either, the new ST will run 143 miles per hour if you want to a sporty SUV.

On the manual transmission issue Ford keeps the manuals in the vehicle that buyers actually want them in which is the Mustang and pretty much nothing else. I know there are people who clamor for manuals in everything but they are the rare exception, kind of like all the people who barked at Ford to bring the Australian Ranger here but now nobody is buying them. Face it in today's vehicles the driver is not connected to the car like in my '82 GT. In every modern car the accelerator is drive by wire automatic transmissions and 4wd controls are just switches, brake and steering systems and everything else runs through a computer in one form or another. So adding the unpredictable human element of a manual shifting transmission doesn't really work as well, even new Ferrari have automatics.

[vintageracer]

Just lay that "I gotta have a manual transmission" crap to bed".

In the 60's MOST Mustangs were sold with an AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION.

Why? That's what customers wanted!

63-67 Corvettes were 90+ percent 4 speed. All you could git with an automatic transmission was the 2 speed Powerglide automatic transmission until 1968 when the Turbo 400 became the available automatic transmission.

By the 1970-1972 Corvette model years the automatic transmission was in 70+ percent of ALL Corvettes sold!

It's been that way since then.

That automatic transmission statistic is much higher today with the current production C7 Corvette.

Initially the C8 Corvette will only be offered with an automatic transmission.

The last US OEM PU truck to offer a manual transmission ended with the 2018 Dodge Ram Diesel 2500-3500.

So why no manual transmission cars or PU trucks offered for sale by Ford, GM or Chrysler?

Because both of you that say you want em are too cheap to buy a new vehicle anyway so why bother trying offer a transmission option that few to none will EVER purchase!

One thing to add.

Todays automatic transmission are SO GOOD why would you want a manual transmission anyway?

Oh ya it's that control issue because you think you are such a good driver!

[xctasy]

Ford USA has certainly learned the ways of Ford Australia.....the high volume 70 000 per year for 33 years Falcon became the Australian X Taxi, and adding a Mod 4 cam 5.4 V8 to a basic BLT burger didn't improve the re-sale value. After 1960 to 2016 production, Ford only had left a cheap supply of corn husks which no one wanted. The Japanese sucker punched Ford Australia into trying to tie up its plant with cost consuming, low return sales volume, which is what a two or four door three box sedan always is. But that's okay, one bitten, twice shy. Edsel B Ford got Fords trukin' House in order, and folding green is in Ford South East Asias pocket from both its plants and Mazdas because of the sales to Island Right Hand drive nations that used to buy Toyota SR5 HiLux's.

Fords Mustang REALLY killed low performance Jap Celica's and Supras and everything else which was cheap and didn't perform. 14 second factory quarter miles with just a 3.7 liter six or sub 13's with a 5.0 liter V8.

Fords Australian Falcon proved that Camry's and Skylines and Stageas were under engined, unreliable cars like the old English Mark 1, 2,3 and 4 Zephyr sixes were to island nations and the old South Africa and Rhodesia.

And lemme tell ya some un tendered info. In line six and V6 Tojos and Nessan's are not worth a knobb of goat turds when 23 years old and you have to rebuild them. Neither are Falcons but specialty car Mustangs and even Couriers and Mazda based Rangers we had from 2000 to 2012 hold value as an SUV . Ford has seen the future.

The weird as BAT SH!+ Thailand made four door crew cab Ranger down here is the same as the Mustang, a high sale price value added product with some real residual Redbook value.



Although a subway base, and a corn corb to add flecks of inspiration, it will always have residual value. Down here, it out sells everything, and its what everyone drives, and if you don't like Fords, you can dress it up with BT50 Mazda badges, made from the same Thailand plant next door to Fords plant.

No one except Toyota shifted 400000 four door cars a year, the grey slurry Four door thing is a product of a bygone era which started when South Bend Indiana's Studebaker put the front on the back of the 1947 Champion. Where did that take Studebaker? To insolvency.

Three boxers are dead. Two box 1946 style cars which can mount a curb and not get stuck on a cinder shoulder is where its at.

[xctasy]

The transmission thing is based on waranty cost and precieved sales. The USA is geo politically climate controlled, and since diesels aren't sold like they are elseware, you all don't understand how the four door thing plays out elseware in the Ford world.

Ford USA can respond to consumer demand, but it doesn't exist for four doors and 6 speed manual stick shifts. For reasons vintageracer said. But its mostly petrochemical plant economics and the huge reduction on warranites when automatics are made and sold verses manual gearboxes.


2 and 4 door three box Body styles verses 5 door two box bodies, Diesels verses gasoline, manual verses automatics, Ford knows where the loss leaders are for each market, and it avoids loss leaders. Its like the old two place Thunderbird verses the four place T bird. Romantics verses Realists. RL McNamara got it right in 1958....Rose Tinted Sunglasses Verses Red Inc....



Ford in 1964 gave the world the bullproof TopLoader, and then the Big Block Bullnose Liberty cut Top Loader, and then suddenly, made better money tying up its plant making Model T style epicyclic planetary gearbox FMX'S/C4/C6'S/AOD's. Lotus in 1972 found that just to recut British Leyland, Reanult, or Citroën Colotti gearboxes was going to bankrupt itself. And so all Loti have gearboxes principally supplied from other companies,


Ford darn near sold off its C3 division at Bordeaux France (where the 55R5 variants are made) , then decided it had the critical mass to build all its auto and transaxles there.

So its all about where Ford sees itself long term.

I lothe the 6 speed auto in the Ranger and BT50, but Ford gets no waranty claims like Toyota did with its twin plate clutch 5 speed HiLux manual gearbox. So its a no brainer for Ford. My Isuzu FZR truck is 6 speed manual, thank the Dear Lord. Now the big game in town is diesel engine, everywhere except the USA.

[ZephyrEFI]

The reason why no one buys Rangers is because Ford half-assed it again and introduced the out-dated overseas design pretty much unchanged. It looks good and all, but that was stupid. I was just saying to my dad the other day I wouldn't touch one until the next gen comes out. The reason I always thought it was stupid Ford wasn't selling them here is because they were leaving money on the table for the other brands to grab. As we know, trucks are cheap to build and make good profit. Where was the down side? Maybe if they had invested in the Ranger more between 1997 and 2011 when it was pretty much UNCHANGED, they would have seen better sales, they could have left the nameplate in production and brought in the Aussie version when it was first introduced and blown everyone away. Maybe that way they wouldn't be in this situation they find themselves in now, and could have gone with a more Porsche-like strategy and let their CUVs and trucks ALLOW them to sell other models people want (like the ones I want). But, that's not what happened. Instead, GM copied the overseas Ranger's look, and re-introduced their mid-size trucks first and beat them to the punch.

And the last several DDs we've had have been new. All with manuals except the TC, too. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. I put my money where my mouth is. I don't need an Explorer. And I sure as HELL don't want to pay what one costs! Our van is even a bit much. We have all that cargo space, but we never use it. Hence the downsizing to another Focus (our FOURTH since 2012). But we have to go used because they can't be had new anymore.

[ZephyrEFI]

there are a few Americans who actually want a Focus,

For your viewing pleasure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8M50DIuPuk

[82gt50]

For your viewing pleasure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8M50DIuPuk

You found somebody who made a YouTube video about a teenager's pizza delivery car. Ill never get that 3 minutes of my life back, couldn't finish watching it.

The new Ranger is exactly what the internet old Ranger owners said they wanted (with upgrades needed for the American market) "why doesn't Ford bring over the awesome Australian Ranger" they said "I'd buy one in a heartbeat" they said. What they didn't say was the old Ranger that they're driving was purchased very used like all of their vehicles and they were never going to buy anything NEW. Lesson to Ford: Just because someone on the internet said it doesn't make it true...look at the facts.

A full size F-150 with the excellent 400 ft-lb torque 2.7L Ecoboost gets 20/26 city/highway mileage while the Ranger trucklet gets 21/26 so what the hell is the point of buying a far less capable Ranger? That's why the Ranger is failing. The first generation Ranger in the 80's got a lot better gas mileage than a F-150 of that era which of course was the reason it existed...not anymore.

Ford is realizing it doesn't have to compete in every segment and build tiny little buzzbomb cars that loose money in the American market...this is not Europe or Asia. Henry Ford himself learned very early on that different cars were needed for different markets and built the Model Y for England.

edit: The best selling vehicle in America for decades has been the Ford F-Series and America is the most profitable market in the world. But full size pickups certainly are not in Europe or Asia, different vehicles for entirely different markets.

[ZephyrEFI]

Rabble rabble! Trucks are more efficient than they used to be (and therefore exactly as efficient as they need to be), so they're a good fit for everybody!

I don't actually need a compact, easy to maneuver, affordable, FUN car that offers a manual, all the features I want, my kids' booster seats actually fit (unlike in a Mustang), and gets 30 mpg city with ease? NO. Sir, you need an F-150 crew cab for 3 times the price, and doesn't fit in your garage cuz it's so freakin' HUGE.

One size fits all! Why don't customers all want the same thing? We'll try forcing them to! See how that goes!

[xctasy]

What's required is a car that is internally able to make 61.8" shoulder room, so you can fit 3 Evenflo or Britax car seats. Which is excatly what the Ranger and BT50 does, and exactly why four door crew cabs sell so well.

1n 1978, GM Australia downsized to a 1983-1986 Ford Fox LTD sized car....and lost a whole a market because the car was too narrow. The Fox Ford platform was crossed off the grocery list for 1979 in Australia...because it was too narrow.

Dodge in 192, and Ford USA found out in 1965 that if a six seater car had less than 60" hip room at the back or front, people with families wouldn't buy it.

So your Transit Connect is the narrow body solutions to a traditional six place Ford.


Ford Australia tried with the six place Falcon. We bought one instead of a Dodge Voyager.




Behind my 74 inch wide Falcon is a narrower 67" wide Cortina. The Fox body cars, except the S shell Sterling wide body 80-82 XR7's and 80-82 T bird/perhaps the LSC and certainly the 1982- whatever Conti VII's were basically Cortina sized internally, about what your Box Top is internally, Brad.

Ford mastered this stuff. Edsel Ford II had three kids, and IIRC, his wife used a 2 door Range Rover in Australia 1977-1980, which is kind proof that the size aspect has to be matched to family needs. Untill the 4 door Range Rovers are also too narrow unless you have a thrid row of seats. That's what the early Bronco should have been. Same as the missed opertunity 2 seat Ford to match the 240Z.


Width is how I got my Falcon. "He who has bench seat in front, have three kid in back", Conficious say....



See http://kastang.tripod.com/fsp/xecute.html

[gr79]

The only thing Ranger is the name. Like many products, companies reuse proven names to sell something different.
We all have replaced old with new items, same original name, that are not made as good.
May or may not work the same, costs 3x what the old product did.

Check out parts prices 2019 Ranger at Rock Auto. The down the road costs. After the payments end (if they do).
7.00 spark plugs, 80 reman caliper, 75 pads, 200 battery, 150 hvac blower, 170 heater core, 776 steering gear, 180 starter.
The long list of replacement electrical connector pigtails. 3.00-42.00 valve stem cap.
Try to find a base model. The kind the chain auto parts use for parts running. Probably is special order, opposite of old days.

As a 2x Ranger owner, 'A' new Compact Ranger, not 'The' new is what i say if i have to replace. Is it a pickup or a mutt?
Not interested in something like a small Explorer Sport Trak. Why bother? Don't need the bigger cab wasting cargo space.
Nor all the standard do dads one has to pay for, like it or not.
Sun Load Temp sensor. Climate Control computer. Too fancy for me.
It's a truck, or supposed to be. Both of mine are/were 7' beds, large enough for utility on a compact 114" wb.
Instead of new, will invest in repairing the car and truck and bank the savings.

Too bad it don't look retro like the square front 2020 Bronco prototypes, which will also be nothing special except for name.
https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-ne...-ar186596.html

All Ford had to do was update the former Ranger, like VW Bugs, Jeep, K-car, or even Fox, to keep it inexpensive, tank-like durable, practical to own.
Would people buy it? Its all about rolling the MSRP way back or holding it. Leave the customer to 'load it up' as needed.
Instead of bragging about profits, complaining about labor cost and 'old' plants, and how much tready content they have.
But no, car companies continue to add standard content to product like horders over the years fill their houses.
Then one day..geez how did things get so out of control?

[xctasy]

The five cars based on the Ranger all share its T6 Australian Government and Miltary based platform.

The revival of the Ranger in North America (a LHD version of our Ranger, but with the Mustang's 2.3-litre EcoBoost petrol engine - again, yes please Ford!) has also given rise to the rebirth of the legendary Bronco name, with the 2020 SUV being based on a shortened version of the Ranger's T6 platform.

see https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/112...ger-underneath

"Five vehicles that are a Ford Ranger underneath"

1. Mazda BT-50

2. Ford Everest

3. Ford Bronco

4. Troller T4 (Brazilian 4x4 specialist that Ford quietly bought in 2007)

5. Arquus Trigger and Trapper (France)

Maybee a 6th. JMC Yuhu and Yusheng S350 (China)

[wraithracing]

I am not a Ranger buyer for many reasons, but I am not surprised that its not doing well in regards to sales. IMHO the Ranger is God Awful UGLY and too expensive. Base price is $24K, then $28K for the XLT, and $32K for the Lariat. Just for grins I loaded one up as everyone wants to these days and as a Crewcab 4x4 FX4 you are easily $40K. Yes still cheaper than an F150, but again IMHO way too much $$$ for what the truck offers. Personally the 2.3 Ecoboost as the only engine just doesn't impress me. Maybe it works just fine, but I was not impressed with the 4 cyl Ecoboost option for the Edge a few years ago when we bought the wife's. Maybe its much better now, but that one was anything but smooth and silky and truthfully felt under powered as hell!

I am interested to see what the new 2020/2021 Bronco looks like and is equipped with. The wife wants something different and it might work, but if the only engine option is the 2.3 Ecoboost, then we are probably looking at another Manufacturer as nothing else really fits her desires at this time from Ford.

[82gt50]

The new Ranger's competition is the Tacoma and Colorado, they're the best selling midsize trucks so Ford's target was obvious. These midsize trucks are obviously designed for the personal use market not hard work. Nobody builds a small truck like the original Ranger because the market isn't there anymore for a regular cab bench seat manual transmission 90 horsepower trucklet. Yes the old ranger had an extra cab available but it was so small they could only jam 2 jump seats sideways in the back that no adult could use, that kind of truck isn't going to cut it today.

[xctasy]

Thank the Dear FORD its not as ugly as the other village Idiot SUVs we have here...the Mitsubishi Triton and the Toyota Hilux SR5. Ford could afford to make the Ranger and BT50 as ugly as they obviously are....and still win market dominance down here. The tail lights are just disgusting, but personal opinions are like...you know. Its gonna have to get reworked pronto, Tonto!

[82gt50]

Rabble rabble! Trucks are more efficient than they used to be (and therefore exactly as efficient as they need to be), so they're a good fit for everybody!

I don't actually need a compact, easy to maneuver, affordable, FUN car that offers a manual, all the features I want, my kids' booster seats actually fit (unlike in a Mustang), and gets 30 mpg city with ease? NO. Sir, you need an F-150 crew cab for 3 times the price, and doesn't fit in your garage cuz it's so freakin' HUGE.

One size fits all! Why don't customers all want the same thing? We'll try forcing them to! See how that goes!

So drive a 245hp Escape or any one of the 6 different size CUV/SUVs Ford builds. But the days of Ford loosing money on sedans in America are over.

[ZephyrEFI]

Yeah, it's kind of interesting how you can tell that the Zephyr, coming up from mostly the same floorpan as the Mustang, is a wider car at the hips and shoulders. The back seat (the only bench seat mine has) seems MUCH wider. Taller too. I feel like my Mustang seats put you lower in the body than you're meant to be. The new seat foam I put in seems to have alleviated that some. Too bad I didn't keep my original seat frames to do some experimenting.

I'm noticing a lot of the same reason people aren't interested in what Ford is offering now. Too expensive! You know what's expensive? Crossovers! The manufacturers just love that crossover premium they've decided they get to charge over the price of traditional cars. It's only convenient that they've been nudging the prices of trucks (not to mention Mustangs) upward at the same time. They're leaving lower income people behind. People they could be hooking as lifetime customers. They don't want them anymore. This irresponsible lending environment of 7 year loans and low interest won't last forever either. Remember how that sort of thing worked out for the housing market? They'll find themselves with no vehicles the average consumer can afford anymore!

[82gt50]

Ford's 2019 2Q report
note it was the best quarter for truck sales in 15 years and F-Series held the highest transaction prices in the market (means they didn't have to throw cash on the hood to make the sale) win-win. Both Ford and Lincoln ranked in the top 5 J.D.Power initial quality.

https://s22.q4cdn.com/857684434/file...ings-Final.pdf

[ZephyrEFI]

How about this one?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopni...1838696472/amp

Let's take the sedan and small car thing out of it for a minute and just talk about what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket! Trucks! Everybody wants trucks!! Well, no! Maybe they don't!

Maybe I'm not the only one who's sh**canning my pattern of leasing a new car every few years because of LACK OF APPEALING MODELS AVAILABLE.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[82gt50]

Quote from the article you referenced: "In general, this hasn’t been a stellar time to be selling sedans and small cars."
That means to sell a sedan/small car manufacturers and dealers will have to throw incentives on the hood to move them off the lot. Remember, sales volume does not equal profit and a company can only tolerate so much loss. As mentioned in that article companies like Toyota and Honda are facing both fewer sales and lower profit on their sedans which make up the bulk of their line especially Honda.

And now quotes from Ford's 3Q report (not an internet news article)

"One way to evaluate our sales performance during the transition is to exclude Focus, C-MAX and Taurus volumes. Combined, the sales of these three vehicles represented 34,000 sales in Q3 of last year and essentially zero this year. Excluding these three vehicles, our sales will be up 2% instead of down 4.9% relative to a year ago.Taking a deeper look at our overall SUV performance, outside of the planned changeover in Explorer, our current line of SUV saw a very strong quarter. Our entry level SUV EcoSport posted 11% gain for the quarter versus a year ago. Expedition sales continue to be hot at 48% in Q3. Year-to-date, expedition sales are up 53% almost half of the sales coming from a much younger buying demographic under 44 years old. Sales in that demographic are up more than 70% for Expedition this year."

Mustang sales were down this quarter but Mustang alone outsold the discounted Taurus, Taurus Police Interceptor and Fiesta...combined. Fusion is selling well even accounting for fleet and probably remains in the Ford lineup for now because it's made in Mexico with $6 hour labor to offset it's low profit margin.

Explorer is in transition causing a 3Q volume reduction: "With limited Explorer inventory going into the third quarter, Ford completed the sell-down of 2019 models. New 2020 model year inventory continues building with strong consumer demand for ST and Platinum models. The two high-series models represented 46 percent of Ford’s initial retail mix".

The industry as a whole not just Ford is adjusting and the SAAR shows September wasn't as bleak as it looks.

[ZephyrEFI]

Let's take the sedan and small car thing out of it for a minute ...

(Ahem) Always have trouble following directions?

I would hope the Mustang outsold those models, as it's still being built, while Taurus and Fiestas would be left over old model year cars. I don't think it's unreasonable to say the Taurus would have sold better if they'd bothered investing in it AT ALL in the last 5 years. It was so outdated it might as well have been the Crown Vic. While, the Fusion, Focus, and Fiesta they don't have to invest in at all! It's already done for them with the Euro models. If they're so butthurt about investing in slow selling models, then don't. Bring 'em on over just like they are. That seems to be working out just fine for them with the Transit Connect, and that doesn't sell in big numbers. Hell, even use the same marketing strategy they do with the TC, which is none at all! But people don't respond well to being told they can't have something. Especially when they know you have it to offer!

[82gt50]

(Ahem) Always have trouble following directions?

The entire point of your argument IS that Ford cancelled your Focus so let's NOT take the small car thing out of it. So do what the internet Ranger owners do buy one used for $2,500 from the local "buy here-pay here" lot. If you really want to buy a brand new tiny car from Europe get a Fiat 500 or something. Good luck with that. Better off buying a Corolla at least it'll start every morning albeit staying awake while driving it is tough.

Let's look at your not very original idea of "why doesn't Ford bring their European cars to America" here's your answer...they don't sell here and after they're certified for our very different emission and safety requirements they loose money.

Just from memory...
First generation Fiesta 78-80 a stopgap looser waiting for the made for the American market 1981 Escort which was successful in it's time.
First generation Capri 70-78 a "sporty" car for Mercury dealers that ran like a Mustang II until the real Capri arrived in 1979.
Merkur the entire line was the biggest "bring them from Europe" bad idea ever it was Ford's modern Edsel, 0 to failure in 5 years.
Merkur XR4Ti came from Germany with a 2.3L turbo because the European engine didn't pass US emissions (that expensive certification thing) in 5 model years only 42,464 were sold.
Merkur Scorpio flagship of the line! Only 22,000 were sold here all years combined.

Since you brought up the Transit Connect I'll remind you that even the struggling Ranger more than doubled the TC's sales last quarter 26k vs 11k. The Transit Connect is only here because Ford wants to compete in every segment of the commercial truck market up to Class-7 and they can tolerate it's losses.