2005Explorer

Well it looks like there is a market for that kind of vehicle. Ford needs to be going after the Outback with the Taurus X and going after them HARD.

I have also noticed quite a few Expeditions running down the highways. Very nice looking SUV. That is definitely a vehicle that Ford "got right." The only reason a person would choose a Tahoe over an Expedition or a Suburban 1500 over an Expedition EL would be loyalty to the full-size GM SUV's. The Expedition is by far the best buy and the most advanced chassis.

HAHA... I knew someone was going to say that Mark is on that plane!

Nice lil 'stang man! The 4.0L Cologne is no slouch in the Mustang. Doesn't it run to 60 in around 7 seconds?

Has anyone else ever went into Google earth and looked at the Ford Motor Company headquarters? I think that it is pretty cool that the image was captured right when a jet was flying by the headquarters considering that Alan Mulally is now the CEO. It looks like a regional jet, not a Boeing jet, but still it is a pretty neat coincidence. :shades:

Ok...I guess I will get it over with. The new Escape is horrible. It is filled with 1980's technology and has very poor brakes. The engine does not have enough power to move it. The interior materials are cheap. The whole thing is cheap. Ford did not make it look different enough. They should have made it look like the CR-V or RAV4 because everyone wants those. The Fusion falls apart. I know this because my brother has a friend who has a brother-in-law who has a cousin that bought one last year and he says it is poorly built. It does not have enough power to make it move. Everyone wants a Camry not a Fusion because Camry is advanced and very stylish. It also has like a hundred horsepower more and everyone buying a 4 door sedan needs that kind of power. What does Ford think this is? 1980 with their 114 HP engines. My Gawd. Don't even get me started on the styling or the fit and finish. The Taurus claims to be the safest car in the country but that is only because of all the lawsuits against Ford. They were actually planning on deleting the air bags and making them optional, but those pesky lawsuits forced them to keep them as standard equipment. The other problem with the Taurus is that it needs a V-8 with at least 400HP to be taken seriously by anyone. Everyone else can offer power like that...why can't Ford??? Because they don't care and are planning to sell out to Toyota next year anyhow. The Edge is a poor excuse for whatever it is. I mean, hell the Renault Alliance had a nicer interior and again it does not have enough power to move it. Also, Ford decided not to include brakes in this vehicle because it would cost them too much to make them standard. Lawsuits will force them in making standard brakes next year. Ok...there is my Ford bashing and yes it was a joke, but that is bashing.

Well for awhile they were building some in Avon Lake before the Econoline took over the plant. My brother and sister-in-laws '05 Mariner says Ohio Assembly on the windshield decal.

Why is there such a supply issue with the new Escape? Ford finally has a "hit" and they can't seem to keep them in stock. Build them faster! Come on! You think they would want to sell something! I hope they are running KC at full capacity, because if they are not, something is very wrong.

Ok...bringing back the Tempo and the lightbar would be a mistake. Face it those are 80's things and time has passed on. At the time the Tempo/Topaz was a decent compact car. Remember what else was being offered at the time. K-cars, X-bodies, J-cars, and Japanese cars that were still unrefined. It sold well because it was a good car in it's class, at the time. Now fast forward 20 years and things are much different. The competition is better and there are not many "bad" cars out there anymore. Face it, most new 2007 cars are pretty darn good cars no matter who builds them. It was a heck of a lot easier to be the best back then when the competition was so poor. This is the reason why cars like the Escort, Tempo and Taurus were so damn successful back in the 1980's. They really were the best choices at the time even if they were far from perfect. I owned a 1993 4-door Tempo GL. It was a good little car. I bought it as a program car in 1994 with 15,000 miles on it for $8995. It took me through college and never missed a beat except for a couple issues. The power locks on the back doors froze up and I had to have them replaced, the rear main seal had to be replaced, but it was under warranty at the time, and last the fuel pump died when it had about 75,000 miles on it. That's it. Not bad for a cheap little car. The engine and automatic transmission were solid and it never failed to start and take me somewhere. Now with that said, Explorer 4x4, you must realize that I too am a fan of the Tempo/Topaz. I think they were good cars of their time, however time has passed on. They were what I like to call point A to point B cars. No excitement what so ever...well until you had 3 of your college buddies with you and tried to pass a semi on a highway! Then you had to make sure you had plenty of room! The power was fine for 1 or 2 people, but when the car was loaded down it needed more. I think the V6 Tempo would have flew compared to the 2.3 models. Ford can learn lessons from cars that were successful like the Tempo, however bringing back the Tempo is not the solution. They need to look deep into success stories like the Tempo was and figure out why it worked. I can tell you it worked because at the time it looked stylish and was a good value. It was also better built then most of it's competition. Ford's issue with sales today do not have as much to do with the quality of their products as they do with the quality of the competitions products. They don't have a lead on the competition like they did with products such as the Escort, Tempo, Taurus and Explorer. It is a much more difficult market. The chassis they are using are fine, if not class leading, what they are lacking is the small details. Styling was what brought them back in the 1980's. The Taurus and Fusion of today are very handsome cars and will offend nobody, however, nothing really sets them apart. The first car that Ford has built in years that is a love it or hate it car is the new Focus. I will be interested to see how it sells.

I am glad to hear it is jumping into the full-sized class. I say bring it on. The new Taurus is very competitive in the full-size class. Will this car offer AWD like the Taurus does? Will it be rated as high in safety? and last will it have as much room and trunk space? I think if the Taurus and this new Accord are priced very similar then Ford should be pretty competitive.

I would say Honda is right in the middle with fuel economy. I think the Taurus and Sable should be commended. They are getting about the same fuel economy as cars that are smaller and weigh less. :happy feet:

double post

So are you partying because you think that Honda is doing well or not?

I feel that if Ford is going to take Lincoln upscale, which they should, when they sell off Jag and LR, then Mercury should be where Lincoln is today. It should be the brand that is going after the low end luxury and Lincoln should be much more. If they axe Mercury then what do you do with Lincoln? Leave it where it is or take up upscale and leave a huge gap between Ford and Lincoln. There is a semi-luxury gap to be filled if it is done correctly. The MkZ and the MkX would be outstanding Mercuries, however Lincoln needs to be more. It needs to be much different and more upscale then Ford.

That is the problem though in my opinion...those models sound like the 1980's. I had a '93 Tempo GL. Well my buddies called it the "Tampon Got Loose", but anyhow I don't really have an issue with S, SE, SEL and Limited. I suppose they could change SEL to just SL, but then people might think SLOW.

Wait a minute...the Volvo S80 is a Ford Motor Company product. I thought we were lectured that Ford did not care about people's safety in another thread. Hmm...looks like BMW is the one that does not care now.

Um...he will say that has everything to do with Mazda and not Ford. By the way...I wanted to add something. I understand the idea that China should be feared because they too can improve their crash-worthiness much like Ford improved the F-150. Yes it is possible, however considering they have been making toys for years and years and then decide to paint them with lead paint does not give me a lot of confidence. A toy is pretty simple compared to an automobile. If they can't make a safe toy for a kid, why would anyone think they can make a safe automobile?

So Ford improved...are you saying is was wrong for them to improve??? Everyone improved over the years. EVERYONE. Was it lawsuits that made every car company improve their safety or just Ford? Answer that one. Come on pc...I see I made it on your fan club list!!! WOO HOO... Now answer that question.

I am confident in the safety of my vehicle every time I drive it. It has AdvanceTrac with RSC, Side Canopy airbags, Personal Safety System, ABS, tire pressure monitoring system and it received a good rating on the offset iihs crash test...Oh by the way...It is a Ford... What is the list of safety equipment on your car? 2005Explorer: You can't deny Ford's improvements only came after their purchase of Volvo and several scandals, so spare me the "it's not a fact" lecture. One only needs to look at the FACT they still keep selling the Ranger, to render any claims about how much they care about human life null. Again if you are so concerned about safety what safety features are on your car??? So Ford improved...are you saying is was wrong for them to improve??? Everyone improved over the years. EVERYONE. Was it lawsuits that made every car company improve their safety or just Ford? Answer that one.

It is your OPINION that lawsuits made them make safer vehicles. That is OPINION. You can't back it up. It is FACT that the Ford Motor Company makes more 5 star rated vehicles today then any other car company in America. That is FACT. You are trying to assert your opinion as fact. I'm done with this stupid thread because you won't listen to anyone except that little voice inside your head.

I see your quote. You say at Ford safety is not standard it is optional whenever possible. So I am asking you if that is the case how do they have more 5 star rated vehicles then anyone else??? Why do they build the safest full size car in America??? That crap you just can't make up. It is documented...it is fact... Small pickups...and ALL small pickups have a higher Passenger Vehicle Occupant Fatality rate then full-size trucks and passenger cars. It goes along with being a compact truck. As other compacts have became larger and closer to full-size the rates have gone down. It does not mean it is a death trap. The Pinto was a death trap...the Bronco II was a death trap. The Ranger is not. Ford has been guilty of selling vehicles that were less then safe in the past...however name one company that has never had any safety issues??? All have had recalls...all of had some kinds of issues. Jeeps that rollover....S10 Blazer....4-Runners that were unstable...Troopers that lifted wheels and almost flipped during testing....on and on and on....

You said that Ford does not care about a customer's life. Why do they now have more 5 star rated vehicles then any other car company? What a waste of money if they don't care. You never answered my question....is the 2008 Taurus a death trap??? If you feel the Ranger is unsafe then by all means...DON'T BUY ONE.

So by this statement is the new 2008 Taurus also a death trap??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdRgZgS9ieY Listen close. Yes it is a commercial, but you can't fake that stuff. The most 5 star crash test ratings of any car company in the country.

maybe these are "national goods" Anyhow count me in as a member of your club.

Why don't you just leave and have an orgasm in the tailpipe of a Toyota.