2005Explorer

Not only a better value, but I think the Mariner looks like you spent a lot more then you really did. The Mercury styling makes it look a lot more upscale then the Escape in my opinion.

I agree with this and think the best decision that Ford made this year was to bring back the Taurus and Sable names. There is a lot in a name and not just with cars, but with about any consumer product. Just about every person I have talked to about cars, even people who are not really into cars knows that there is a new Taurus that is coming out right now. I have also talked to non-car people that did not even realize there was a Ford Five-Hundred. Sounds crazy, but it is true. Even the media gives the new Taurus more attention just because of the name. If Ford had not renamed the cars the redesigned car would have not gained near the attention. I know there were a few people that were against the renaming. Richard I agree with you on many things, but I feel your initial impression of the re-naming of these cars will prove to be wrong. I am not sure if you have finally warmed up to the idea, but I remember at the time you thought Ford had lost their mind. I think someday we might look back and see that the simple action of bringing the Taurus name back was the turning point in the recovery of Ford Motor Company. Since the Taurus has made a return we are finally seeing some optimism from the people at Ford and from the media. There is a LONG way to go, but I do feel a little more upbeat about Ford making it out of their hole since the Taurus is coming off the assembly line again.

In the US...thats easy...just slap a Toyota or Honda badge on it...no matter what it is it will be a best seller. It's so easy...it's so cheesy!

Well I can promise you no lesbian would be caught dead in a Tundra!

Why don't we wait and see how the new Taurus and Sable do before we jump to sales conclusions. My gut tells me these cars, especially the new Taurus are going to do much better then the outgoing models.

It's funny we haven't seen any of the haters on this thread yet. This car is a winner. It might be the best family car that has ever been built. Sure, some won't like the styling, but styling is subjective. It's a handsome car and there is nothing to fault on it. A good engine, good transmission, excellent fuel economy for it's size, big trunk, roomy interior, new interior materials and safety is top notch. As long as build quality and overall reliability are there, which I don't see why they wouldn't be, this might do a heck of a lot better then anyone has ever given it credit for. I cannot think of a better full-size family car for the money. Of course, now I probably opened a can of worms with the Panther fan club. :D

Actually I like where they are taking the advertising for this car. This ad was not perfect, but I like the "family" theme. This is a family car. It is not a sports car. They don't need to be showing the Taurus on a test track. The Taurus is not about excitement so why pretend it is. The Taurus is about being the perfect family car so I would hope they start with safety and then move to other reasons why it is the perfect family car. Fuel is still high and people still need room so maybe it is a chance to get some of those families out of the SUV and back into a very roomy car like the Taurus. Maybe I was the only one, but I did feel a little nostalgia when the announcer said...Introducing the all new Ford Taurus. That sounded good. Sounded like the days when things were good at Ford and therefore gave me some hope for the future of the company. Also, at least no one can argue when Ford calls it the all new Taurus because it certainly is an all new Taurus. :D

Oh that is a nice looking car! I thought the fender vents would be tacky...like some cheap Wal-Mart accessory just stuck on the car, but the sheetmetal is actually recessed for them and they appear to actually be a vent, not just a "tacked-on" job. I think small details like this can be important when it comes to the perception of quality.

Well since 1988 BF Goodrich Tire Company has been owned by Michelin so I would assume by now they are engineered by the same people. I would also assume they share factories, however I am not exactly sure how Michelin organizes their divisions. I know most people with BF Goodrich tires have been very happy. I have 25,000 miles on the ones on my Explorer and they are still as smooth running as the day I bought the vehicle. Of course, I do maintain the tire pressure and rotate every 6,000 miles, but they have never lost balance unlike some other non-Michelin brands. I believe Uniroyal is also owned by Michelin as well.

Same here. Bridgestone actually purchased Firestone back in the 1980's and the main reason why Firestone was forced to sell is because of a huge tire recall in the 1970's. It was around the time I was born, so I can't say I remember it as a person, but my father does. Just search for Firestone Steel Radial 500. It was the first Firestone radial. In the early 1970's the automakers were beginning to switch to radials and at the time the only company that made them was Michelin. Firestone decided to get into the radial business fast and cheap by building tires using equipment that was actually designed for bias-ply tire construction, but modified for radial production. Because of this the tread did not adhere to the belts the way it was supposed to resulting in tread separation problems with the tire. Fast forward 20 years and again, even though the tires were built on radial equipment, the Wilderness AT became another Firestone disaster. It seems that even though Bridgestone bought out Firestone the quality never changed. In fact, if anything the shoddy quality of Firestone radials seemed to rub off on Bridgestone. My father says the best radial tire is a Michelin. It's probably because he is older and remembers a time when Michelin was the only company producing good radial tires. My Explorer has BF Goodrich which is owned by Michelin anyhow...I have not had any issues with them. I don' think any tire is perfect...but I think any product from Bridgestone/Firestone should be avoided. Ford was smart to divorce them and maybe Toyota should consider doing the same. If you go to their website they hardly even mention the Firestone brand anymore...hmmm...I wonder why that is?!?!

Well I am sure that Jill Wagner will be throwing herself over a Sable soon! With that said I am pretty impressed at how quick I got feedback from Ford today about their website. I decided to click on the comments area of the Ford vehicles website to point out the fact that they list a tab as Cars/Minivan, however they only have cars offered. Well I got a nice personal response back... Dear Mr. *******: Thanks for taking the time to write. The last minivan offered, the Ford Freestar, just went out of production. It was removed from the website earlier this month once dealer inventory levels became low . The heading is scheduled to be changed to just "Cars" in the next few days during the next site maintenance update to reflect that. -----Original Message----- From: producer@ford.com [mailto:producer@ford.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Website_feedback Contact Us First Name: Last Name: Email Address: Website Link: www.fordvehicles.com Questions: Just curious why the first tab for products on the fordvehicles.com website reads "Cars-Minivan" when there is no minivan offered. I just thought that I would point out that mistake so you can make your website better. Thanks.

That was how the 1986 model was marketed. In fact you could use the "exact" same language to market the new car. I don't know about the cheesy song though...lol... But hey...if you want to use the "us" idea it's right in the song....."Taurus for Us! Taurus For Us!"

If you are getting into the high $20K's you might want to add the Edge to your test driving list. I think the Edge would do MUCH better against the CR-V when it comes to comparing the two.

The only question I have about the fordvehicles.com site is why the first tab is listed as cars/minivan, but when you click on it there is no minivan offered! Under cars/minivan there is Taurus/Fusion/Focus/Mustang. If anyone who is associated with FoMoCo sees this, please pass this up cause it makes you look like you don't understand your own products.

Holy cow...talk about all kinds of different stories on this subject. One says nothing is for sale at this time and that they are only looking at different options...one says that Jaguar and Land Rover are on the auction block...one says that Volvo is for sale...one says that Volvo is NOT for sale...and on and on...anyone else feel confused by all the conflicting reports?????

How is the power and acceleration in the new Taurus? I know that was the biggest hit that the Five Hundred and Freestyle. I'd like to know what you thought of the D35 in this car. Thanks.

add MKX to that list. Also 2 Volvo products are listed on there...although not US products they are Ford products. Another good reason to NOT sell Volvo.

So is there anyone else here that thinks Ford would do just fine with Ford Lincoln Mercury Mazda and Volvo? Maybe Ford is at the point where they should focus on those 5 brands and let Jag and LR go if the price is right. I hate to see the Company sell anything...but if it would improve their focus on those 5 brands...then let Jag and LR go. In the end...Ford is and always was a volume producer of lower to moderately priced automobiles.

You want to see some swanky instrumentation....here you go!

If you have about 8 mins. watch this 1966 Lincoln commercial...it is hilarious. Anyhow with that said...I am completely against dumping the Lincoln-Mercury division. Mercury is a supplemental volume brand to help the dealers. As it has been said before, Ford spends very little on Mercury and still comes up with a unique style for the brand. The fact is you are assuming that by dropping Lincoln and Mercury and replacing them with the more expensive European brands Ford will sell more cars and make more money. I think these brands sell to a very different customer. Lincoln can be something great again. That is is Ford wants it to be. Mercury can continue on doing what is has always done and that is sell differently styled and optioned Fords. The key is that Lincoln SHOULD NOT be a rebadge job.

I can understand Ford wanting to rid itself of Jaguar and to do so and get a decent price for it I am sure Land Rover will have to be included. For the life of me, however, I cannot understand why they would sell Volvo. It seems that Ford, Volvo, and Mazda work so well together. They share platforms, engineering, safety improvements, etc. I suppose they need the money, however I think letting Volvo go would be a huge mistake. If Ford does sell Jaguar and Land Rover then that means that outside of the North American market they are not interested in luxury brands except for Volvo and personally I feel that Volvo is more mid-luxury along the same lines as Lincoln. I have never been one on here to make negative statements...however...if this is true and the entire PAG is up for sale then it might just be Ford getting their house cleaned up to offer what remains of FoMoCo to a private investing group...last year at this time who in here thought Chrysler Group was going to be sold to a private group??? Anyone??? I hate to say it guys...but the General might be the only remaining publicly owned automaker left in the next few years...it's sad that a country like ours totally ignored such an important industry...sad.

It's a truck...it's supposed to have a harsh ride. :D But seriously, yes my 2005 Explorer does have a firm ride, but when it comes to a higher profile vehicle I prefer that over a floaty "top heavy feeling" ride. If you don't know how that feels get into an older Ranger based Explorer or even better yet...a Chevy S-Blazer. The newer Explorers feel planted to the road for their ride height and if that makes the ride firm I don't have a problem with it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/06/07/teen_cars/index.html Although one has to wonder how much research went into this when they list the Chevy Cavalier as a "new" car. Shouldn't it be a Cobalt? Same with the Grand Am and the Sunfire. Anyhow it is kind of interesting because some of the models that are popular suprised me. Who in the hell is buying their teen a new Explorer?!?!

That is a very true statement. I live in a very small town of about 400 people and there are 4 Tempos still running around town. Heck I see more Tempos still driving around then any other small cars from that period of time. Sure it wasn't sexy, it wasn't smooth, and it sure wasn't cutting edge, but it was durable, affordable, and reliable. The Tempo was nothing more then a compact point A to point B car. It wasn't designed to be special. It was designed to be basic, brown wraper transportation that the masses could afford. The earlier models '87 and under did have some issues, but by the time the 2nd gen. car came in '88 they were pretty solid little cars.

Ok how did this go from discussing the Tundra and crap Firestone tires to discussing the Ford Tempo? Well if this thread is going to be about a Tempo then I should tell you that I owned a 1993 gray 4-door GL that I bought in 1994 when I was a senior in high school. I paid $8995 with 15,000 miles on it and it was loaded. Drove it for 6 years and never had any major issues other then sticking door locks. Great little car. I will admit though when you put 4 college guys in it the 2.3L 4 banger with a 3 speed auto did get a little wheezy, especially off the line, but with just under 100HP you can't really blame the little car.