Harley Lover

The Toyota looks more like a competitor for the Hyundai Genesis coupe - it just doesn't have the history imbued in the Mustang. Not to mention it won't be available with a V8.

What is shown in the second picture? It appears to be the rear sheet metal of something (there appear to be tail light cutouts on each side, and a license plate depression in the middle), but the tail light shapes do not match up at all with the Fiesta. Could this be another model for the plant?

It's exciting that Ford that the ability to invest capital in projects such as these (assuming the China announcement on Friday). Both markets represent future growth, and hopefully even more economies of scale over time for global products. Ford has a long way to go in China, but this upcoming announcement at least demonstrates Ford intends to get in the game in a much more definitive way in that marketplace .

No way. It might work with professional OTR truckers, but the average consumer, who can't even be trusted to change oil at regular intervals? No way.

Given Mazda's recent claims that, going forward, they will only share V6's with Ford (and not 4's), I'm curious to see what drivetrain will be in the M2. I hope that at some point Ford will offer an Ecoboost engine with the dual clutch tranny in the Fiesta, but I imagine it would have to be in a top of the line model, as those features would presumably push the Fiesta to a much higher price point.

Watching that portion of the video makes me think the Grand's rear seat sits much higher off the floor than the 5, which would be nice, as the hip point in the second row would be higher as well.

I agree, the parallel SUV/CUV products (Escape/Edge) have worked well for Ford. I wonder if it might be possible to ultimately produce the Escape and Edge from the same platform? This would make sense, since presumably the Edge's current Mazda-derived platform is not long for this world the kingdom of Ford.

I agree with you, Austin. Nothing other than my opinion, but since I'm apparently the target demo (we own a Sienna and a Mazda5), I can state that the two are as different as the day is long, and they are used in entirely different ways. So to your point regarding the S-Max and Galaxy, I agree, they are missing key ingredients to be a player in this market. It took both Toyota and Honda 2 or more iterations to get the product right, and I don't think Ford has that luxury in the minivan arena. In some ways, I think it could be argued that the U.S. minivan market is similar to the U.S. pickup market, in the sense that the expectations of the market and the expectations of product capabilities are unique - be it size, layout, or whatever. I certainly don't get the sense that the Sienna or the Odyssey were designed with any market other than the U.S. in mind.

^^ I think that's a great idea, but from the perspective of cost, it's taking the product in the wrong direction (higher cost engine), at a time when Ford is presumably trying to bring the cost of the hybrid option down.

Sorry, no they don't. It can be a kangaroo if Ford marketing does a proper job of defining it to the market. It's called MARKETING for a reason. That's why Mullaly recruited Farley.

1) It's not a minivan. It's up to Ford to define it to consumers and make them want it. 2) Ditto. 3) Ford marketing again. 4) Which segment? Ford marketing again. Sorry, not buying it. I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers who just knew there was no market for a 4 door truck before the Explorer's release. After all, that's what an Explorer was, just like this is a minivan. Right?

There are times when I get sick of this board and this thread is one of them. Go back in time to when Ford introduced the first Explorer. The arguments given against the product in this thread could be made against introducing the Explorer back then. The only credible competitor had been the Jeep product, although IIRC Chevy beat Ford to market with their product. Bottom line was that the market segment was not that big. And yet what happened? Does anyone on this board really think that Ford (or anyone else for that matter) was prepared for the gargantuan sales success of the Explorer? It truly defined and created an entire segment of the marketplace that realistically had not existed before. I'm not even implying that the Grand C-Max will be an Explorer redux; I am saying that using the past or even the present to always predict the future is a fool's game. The size or existence of the current market segment is not a predictor of success - Ford's ability to define the product and convince consumers that they want the product will be a better predictor of success. This is the kind of challenge tailor made for Farley. Ford's risk with this product will be mininal, as they have already stated that they intend to build several products off this chassis in NA. If it sells enough to help fill a plant, it's done its job. If sales are higher than expected, then it helps Ford with its product mix by moving more higher mileage product. Good again. To summarily dismiss its prospects would be similar to dismiss the Explorer's prospects prior to its introduction in the early 90's. Most of the reasons I've read here could have been applied then.

Does anyone remember the t shirts from the 60's and 70's that features Rat Fink and various auto art by Big Daddy Roth? I think they were always advertised in Hot Rod. Anyway, this artwork reminds me of that time, and I'd love to have a t shirt with this artwork on it! Impress your friends and neighbors!

Crown Maxtoria?

I disagree, I think it looks like th S-Max's little brother: S-Max Concept

Still heavily camo'd, but seeing it in action gives a much better perspective of its size and stance: http://www.alltommotor.se/video/spionvideo...d-c-max-1.15247

I agree with your premise, but is this truly an apples to apples comparison? Does the Nissan engine have features we don't have? <not challenging you, I really don't know>

Global Rear Wheel Drive.

Mentioned by sullynd and twintornadoes, but why not use the just-retired Taurus sheetmetal (with a different name) for this market, or even the Five Hundred sheetmetal? I know the D chassis was upgraded for MKS/Taurus/Flex duty, but couldn't the older sheetmetal be made to work? If Ford is determined to use this chassis for PI duty, this would be a way to do so, while not compromising the marketplace for the new Taurus.

Why not use the just-retired Taurus sheetmetal (with a different name) for this market, or even the Five Hundred sheetmetal? I know the D chassis was upgraded for MKS/Taurus/Flex duty, but couldn't the older sheetmetal be made to work? If Ford is determined to use this chassis for PI duty, this would be a way to do so, while not compromising the marketplace for the new Taurus.

Not sure this makes sense unless GM had a killer August 2008. We know from published reports that GM had a higher percentage of the C4C sales than Ford (I think it was roughly 17% vs. 14+%), so attributing Ford's climb to C4C seems to be leaving something out of the picture in terms of GM. Thoughts?

Great news, congratulations to those workers! http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseC...4085&EDATE=

There are two seemingly contradictory statements regarding the timing of this engine's introduction in the article: one states that it will replace the current engine "by 2011" and the other states that job one is this fall at the engine plant. It's hard to imagine that the plant will be building pilot engines for a year, so when does the engine actually hit the market?

Mazda is apparently going their own way on 4 cylinder engines, according to an article in AN. The same article says they will continue to rely on Ford for their V6 offerings.

If the idiot doesn't understand the difference between taking a loan (Ford) and selling an equity position (ownership) via bailout (GM and Chrysler), then why waste the energy to correct his ignorance?