jpd80

Of course, The Aussie Falcon is the same internal dimensions as the CV but it's seen as too small. It seems like size matters to Americans, you know what you see....... I'm being sarcasic and bitter by the way, before every Taurus and Panther fan descends on me. Our Aussie Fairlane was bigger than both internally but sadly unwanted in North America.

I'm a believer that car companies like Ford do the minimum they feel is necessary to win buyers. In the case of the Taurus, Ford are corecting the 500 by glaming the engine and safety. If you look at a car through it's product cycle, there's always that little upgrade teaser around the corner to keep new buyers interested. For once, I would like to see a manufacturer put out a car and say this is the best quality we can make in this sector and re set the benchmark. Ford did it with the early Taurus, Toyota did it with the early 1990s Camry. It is possible but it takes a concerted effort not to aspire to mediocrity. There are two levels you can judge a car on: 1 - Does it satisfy the needs of buyers in that sector? 2 - Does this car take the sector to another level? So while new cars probably meet the needs of the buyers, I don't feel you'll see "lightening in a bottle" until someone breaks the mold of minimum standards.

Don't forget Ford made a deliberate move to replace the previous Taurus with two vehicles in the hope of increasing sales and elimination of Panthers from Retail. Personally, I think the should have made both replacements larger, that way Fusion would be a true replacement for the old Taurus and a larger/wider D3 Taurus would be a true Panther sized replacement. A similar strategy with Mercury and Lincoln would see the pieces of the puzzle fall together with their product replacements as well.

(Ask pcsario?) Well Q3 is just around the bend, so let's hope PAG keeps plugging away.

Gee if Falcon and Mustang eventually share a platform, I know a country that will fall in love with the 'Stang very easily.

By the way,the stock price fell with most others last wednesday, bottomed out on Friday and started recovering. I agree $7.90 is still bad and until Ford North America starts making a profit, the stock will sit low. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=F&t=5d

There's still the great fear that all FoE vehicles will fail if released in the US. That Ford continues with a separate product line up in NA is either a concession to reality or perpetuation of idealogical differences. Do Ford NA PD engineers know what's best for their own market or should Ford sell the same platforms and cars world wide? To me this topic has been discussed ad infinitum and as an Aussie, I sure wouldn't want somewhere else dictating car design for our market. Funny though, the products they give us seems to work.

We have Euro 4 for Diesel and Petrol vehicles but our sulphur level is still about 50 PPM and won't be reduced until 2013-2015, so no US diesel emission standarsd before then. The Fiesta, Focus have diesels and Mondeo will join them by the end of the year. Falcon and Territiry will have diesel option by 2010.

I don't think even Al Gore himself could answer that one.

I could only imagine a 5.0 Taurus would have been like a V8 Impala today, only better. Errr, Torque steer aside that is.... That was another nail in the coffin for Taurus in Australia, Compared to the similar sized and priced Falcon, thye just didn't stack up well.

The other night, a photo someone was uplifting attached to my post too. Is it likely to be a a virus or just funny commands? Not guilty:

Looks like you believe all Mulally does is state the obvious to get paid his $36 Million. If that was all he does, then yes I'd agree with you. Care to qualify your answer a little?

Well that would be just plain silly and repeating the last world car stuff up. No. I think we'll see platform sharing with unique bodies for NA and rest of the world. Otherwise they're playing with fire... The debate on this thread shows an window into the ensuing problem.

Now, I don't live on you intellectual plain but I know this: Ford asked that very question of LR engineers only to be told that the platform is aging and most engineers faced with new technology and building proceses would want to impliment changes to basic frames and structural members to keep building costs under control. J/LR engineers basically continue to imply that Ford knows nothing about building light metal vehicles, J/LR enginering division is adept at telling Ford management how it's going to be and I suspect that's a sore point with the chiefs. Re- No more stupid mistakes - Investing in other companies like they did with PAG Add to this that there may be conditions of the lenders - is it possible disposal of PAG members in a certain time frame?

If were talking global platforms surely there's a lot of room to move on body work. Ok, take the new Taurus and MKS. They're on the same platform but all the sheet metal and doors are changed. Not sure but I'd nearly bet if the doors and roof are changed so is the tumblehome. Now if Ford can justify doing this for Lincoln, why can't FNA and FoE/Ford Global do the same with several platforms? Over-simplistic I know but think about how much money Ford must burn through at the present with all the individual platforms around the world.

They should relax the emission regs on small fuel efficient engines. Vehicles like this 1.6TDi shouldn't be constrained with Urea catalysts.

That's a nice bold car, makes Yaris look plain. So I wonder what the other two concepts are?

I get the idea but the AMs won't count, they're sold, $930 Million. What counteracts this is Europe rushing towards C02 limits (Euro 5?) on vehicles in the next few years, Land Rovers could be an extra liability Ford doesn't want right now. Like I said Q3 and Q4 are very important to PAG.

We're worried about car C02 emissions and China is bringing 500 power plant units on line in the next 5 years. That's one every 4 days - talk about pissing into the wind!

At least they're not racing to fire sale any of the companies, that would be a tragedy. I'm sure TStang and jon_the_limey will be tickled pink if PAG scores profits in Q3 and Q4. That would be the best rebuttal to the critics and place Ford back in review mode.

Well, the Falcon must be right up there with the other dinosaurs, don't you think? LOL

I wonder how true this article from last month is:

Falcon - Continuous production since 1960 and set to continue until at least 2010.

Drawing from that, it takes time to etablish a brand as being consistently higher quality. You just can't decide to do high quality cars for 6 months and expect people to climb on board. Was the VW patchy results a reflection of less than satisfactory quality levels or something else?

Not arguing but I think it's how far they want to take the similarities. Like you said Toyota's Camry is different around the world but on the same platform, so why can't the same be true for Ford?