rkisler

I agree with your comments. In my opinion, this looks like a very good defensive move to keep Chinese (Nanjing Auto) from using a name that many would confuse with the premium Land Rover brand. Suppose, for instance, that the Chinese decided to sell not-so-great cars in Europe or the US using the Rover brand. Additionally, the Rover brand does have history/recognition in the UK, so buying the brand name is also a defensive measure for Ford branded vehicles there. Although Ford could decide to use the brand for differentiated cars, I can't imagine it's in the cards. It's not as if Rover cars are highly regarded, and there is very little name recognition left from the old days in the US with the Rover 3500 and the later Honda platform attempt to revive the brand.

NHTSA has proposed increased side impact protection with a phase in plan as follows: . 20 percent of each manufacturer’s light vehicles manufactured during the production year beginning (four years after publication of a final rule; for illustration purposes, September 1, 2009); . 50 percent of each manufacturer’s light vehicles manufactured during the production year beginning September 1, 2010; . All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011 The most likely way to meet the standard is side impact airbags. The upcoming standards, combined with the pressure from highly-publicized IIHS tests is leading to further standard application of SAB before the rule takes effect. I don't know whether the new NHTSA standards require actions over and above SAB. New platforms will accomodate side airbags from the get-go. Other platforms (like Panther) are likely to be much more difficult and expensive if they require a tearup of the pillars and roof. I suspect this might be one of the reasons why some of the discussion on end of Panther hovers around the 2012 time period...

You are correct. You have to have ABS to start with to get stability control; the hardware on ABS is relatively expensive. But once you have ABS, the actual equipment difference to get stability control is not so large -- as you mentioned, stability control adds yaw control and steering angle sensors. In the past, one of the largest costs was the engineering as there was no experience base and limited computer modeling capabilty; cars had to be put through physical tests in cold weather to ensure the stability control came on at the right time. In particular, for a sport sedan like the Lincoln LS which was one of Ford's early adaptions of stability control, keeping the balance between safety and sportiness was critical and that's as much art as science. I am assuming that the modeling capability (versus physical testing) is now well enough advanced to make additional applications a lot easier with just verification testing and fine tuning in cold weather. So, in summary, the cost to Ford is the cost of ABS (where it's not already standard) and additional ESC hardware. The RSC system used in SUV's adds a roll sensor; not sure if it adds any other sensors. Once again, engineering/software development likely was more of a challenge than the physical hardware. It's hard enough to try to anticipate and control this type of situation, but when the driver is adding additional input during the event (some of it incorrect!) the task becomes more difficult. Ford could add RSC to cars, but it doesn't look like it's part of the plan at this point. You are also correct on traction control. There are various systems. The least sophisticated uses the ABS brakes to clamp down on driving wheels if they start to spin (which can cause overheating). More sophisticated systems include brake-spark-fuel that control both engine and brakes. From the looks of it, the government is going to mandate stability control, so it's good that Ford is getting this announcement on the books now for some PR benefit.

Sure, Edstock, you're right on the Chrysler 300, but this platform starts as RWD, like BMW and Mercedes. So the engine is longitudinal, with the transmission behind. Then there is a takeoff from the tail of the transmission that runs forward, then goes to a front diff and ultimately to the front wheels. This requires a shaft through the oil pan. This arrangements works ok. Advantages are you can keep the front overhangs and effect on weight distribution is not a huge factor. Disadvantages are, you have to make sure you are going under the engine at a bearing and you have to be careful about the angle of the front drive shafts in relation to the front wheels. Requires mods to front suspension to accomodate spindle. Also, there is often times a bump in the passenger side floor to clear the takeoff, and the whole setup tends to want to push the car up in the air to maintain clearances with the engine/transmission/front suspension. Not so challenging in an SUV, but very challenging in a sleek sports sedan (like 3 series awd). The powertrain layout in the D3's is set with the platform although I think Ford did make some front end changes to adopt a unified powertrain mounting strategy for its V6's which provides more commonality between D3 and CD3. Any architectural changes in the front end are now likely to be prohibitively expensive from an investment standpoint. Which gets me back to the challenge the Lincoln designers are going to have....

First, my compliments on your photoshop of the MKS and the 500, but.... Reduction of front overhang is difficult to achieve in vehicles that start with a FWD layout. Whether they are FWD or AWD, or whether the engine is longitudinal or latitudinal, the engine and transmission are essentially in front of the front wheels. (Sorry, I tried to find a schematic on the web to show this and failed). If one attempts to drag the front wheels forward to get BMW-style minimal front overhang, you drag the whole powertrain with it. So, front crash protection would be reduced, weight distribution gets even worse, and the engine would literally be poking out of the hood. Manufacturers try their best to minimize front overhang on FWD, and usually try to disguise what's left by sweeping or layering the front end so when viewed from the side you don't tend to notice as much. So, I think what you see is what you get for the front end proportions on the D3 platform. Of course, the wheelbase could be lengthened, within the overall weight limits for the platform structure and suspension. The basic D3 architecture will present a lot of constraints on the final design of the MKS. In addition to front overhang, the high seating position partially dictates the high roofline and will be very difficult to modify drastically to get "sexy" styling. And the high seating/roofline also sets up the front and rear height. Unfortunately, there are limits to how much you can smoosh this height down witout blowing the whole platform. This will be a very, very tough job and some late nights for the Lincoln designers.

Well, Richard, if it makes you feel any better, around the same time that the DEW98 platform was being developed, Ford was parading around a luxury technology demonstration vehicle that had, among other things, an aluminim drive shaft with a rear transaxle. So maybe your memory isn't so bad. It also had a sophisticated (for its time) voice command system that worked pretty well, but required a trunk full of computers..... Surprisingly, it was body on frame if I remember right.

Matthew Good thoughts, but I don't think this is likely for a number of reasons: If I were Mazda, and needed extra capacity, I wouldn't want to be stuck with AAI with a questionable work force. I would actually want Ford to take the plant and get the hell out of Michigan and try to leave the UAW behind. St. Thomas is geared toward one thing and one thing only; making a large quantity of CV/GM on a single wheelbase. This plant is old and hard tooled and there is no such thing as flexibility in St. Thomas. Putting a new platform in the plant while the Panther is still there likely would be prohibitively expensive. Ford is making other moves in Canada that will shore up employment for the losses in St. Thomas -- new Edge/MKx and D3 dervatives in Oakville and the Ontario Truck Plant which is across the street. I don't see Canada getting the next big plant project, but who knows.... Of course D2c could spawn derivatives, but substantial modifications would be required including IRS. The tearup might be so large that you might not have much left from the D2c. So if you need a RWD entry and you're moving into a new plant anyway, you might take a fresh start. Which could ultimately include the Mustang...or not. With so many problems to fix, I just don't see AAI as being at the top of the list right now. Basically the plant is pretty full and it's working. So why mess with it?

[quote name='matthewq4b' date='Aug 23 2006, 08:33 PM

I wouldn't put much stock in rumors that Mazda will "buy its way out of Ford ownership" Ford owns 1/3 of Mazda. The other major influence is Sumitomo with whom Ford has a friendly relationhip -- it was Sumitomo that "convinced" Mazda to accept Ford management and to up the ownership from 25% to 33%. Nothing will happen with Mazda unless Ford and Sumitomo were to agree. The relationship right now is benefiting both parties. Ford is getting decent Mazda designed product. Mazda is probably too small to go it alone and is benefiting from Ford utilization of those platforms by getting increased economies of scale. Mazda is able to sell platform derivative product to import intenders that would never consider a Ford. Like any relationships, I'm sure not everyone is happy all the time, but I think the Mazda relationship is vital to Ford right now.

I don't quite get this. There is virtually no financial reason to pull production from one plant to another -- why would you reinvest to get exactly what you had to begin with; that's money wasted that could have been spent on product. Even if Mazda wanted more capacity, they only own 50% of the plant so the split of capacity is negotiable. And, to my knowledge, it's been the Mustang that has been pushing at the M6 and taking up the slack in the plant. Also, AAI is an integrated stamping plant, which means all of the stamping dies also would have to be moved. Doesn't make sense. If Ford were to pull the Mustang, where would they go and why?? I don't think the Mustang needs more capacity -- it's at it's peak and will be faced with new competition in the future which could affect sales volume. Despite AAI's issues with workforce, I can't think of any other Ford facility that would offer enough of a financial incentive to move. The only way this might make sense is if the Mustang were moving to a new platform with other derivatives, but I can't imagine this so soon after initiation of the D2c. Maybe your friend's input is spot on, but I just can't figure it...

I was commenting on AAI's ability to produce other vehicles, and my point was that if Mazda were to boogy from AAI, fitting Edge into the plant wouldn't be so easy, but CD3 sedans and maybe a CD3 crossover (smaller and lower than Edge) would work. There is a relationship between the Edge and CX-9, but the relationship of each of these vehicles with the CD3 sedans is much more tenuous. It depends on one's definition of "platform", but in this case, it suits Ford to say they are the same platform because it makes everyone feel good (most especially Wall Street). Of course, the design philosophy is similar as both were designed by Mazda. I don't know all the technical details, but the Edge has a common powertrain, and I would hope a common mounting strategy and accessory drive. This is not insignificant; it reduces complexity in the powertrain plant. But, in other areas, Edge is quite unique from Fusion. It has a unique front and rear suspension. I'm guessing that none of the underbody or other structural metal is common (and it's not just stretch; I'm guessing that the Edge uses ladder construction which is different than the sedans and has a unique build sequence). The upper body is completely unique. The interior is totally unique. Maybe there is some sharing in the climate control. So, is it a CD3 derivative? Not in my book, but if that's what Ford wants to call it, it's OK by me. Some of my reasons are circumstantial. I think we can assume that there are RWD aficionados inside Ford, and that D2c was fully examined for Lincoln (probably repeatedly) when it was apparent that the LS was going away. If D2c would have made the cut, I think we would have seen something more definitive by now or the MKS would have been a D2c sedan. As for product requirements, even if you assume a coupe, totaly unique sheetmetal and interior is a given. I agree with your assumption that Lincoln would require IRS. Although it might have been studied, there is no IRS on Mustang to draw from. So you either end up jamming in an expensive, compromised IRS into the same area the live axle takes up (like you mentioned on SN95) or completely tear up the rear end of the car for a proper IRS ($$$). Other questions would be: is the front suspension good enough for a luxury customer? Is the NVH/sound quality good enough? Is there enough electrical capacity? What would be the effect of additional weight (for higher feature content)? Do we need to stretch to get a bigger back seat? Some of these questions might be easy, but others could be killers. Maybe all the product concerns above could be addressed, but now you need a place to build it. AAI D2c Mustang line is full. If Mazda were to vacate the other half, then you could add another D2c body shop or maybe expand the present shop. But, if you want to invest in a luxury coupe, then volume is likely to be very limited and won't fill up the other half of the plant. So even if the product concerns could be addressed, I don't see any way a D2c Lincoln coupe would make financial sense. If you want more D2c volume, I think a much better case could be made for a Cougar -- higher volume potential and fewer required modifications (but still totally unique sheetmetal). Personally, I think Mazda leaving AAI is just a rumor, nothing more. One way they might leave is if Ford had something to trade, but I don't see anything Ford has to offer that they would want. If I were in Mazda's shoes, I would only leave if I thought I could get paid a fair price for 1/2 of AAI, establish a new plant in a red state and shed the UAW, but I think it's probably too late for that.

Don't forget that Mazda is half owner of AAI, and has been reluctant to leave as AAI is their only production facility in North America. From a plant perspective, this plant has struggled and never been even close to capacity until recently. Now, with Mustang and Mazda 6, the plant is finally making money. If this rumor were true and Mazda were to produce all the M6's in Hofu, the least investment approach would be CD3 derivatives (sedans or coupes, or maybe a smaller crossover but not the Edge which is not really a CD3). The plant actually has two assembly lines contained within a single plant. There is some flexiblity of Mustang and 6's, but not infinite because you run into constraints on the Mustang line. Any move to all D2c for AAI would be expensive but not impossible. I don't think you'll ever see the D2c as a Lincoln. Platform is not up to snuff for a luxury entry.

We Ford supporters should not rejoice in this news. One of the fallouts will be increased pressure on the Dodge police business to sell excess capacity. That only spells more trouble for St. Thomas which is limping along on one shift and probably isn't even filling a whole shift. Panthers at this point have to be very unprofitable and are only going to get worse.

First, I'm certainly not an expert on this issue, but... The basic dimensions of the engine set up the front of the car. First, the length affects crash performance -- less crush space for front crash which can affect front overhang. But, as correctly mentioned, BMW use an I6 and have very pleasing, aggressive front proportions as well as good crash performance. And they have been able to do a good job maintaining these proportions even with new pedestrian crash requirements. But height is also an important element, particularly from a styling standpoint, and the Australia engine has a very tall deck height. The problem is making the transition from the hood height to the front bumper. I don't have data including all the valve gear, but I'm guessing that the BMW powertrain has a significantly lower overall height which enables them to keep the hood height low, so they have less of a transition to the front bumper. But they still tend to be a bit blunt in the front end. In the case of a straight-up, tall deck height Falcon, the height has to be carried in the hood the whole distance of the engine, then drop off to the bumper. So if you want to minimize the front end overhang, for instance, the front might look severely blocky. If you want a steeply sloped front end, then the overhang goes up. As mentioned, you could just push the front wheels forward to get the front overhang proportions you want, but...oops, the hood gets very long, the distance from the front wheel to the door goes up, and turning circle goes up. So, it's a delicate dance in the front end with the available equipment given to the program team combined with those things the engineers/stylists have freedom to change. Of course, you can play some tricks like those used in front drive cars such as sweeping the bumper in an arch, so your eyes are somewhat fooled from the side view, but those have their limits. And you can bulge the hood a bit but that's also limited. Also, a tall height affects the base of the windshield. I'm going to try to include a photo of the BMW engine bay. Notice how BMW slides the back of the engine under the cowl. If FoA were to try to do this, it would drive up the base of the windshield and affect other styling characteristics of the car all the way back to the back bumper. We'll wait to see the new Falcon, but I stand by my opinion that it will be very difficult or impossible for FoA to pull off the Commodore proportions as long as they are stuck with the present FoA I6. And I also stand by my opinion that Ford would have had a much, much better chance of pulling off a world RWD platform including Ford Australia if engines/transmissions were common.

There is a new Falcon on the way, but it will retain some of the underpinnings and powertrains of today's Falcon. I agree with you that Ford is in for a tough time in Australia. Personally, I don't see a bright future even with the new Falcon. Did you notice that GM Holden is announcing their long wheelbase model while Ford is "monitoring the situation daily" (Ford speak for "it probably won't happen"). GM made critical investments in Australia and developed a plan to integrate Holden into worldwide GM when Ford had their thumbs you-know-where. One critical difference is in powertrains. In particular, GM made the decision to use Holden as a supply point for modern, aluminum V6 engines. Although shipping from Australia is expensive, al-u-min-i-um is readily available, and Australia have the capability to manufacture at high quality. Ford, on the other hand, did not see fit to make Australia a source for the new 3.5l engine which would have been perfect for Falcon. So Ford is stuck with an old, tall I6 engine that is an orphan in the Ford system. There are several positive effects from GM's decision to use a corporate engine but I'll mention a couple. First, GM is able to develop a vehicle architecture that enables a front end that is low with short front overhangs -- very aggressive. I don't believe Falcon could ever achieve the Commodore front end with the I6. Second, the vehicle front end architecture can be designed with the US and other markets in mind from the get-go in terms of crash performance. Third, the engineering effort on V6 powertrains can be spread amongst all the users, and it can be instantly available for the US market from an emissions standpoint since it is already used here. Fourth, Holden will do the work to turn the engine 90 degrees for RWD applications, so it's ready to use for any potential GM RWD model in the US (like a base Camero). When I think about all the buzz about Falcon being Ford's RWD world architecture (which I view as zero probability), I think Ford's engine decision (or lack of decision) is probably one of the key elements that would ever keep it from happening.

Pioneer, there is a very large difference in shipping from Japan and Australia. There is huge trade system and shipping infrastructure between Japan and the U.S., and cargo ships leave on a regular basis. Autos and auto parts are a big part of the shipping total. The ports are set up for "roll on roll off" system where cars are driven on the ships. Efficient robotic packing of containers with parts is also common. The US trade with Australia is much more limited. Other than a leg o'lamb in your local grocery store, can you think of any other Aussie products you have run into lately? That means that shipping complete vehicles from Australia is expensive. I don't have any data, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's twice as much. The fact that Australia is not a large maket and lacks volume to get the lowest prices for components combined with the lack of efficient/cheap shipping to/from Australia also would inhibit the ability to put together a program that would share components. More reasons why Falcon is not the RWD global platform and has an exceptionally low probability of ever appearing in the US.

Maybe they're thinking they need Renault capacity on this side of the ocean for a relaunch of the Dauphine or LeCar. We all know how easy and cheap it is to convert assembly plants to new platforms (about all you might save of any significance is the paint plant -- maybe). And Nissan wouldn't be worried at all about infecting their plants with UAW labor. If they really want to use an existing plant, then just buy it from GM at bottom dollar; there is no need for an association. Of course both sides have to lay out what possible benefits they might get from this potential association, but I don't get it at all. Particularly when nobody would be in charge.

Not with this platform. It's just a revision from the previous generation, and I still say that although the front end changes will help, chances of production in NA are nill, and this generation of Falcon will not be the basis for a worldwide RWD platform. FoA will have more export potential with LHD. In particular, there is a decent market for Panthers in the Middle East. Falcon could slip in when Panther disappears. And, there could be some limited export capability to North America for a specialty RWD sedan, but I personally don't think Ford needs a 4-door GTO. But spending the big bucks to facilitize a plant in North America to produce this platform is a non starter IMO. By the way, I admire FoA's capabilities. And this article really brings the point home as to how strapped they are for investment dollars. They can't see their way through to spend the money to do a stretch of the Falcon to create a new Fairlane for their executive car market (this market is small). In the long run, the Falcon is the Panther. These cars do not dominate the market as they once did. Volumes are declining; the plant fortunately is propped up by intelligently designed derivatives. But the Falcon is slipping below the economies of scale needed to continue profitable production for the long term. I'm guessing the plant is at about 100k per year. This might be the last major revision for the Falcon platform in Australia. If Ford wants to continue auto production in Australia, a more radical plan for the long term will be required. But it won't be this generation. And the volume situation is likely to more critical next time around.

Well, it'll be hard to get an official source on this one, as Ford is unlikely to announce "we investigated a V8 but decided not to do it". I suppose the official announcement will come when Lincoln announces the powertrain selection for the MKS. But I would bet this report on dropping the 4.4 is accurate. Let's think about the 4.4 V8 for a bit. Let's put aside any thoughts of a Ford SHO, even if was the begining of this thread. Let's think of the 4.4 for Lincoln which is a much more important application. First, assumptions (I don't have inside knowledge, just making guesses): 1. Volvo is already using the Yamaha 4.4l. I assume this engine is very expensive; Volvo charge a retail premium of about $5,000. But other manufacturers charge more -- BMW charge around $12,000. Please note that I have not done a complete content adjusted comparison, just raw pricing. 2. Although the D3 platform is based on the P2 Volvo platform, there are differences in engine/transmission orientation and mounting. 3. Ford wants to maintain its relationship with Yamaha for the long haul. 4. Yamaha is likely constrained in capacity. I am assuming that their assembly was set up for 20-30k to support the projected volumes of the Taurus SHO. Although the 4.4 is all new, certainly the manufacturing facilites were modified for the new engine. 5. Let's also assume that Ford management are not complete idiots. Certainly there is internal pressure to find a V8 for the MKS as Ford Motor and Lincoln are closely associated with V8 mystique. I assume this issue has been examined with vigor. 6. I think we can also assume that Ford has examined all other V8 options. I'm sure the 4.6l doesn't fit. I assume the AJ V8 doesn't fit either, otherwise Volvo would have used it. Needs to be 60 degree bank which is very rare. So,what are Ford's alternatives if Ford wants the 4.4l for the MKS? First, I have no idea how expensive the modifications in the platform would be to package a new engine/transmission Second, I have no idea how exensive modifiying the engine to accept new mounting and a new transmission would be. Third, I have no idea how expensive modifications in the assembly plant might be Any one of these factors could be a "job stopper". For instance, if the engine did not fit and required modifications to the heads.... Assuming the above don't kill the idea, then you could consider: A. Expand Yamaha capacity -- Might be expensive or limited by space. Still results in expensive unit cost. B. Manufacture V8 in the US -- New plant or significant new tooling in an existing plant required which would be expensive. Might reduce unit cost of engine, but building a plant for only 30k or so annual production and keeping costs low is not easy. C. Manufacture Volvo and Ford requirements in the US -- would help economies of scale and bring unit costs down, but would destroy the relationship with Yamaha and likely would result in a big payment to Yamaha to cancel the commitment. A non starter. D. Install a higher tech version of the 3.5l. I'm guessing that Ford went through A, B, and C (probably numerous times) and came to a dead end, so decided to go with D. It's OK with me if well executed. With gas seeming headed up again to maybe $4/gallon, this might be the right play if a twin turbo 3.5l turns out to be reasonably fuel efficient while offering good performance. .

Sorry to cause offense (offence??). Slamming the Falcon was not the gist of my comments; it was whether the Falcon would form the basis for a RWD car in NA, and I stand by my initial assessment. Some further views: Ford Australia has done a wonderful job updating the Falcon platform and the I6 over the years. FoA has only a fraction of the engineers that Ford has in North America. The volumes for the Falcon platform are not large (around 100k), so generating the investment to fund product changes and improvements in the assembly plant has been tough. Market conditions have been tough. Ford management has decimated the work force during bad times. Falcon platform volumes are in decline, even with derivatives. The industrial base and auto industry in Australia is, of course, not nearly the size as the US, which reduces economies of scale and makes achieving lower prices for commodities difficult. Shipping to and from Australia is expensive. Nevertheless, despite all of these cards stacked against them, FoA has managed to continue to produce and update a very competent RWD product. This is a product that works well in very tough Australian conditions (rough macadam and dirt roads) that cause other cars to show a lot of warts or fail completely. And if you want to tow a trailer, the Falcon does that too. FoA have developed very interesting performance derivatives at low cost to enhance the brand. They developed a new Ute. If only Ford US could copy the lean, hungry, positive attitude and love of automobiles present in FoA, maybe Ford would not be in the product and financial position it is today. I'm not claiming that the D2c Mustang platform is technically advanced. It should have had IRS from the beginning, for instance. But the platform seems to be working for Mustang from a function and cost standpoint. But I still don't see that using the updated next generation Falcon would result in much of any benefit if Ford is considering production of a new RWD sedan in NA. First, I am assuming the exterior styling would be unique. The engines would likely be V6/V8 so the tall I6 would not have to be accomodated, allowing more flexibility in styling so the front end would likely be all new. Maybe something could be borrowed from the rear, but I don't see the benefits as it is unlikely, for instance, that components would be shipped from Australia to the US. And Ford would have to invest in a new assembly facility in the US anyway. In addition, using Falcon would likely not allow any "backcasting" of benefits to the Mustang (for instance, a new rear structure/IRS). So, I just don't see it.

Well, I'll say it again.... The Falcon is way over hyped on this bulletin board. It's not nearly the vehicle some think it is. They are hungering for a new RWD US entry (undesrtandable) and listening to auto magazine hype (they should know better by now). If you read the Ford announcements carefully, it is apparent that the new Falcon is simply another update and not an all new platform. According to the head of FoA PD, they will keep the rear end and suspension, and maybe modify the front. They will keep their ancient and tall I6 which dictates the front end proportions. FoA will try to increase exports and will possibly do LHD as part of the program to help achieve this goal, but no program has been slated for the US coming from Australia. I see absolutely no reason why the Falcon would form the basis for any vehicles produced in NA. Everybody take a deep breath. If it was your money, would you build an expensive new assembly facilty to produce a dated platform? Shipping components from Australia is not cost efficient so component savings aren't a big deal either. I'm not saying that Ford US won't eventually have a RWD unibody platform. But I see very little reason why Falcon would form the basis. It's going to make more sense for Ford US to borrow what they can from D2c (maybe not much), and create the rest new. This could even provide an opportunity to create an IRS that could slide underneath a freshened Mustang. But if this is the plan, it won't be cheap and I have no idea which assembly plant could handle this program.

New York Times article comparing legacy costs of Ford/GM/DC and Japanese "transplants". http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/automobiles/19auto.html

Lutz's comments make good sense to me: First, a lot of responders in this string keep referring to "that platform" as if it's a done deal. There is no new RWD platform for GM yet in North America; it appears to be still in the planning stages. And I would seriously doubt that the North American planning has concluded exactly which vehicles are to built off of the platform. In fact, Lutz's comments indicate to me that GM is struggling with just that analysis now. That means we won't be seeing a new GM RWD platform in the US until 3+ years or maybe not at all. Second, GM has certainly looked at Ford's success with the Mustang. Let's not forget that the Mustang started out with LS roots, but quickly became unique due to cost, proportions, and packaging of the 4.6l engine family. Mustang is now a unique platform within Ford. The upside is it looks great and is selling well. The downside is the flexibility/profitability if volumes go down. And, I'm assuming that 100k is about what Mustang needs to be profitable as a stand-alone platform. Third (and it relates to the second point), it's not always so easy to derive additional vehicles from a common platform. I'm even wondering about the Challenger. It's starting from a relatively large platform and so will require major modification. It remains to be seen if Chrysler goes for high volume/high investment to challenge the Mustang or limited volume/lower investment for image. Chrysler has the knowledge and facilities to pull off a low volume car profitably (Viper, Prowler). Perhaps Lutz knows that whatever new RWD sedans they are working on and the characteristics of the donor platform will not enable GM to pull off affordably a no-compromise Camaro that would be required to challenge Mustang. And they might have also figure they can't afford to devote their resources to a limited production volume image vehicle. Or they aren't capable of making a low production model pay for itself. From a Ford supporter standpoint, the more "whirling dervishes" that GM does before making up their mind is OK by me. I'm glad Ford took the gamble to go where others weren't with the Mustang. It has led to a five year or so run with absolutely no competition. But, as others have mentioned, Ford will have to be prepared for the eventual competition and potential cooling of the segment.

Sorry, but I don't agree fully with this assessment. The Edge/MarkX are effectively derivatives of the new Mazda MPV. Mazda will be manufacturing the MPV and the CX7 in Japan. The MPV will not be exported to the US; Mazda has learned that crossovers are more interesting to the US market than small minivans. I am assuming, therefore, that the CX7 is another MPV derivative like the Edge/MarkX. Since Mazda and Ford were working jointly on this project, I would think we'll see a fair amount of commonality in the platform, particularly in front structure and engine mounting (they both package the 3.5l), underbody structure, and in front and rear suspensions. But I'm not sure until we get better technical details.....

Well, that's not the point in making money on these stocks. What's most important is relative performance; i.e. it's the slope of the curve. If, due to current thinking that Toyota is on top of the heap and perfect and Ford is a bag of s&*(, then Ford could be the better bet. Of course, a Ford bet would be riskier. It is true that total market capitalization represents what the investors in total think the company is worth. Comparing share prices like Toyota at $106 and Ford at around $8 is not relevant. Theoretically, market cap takes into consideration perfect knowledge on the part of the investor of the company's present value including future cash flows. Here are a few market capitalization figures for companies we are familiar with: Fiat $11 billion GM $12 billion Harley Davidson $14 billion Ford $15 billion Nissan $54 billion Honda $55 billion Daimler-Chrysler $57 billion Toyota $193 billion But investors don't have perfect knowledge, and individual investors and institutional investors are often lulled into projecting the future with today's results. In the case of the autos, they can be swayed by the barage of reporters who fill space with repetitive stories. If you know something about the industry, then that's the opportunity to make money. I have bought auto stocks from time to time, and I am proud to say I have always made money. I have held Honda stock for over 23 years, and Toyota for 12. But, despite my affinity for Ford products, I haven't owned any Ford stock for over 20 years. Until today. I sold 50% of my Toyota stock and bought Ford. Although Ford certainly has a lot of issues to overcome, I think there is a significant amount of upside opportunity from today's beat down position. It's very simple. I'm betting that the percentage increase in Ford stock over, say, the next 5 years will be higher than Toyota.