bystander

Flint is right in his article about the stupidity of Ford abandoning the compact pickup market, but he's about three to five years late in his criticism. Even if Ford kicked off a Ranger program today, there would probably be nothing left of the nameplate by the time the new product hit the marketplace in a few years.

Wow. That's an impressive vehicle. The 2008 Freestyle just got a stiff competitor--from within the Ford fold no less!

It looks like a nice car and it's enviable that the Europeans can bring out new product when it seems like their U.S. counterparts are running in slow motion. However, this car's styling, while very nice, is more consistent with Mazda's U.S. styling themes than Ford's. In fact, if you changed the headlights and grille, you could make this car look just like Mazda designed it from the ground up. It just doesn't fit with the more chiseled look of the Fusion/3 bar grille/power bulge hood theme that Ford is adopting for its U.S. products. So to answer the question--no this isn't what Ford needs in North America. Ford needs a lot more Fords that were designed for North America in North America and pronto. Hastily importing a mishmash of vehicles from Europe and Australia with bandaid fixes to federalize them for the U.S. market would be seen by many as a desperate, last ditch (and frankly kind of pathetic) tactic. Ford U.S. just needs a lot more vehicles like the Edge coming in the next 3 years. Not one or two a year trickling out of its PD factory or numerous subtle facelifts, but 3-4 vehicles PER YEAR with all-new sheetmetal and interiors.

The point I was making is that while we as car enthusiast may chuckle about what type of suspension underpins the Camry or how old it is, Toyota has proven that it knows what levers to pull to satisfy an awful lot of customers. And that is, at the end of the day, one of the most important things a major automaker needs to do.

You're entitled to your opinion and all, but there are about 400,000 paying customers who evidently disagree with your dismal view of the Camry. Rather than nitpick the lineage of the Camry, Ford would do well to learn from Toyota's success on what works.

How much more patience is warranted? This is the third turnaround "plan" in the last five years and the failure of other two gives the skeptical analyst a hell of a lot more credibility than some of the rosy-attitude cheerleaders on here. Many on BON (and in the analyst community) have been highly critical of Ford's glacially slow and inadequate rate of new product introductions in the North American market. And no matter what flavor of argument you might choose to dispute that view, nothing you say can put a positive spin on the cold, hard, truth of Ford's free-falling market share. The bottom line is that if Ford had been more aggressive in bringing out new products, we wouldn't be witnessing the relentless erosion of its sales in so many segments. And where have the analysts been wrong about Ford's big picture in the last five years? They've said the numerous turnaround plans were inadequate, not fast enough, not aggressive enough, etc. Well guess what? They have been proven right. The only blown calls I've seen are from the "Ford can do no wrong" crowd (you know who you are) who praise every (inept) decision as if it was divinely inspired. If things turned out as positively as many of you had predicted, Ford would be soundly in the black right now and out of the financial woods.

A friend of mine owns the latest generation Odyssey and reported mileage in the high 20s when he took it on vacation. There are two ways to look at this: 1) DoD does provide a "real world" fuel mileage benefit (I have a hard time believing so many automakers are adopting it if it does not really work--are they all stupid and Ford is brilliant?). 2) DoD does not provide a "real world" fuel mileage benefit, in which case all the other automakers are adopting a technology that does not provide much of a beneft EXCEPT for the fact that they can now advertise EPA numbers that are 10-15% higher than similar vehicles without DoD. Since Ford has shunned this technology and many other companies are implementing it, Ford will stand out with uncompetitive EPA fuel mileage ratings. Either way, Ford loses.

Like, say, when the family goes on vacation on interstate highways or when, oh I don't know, people happen to commute to their jobs on the local freeway. As long as you don't drive like an erratic maniac, DoD will save fuel. I think much of this poo-pooing of DoD on BON is sour grapes from the Ford diehard contingent because Ford doesn't offer it.

You're assuming he was quoting combined city/highway mileage and not highway. If he was referring to combined (and I have my doubts), it was very foolish. Most people use the highway number as the gauge of a vehicle's fuel efficiency (for example, when Toyota advertises the number of cars it sells that get more than 30mpg, they're referring to highway mpg). Whether or not DoD technology translates into "real world" fuel mileage improvement is debatable (if you drive at a steady speed or use cruise control on the highway, DoD WILL improve your fuel economy). The fact that a number of major manufacturers are implementing it and the fact that consumers use the EPA fuel economy rating when making purchasing decisions suggests Ford powertrain is missing the boat (again) by stubbornly refusing to incorporate it.

I couldn't figure out why anyone would think 23mpg for a crossover was noteworthy enough to merit mentioning in the presentation yesterday. Twenty three mpg is nothing to write home about--in fact, it REALLY sucks. The damned Freestar gets 23mpg and it is completely uncompetitive with the leading minivans. The current Sienna is rated at 26mpg highway and the Odyssey (with its cylinder deactivation-equipped V6) is rated at 28mpg. By 2008, when the production Fairlane hits showrooms, the bar will probably be even higher than that. The fact that such an uncompetitive figure was emphasized just reinforces the notion that Ford is out of touch with the marketplace.

This is kind of like saying, "we'll fix our business after we return to profits". Once the black ink happens, there will be considerably less incentive to differentiate products by division. However, the black ink may not "happen" if products are not differentiated so they don't compete against one another.

Here's my crude attempt at electronically mocking up what a 2008 Five Hundred might look like with the Fusion nose and a lowered roofline (actually, this is a Fusion greenhouse grafted on). I also tucked in the rear bumper a bit. Unmodified 2005 Five Hundred shown for comparison.

I agree. It may look a little like a Mazda 6, but at least it isn't a carbon copy of a '99 VW Passatt! Toyota has done a much better job keeping the Camry up to date looking than it appears Ford is doing with the Five Hundred.

If the updates the Five Hundred receives do not substantially change its overall appearance (and I will be willing to bet based on the photos published that the 2008 will just look like a 2005 with a different nose treatment, tail lights, and rear bumper fascia), it is perfectly relevant to consider the cars that have come out since the Five Hundred debuted in 2004. Keep in mind that the Five Hundred's overall shape and detailing are nearly a carbon copy of the 1999 VW Passat (see photos below). The Five Hundred's styling was five years old when it first made it into showrooms in late 2004. I'm simply advocating more substantial changes to break that linkage with what will be a nine year old car when the 2008 debuts. And I found an article from Peter Horbury (Executive Director, Ford North American Design), in which he says, "The Five Hundred was not a success." Read it for yourself to interpret his meaning. I doubt he would say the car was not a success if he didn't mean to imply it was a styling mistake. So, you're right I didn't find the words "major styling mistake" (my paraphrase) quoted by any Ford exec. http://www.designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=1802...1&year=2006

Well first of all, I reject your narrow list of competitors to the Five Hundred because customers shop outside of the neat little boxes marketing types like to construct to help them make sense of the world. The Camry and Accord are both competitors to the Five Hundred. Second, the Five Hundred's styling was badly dated when it launched. Its teutonic styling with continuous arching greenhouse screams 1999 VW Passat. And many competitors have already updated their products since the Five Hundred first launched, which will cause it to age not so gracefully in the coming years without more significant changes. The 2007 Camry is an example of how the competition doesn't stand still (it has a lower, sleeker greenhouse than the 2006 model by the way). The Accord is certain to be significantly redesigned well before 2010MY. The Buick Lucerne is a very competent car (like the Five Hundred), only it has much more up to date looking styling than the 1999-Passat-that-Ford-built. How well do you think those minor tweaks to the dated-when-it-launched Five Hundred will age against the much newer looking Lucerne, Camry, Avalon, and (next) Accord? The 265hp 3.5L engine will help, but a revised roofline that doesn't look so 1999 would have really served to visually differentiate the 'new and improved' Five Hundred from the 'old and stodgy' Five Hundred. Cripes, even Ford execs now admit the Five Hundred was a major styling mistake. With that kind of glowing endorsement, why would anybody think the minor changes shown in the spy pics will fix it?

The problem is that while the incremental differences being planned (3 bar grille, different tail treatment) may have made the original Five Hundred launch a little more successful in late 2004, they will not hit the market until mid 2007. And these minor changes will be expected to carry the vehicle (and the manufacturing capacity of Chicago Assy Plant) through at least two more years. All the while, the competition does not stand still and will introduce completely new looking product that will quickly sap the momentum of the ho-hum 2008 cosmetic changes. Experience has shown time and time again that freshenings on the cheap do not have a significant effect on swooning sales. A new, lower (flatter) greenhouse would have, with the revised front end treatment, significantly altered the appearance of the car. Chicago is, I believe, supposed to have a flex body shop. Why not take advantage of that and fix the 'aw shit' that was painfully apparent when the Five Hundred debuted? Those changes, along with dual exhaust tips to announce more power under the hood, are what I would have done differently.

1. Who knows. You don't. I don't. All we know is how it sells in reality. 2. Changing the greenhouse is expensive, huh? So is stuffing thousands of dollars in incentives in the glove box or shutting the plant down while sales catch up with inventory. I guess they should leave the greenhouse as is because it has such a cavernous interior. Better yet, how about they design their next sedan to look like the Pope-mobile--then we'll really have kick ass interior volume (sales might be another story because people do buy on looks). 3. When the Five Hundred first came out, people like you were asking how a large comfortable family sedan with " more than adequate performance", awd, and decent gas mileage could be a bad thing. Well, it may not be a bad thing, but it hasn't been enough of a good thing (coupled with the frumpy styling) to sell very well, has it? 4. What kind of idiot has seen Ford's same ineffective actions to freshen a product over and over again (new front end, mechanical updates) and says, "yep, that should be good enough to fix what was wrong"?

I agree. Lowering the greenhouse would have done wonders for the Five Hundred. Instead, it looks about like what it is--a Five Hundred with a new nose and tailights grafted on. And no dual exhaust tips? If you put another 65 horses under the hood (33% increase), why the hell wouldn't you announce it with dual exhausts? Three years after Job 1 is enough time to make some substantive changes. The process for determining what content to put in product changes is definitely broken at Ford.

I agree. Ford is not pushing the Freestyle hard enough. They make great family haulers (better in many ways than a typical minivan). They're trying so hard to re-invent the minivan with the Fairlane, but they may have already done it with the Freestyle. Maybe they will give the Freestyle advertising budget a shot in the arm when the '08 version comes out.

The Freestyle is much better at being a minivan than the Freestar. It gets significantly better gas mileage, can be had with AWD, can seat 6-7 adults, rides well, and has a very strong body structure (for safety). It is also easier, in my opinion, to access the third row than a typical minivan. It seems to me that Ford is blowing the marketing of this vehicle big time. It is a credible competitor to the established minivan segment, but it is not receiving the emphasis it should.

If Ford needs a smaller V8 in the short term to build a credible Lincoln FWD'er, why wouldnt' they use the 3.9L Lima V8? Would it not fit in a FWD application? You would think it would be cheaper to build than the 60 deg Yamaha.

Another seemingly desperate tactic to prop up faltering sales until the product pipeline gets sufficiently filled. The question is, will profitable sales catch fire before these risky, last ditch actions trip up the Blue Oval? I passed a Ford dealership on Friday with a big sign in the front window that said, "2nd Chance Financing" and thought to myself: "Oh, shit".

Who the hell buys the stripp-o Escape 4 cyl manual? And how profitable do you think it is? Why don't you compare the top of the line versions that actually get optioned up and make money (the 4x4 V6 models). The new RAV4 has it all over the sadly neglected Escape. With gas at $3 a gallon, why would anyone buy a car that gets significantly worse mileage and has a whopping 67 fewer horses under the hood? The RAV4 has done and end around on the Escape and not only beat it at its own game (roominess and horsepower), but did it one better with substantially better fuel economy to boot! And as someone posted, RAV4 sales have doubled and overtaken the Escape in the latest monthly sales figures.

Bigger and better, my friend. In case you didn't read my post, the new RAV V6 offers not only more room, better performance (67hp advantage), and much better fuel economy (28mpg highway vs 23 for the Escape V6 4x4). It may be my opinion, but when a vehicle is larger and more powerful and more fuel efficient, it is measureably superior in most of the important areas that customers consider. Unless Ford loads its 6 year old product with hefty and profit-sapping incentives, why would any rational shopper buy the Escape over the RAV4? Anyway, someone pointed out how dramatically RAV4 sales had improved. It shouldn't be surprising--its all about the product.

Bill Ford should be a distant President, as he is a prominent figurehead and a familial connection with the company's heritage, but a CEO he is not. He's been shuffled around the company over the years, serving briefly in various capacities in an effort to groom him, but that does not make him qualified to run such an enormously complex global business. I would rather see someone who wasn't born with a key to the executive washroom--someone who has proven his or her mettle by running a large business in a competitive, complex industry. I think certainly, if his name wasn't on the building, he would have been forced out long ago.