dr511scj

The common-sense approach is to share as much as possible with the Explorer. The IRS is a problem, though.

Yes. I want this issue to remain in focus. Ford needs to read it, so it belongs in the MGT thread (not that anyone with any power reads this board). It belongs most appropriately in the enviro thread, but almost nobody reads that one. And to get any discussion, it needs to be posted in the "free thought" thread. Topics in that thread, though, are fleeting. If it wasn't a critical issue, I wouldn't spend bandwidth on it. But it's life & death for a part of the market, so it merits repeating. Sorry you disapprove.

Automotive News]WASHINGTON (Big Brother Central) -- "Reacting to public uproar over gasoline prices, the Bush administration took steps Thursday to change passenger car fuel economy standards for the first time in more than 20 years." "The administration said it wants to make the same kinds of changes in the standards for cars that it made for light trucks in late March. Those changes included for the first time setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes and raising the overall fuel-saving requirements for manufacturers by about 10 percent over the 2008-11 model years." * * * * "The point of setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes is to discourage automakers from downsizing models to comply, thereby making vehicles less safe. The administration's reforms set tougher targets for smaller vehicles. Size is determined by the area bounded by the four wheels." Now that the Bush Administration has joined the hysteria and is further abandoning the FREE MARKET (CAFE itself distorts the free market for vehicle choice), what will erstwhile greeniac BILLY FORD and his NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DO? Given that Ford has such a commitment to FWD (CD3, D3) and is way behind in several V8 performance and technology segments (no real RWD performance sedans, not much commitment to variable displacement or GDI V8s or turbocharging), it wouldn't be surprising if Ford copied the Chrysler-era Iacocca and lobbied in favor of harsh increases in CAFE. Will Ford throw its performance customers "under the bus" for the sake of some cheap PR with the car-hating, PRO-CAFE set (I didn't use the "L" word, but I probably should have)? CD3 & D3 defenders are likely euphoric over the thought that the Government may neuter the HEMIs and the LSx sedans before Ford even formulates an answer. Footprint-based CAFE increases will probably mean SERIOUS CURTAILMENT OF MUSTANG PERFORMANCE OPTIONS! Why? Because the car takes up relatively little space. A fleet-wide standard, however, will force Ford to choose between large sedans and high-performance pony cars (driving up the prices of each because of CAFE-limited supplies. So the Bush plan might permit Ford to save Panther if the standards don't go too high [Hope & Pray, Panther Mafia, Hope & Pray]). But GT500 and other hi-po Mustangs would then have to meet the same standards as lo-po small cars. Anyone believe GT500 could survive a 35-mpg footprint sector-based CAFE average? (Of course Ford has an easy out in that it only promised to build GT500 for a couple of seasons. After that, it might be "1972" all over again). The car-haters killed the first muscle car era and now history may be repeating itself. Will Billy and Fields & Co. stand up and fight for the right to build muscle cars. Or will they kowtow to the fickle political winds and improve their standing with the global warming nuts and the others who can't stand free market choice? Note that it took us a couple of decades of STABLE CAFE policy to achieve the current Xanadu of high performance. A big CAFE jump will be a set back, but performance in SOME form is likely to reemerge eventually. The risk, however, is that it REEMERGES only in the form of FWD tuner cars, is limited to only expensive "niche" models, and based on tiny GDI four cylinders. Not much of a FUTURE, is it? Ford MUST lobby for an expanded flexi-fuel exemption and should vigorously resist any plan that will geld the Mustang. Ford should also lobby for a "10%" exemption--permitting OEMs to exempt up to 10% of production (and keeping all police car sales exempt) from the CAFE calculation to protect the markets for "special" and "limited use" "collector" vehicles. And Ford should look at aftermarket circumvention plans, instead of abandoning us as it did in the 1970s.

Then it better bring sufficent chassis rigidity, handling and power-to-weight to do the job (unlike FoMoCo's last attempt to make a uni-body sedan platform into a two-seater--J Mays' failed Retro T-Bird). Bush's "footprint"-based CAFE increase proposal probably will make all of this a moot point, though.

Automotive News]WASHINGTON (Big Brother Central) -- "Reacting to public uproar over gasoline prices, the Bush administration took steps Thursday to change passenger car fuel economy standards for the first time in more than 20 years." "The administration said it wants to make the same kinds of changes in the standards for cars that it made for light trucks in late March. Those changes included for the first time setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes and raising the overall fuel-saving requirements for manufacturers by about 10 percent over the 2008-11 model years." * * * * "The point of setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes is to discourage automakers from downsizing models to comply, thereby making vehicles less safe. The administration's reforms set tougher targets for smaller vehicles. Size is determined by the area bounded by the four wheels." Now that the Bush Administration has joined the hysteria and is further abandoning the FREE MARKET (CAFE itself distorts the free market for vehicle choice), what will erstwhile greeniac BILLY FORD and his NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DO? Given that Ford has such a commitment to FWD (CD3, D3) and is way behind in several V8 performance and technology segments (no real RWD performance sedans, not much commitment to variable displacement or GDI V8s or turbocharging), it wouldn't be surprising if Ford copied the Chrysler-era Iacocca and lobbied in favor of harsh increases in CAFE. Will Ford throw its performance customers "under the bus" for the sake of some cheap PR with the car-hating, PRO-CAFE set (I didn't use the "L" word, but I probably should have)? CD3 & D3 defenders are likely euphoric over the thought that the Government may neuter the HEMIs and the LSx sedans before Ford even formulates an answer. Footprint-based CAFE increases will probably mean SERIOUS CURTAILMENT OF MUSTANG PERFORMANCE OPTIONS! Why? Because the car takes up relatively little space. A fleet-wide standard, however, will force Ford to choose between large sedans and high-performance pony cars (driving up the prices of each because of CAFE-limited supplies. So the Bush plan might permit Ford to save Panther if the standards don't go too high [Hope & Pray, Panther Mafia, Hope & Pray]). But GT500 and other hi-po Mustangs would then have to meet the same standards as lo-po small cars. Anyone believe GT500 could survive a 35-mpg footprint sector-based CAFE average? (Of course Ford has an easy out in that it only promised to build GT500 for a couple of seasons. After that, it might be "1972" all over again). The car-haters killed the first muscle car era and now history may be repeating itself. Will Billy and Fields & Co. stand up and fight for the right to build muscle cars. Or will they kowtow to the fickle political winds and improve their standing with the global warming nuts and the others who can't stand free market choice? Note that it took us a couple of decades of STABLE CAFE policy to achieve the current Xanadu of high performance. A big CAFE jump will be a set back, but performance in SOME form is likely to reemerge eventually. The risk, however, is that it REEMERGES only in the form of FWD tuner cars, is limited to only expensive "niche" models, and based on tiny GDI four cylinders. Not much of a FUTURE, is it? Ford MUST lobby for an expanded flexi-fuel exemption and should vigorously resist any plan that will geld the Mustang. Ford should also lobby for a "10%" exemption--permitting OEMs to exempt up to 10% of production (and keeping all police car sales exempt) from the CAFE calculation to protect the markets for "special" and "limited use" "collector" vehicles. And Ford should look at aftermarket circumvention plans, instead of abandoning us as it did in the 1970s.

It needs a back seat (even if its only suitable for packages, children and disciples of Torquemada). A two-seat car will either be a Reatta/Allante/Chrysler TC/Retro Thunderbird-style poser or it will be compared to Corvette, Cadillac XLR, Viper, 350Z and even Ford GT (notwithstanding the huge price difference). Thus, if Lincoln were to go 2+0, it should build a serious sports car (which won't happen). The Mark IX makes more sense than revival of Mercury Cougar because the margins are potentially higher and Lincoln customers will support a higher level of value-added equipment. It would be easy to Lincoln-ize the D2C without stealing too many sales from the GT500 and its progeny. However, it should be a little more involved than the "grille" job Navigator/Mark LT conversions. And it shouldn't be a cheesy as Iacocca's Diplomat-to-Fifth Avenue bolt-ons, either.

239 meager h.p. is all the cops and the "sport" model buyers get from the factory. However, the 2V is very intake restricted, and can make a lot more power with a spot of tampering . . . . Nearly anything that will work on a "performance improved" '99-'04 Mustang GT engine will also work on a PI/CV. Of course Kenny Brown, before his recent health-driven hiatus, built about the best Panthers . . . http://www.carreview.com/learn%5Ekennybrownspotlightcrx.aspx http://www.kennybrown.com/performance_vehicles.cfm Of course you can't forget the Super-Panther FoMoCo refuses to sell us . . . . http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_dis...m?release=20598

The problem with using a truck frame is the shape of the rails. It would make for a very, very tall sedan. Panther's chassis is well developed. They should just periodically restyle it and revise the powertrain selection to fit current objectives (more power, more economy). And bring back the towing package!

Assuming FoMoCo has anyone other than a junior lawyer reading this message board swill, don't you think they'd be satisfied with the regular group of frequent posters here who seldom, if ever, find fault with Ford? They are sort of a de facto rapid response team, aren't they?

Who said they "can't," NOah?

I've schooled many an import with those alleged "primitive road manners" on "back roads" while lounging in a Panther's huge interior (produced by that "inferior space utilization"). In fact, I rather enjoyed driving California 1/PCH once in a five-seat Panther. Passed a lot of cars. Only got passed by a Viper with a Michigan "M" plate and a 911 or two. Big fun! Sure, it's no Cobra, but it's not nearly as bad as you suggest. In fact, it's a lot better than most of the similarly-sized BOF '60s muscle cars that pull such big money at Barrett-Jackson. I will admit the ergonomics could stand some improvement, though. At least make the dash able to accept both a tach and proper gauges (no Marauder-style add-ons). Tip well known to the Panther Mafia: Score as many PI bits as you can to beef up your Panther. You'll be glad you did.

1. Iacocca proved back in the '70s with the Thunderbird that a huge price cut almost always boosts sales, that is until the new lower cost product resets market perceptions for a nameplate. One wonders how the Zephyr/MKZ will affect perceptions of Lincoln's exclusivity and market segment positioning. 2. 12.85 lbs per hp is merely adequate for the near-lux market of the MKZ. The real question is whether a FWD-biased AWD system will produce the proper driving dynamics and subjective handling feel to be competitive. 3. Yet another AT gear selector without positions for all the available gears. Decidedly not "sporty." 4. No amount of value-added fluff in the CD3 will mask the fact that L-M has nothing to offer V8 sports sedan customers.

This comment sort of fits in the category of the kid who does about half his homework, stays up all night partying before the big test, and then wonders why he didn't pass. If you're going to build a better mousetrap, you'd better catch some mice. The LS wasn't a "better mousetrap" and so it didn't catch very many mice. It was a "gentlemanly C" effort. Zephyr/MKZzzzz simply jettisons even the "gentlemanly" attempt. What does making "Lincoln into Lincoln" really mean? Reviving the Leland's Lincoln K? Edsel's Continental? Bill Ford, Sr.'s Mark II? Iacocca's glorified "Thunderbird" Lincolns? Building compact Japanese Buicks, such as the new Zephyr/MKZzzzzzzzzzzzzz? Has Cadillac lost its way by beginning to chase "World Class" objective standards for their products? At least the "Mexican Lincolns" of Bill Stroppe, Clay Smith, Ray Crawford and Walt Faulkner were substantially more internationally competitive in their arena (Carrera Panamericana) than the modern ones.

I may have to revise my comment about how obvious all this incentive business is. Automotive News publishes the details on everybody's factory incentives regularly. It shouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that if you put $500 cash on the hood, then offer zero percent or one percent financing on $30,000+ for 24/36/48 months and then maybe even slip a little extra spiff in the dealer's hold-back envelope, that it all adds up to THOUSANDS of dollars per unit in incentives. Even offering Zero Percent on a two-year, $30,000 loan "costs" the lender nearly three grand if it's borrowing its money at 5% APR, compounded annually, instead of investing $30,000 cash at the same rate of return. (see for yourself: http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compo...calculator.htm)

But the main point is that whatever they do to salvage the Flaccid Five Hundred, the D3 platform will never be able to replace the toughness and easy-to-repair features inherent in the Panther's BOF construction.

"Even with a sub-$30,000 base price, Lincoln has backed the Zephyr with significant incentives including major lease support. In March, total incentive spending for the Zephyr averaged $4,342, according to the J.D. Power and Associates Power Information Network. Industry research company Edmunds.com put the March incentive spend for Zephyr at $3,543." In context, how is this misleading to the average enthusiast reading Autoweek? But then, what average enthusiast reading Autoweek would want an underpowered FWD Mexican Mazda "Lincoln?" Most enthusiasts are intelligent enough to recognize below market interest rates and other cost-shifting mechanisms are manufacturer subsidies to sales. Where they MSRP the car is mostly irrelevant. Transaction price is what matters. Customers can read the ads and search out other information to find out what the real prices are.

(Automotive News) DETROIT [Rock City] -- The Ford brand is dropping its "Built for the Road Ahead" advertising campaign in favor of "Bold Moves," sources say. Ads featuring "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson are scheduled to begin in early May. "It's more than just a tag line," a source says. "It fits with Red, White and Bold." That's the phrase Ford Americas chief Mark Fields is using to drive the automaker's North American turnaround efforts. Initial Gut Reactions: 1. Nobody @ FoMoCo reads this stuff anyhow, so I might as well be writing to myself. 2. Fields and BILLY's NEW EXEC COMMITTEE apparently know about the Hawthorne Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect) and hope a BOLD -N- BLOND (Kelly Clarkson) strategy reverses slides in sales, share prices and dealer profits. (At least we don't have Jessica Simpson . . . or GEORGE MICHAEL writhing all over some Flaccid Five Hundred . . . Yet!) 3. "Red, White and Bold" . . . Isn't "Bold" some sort of detergent? (http://www.bold2in1.com/en_UK/qa_general.html; http://www.pgboycott.com/productlist.asp; http://media.afa.net/newdesign/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=3160 ) 4. Given the weak-sister performance of FoMoCo's recent "best" (203-h.p. Flaccid Five Hundred/MonteSLO; MKZzzzzzzzz/Lead Zephyr; Life in D (d'coma, d'traction, or d'leg cast) Fusion), perhaps it's a "Better Idea" to dump "Built for the Road [behind]" in favor of a "BOLD MOVE." (Of course, the real "bold move" would be to properly fund SVT & L-M and to build legitimate DOHC 4V V-8 powered sports sedans . . . .) 5. Maybe Mark Fields & Co. can film some of the FoMoCo-sponsored "Family Area" at the upcoming Motor City Pride Event, June 2-4, 2006, which reportedly will feature a homosexual marriage "commitment ceremony." They could call that commercial "Red, White and BLUE! (Now that's a "Bold Move," Marky-Mark!) 6. A "Bold Move" for most of the AARP members who groove to the soporific beat of FoMoCo's Flaccid Five Hundred, is an unassisted trip to the can. Thus, I'm not sure that Kelly Clarkson really speaks to this demographic. Maybe Doris Roberts . . . . 7. "Red, White and Bold" does, however, fit in with recent FoMoCo trends . . . after all, La Bandera de Mexico is Red, White and Bold Green! ( http://www.inside-mexico.com/flag.htm ) Given FoMoCo's growing affection for South-of-the-Border production (and even that Kermit-the-Frog commercial that tints the Oval GREEN), it's a good marketing synergy to take the focus off of the color UAW/American "blue" . . . . Besides, "Run for the Border" was already taken (http://business.enotes.com/marketing-campaign/taco-bell-corporation). 8. Given the decidedly not "bold" spokespersons for Toyota and Honda (VOs by Jeff Goldblum and Richard Dreyfuss, respectively), is FoMoCo really taking advantage of the opportunity by going with . . . Kelly Clarkson? Why not just go for the "American Idol" guru himself--SIMON? Oh, wait . . . he'd probably want to honestly critique the cars. Never mind. Maybe FoMoCo could just borrow that announcer from the "Beef: It's what's for Dinner" commericals (Sam Elliott; http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/askex...tising.asp#qa2) . . . I can just hear him saying "Ford! YOU BETTER BUY ONE OR YOU'LL LOOK LIKE A WIMP IN THE GAS LINE . . . . 9. Maybe if Sam Elliott is too expensive or too BOLD, FoMoCo could tap PAUL SENIOR from "American Chopper." Of course, Green Fields & Co would have to change the tag line to "Ford-A Better IDEARR." But then at least FoMoCo commercials would be entertaining. 10. Or maybe a little truth in advertising for a change . . . Profit is Job ONE . . . Have You PASSED a Ford Lately . . . There WAS a FORD in Your Past . . . Bankruptcy is NOT AN OPTION . . . Ford: Family Means Never Having To Be Accountable to Your Shareholders . . . .

Excellent analysis! In summary, everyone was greedy, selfish and short-sighted during the good times. Now that times are very bad, everyone will need to sacrifice . . . and hope the new products are home runs. (I'm much less optimistic about the product component, though, given the current tepid results (D[ull]3, etc.) and overly aggressive cost-cutting. "Instead of talking about competing with the Japanese, do something about it. Instead of worrying about what price the stock is, build a quality product, decent design, and then it will follow suit that the stock will go up," said Dan Mulvehill, 52, who works as a painter at the factory. 'There was too much cost reduction, they were focused on the SUV and the gas hog when the writing was on the wall and they didn't prepare for that.'" However, the UAW has to do its part, too. They cannot saddle Ford with costs much higher than Toyota and Honda while expecting Ford stay competitive or to keep more jobs in the U.S.A. Because the market sets vehicle prices, money spent on legacy, excessive benefits and agreement compliance costs is money that has to come out of the product through cheaper materials or designs. Consumers aren't stupid. They can see quality and lack thereof. Furthermore, the vast majority of consumers aren't union and believe-erroneously perhaps--that unions are wholly out of touch with the global economy.

Susan Cischke, Ford vice president of environmental and safety engineering, testified at a Senate Energy Committee hearing on U.S. energy security that "we need a strong, long-term focus on policies that increase U.S. ethanol production and accelerate E85 infrastructure development." She also testified that "U.S. automakers have produced almost 6 million flexible-fuel vehicles. If they all ran on E85 fuel, over 2.5 billion gallons of traditional gasoline could be saved." BUT THE BIG PROBLEM CISCHKE MISSES IS THAT FORD AND OTHER "DETROIT 3" BUILDERS HAVEN'T PRODUCED E85 VEHICLES WHICH INHERENTLY GENERATE DEMAND FOR THE HIGH OCTANE FUEL! The current flexi-fuel fleet is generally comprised of forgettable, fleet-type vehicles which run about the same on E10 (or E-ZERO!) as E85. So, excluding a few environmentalists, farmers and trendy politicos, nobody really demands more E85. However, if Ford were to exploit the high performance characteristics of E85 (such as was once-upon-a-time hinted in SVT's "Superstallion" flexi-fueled concept car), then market forces would undoubtedly demand increases in E85 retail infrastructure. Just as GM led and stoked market demand with higher performance Kettering V8s after WWII, Ford should sell its customers "hot" cars that run quicker and faster on E85. If buyers see a serious performance advantage with E85, they will demand oil companies start carrying it (and even at a higher price point than current E10 premium!). Energy security and environmental handwringing won't get E85 to the mass market anywhere near as fast as creating real demand with a real market feature such as higher performance on E85. AS FOR DIESELS: 1. Light turbodiesels should get a boost from better low-sulfur fuels and advanced technologies (direct injection, better particulate traps) and public exposure (Continued success of the Audi R-10 will garner at least some attention. Gale Banks is also planning to road-race a tube-framed GMC Duramax (not sure how that will work, though) 2. If Ford brings turbodiesels to some light-duty vehicles, they MUST be more reliable and user friendly than the 2.0 Mazda non-turbo IDI diesel they used back in the 1980s. 54 smokey horsepower (in between blown head gaskets and weekly drainings of the water separator. Big fun). 3. After the 6.0 PowerStroke fiasco, Ford can't afford any more false steps with diesels. 4. If battery replacement becomes an issue for hybrids and fuel costs rise, diesels become more attractive.

Dude! There were no diesel Microbuses during the Summer of Love . . . or in Haight-Ashbury . . . not even veggie-oil-fired ones! Maybe when the illegal aliens eventually retake Cali, they will smuggle in some of Mexico City's environmental conditions in place of CARB and SCAQMD . . . .

Didn't GM do almost the same thing at OKC Assembly. It had extraordinary quality numbers with its obsolete A-Body (practice makes perfect), then GM converted it to RWD SUVs before closing it. What message does that send to the rank & file?

I hear 'ya. But it was the UAW that really failed down South when it couldn't organize in the Japanese plants. That gives the Japanese a huge cost advantage with which they are pummelling Detroit. The UAW-driven "legacy" costs (and some stupid government regulations) are driving many assembly jobs out of the U.S. Sad, isn't it?

I disagree with dumping Mercury--it should be Ford's risk-taking nameplate. Try new stuff in Merc first. If it sticks, then it goes company-wide. I'd even give the Mercury nameplate over to the old, disbanded Special Vehicles Team before I'd "Oldsmobile" it. Lincoln should return to being a competitive alternative to Cadillac (it's not now because Lincoln has virtually no sports sedan products. I would also have a halo Lincoln to compete with Chrysler SRT, AMG, BMW-M and Cadillac-V. I agree on the Panther. But in the short term, I'd settle for an FFV version of the '03-'04 Cobra engine as an option. I've got 16 specific proposals on other threads, so there's no need to repeat all of them here.

In the oft chance some janitor or other low-level Ford employee actually reads any of this stuff (I strongly doubt it--except for some junior lawyer looking for someone to slap a "cease and desist" threat upon) I'm reposting the following in this section of the forum: Here's a great irony for you: FORD TO HONOR 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF HOT ROD ICONS -- THE '32 "DEUCE" AND FIRST MASS-PRODUCED V8 DEARBORN, Michigan, August 21, 2005 – The 1932 Ford, the car that brought style and performance to the mass market and went on to become the quintessential hot rod nicknamed the “Deuce,†will celebrate its 75th anniversary in 2007. Ford will participate in celebrating the ‘32’s impact on automotive enthusiasm and culture with a display of the 75 most influential and important 1932 Ford hot rods, as selected by a panel of experts. The display will premiere at the January, 2007 Grand National Roadster Show in Pomona, Calif., the nation’s oldest annual hot rod show. (21 Aug 05, USA) FORD INVENTED THE LOW-COST V8 MARKET IN AMERICA! YET IT IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE DETROIT 3 ON THE CUSP OF NOT OFFERING RWD OR A V8 IN ANY OF ITS "MAINSTREAM SEDANS!" WHY NOT CELEBRATE "THE DEUCE" BY BUILDING RWD V8 SEDANS FOR MIDDLE AMERICA! NOT EVERYONE WHO LOVES PERFORMANCE CAN FIT THEIR FAMILY INTO A MUSTANG! Why is it that GM can pack 400 or so h.p. in a Trailblazer SS (awesome truck, BTW), but weak sister FoMoCo struggles even to get 300 h.p. its vehicles (Don't you dare say CAFE, because FoMoCo could use the FFV loophole anytime it wanted to).

Dude? If Ford dumps Volvo and Mazda, who will design the next big "hit" for Ford? Other than the Mustang (built at a half-Mazda plant) what recent Ford car has been anything other than a warmed-over Mazda or Volvo? I'm waiting for the answer, you Bill Ford Club Members! Take a big gulp of that Fantasy Management Kool-Aide and give it your best shot . . . .