jlsaylor

C'mon, we both know I wasn't just standing around wasting time, if I had done that I would have been taking one of the many valuable tasks performed by a union employee away from them, thereby endangering his or her job. Hey, I understand, standing around looking stupid has value too, all we have to do is ask the union. And as we all know, if there is one thing the union wont stand for it's somebody else doing the work their employees don't do.

Yes, move all domestic production to right to work states. At that point the union could complain all it wants regarding Ford's future plans, but their real weapon would be gone. Effectively, if they went on strike, Ford could simply fire the lot of 'em.......sure would solve a lot of problems. You would find out in a hurry who wants their job and who doesn't. Like we used to say back when I worked in management.....United Against Work will find a way to screw it up every time. I think the real nail in the coffin is when Ford's most productive and highest quality facility in North America became a Mexican facility, kinda difficult to explain those UAW wages when I can erect a facility in a third world nation and get a better result even if you don't consider the lower wage. I hate to see any family hit dire times, but the UAW isn't getting anything they haven't been begging for for decades.

I suppose 'better' is all in the eye of the beholder. I know two US Marines, both of whom are special operators, neither of which feels they have yet seen a replacement for the M16/M4 platform which is actually a superior alternative. Yes, the black rifle has it's disadvantages, but for the trained warrior these are really minor sticking points at best. As an avid shooter myself, I would tend to agree with their opinion....the M16/M4 is a rifleman's rifle (or carbine) of the highest order. That said, both they and I agree with you on the bullpup concept. Great on paper....in the real world.... not so good. As for the SA80, I can tell you that as recently as four or five years ago Marines serving in theatres with friendly forces employing the SA80 were still being told to watch their M4's carefully since it was not uncommon for their M4's to, ahem, disappear....and with alarming regularity. Take that as you will.

Would you prefer I simply brought up cars which were of no relation whatsoever? The truth is that these fairly represent the closest offerings in size, layout, mission, and pricing to the Pontiac G8 on American shores. You not liking the mix makes it no less relevant. This is but a small sampling to be sure, and hardly constitutes a scientific analysis, but I personally know two people who own a current gen CTS one of whom owned a 300C prior to the CTS and the other of whom cross shopped the 300 against the Caddy. Direct competitors? No. Regularly cross shopped? Particularly as it relates to the 300C I would just about bet the farm on it. Indeed it is. But the reality is that the 300 still moves more retail units per month than the G8 ever has despite the fact that the 300 has and still is facing hurdles the G8 has never had to. (Chrysler tends to hold fleet/retail percentages pretty close to the vest until the model year has long been done with, but 300 fleet numbers would have to be something like 80% or more if we were to realize a situation where G8 actually sold more retail units.....and that just isn't the case) The most notable of these obstacles is obviously the decision Daimler Chrysler made to introduce a butch rebody of the basic car for the Dodge brand in the Charger, a move which certainly cannibalized more than a few sales. Factor in a pathetic base engine offering, a mediocre mid range V6 offering, a 300C model which has a reputation as a gas guzzler, and the fact that the car is now five model years old and the fact that G8, which suffers from none of these same shortcomings, cannot even get within sniffing distance of this cars sales should be telling everybody something. Like mom always said, appearance and perception count. G8 is dieing on both fronts. Charger was a bad idea IMO, they should have simply expanded the 300 lineup, but the 300 could and still should be a keeper. The odds of Chrysler squandering the opportunity they have with the 300 are very good indeed, but the above says more about the management at GM and Chrysler than the segment. They said that about Lexus once too. The car is building a following, if slowly. But those who have bought the car love it and Hyundai executed the entire program nearly as well as they could have. The one error I will charge them with is the car should have used the Genesis moniker and proposed, Bentley-esque Genesis logo and grille theme which went with that rather than badging it as a Hyundai.....but I understand why they did what they did. The car doesn't appeal to me personally, but then I am not the target demographic so that is hardly a shortcoming. I cannot apply most if any of the positives above to the G8's situation. GM flubbed Zeta from the very beginning and they still don't understand how........but then that really isn't a surprise. Can't argue there, but then Japan kept the tracing paper industry flush with cash for decades so I cannot really throw rocks at the Koreans for doing the same. No offense intended, but have you considered the possibility that the problem lies with FOA, Holden and their respective offerings and not the segment? It appears a GRWD based, full-size sedan is still on the way for Ford, just not by way of Australia. The cold had truth is that Holden and Falcon are expensive cars to produce to say the very least. Even worse they are arguably far too focused on the desires and needs of the Australian market long after it became obvious they would need to generate more universal appeal in markets abroad, particularly the American market, if they are to thrive or even survive.

US market conditions aren't helping, but I don't agree that what I stated cannot be verified. September 08 sales for the G8 were 1651 units, a number which is actually fairly representative of what the G8 has managed on a typical sales month. Comparing this to the numbers produced for September by other vehicles tells us a great deal. I'm starting out with a small sample of sedans which represent the closest thing to direct competition the G8 has. Cadillac CTS: 4360 units Chrysler 300: 4300 units Dodge Charger: 8118 units Hyundai Genesis: 1028 units The only thing not hammering the G8 is the Hyundai, and even it isn't too far off the G8's numbers despite the obvious hurdles any Hyundai sedan selling for this price in the US market would face. Sure, we can argue that production numbers are limited, but the truth is that the G8 isn't in demand even at those amazingly low production figures. As I stated earlier rebates are easy to come by and the car is very easy to find on dealer lots. In a comparison with the above cars the G8 arguably, perhaps easily, represents the best deal of the lot objectively speaking, offering a V8 which rivals the unitl found in Chryler's SRT8 models for the price of a 300C or Charger RT. The Pontiac also offers better rear seat room than any of the models listed above and offers a more refined driving experience than all but the CTS and Hyundai. In terms of handling it trumps them all. And yet, both the 300 and CTS trounce the G8 in overall sales numbers despite the fact that each is a pricier option. The typically less expensive Charger absolutely kills G8 numbers. Even the Vette outsold the G8 in September (and in every other month IRRC) with the plastic fantastic moving 2318 units across the curb for the month. To be blunt this is bad, I mean really bad. Too often people use the analogy that a car has to build momentum in the market but that really only applies to appliance like vehicles, The G8 isn't that kind of car, and should be more like the 2005 model 300 or Mustang was, coming out of the door like gangbusters. Sure the current market conditions hampered that effect, but it is difficult to argue it caused the dismal numbers listed above. I think the G8 is dieing the death of a thousand cuts. First, I think the Pontiac brand is so damaged by this point that it's ability to survive, even if GM as a whole does, is called into question. Second, the G8 doesn't look like a full size car to American eyes in my experience. People applaud the car on the internet, but virtually every person I have suggested the G8 to out here in the real world has come back with the same reply....'THAT, is a full size car'.......and has done so without prompting. Holden did a great job making the Commodore look smaller than it is...but in America that isn't a good thing if you want to sell a full size car. I do realize that the sweet spot the G8 was supposed to hit wasn't actually the full-sized segment, with the ideal positioning being that of a bargain, mid sized sport sedan. Were Pontiac a less damaged brand they could potentially pull this off as quasi-premium, mid sized, sport sedan offering on the cheap, but the truth is that they are that damaged so that angle should obviously have been out of the question from the beginning. Ironically, sold here as Buick I think the Caprice/Statesman would have done much better. The added girth makes it look like a proper, full size sedan; the more subdued styling looks both more expensive and more refined than does that of the boy-racer G8, and while thought of as old men's cars Buick still has enough cred to position a car within this price range without inducing giggles. And the car may even have served to help Buick's chances for survival and their overall image. Agreed Agreed as well I disagree. The two closest competitors to the G8 in this market, 300 and Charger, hammered G8 in monthly sales as mentioned above. Even in this market the G8 should be moving at least twice as many units as it is. It could, but only if GM figures out how to fix the other issues which are hampering the G8 on our shores.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that those are the numbers GM initially intended to import prior to moving production to a North American facility. Demand for that amazingly small number of cars is incredibly low, far lower than GM had hoped. Virtually any American can run down to their local dealership right now and swing a deal for several grand off msrp on a 4-door sedan which plays in a class of two and which is being imported in number more in line with what we would expect for a Corvette than from a 30k, V8-powered sedans...and people still aren't scrambling to get in line. What GM no doubt expected was for those the 25-30k cars per year to be a ridiculous demand, but nothing could be further from the truth, The G8 is a failure, and a relatively massive one at that.

edited: posted in error

Perhaps this is why the Ford actually made a suitable every day car and the Camaro was horribly compromised in this respect from 1982 on? Claiming a platform is exculsively Camaro brings absolutely no cachet to the table. The last F body was a first rate flexi-flyer. Using the 3rd gen as an example of the 4th gens superiority is like bragging about an A average in a remedial class. F-body's did very well indeed in SCCA T2, largely due to their IFS setup and power advantage. If you want to make your life harder than it has to be, sure. But whats the point? This design represented short-sightedness at it's finest. The notion that OHV's are easier to deal with is strictly an opinion at best, and one which I would disagree with. I much prefer to service the valvetrain on an OHC engine than the old cam in block, OHV designs. And once again, you have to completely ignore the ridiculous placement of the F-body's engine to even make that claim in the first place. Everything is a trade, and there is no way to justify, as a manufacturer, where they put this cars engine. The penalty for doing so was simply too large. As far as 2003 cars (Mach 1/Cobra) and newer - that is really irrelevant because GM didn't have a comparable pony car. I'm sure that GM probably knew years before 2002 that they wouldn't have an fbody for 2003. I'd say they probably knew in '99 or '00 because automakers usually have future products planned well before they are released. GM has considered cancelling the F-Body long before 99 or 00. But they didn't really put the final nail in the coffin more than a year or two ahead of the actual demise of the car at most. I'm sure many F-body fans would like to think that GM cancelled the F-body with little consideration for what Ford was doing, but that is highly unlikely. And the fact that the Mustang so thoroughly dominated the segment that GM chose to leave the market altogether, rather than take another go at it is hardly irrelevant. Yup, I remember, hydraulic hood props that stopped working at about three years old. Steering wheel controls in an interior so ridiculously cheap one could find several better places to have spent the money these required. And the power antenna, can't live without that. Did I leave out the T-Tops which assure that you and your car will match on rainy days? Of course I mean that you'll both get wet. The Mustangs shifter position was a serious sore spot, and it's interior hopelessly cheap, but it was a step up from the f-body to be sure. And your passenger could actually have legs in the Mustang, always a plus. Also, Camaro only has a better seating position if you're cruising in New Jersey. Most people don't like sitting on the floor. A more accurate summation......Better aerodynamics at the cost of a ridiculous looking exterior. More power per dollar because they spent all of the money on the engine. A lower center of gravity because the engine is under the windshield. Better rear suspension...not really. Better Front suspension? Yeah. Better gas mileage? Yep, but your buying premium. Better response to N/A mods if you are willing to actually wrestle with the motor positioning to make them. Better seating position? No. Maybe GM will figure out that sitting on the floorpan isn't ideal for most people this go round. Optional T-Tops? Camaro's had an image as the car for mullet wearers for a reason, and keeping the t-tops didn't do the fourth gen any favors. Stronger bottom end? Not quite. If a strong bottom end is your concern then the older Cobras easily beat the LS1 and wer far cheaper to get really serious hp from if a power adder was your cup of tea. In the Miata I can unlatch the top for the windscreen and reach over my shoulder to go topless in about five seconds, without rushing the process. This is an area that should worry GM fans like yourself. Why on earth wouldn't GM just copy the top mechanism from the Miata? The last generation Miata would have served just fine, and GM obviously knew that it existed and was a far superior design. Why would they ignore it outright and intentionally design a far worse solution? Things like this are what remind me of engines half hidden under windshields and doors that don't swing right. As for performance.....some people also want refinement and a polished feel. Does Kappa deliver there too? At 8/10 maybe, at 10/10 apparently not. GM did a good job with the basic Kappa design, but made some rather serious misteps along the way. Here is where the problem lies. What is GM doing about those? Are they looking into redesigning the top? Are they considering ways to lower the weight of the cars? Are they considering a more refined replacement for the existing 5-speed manual? The list goes on and on. The answer to all of these is most likely no. GM is selling cars and they are so thrilled to be doing so they don't see any need to fix these issues. In fact, I rather think they see it as you do. "Ah, we're selling enough already. And its a sports car. Who needs a trunk? Or a top that is simple to operate?" Now ask yourself if you really think that Mazda isn't considering a sportier suspension setup, or an styling update, or a Mazdaspeed version packing the MS3's turbo 4? These are all known quantities, we know Mazda is doing exactly that. Misteps can be forgiven, but acting as though these issues don't need absolution is exactly what got GM into trouble in the first place. Frankly, given the template the Miata provided, that GM made the above errors at all is inexcusbale. That GM apparently sees no need to fix them is even worse. And this time they have a more difficult target to hit with the Mustang. Not long ago rumours were floating everywhere that GM was having a very difficult time figuring out how to make the Camaro reasonably match the Mustang V-6, and GT for that matter, in terms of pricing. This begs the question, did they go back to the well one more time and short change the buyer because they think they can? We'll see Ah, but it looks as though power wont be exclusive to GM anymore in the lower ranks. Fords new Duratec V-6 has thus far shown more promise than has GM's HF V-6 lineup, and the Boss V-8 engine line will apparently be here before the Camaro debuts too. We don't know when these will show up in Mustangs, but we know that they will show up, and rlatively soon, this solves any problems the LS2, or LS whatever might pose to more common Mustangs. As for GM not wanting to topple the Mustang? C'mon. We both know they want this so badly they can taste it. GM is simply setting their expectations low so they wont put themselves in a bad position financially, or in the eyes of the public, whatever the long term outcome. The F body wasn't around anymore because GM reasoned that it's poor sales were due to an overall lack of demand for 2-door performance cars in general rather than the actual reason, which was that the car wasn't very good. Well this and because they knew that Ford was investing more money into the Mustang and they didn't want to reciprocate. This has all happened before and it will happen again. Most mainstream auto makers are doing the former with small trucks as we speak. I'll agree that lack of demand for V-6 cars hurt the F-body badly, but that lack of interest was for far more reasons than simply being low and hard to park. To be blunt, without the V-8 there was simply no compelling reason to buy a Camaro or Firebird.

Hmm, I don't know about that. I wouldn't mind an insane revver in a Boss 302 revival, but in the modern era the value of torque has been vastly under-rated more often than not. Mercedes is the perfect example of deft execution in motors which seldom blow you away with their hp rating, and yet the cars almost always posses great acceleration. This is because Mercedes kills their competitors with torque. A 9000rpm V-8 is likely be a strictly high rpm show, and that just in't appealing to me. I'm not advocating a return to low rpm, huge cube big blocks that are out of breath by 4500rpm mind you. But I do like a nice mix of torque and hp in my mills with just a bit of emphasis on low end torque. The Boss V-8 seems likely to provide just that.

I wonder when the NHRA will actually inject some relevence back into the highest echelon of the sport by allowing things like OHC's, fuel injection, fuel that could actually power a street car, or even motors with displacements you might actually find in a street car? Oh, thats right.....never.

I rather like the first two, the one showcasing the new PS is partiaularly cool.

Don't bother people with facts, you know how they hate that.

I see you neglect to mention that the last generation of f-body was based on a platform which traces it's roots back to 1982. Although, I'm sure that those four extra years on the Mustang's chassis made all the difference. Also worth mentioning is the ox-cart axle GM put out back just like Ford. GM's F-Body has a somewhat better sorted IFS, but the points GM loses for a chassis that was an avid flex-flyer even when compared to the Mustang, especially with t-tops, aren't helping the f-body. And the last F-Body had a lot more than a cat hump to cause problems. In a car aimed at tuners, the engine played such a ridiculous peek-a-boo act under the cowl that I've seen professional racers rid themselves of their daily driver Camaros and Firebirds saying that they wanted to mod their car and their F-body wasn't worth the trouble! That goes well beyond simple oversight. The build quality was wretched even by GM's standards. And frankly, the styling was more than simply controversial, most people found them downright ugly. As for having 100hp less.....picking and choosing the years we compare here Beav'? The 99 and newer Mustang GT's came equipped with 260hp, which while still a disadvantage relative to the Camaro was somewhat less than 100hp. By 2003 Ford had closed the gap entirely, and then some, with the Mach-1 and SVT's ringer Cobra. GM never had anything extra in terms of power planned for these model years even if production had continued, but rather than continue losing ground GM simply quit altogether. Somehow that isn't impressive. In the end, the last V-8 Camaro was simply an LT1/LS1 wrapped in the cheapest car GM knew how to build. I might call that a great many things, but some romantic notion that this was a car for the true enthusiast just doesn't wash. Manual top operation isn't what I'm complaining about since the same is perfect for the class, at least as standard fare. The fact that the Kappa's top is an engineering nightmare that works even worse than it looks, that is a problem. And while no trunk space may not be as unfortunate in this class as some others, it isn't going to help by any means. As for a performance argument. The SCCA Solstices did wonderfully, unfortunately for the vast majority of owners this doesn't generally translate into a superior on road car since you have to get the FE3 suspension package to play and that requires a step up to the GXP or a base car. This might work fine for now where orders outstrip production, but it doesn't really make sense, and is hopelessly short-sighted, since it certainly wont help demand long term. The base motors somewhat crude manner is another sore spot, as is the 5-speed manuals far from slick nature. Yeah, the cars are good looking, they're relatively comfortable for the class, and their dynamics will satisfy most of the crowd actually dropping coin on them in a very limited field of alternatives. But the above list represents some pretty substantial shortcomings. Against a relative ugly car like the Miata, and one with somewhat of a chick car image, this may work fine. The problem for GM is that this isn't likey to work against the Mustang which is one of the better all around cars in production for the money, which is my point. If the Camaro shows up half-baked with the same kind of compromises the Kappa twins possess GM will have serious issues since Fords pony car isn't leaving the door wide open like the Miata has. The Camaro will come out of the gate strong for obvious reasons regardless of execution. But how good it is will determine long term outcome, and this wont be as easy a road to travel as Kappa was. Remind me.....which one hasn't been around for the last five years again? And why was that?

I know what you mean. It's as though the only thing some people think will determine supremacy in the revived pony cars wars is IRS or the lack thereof. It will be far more interesting than that I'm sure.

I would prefer an IRS in the Mustang, but the 'all else being equal' bend to this argument takes a lot of faith. The F-body failed because GM didn't see fit to make it a decent car in the modern era, just a fast one. Speed addicted owners could fix any hp defeciency in their Mustang, ridding a Camaro of the ridiculous cat hump in the passenger footwell or living with doors that don;t swing right at two years old is another story altogether. Nothing GM has wrought since indicates that they understand how to put together a car that is as compelling as the Mustang, and as practical, for similar money. The Solstice and Sky are pointed to often enough as an indicator of GM's turn-around, but in reality they get by on looks in a class where the only other player is Mazda. Compared to Mazda's Miata, the Kappa twins are sloppy (could we make them any heavier boys?), impractical (the roof and trunk are both like bad jokes), and not as cheap as GM would like you to believe. Weight aside, their spec sheets are much more impressive than is that of the Miata, yet in terms of real worlds dynamics they are far inferior. This says what we all really knew already. There is more to building a car than throwing impressive-sounding equipment at it and making it pretty. GM has had some impressive efforts with their new sedans and suv's, but it remains to be seen wether they have actually learned anything of value as it relates to building performance cars in this price range. GM is still the one with something to prove here.

Four mpg sounded a bit high to me too, but I didn't feel like looking it up so...And I agree wholeheartedlty that comparing the mpg of these two vehicles in this fashion is ridiculous at best and disingenuous at worst. Journalists are supposed to base their argument around the facts, instead we often find them tailoring the facts to their argument.

I don't like Toyota any more than you do. But I can tell you from personal experience Toyota doesn't operate on that premise because they don't think they have to and, most often, they're right. I can assure you that Toyota isn't doing anything with the aim of beating GM, because in their corporate mind they've already done it and reality is simply lagging behind. That said, I wonder if this would be a good avenue for Ford? Logans are being sold in Western Europe as we speak with demand far outstripping supply. This makes that market, and the America market for that matter, likely candidates for sales along with the rest of the world. Ford could dust off an old American or British make, or both, and produce ultra low cost cars for the world market (this is one of the few areas where I think world cars have serious merit) They could even badge them as Nash Rambler by Ford, or Austin by Ford, etc. This would allow some name familiarity, and an obvious connection to Ford, without risking further damage to the brands image. Or, they could simply sell them as a new brand altogether, though I don't really see the advantage in that. Established nameplates, however old and little know, will help with enthusiast acceptance and, thereby, with Joe consumer. This would also provide Ford a stronger foothold in developing nations that will pay huge dividends in the future through brand identity while giving you short term profit as well (and that is why Toyota wants a slice of the pie, they aren't stupid)

There is some seriously dated thinking here. First, awd does not have to translate into poor fuel economy. People cite the weight of the awd system as the problem here when, in actuality, it's typically the drag the system creates on the driveline that is the culprit. Several auto makers are unveiling awd systems that are alsmot entirely 'on demand' minimizing this problem. And even without this advancement awd had improved in this respect significantly. And you missed my earlier point entirely, I said a rwd platform lends itself to better dynamics and balance, not that awd somehow managed this. (and I said it more than once) I also never suggested making all vehicles, or even the majority, awd. I suggested making the majority of vehicles offered in areas where foul winter weather is so serious an issue that it renders rwd impractical awd. That leaves out just about everything south of the Mason-Dixon line entirely, and doesn't take into account the fact that most of the US is pretty mild for that matter. There would be a mix of rwd to awd everywhere, just like it was with suvs, but in many areas it would be primarily rwd to be sure. The fact that consumers seem to be embracing awd proven through the popularity of the same on many vehicles is impossible to ignore without bias or ignorance, and lends value to my argument that rwd with awd as an option has newfound credibility. Back to the balance argument, even an awd equipped vehicle based on a rwd chassis is going to easily outstrip anything fwd based assuming a modest level of competence. Dynamically speaking there would be no comparison in any respect, with the rwd car lending itself to better handling and a better ride by design. (using typical differences between fwd and rwd here) That is a small price to pay for a little bit of weight relative to some of the fwd products on the market. Richards argument has merit, even though I disagree with it. In fact his last post pointed out the opposite of my argument perfectly. Has awd gained broad anough acceptance to make a rwd/awd platform practical rather than the fwd or fwd/awd platforms we now have? My answer is yes and his is no. Blueblood and NickF10111 make sound arguments as well, even though I likewise disagree with each of them. Your argument on the other hand, sounds like you didn't even read the thread. You'd likely still disagree anyway even if you had, but it would do everyone here a service if you took the trouble to do so.

i see your point, but I think there is an argument perception has changed somewhat. I also don't think it is unavoidable that they would have to pay extra. The Camry and Accord aren't cheap, which is part of the reason I think the door is wide open here.

I can't stand the Tundra, but even I would admit that 4mpg is just a little more than 'a little'. But to be fair, I have seen tests where the Tundra did worse than the Chevy did if I recall. And in this instance it isn't exactly apples and oranges since we don't know what the Chevy or Tundra were doing during the driving which garnered these mileage numbers. For all we know the Tundra could have been making 400 mile interstate runs on roads as flat as Kansas while the Chevy spent most of it's time pulling a 49 Mercury through city streets. My example is extreme, but it makes my point. That said, Chevy and Toyota seemed so fixated on tearing each other down that they seem to be ingoring the top dog in the segment, Ford. In fact, it seems as though Chevy went out of their way to pick this fight, or at least to answer Toyota's invitation to the match, which isn't necessarily the best idea IMO. My experience is that people who are fond of Chevy trucks are more accepting of Toyota as an alternative than are those who typically buy Fords. In light of this such a scenario isn't shaping up to be pretty for Chevy since they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from entering this mud-slinging competition. Suits me just fine though. Let Toyota Cannibalize Chevy, and likely Dodge, sales while Ford largely ignores the foray and makes their lead in the segment even larger.

IMO you are making a point here which furthers mine. The fact that awd is becoming so popular, and that Ford subscribes to this notion, is a reality which makes a rwd platform far less problematic. If awd is seen as an integral part of the program meant to move in large numbers rather than a band aid to make up for rwd inadequacies then I fail to see the downside (I once lived in the snowbelt myself) This is exactly the perception that we saw with rwd suv's in fact. Simply make virtually all of the cars offered in foul weather prone areas awd. If Ford can sell a dynamically superior car, with better inhernetly aesthetics, along with the advantage of awd for a price resonably comparable to Toyota's equivalent fwd Camry or Honda's equivelant fwd Accord I think the advantages would obviously outweigh the downside. As for fwd suv's outselling rwd suv's, and proving that people prefer fwd in the process.....I think this is apples and oranges. The shift has been from truck based suvs to crossovers largely due to the crossovers perceived better driving dynamic and fuel economy. (as you know reality isn't always the same as this perception) This move has many fathers, but I don't really think a desire for fwd is among them. Rising gas prices, the passing of the suv fad, and Detroits failure to keep truck based suvs as compelling as they once were are more likely the forces responsible IMO. And crossovers are typically fwd because the cars these brands make upon which they can be based were already fwd. Either way, these fwd hybrids will never see the sales volume those rwd-based suv's of yore enjoyed, which makes it impossible to seriously pose the argument that these buyers really wanted fwd but settled for rwd. And in the end, if we want to argue that rwd is a product killer, we still have to explain the odd acceptance of rwd platforms under these suv's, whatever the percentage of awd product might have been, if rwd is the turnoff people imply. The notion that they took it because it was all they could get has too many holes in it to suffice. As for cost of rwd manufacture, I have long believed that this was/is overstated, at least in more modern times. Chrysler's LX platform is ridiculously cheap to manufacture by their own admission, as is Ford's D2C platform under the Mustang. Nothing about either platform indicates that rwd based cars couldn't be cost competitive even when equipped with awd. People I've spoken with initially shoot down the idea of rwd-based, awd vehicles because they are convinced that the same will be ridiculously expensive. RWD cars like the Charger, a car which has an msrp that starts far below an entry level V-6 Camry despite it's much larger size, don't support this notion. There is no reason to believe that Ford couldn't easily conjure a rwd based mid size sedan which could sell for similar money to the Camry and Accord even when equipped with AWD. This would leave room for budget rwd models to undercut Camry and Accord pricing while allowing awd models to outgun them in every dynamic respect but pricing. In regions where foul weather isn't as serious an issue rwd would still provide better dynamic qualities than the fwd Camry or Accord can, with better content for the dollar That would be ground breaking and, if executed and marketed properly, very successful IMO.

To be blunt it isn't as cut and dried as your post makes it seem. Companies like Honda and Toyota don't design all of their cars, or even most of them, with as broad a global view as you may think. A good example is our Accord. Yes, it is sold elsewhere, but it isn't sold everywhere by any means. One broad exception to your theory is that it isn't sold at all in Europe. And the Accord/Insight sells in relatively small numbers in many of the other countries where it is offered. Make no mistake, the US market Accord is specifically designed for the US market, Honda is just open to the idea that it may hold appeal elswhere too. We have the same scenario with the Euro market Accord and Acura TSX. Honda saw an opportunity to turn mainstrem Europes mid-size Honda into an entry level offering for their US market Acura brand. We are hardly talking apples and oranges here, since the same basic car is viewed in two entirely different lights on these two continents. What global models they do offer don't always meet with the success many imply. The Euro market Corolla isn't nearly as successful as Toyota would like, with both it and the Yaris being seen as the lowest of the low there. In fact, the new model was aimed squarely at fixing that image problem, arguably with little success is preliminary reviews prove accurate. I'm all for selling cars in every market. But in most cases I subsribe to the Honda method which holds that what makes a good honda in Europe might not be a good fit for the same brand here. This is why I still find Mercury to be useful. Most of the Euro market Fords fit the Mercury mold perfectly IMO. A move which would leave Ford NA and FOA free to develop cars better suited for large volume sales in those markets, and which could likewise be sold in Europe under a different brand name as well.

A few comments. First, I disagree regarding Toyota. IMO they aren't changing thr status quo so much as they are expanding their own version of the same by expanding their existing philosophy and methods to new segments, or in a few cases segments which they haven't been in for some time. Second, I don't think you can remove the 300C from the examination of that model and get an accurate picture. To do so assumes that no 'mainstream sedan' buyers would choose a V-8 given the choice, and I don't think we can really say that. That said, I am not simply using the 300 on its own merit to make my case, although that many retail sales for a car in this segment is huge by any standard. Rather large sales of rwd based suv's, full-size pickups, and even the Mustang simply cannot be ignored. Not so long ago, largely thanks to suv's, sales of rwd based vehicles surpassed the sales of fwd base models IIRC. Again, I don't see how we can ignore this. IMo the evidence suggests that Ford and others are ignoring a possibility which is right in front of their faces with no evidence to suggest a mid-size, or even a compact, rwd car would meet with anything but success. I wont get into this in any more depth here because I largely covered it within my rant about why Ford should consider rwd not too long ago. As for the argument that this day and age doesn't lend itself to another Taurus, I disagree. In fact I think this era is more ripe for a Taurus type revolution than the the 80's were. What made the Taurus special was Ford's willingness to think outside of the box to find a better way to build a better car. At the moment every auto maker is so conservative that they cannot see past the standard, mid-sze, fwd template every mainstream auto maker is employing.

I see your point, but I can't agree relative to what you think the car will accomplish. The Mondeo offers more style than do the Accord or Camry, and almost certainly a bit more sport as well, but frankly whatever you may think of the Fusion it does to. And I seriously doubt the Mondeo is significantly more sporting than the new Altima, which for me begs the question what else but styling does the Mondeo have to offer that will be so sweeping within the segment? A better engine? It requires an engine swap to achieve this just like the Fusion does. The difference? We know a 3.5L V-6 will fit in the Fusion. Nothing but inline's have ever been stuffed into EUCD thus far. And even with the engine swap we are still talking about parity rather than supremacy here. A better interior? Yes, when compared to the Fusion and likely the Camry. A better interior than the upcoming Accord? That remains to be seen but I'd bet most here, including you, expect this to be pretty close. The problem here is that this interior comes at a cost. The Mondeo isn't cheap, and my guess is that by the time you stuff the D35 into it, it will cost more than the Camry or Accord. If not it won't likely have a price advantage, at least not if Ford actually wants to make money on it. Don't misunderstand I like the Mondeo, and I think it is very well sorted. My problem is that it really isn't that different than what the Japanese offer here already, especially not when compared to the Accord or Altima. Yeah, it's a bit swoopier, and a bit more sporting than the Accord, but when all is said and done that amounts to nothing more than a facelift and a sport package relative to the Accord and mere styling compared to the Altima. A fwd, V-6 powered, mid size sedan represents a template which can only take you so far. And by this point the concept is so thoroughly developed that it can no longer set you significantly apart. Against established competiton I think the Mondeo is simply going to be seen as a car which serves to level the playing field, and which is basically the same thing Honda offers with Euro-styling and a sportier bend. It wont be seen as being that different from it's Japanese competition because, to be blunt, it isn't. That would be fine were Honda, Toyota, and Nissan not so entrenched, and their products so well executed, but they are. The Mondeo offers nothing Honda or Nissan couldn't largely counter with a mid-cycle refresh, assuming the next Accord doesn't possess much sportier styling in its own right which is the rumour, and to me that speaks volumes. Again, I like the Mondeo, and would like to see it come here....just not as a Ford. IMO meeting the status quo, or even slightly besting it, just isn't going to be enough for Ford to get back where they need to be at this stage. Not in this segment. As an aside.......... It is only fair to mention that I think this segment is the worst case scenario for Ford in the NA market. The polar opposite is the B segment, where every competitors car is either so boring, so cheaply made, or so expensive that they leave the door wide open for the Fiesta, even the current model which is somewhat aged. It is easily the better of any B Car currently sold here. The Transit Connect is likewise a good fit. And should the segment stay as sparsely populated with truly compelling product as it is, only the Golf.Jetta, and Civic are truly players here at the moment, the C2 Focus seems likely to do well here too. But I still think Ford would be better served to go a different route entirely.

I agree, I just don't agree that the only, or even the best, way to do this is to build cars which are, at their core, the exact same thing everybody else is building with a twist..