Chris D.

I know you really meant MSNBC (better known as MSDNC), NOT Fox News.

Does anyone know how much Ford makes on the CD3 cars?

A read an article very recently (I believe it was an AutoConnection writer), showing that Ford made between $200-300 per car on the Mustang. Even if you assumed he was incorrect and added a few hundred to each car, when contrasting that with how much Ford (and the other domestics) make on full size trucks and SUV's (approx $10K on trucks) you see the point.

Chrysler is not financially stronger for the same reason that Ford and GM are not financially stronger: higher fuel prices (sooner than anticipated) hurting predominantly truck/SUV heavy lineups. It's going to take some time for the American automakers to bring more cars to market, while simultaneously geting the cost structure "right" on all fronts to make these cars more profitable for them. A good example is the Mustang, despite being an excellent seller Ford makes very little per car because of the high production costs.

When I first saw it, I was pleasantly surprised to see a vehicle that looked substantially different than the current model, inside and out. Overall, it more closely resembles the Civic. The fact that it looks all-new should help it sell better. The exterior is a little quirky, not the muscular, edgy euro look I was hoping for. The front end doesn't seem to harmonize completely and the wheels look somewhat lost in the fenders. They've even managed to make plain what should have been a bold chrome grill (ala Fusion). I'm mixed about the side scoops, need to see them in person. The back is not too bad. The coupe is a little plain, but better looking than the sedan IMO. Love the interior, think it's right up there with the best of them from a "style" perspective. This is big. Need to inspect the actual materials to comment further. In this price range, I think the "sync" option is really going to help sell this car, especially to women. Definetly disappointed with the powertrain however. Why couldn't we get the VVT 2.0 with a 5 AT? This car was probably going to get an even milder re-do before Fields came along, so I'm grateful for at least getting a substantial re-styling. We all knew coming in that this was going to be a holdover model for a few years. Mission accomplished there. Is it where we want Ford cars to be? DEFINETLY NOT. But I feel there truly is light at the end of the tunnel with Mulally and Fields, and sooner rather than later.

I don't hate this concept. Toned down a little, I think the overall shape and styling has potential. People are always looking to be distinctive and different, and it certainly is that. We know the future of the industry is one of fractionation and nich products, and this could represent "bold" in the manner Ford is shooting for. Reminds me of the blocky SynUS concept, though this is clearly spoken of along the lines of a people mover, not a B-car. In all likelihood, it's just a unique showcase for Ford's alternative fuel technologies. I wonder how long before a powertrain like this could be mass-produced. How awesome would it be if Ford could bring that type of powertrain technology to market first; exactly the type of innovation needed to help turn things around. I'll keep my fingers crossed on that.

Richard, you definitely make some valid points regarding some "issues" that would need to be addressed prior to going forward with a plan like this. My post was about the broader debate; that the euro move need not be about making Mercury an "import fighter" like Saturn, but to differentiate the brand from Ford as its primary goal. I think they could find a way to make the euro cars fit into the lineup, but it would still have to make financial sense of course. It's worth looking into I believe, and the reason is primarily because of a comment that you made that I agree with, that the marketplace is "saturated and extremely competitive." It is this very reason that Ford must dramatically differentiate Mercury if the brand is to survive. The strategy of mildly re-styling Ford's will not work in this hyper-competitive martetplace. Euro Ford's may not create a "big splash" as you've mentioned, but it sure beats the present strategy. Of course, if an alternate vision for truly differentiating Mercury can be presented utilizing North American platforms and factories, I'm all ears. Here we are in the U.S. with this desperate need for more new products more quickly, and this vast empire of global resources that we don't seem to be able to take advantage of. What are your thoughts?

The way I say it, there seems to be a general belief in the enthusiast community that Ford of Europe is putting out the best products that they ever have, and that these products are among the best in their respective categories in comparison to the competition. A much more competitive Ford than the one that we have here. How can tapping into this gold mine be a bad thing? I'm not suggesting that we blindly take all of the models and ship them here, but it seems pretty obvious the Mondeo, C-max, Focus, (and the Australian Falcoln) are heavy hitters. I think Saturn's strategy is going to pay off for that brand; let's face it, these Opel models are modern, distinctive looking vehicles, whether you like them or not. My image of the brand has already changed significantly with these new (and soon to be released) products. Product may not be as important as perception, but I think exciting product is the first step in changing perception. In a market so saturated with products from all over the globe, Mercury needs to stand out a little. They should NOT be mildly re-styled Fords. Of course you still have to maintain quality and reliability to derive owner loyalty, but that's always going to be the case. Over time, hopefully Ford will become more like Toyota and also be seen as a "safe pick" by car shoppers. Basically my point is that Ford has been UNABLE to differentiate Mercury on its shared platforms for decades. To continue on the current strategy is a guaranteed failure in this highly competitive market. If Mercury were to adopt a similar strategy to Saturn, I believe it would finally provide the brand differentiation that we have all been desperate for. It's not about making Mercury the "import fighter" as GM's goal was for Saturn from the beginning. It's about differentiation from Ford, that's it, and nothing else.

"I drove the CX7 at one of the Mazda events, and while it's not slow, it's certainly middle-of-the-pack when it comes to power production for it's class." I've read criticism that the CX-7 is a little sluggish off the line/down low until the turbo spools up. I like to put my foot down and feel like my vehicle is responsive at all times, across the RPM range (especially off the line). It doesn't have to be the fastest, it just has to feel powerful and get you out of tight situations without hesitation or struggling. What did you think?

I think we have to remember that Ford is trying harder to differentiate Mercury's styling from Ford's. The new Escape cleary has a more rugged, macho look for those who like that image. I could definetly see more men buying it. If you don't like it, you can go shop at the Mercury dealer; the new Mariner is a helluva stylish machine, yet not wimpy looking as its basic proportion still conveys a boxy, rugged image compared to that wimpy looking new Vue or the wagony looking new CR-V. I think Ford did a nice job differentiating the two from a styling perspective. My only real disappointment is the carryover 4-sp. tranny.

"People here seem to be making much more negative assessments than the reviewers". Except for the Motor Trend article, which had me steaming practically after reading it. It seems almost as if the writer (one guy) hates Ford. Their review is clearly biased and out of step with the majority of reviews I've read. Not that Car and Driver, The CarConnection and Autoweek all loved them , but they were fair. Those reviews generally showed alot of strengths with a few moderate weaknesses (weight, city fuel economy, stopping distances). However, the MT article was disgracefully unfair and had me contemplating cancelling my subscription. They didn't have to praise the vehicles, but they trashed them, and Ford! There was hardly a thing positive they could say about them.

GM's new trucks are not going to put "a world of hurt" on Ford. The F-150 is still very fresh, and its reputation is second to none. Also, don't forget that the updated F-150 is right around the corner, with the new V-8 under the hood.

Mark Martin Ford apparently has a high conquest rate. Look at the used white Nissan Titan pickup on the right, the Chebby Tahoe being traded in just left of center, and the used Silverado for sale on the left with the door open!

Disagree with your assessment of Jack Roush's "out." If he sells, it is purely for the cash, not because of doubts about Ford's committment. He will sell controlling interest in his program at most, with any agreement keeping him firmly in charge of daily operations. He is all about the racing; he is FORCED to do the marketing. Racing is in his blood and he will never quit. He raced (and won) in the Gapp/Roush Pro-Stock Pinto in the 70's during the dark days without Ford's support. He moved on and dominated SCCA Trans-Am in the mid to late 80's. He is Ford loyal to the core and always will be. Regarding Wallace/Newman, Dodge put big cash into the pockets of Penske racing upon their return to NASCAR. Ford likely would have had to spend an unprecedented amount of money to retain them, likely more than they were paying Roush at the time and they weren't going to do that. I have no problem with Ford pulling out of F1. Insane to spend that kind of money in one series to try to keep up with Ferrari, when all they care about is dominating that series and nothing else. Meanwhile, Ford was/is still heavily invested in WRC as well as other series around the globe (i.e. Australia).

Ford's internal data shows a direct correlation between Ford's involvement in NASCAR and the sales of Ford Racing Parts, which are at an all-time high. NASCAR has value for Ford's performance image also and I would hate to see them pull out. Their decision to pull out of all forms of racing in 1971 (most prominently NASCAR) began the worst period in Ford's retail performance history. That's one of the reason Chebby became so popular with racers, and Ford is the worst for it. I never want to see that happen again.