marc-o

I'm going to disagree with you on that... is Ford's spark plug problem inexcusable? What about the brake master cylinder/cruise control fire issue recalls? What about all those laptop batteries that were recalled and the problems with produce and salmonella lately? People try to improve on proven principles, sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. One recall would never ruin an otherwise excellent product for me. I would be very upset if this stuff happened to me, but I'll readily admit I am not at all perfect, neither is anyone else I know. That said... the unmistakable trend of Toyota recalls should be cause for concern...but any company (car or otherwise) is always just one step away from another massive recall that could destroy its reputation. What never ceases to amaze me is how much time and effort was put into reassuring people certain Ford recalls were isolated or wouldn't be repeated...yet when the same thing happens to another company (which here has included essentially every major automaker) it's the end all. Generally speaking it's clear a lot of problems that would never have caused recalls in the past are huge issues now...consumers demand perfection (nothing wrong with that) but the stakes and risks of litigation are bigger than ever. Vioxx is a great example - people who were overweight, smoked, did drugs and had pre-existing conditions actually sue a company complaining they were at excessive risk for heart problems due to the medication. I'm not usually on the side of big business, but at some point this really gets excessive. Ironically, problems that may not cause harm (in 0.04% of cases) but will likely cost an arm and a leg (eg GM's piston slap) aren't covered...well not until we see someone get piston slapped in the face :reading:

Aren't the original UK Zephyrs (fifties) pretty darn nice? They were good rally cars too.

Actually there were at least 3 threads about it on BON at the time, linking and mentioning articles from CNN, Fox News, and Detroit News among others. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...4&hl=toyota http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...9&hl=toyota http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...7&hl=toyota Ford doesn't get a free pass, but neither does Toyota. Honestly, believe what you want, it's clear this was covered by major news outlets when it happened, what more do you want?

Why does the 2.3L in the Mazdaspeed 3 win while the more powerful version of the same engine in the 6 does not?

I disagree: Honda first thought the Fit wouldn't sell here, plenty of people thought the Mazda5 wouldn't sell here, plenty of people thought there was no market for the Sprinter. While the extent of the success of these vehicles may be debatable, they all have clear potential and it is clear in all cases new markets have been carved out. This kind of vehicle would qualify as a "bold move".

I have no problem with people using trucks and SUVs for their intended uses, which is why I never speak in absolutes about them. If you need it and use it, great, I know several who do too - fantastic. However it's clear to me that many trucks and SUV's are not needed and used for their purpose, and that's who (in my opinion) needs to adjust what they drive, because it adversely affects me on the road.

That actually made me *Laugh Out Loud*...

I don't understand how something can be so true, simple, yet so elusive to so many people - or are you proposing that a large number of people feel they have insufficient genitalia?

That's pretty much completely right.

I'm pretty sure the clinic can be structured to be legally seperate from the automaker to prevent frivolous lawsuits from draining the company. Besides, health care is probably one of the highest growth/profitable industries right now...to transfer even just part of those margins to savings makes a lot of sense to me. That in my opinion is the biggest sticking point. But even if this clinic only accomodates emergencies, or something like 10% of all visits to a general practitioner, it could still yield substantial savings. Whether your insurance company or your employer is trying to screw you out of coverage, there's always that risk.

I'm gonna step in (thigh-high in the mud) and say that this is absolutely true. I have frequented several forums, and I have to say BON is *the* most harshly biased I've seen. I've seen Honda forum reviews bash new Honda's features, content, price, styling, you name it. Same for VW, Nissan, BMW, etc... At the end of the day, some mistakes are either tolerable, or they just don't sell and are widely aknowledged as flops. I don't know why everything here has to be import/domestic, hit/miss, all or nothing. It's ridiculous. Anyone who says everything Ford has made is good is a liar. It's also fact that anyone who says everything Toyota has made is bad is a liar. There's plenty of other discourse here that keeps me coming back, but for crying out loud, some of this garbage is like arguing which beer is better or what kind of pizza is best...

All "non-car" folk I talk to consider the Murano, CX-7, Forester, and yes, Edge, SUV's. They don't look like cars, they're taller than cars, they're AWD, and you sit high. Anyone can argue about the semantics of these not adhering to the definition of an SUV, I have no doubt the general perception is that these vehicles may be "light" SUV's, but they're still SUV's.

Half those teams can't afford F1. Actually, none of them can except Ferrari. I mean come on, Toyota has been at it for years now and they've had no success. If they can't do it, what hope does Hyundai have? Their WRC stint wasn't exactly a clean sweep. It's arguable F1 ought to be changed, but that's been said for a decade now, and it's still not changing how most people think it should; I wouldn't hold my breath.

You've done well and good telling us why bec might argue this is a non-issue, why don't you start telling us why you'd argue it is? If this were ANY other manufacturer you'd have posted this by now with a picture of a safely rolled over XC90 intact - great. How about you explain to us why we shouldn't be worried about THIS range? You'd have made it an issue for any other company.

My own opinion of the Edge is that it will probably do well (ie meet sales goals like the triplets), but that's it. It's not going to carry Ford. The "Murano" segment is getting competitive but it hasn't exactly been exploding - some people still want rugged looking SUV's and some still want cars. The Edge is a good vehicle, maybe not a segment leader (I'd say the CX-7 is actually), but up there... I just don't think it's a saviour or anything like it. It's an example of what every Ford should be.

Totally agree. And what's with those square, asymetrical dashes? Most people who buy cars don't want a truck, or at least not a truck-looking car. As usual, Chryco is on the ropes again. I'm curious to see how long the HQ tolerates this. There certainly isn't any light at the end of the tunnel.

Oh yeah...deep hole.

Year-ago sales were in the dumps coming off the employee incentive highs and resulting inventory drought. Comparing year-ago sales #'s can be misleading (last Oct was bad for just about everyone, Big 3 especially). That said, October is starting to be a good time to look at year-to-date numbers, and you know what, those aren't so bad. There's a managed slowdown in sales, pretty good considering projections, predictions, and all else with old/new models, incentives, fleet sales. October (or any other month) doesn't make the year. For *anyone*.

While I agree the main problem with the 500 is that its boring, I don't think its sales would double if there was a Honda badge on it - the current Accord is probably the ugliest generation ever, even after a partial redesign, and it's sales are down significantly over the last model. Most people don't want to be seen in an ugly car and most people don't want to buy what they hear is a "boring" car. Imports aren't immune to ugliness, although since domestics have more of a perception gap, styling is even more important.

He's partially right though... DCX has deeper pockets than Ford considering their parent company is still making money, they can sell these at a loss (well, they're going to have to, assuming they sell them at all), and undercut GM and Ford, at least to customers who aren't that brand loyal. That said, I have no doubt Chrysler is losing more than they let on. They've already admitted to fudging some numbers - I have no doubt they're hoping to unload them in the next few months and cover up the losses that way by making it up on '07's. At this point though, that's not looking likely at ALL, so either look for more (deeper?) losses coming up, or just investigate their accounting. It doesn't add up. Something is still missing - I've got ideas, but who knows what they've been up to?

That was my first thought. GM isn't going to get away from incentives if they don't price their vehicles realistically.

ChryCo is trying to shove a bunch of crumby vehicles up to now reserved for their other brands down Jeep's throat. What they don't seem to realize is that Jeep has been fairly successful until now because it wasn't contaminated with most of the other Chrysler crap. Most of the vehicles being re-badged to Jeep aren't pretty in the first place. Despite sales (to rental car lots), the Caliber still looks like a miniature Aztek, no amount of mooning dogs will distract me from that. Granted the Compass is much nicer, it's still a mediocre vehicle. I'd take a Focus 5-door hatch over it any day, in fact I'd probably prefer just about any vehicle in the segment over these DCX offerings (IMO). Honestly, I fail to see who these vehicles appeal to outside the mopar guys, who either want a big honkin' truck or a car that looks like one. I could get flamed for this by DCX folks, but I don't care - if it wasn't for the Germans they'd be sinking faster than a barbell tied to lead weights right now.

I think that sums it up nicely. I can see a market adjustment of a thousand or two, but anything more than that and you're clearly milking people for all they are worth. Sure you can get your money and you can satisfy those customers who CAN afford it, but those could just as well be the people who will trade it in for the next best thing - your best customers? Probably not, but I could be wrong, if you can make 15 large in one sale and never see that person again, things aren't so bad. Ford (or any manufacturer) should discourage the practice by limiting availability to dealers who tend to do this. Waiting lists might not be fun but they are a lot fairer.

Seems like that's all there is to it...case closed - sunrise, sunset. If any of you feel like paying a lawyer to sue your local Ford dealer because you think they are asking too much for a car you want, go ahead, let us know what happens :shrug:

Only on BOV do people go into conniptions over what they think a magazine might say, or get defensive in anticipation of reviews of unreleased Fords. Then it's a party when a Japanese vehicle gets slammed, like it's too good to be true.