waymondospiff

I don't like the Aura. I know GM people are all geared up for it and are saying it's the best car ever, but I think the design is so tortured and forced. Richard, you know much more about design than I do, and reading your observations, yes, I see what you mean. But in the case of the Aura its total worth is less than the sum of its parts. -Uses the same akward rear wheel placement of the stretched Epsilon, see G6 & Malibu Maxx. -The chrome band across the front grille is too thick. -The headlights are too big. "Goofy" comes to mind. -And, why the HUGE headlights and the tiny foglamps? -Too much silver/chrome on the rear & side views. Maybe the lower-line models will be more restrained. -The way the back comes to a "point" in two-dimensions is odd. Too much like the Sunfire. -And in profile, the rear appears turned up, like the front should be crouching down...but the front doesn't crouch down, it's just blocky. But in the profile the mondo-headlights cut a "forward slash" through the fender, further upsetting the "stance." These aren't fancy design-guru terms. It's just my best attempt at describing what I see as a novice. But it's still better than a Malibu or G6. It just seems too, ummm, contrived? Forced? Needless? I do believe it will sell well, I just think it's ugly. The interior is bland, minus the saddle-leather seats, but looks alright. Although the center stack reminds me too much of the current Hyundai Sonata and that's not a good thing. Oh, and seriously ugly gauges. 1985 called. It wants its gauge cluster back. Scott

Gee. How could I have been mistaken. I wonder. From tempotopaz.com AWD Available for 1992? The "year-by-year" for 1992: "Also absent from the option list this year was the foul-weather Four Wheel Drive option." On leather seats: "The 1985 Tempo and the 1986 Topaz sales brochures both refer to an available leather interior option. However, these options were extremely rare and only available on the top of the line GLX (1985 Tempo) and LS (1985 and 1986 Topaz). Many government-commissioned Tempos were built with vinyl seats, which are easier to maintain. If any vehicles with leather interiors do exist outside of those mentioned above, they are likely third-party customizations." Also, the 2.3L was known as either the 2.3L HSC "High Swirl Combustion" or the 2.3L HSO "High Specific Output." Not SHO, as was the special sport model of the Taurus. Even though I "obviously know nothing about Tempos" I sure have corrected a lot of your errors. Scott

While I wish it would be a "Mercury Freestyle" the article states two "new category" and two sedans. New Category #1 - Ford Fairlane New Category #2 - Lincoln Fairlane Sedan #1 - Lincoln MKS Sedan #2 - ??? My ideas: -Stretched for the E386 Lincoln flagship -Panther replacement (Crown Vic/G.Marq) -Larger Volvo flagship, S90 or S100. -Larger Mazda sedan (Mazda9?) -An "all-new" Jaguar entry-level sedan Out of these, Volvo, Mazda, & Jaguar just don't make sense. The Panther replacement I highly dobut. The D3/P2 just isn't right to replace the fleet business of the Crown Vic. And the 500/Montego are already the "right-size" for a Panther "drop-in" replacement. That makes me think the E386 is back on. Scott

Well, that was unnecessary. Unless you're using "idiot" like Napoleon Dynamite, then use away. Your profile shows you have 1989 Tempo. From memory, I remember the 1992 Topaz brochure when they went on and on about the new V6 power. But I don't have the brochure...so here is the information I can offer you, meager though it may be, 12+ years later: "What's New for 1992 "V6 power becomes available but the four-wheel drive option departs." http://www.edmunds.com/used/1992/ford/tempo/7468/review.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Tempo http://www.ford-forums.com/Tempo/ So, all of the information points to no V6/AWD combos. Especially in 1989. I may be wrong, it's very possible, it's very hard to find information on nondescript vehicles 12 years out of production, but I'm standing by my assertation of no V6/AWD models until I see proof otherwise. Pretty sound reasoning, I'd have to say. Well thank you for proving my point. The previous owner bought the more expensive AWD trim level. Just like someone could have bought the more expensive Loyale AWD, Camry LE AWD, or 6000 SE AWD trim levels. We have two options, we can say Tempo had "standard" AWD on certain trim levels, the exact same way many of its competitors did or we can say the Tempo, like many of its competitors, had optional AWD. I really don't care which you choose, but you have to acknowledge that AWD was fairly common in this class at the time. And it was either optional on the Tempo like its competitors or it was standard on the Tempo like its competitors. Count with me: 1st - 1984, 2nd - 85, 3rd - 86, 4th - 87, 5th - 88, 6th - 89, 7th - 90, 8th - 91, 9th - 92, 10th - 93, and 11th - 94. Hmm...I count ELEVEN. Not ten. Remember, when counting model years you can't just subtract, because the first year is inclusive. <EDIT> Sales numbers for the Tempo: 2,935,161, Topaz: 969,414, Total: 3,904,575. I underestimated demand for the Tempo/Topaz. More than 500,000 sold in the first year! Stats compiled from http://www.tempotopaz.com/ And you are correct, the Ford Tempo outsold Kia in the American market EVERY year 1984-1994. No doubt about it. I'll just summarize a response to your minivan comments: drive a Freestar and then an Odyssey. If you still think the Freestar is the better van, Ford will love you for it. Scott

Yes, but the comment refers to is Jaguar UNABLE to make a profit. And the answer is no, Jaguar can make money, they just need the products necessary to sell and make money. Despite their high costs and dated factories, Jaguar could still make money. And your own statement means Ford *can* make killer products, if they try. That may sound like a childish statement, "try harder!" but it's quite accurate for Ford. Ford accepted the dowdy styling of the 500, the no-change restyle of the Explorer, etc. and is now living with the poor market response. But the C1 Focus (Mz3/Mz5/S40/V50/C70), F-150, Mustang, and CD3 (Mazda6/Fusion/Edge/Milan/MKZ/MKX) show the capabilities of Ford. The showroom may be light now, but past performance isn't necessarily an indication of future performance. Scott

I've no idea on the costs involved in C1 vs. C170 vs. C2. But, referencing *if* C1 only costs $200-300 more to build and if that'd be reflected in the average selling price of the Focus...yeah. Would you pay $300 more for this: ...over this: The EuroFocus C1 is the equal of anything in the compact class. Even the almighty VW Rabbit/Jetta. This car would net Ford a much higher transaction price than the current Focus. $200-300 more? Easy. $2000-3000 more? Probably not, but maybe. What is the average transaction price for a Mazda3 vs. an AmeriFocus C170? That's probably the best measure of the C1's worth & value to the US market. Scott

Wow. I can't believe I'm debating the merits of the Ford Tempo. But so be it. Your timing on engine options is incorrect. The Tempo offered three engines: 2.0L Diesel available 1984-1986 2.3L I-4 Gas available 1984-1994 3.0L V6 Gas available 1992-1994 So, during the Camry's 1987-1991 run, the V6, available only from 1988 on, was much faster than the 2.3L Tempo. Also, the 2.0L Camry put out 116hp vs. 98/100hp for the 2.3L Tempo. Combined with a four-speed auto in the Camry versus a three-speed auto in the Tempo, the Camry would have at least kept up if not outrun the Tempo. And then in 1992, when the Tempo first offered a V6, it was the 130hp Vulcan. The 1992 Camry 2.2L put out 130hp, the 3.0L V6 185hp. And neither did the Tempo. AWD wasn't any more "standard" on the Tempo than it was on the Camry. AWD was optional on both the Camry & the Tempo. Both Camry & Tempo had AWD listed as a separate model and both were available in a STANDARD FWD model. Also, the Tempo was only available with a V6 from 1992 to 1994. And again, that V6 powerplant was optional on the GL & LX, standard only on the high-end GLS. The Camry had a similar model layout of LE, LE V6, XLE, & XLE V6. Plus the AWD Tempo was dropped after 1991. The V6 wasn't available until 1992. And neither feature was standard. Okay class: how many Tempos with standard V6s & AWD were made? And for extra credit, how many Tempos were made with a V6 and AWD total? Answer for both, ZERO. And the Camry of 1983 was an all-new design. It was on a unique, FWD chassis vs. the RWD Celica chassis of the 1980 Camry (and the earlier Corona.) The 1987 Camry was an overhaul of that same chassis. The 1992 was all-new again, with the 1997 Camry being a revamp of that chassis. See a pattern? The Tempo rode its Escort-based (That'd be 1981, not that we're counting.) chassis without a significant redesign for it's full ELEVEN year run. Good for you. The Tempo was a fine auto, in it's day, but by the end of the ELEVEN model year run, it was simply out-classed, out-powered, out-refined, and out-gunned by the competition. Minus the Chevy Corsica & Dodge Spirit. Hmm...sounds a lot like today when the domestic cars are trumped by the foreign competition. At least the domestics are catching up and even passing some now. Now I know for sure you're pulling my chain. Dash-board container? Fold-flat SEAT, not seats, as only one folds into the floor. The Freestar & Monterey are attractively styled, but in every other regard are way, way, way out-done by the Honda & Toyota models. I'd even say the Chryslers and bizzarre-o Nissan are much better. Even Kia & Hyundai show up the Fords now. About the only vans the Freestar beats, or at least ties, are the GM quadruplets. Seriously. Scott

But I can wait for the multi-car comparison showing the 3.0L 2007 Fusion in second-to-last place in front of the '07 Sebring, but behind the 3.6L Aura, Camry, Accord, and Altima. Scott

Since these are essentially "full-line" advertisements I think they should have included the Mark LT. I see why they don't want to show the Town Car, it's old and dowdy, not the image Lincoln wants to convey. But the Mark LT is part of the "modern" Lincoln. Also, more images of the cars. You don't have to say "buy, buy, buy" but show the people saying "I dream of the corner office" tooling around the city in a MKX, the person saying "I dream of no office" tooling the country side in a Mark LT. Link the actions, this case dreams, to the product. Show the link. Scott

The Villager/Quest had some problems, I believe electrical issues, in the early model years, 93-94. But since then I believe they were relatively trouble-free and have been running well for 10+ years now. Especially the 1999-2003 models. They weren't "best-in-class" but they've been reliable. Looks? Not a fan of the Villager/Quest or Windstar. I think the Freestar is classically handsome with its broad, simple lines. Especially the Monterrey in black. Not bad. And speaking of junk, the 1996-2000 Caravan. I can't tell you the people I knew with these vans (I owned a 2000, parents had a 1999, Aunt has a 1999, I was in high school when these launched so many friends' parents owned these...) and they are truly junk. Something will always cost money every three months. Whether it be the too small brakes which need to be machined roughly every year, faulty electronics, various interior rattles, a/c compressors failing, etc. Great design, lousy execution. Which pretty much describes all mid-90s Chryslers. And the Tempo. No, never owned one. But had a girlfriend with one. Very reliable. Plain as the day is long, however. A couple of points: black leather...ummm, many cars had black leather available; the optional V6 was only available in 1992-94, the 98/100hp 2.3L wasn't likely to set any speed records; many cars both higher and lower priced offered AWD: Subaru Justy/Loyale/Legacy, Toyota Corolla, Pontiac 6000, and many others. And AWD was cancelled in '92, the same year the V6 option would have made the AWD model something of a budget SUV. Not to take away from the Tempo: it sold very well in it's peak years. It was a high-quality piece, sometimes outscoring the Accord/Camry in JD Power. It was the first "modern" car to offer an airbag since the mid-70s GMs. And as you said, it outscored the Aries (I'll take your word on the Corsica.) But there is no way to say that by 1992, when the Tempo was entering its ninth model year, that the all-new Camry wasn't simply a better car. And Ford started to loose momentum with its "junior" midsize car. Thankfully, the best-selling Taurus covered for the Tempo...until 1997...and we can all write the rest of the story from there. Scott

I must say, these panelists have little credibility with me. First off, 10 out of 10 recommend the Caliber? So many issues with the Caliber. But then the same people who "loved" the Caliber don't like the Compass? The Compass is a Caliber with a seven slot grille. You may not like the fact that it's a Jeep, but there is no functional difference from a Caliber. And Mother-of-All-Things-Holy $26,180!?!?!? Hmmm...let's see...Compass or Escape? Compass or Freestyle? Compass or Equinox? Compass or Mazda3 5-door with Navigation? Compass or Forester? Compass or anything else that stickers at $26,180? "Uhhh...I'll take 'anything else' for $26,180, Alex." The Caliber/Compass have the absolute cheapest interior I believe I've ever seen. It makes the original 1995 Neon dash look expensive. I think you could cut yourself on the flash lines of the plastic. Seriously, I remember the Kia Sephia, circa 1999. I thought that was the out-and-out worst car on the market...and I still think it was. But the Kia's interior looked better, felt better, and appeared to be more solidly constructed than the Caliber. I could write on this topic for days. And yet Chrysler can't make enough of them. But then Chevy sold 180K+ Cavaliers per year into the 2000s when it was clearly inferior to pretty much EVERY car on the road. I'm always shocked by the number of ill-informed car shoppers. Anyway, the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Jeep knows the Compass will bomb. The only reason they brought it out was to shield their "true" car-based effort, the Patriot, from criticism. As I see it, no matter what, the first car-based Jeep was going to be derided by purists and the media, therefore make a no-cost sure-fire bomb and then bring out the "real" product. Now, no matter what you say about the Patriot, it can always be countered by "at least it's not the Compass!" But that's just the conspiracy theorist in me. Scott

Both DCK & R.J. - While ya'll are getting riled up about GM vs. Ford ya'llve forgotten about the true target: Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. If Ford & GM continue to fight over the same buyers, they'll both continue to shrink into irrelevance. Ford & GM need to make world-class, competitive cars (not trucks) that both attract consumers and make money. It's not a matter of what category each manufacturers compete in and whose product is newer. Whose product sells and makes money is more important. Scott

Yeah. As a Florida resident who has put 23,000 miles on I-95, I-75, I-4, FL-91, I-275, I-10, US-27, FL-408, FL-417, and many, many others since January let me just say, be careful. Florida is full of brand new "Big 3" cars and trucks. But on the driver's side rear window you'll often see a little white or clear barcode sticker. This lovely marking signifies Hertz or National or Budget or Avis or any of the rental companies. I've seen so many 2006 Impalas you'd think they outsold F-150s. But we all know this isn't really true. Not to take away from the HHR. I believe Chevy is on track to sell over 100K this year...but that is an old number. Lousy car if you actually have to drive it, but interesting looking. And it only took them five years to come up with a car uglier, larger, and less spacious than a PT Cruiser. At least it beats a Matrix. Scott

And Lincoln does? I thought Volvo had a (relatively) young average buyer age. Relatively, because it's no Mitsubishi, it's a luxury brand. Am I wrong in this? Scott

I think that is the key and is missed nearly 100% of the time by "analysts." There is nothing wrong with Jaguar that new, killer products won't help. The brand image of Jaguar is still intact, something of a minor miracle. If Ford can highlight the new Jaguar's world-class quality and world-class designs (S, XJ, XK) then there is no reason Jaguar cannot make money. I agree whole-heartedly with your arguments that the only thing selling assets provides is cash, and Ford doesn't need cash now. Ford needs to spend what is needed to maintain the competitive position in Europe, support the PAG brands, and, most importantly, the US market products. Issues like health care and work rules need to be addressed with the UAW and excess plants need to be closed, but would we hear a peep from the "analyst" community if the cars were selling? Probably not. Scott

I wish Ford would quickly "American-ize" the S-Max and send it over here. Either as a Ford or Mercury. Volvo 2.4L 5-cyl standard with the 2.5L 5-cyl Turbo optional. Priced right (and don't talk to me about Euro-to-Dollar exchange rates...I don't care.) the S-Max could do well. Tuned for mileage, the 2.4L should return 28-29mpg, like it does in the V70, and Ford would have a big PR splash here. Bold moves, eh? I'm waiting. Scott

The problem with Lincoln moving to #5 ahead of Infiniti is that Lincoln didn't really overtake Infiniti. Rather, Infiniti undertook Lincoln for the #6 slot. Although really, both slide below BMW, making for spots 6 & 7. And Volvo slides between Lincoln & Infiniti for #7, making Infiniti #8. But I digress. It's hard to say who'll do better. The G-Series has been Infiniti's bright spot, with both the M- & Q-Series struggling in the higher-end classes against Lexus & the Germans. The G is new next year, and that should help move sales higher, but until Infiniti can establish itself as a full-market luxury automaker they'll remain well behind Lexus/BMW/Mercedes. Is there a new FX, Q, and 7-pass midsize crossover on the way? With the GT-R going to Nissan it looks like Infiniti will be without an attention-grabbing flagship. Lincoln? The MKZ & MKX should do well. The Navigator will most likely remain an also-ran behind the Escalade in a shrinking segment. Especially with that hideous nose-job. What Ford does with the larger vehicles will determine the long-term viability of Lincoln. Does the MKS launch as a boring AWD 3.5L with blah styling and no real market impact or does Fields pull out all the stops and make the MKS world class? Does the Town Car, in some incarnation, move to STAP on the Panther chassis? Does an all-new world class RWD flagship launch from Lincoln (Paging C2D, C2D please report for duty.) and make the brand relevant? I wonder: Could tradition-bound American buyers could be convinced a conservative, safety-conscious Swedish car is what they'd rather own? Ford could shutter Mercury & Lincoln that way. Take Volvo to a full-market luxury car maker with larger-than-S80 cars. Hmmm... Scott

I'm not irked by the writer saying the Vue is a new vehicle launch. From a marketing standpoint, the Vue is a new vehicle launch: big ad spending, consumer education, dealer body training, etc. I'm also guessing GM spent enough money in designing their "first" hybrid that they could have completely redesigned a conventional gas-engined car. Plus with complicated new electronics and hardware, quality glitches are possible just like an all-new car. However, saying that Ford has nothing but the Edge/MKX coming out is a bit of a slap-in-the-face. No mention of the recent 2007 Sport Trac? How about the GT500? The author must fail to realize Ford will "spin-off" new versions of Focus, Zephyr/MKZ, Expy/Navi, 500/Montego/Freestyle, and Escape/Mariner in the next 12 months. I agree with the premise that Ford needs more, but not giving credit where credit is due is either poor reporting or just lazy reporting. If you won't mention the rework of the Expy/Navi then surely the Aura is just a dressed-up G6, right? Scott

We've already established that I don't know design and terminology beyond what looks good to my eyes, but I have to call your bluff on the LaCrosse. Oval grille matched to a nearly retangular bottom grille. Two round and two larger oval shaped headlamps mated to triangular taillamps. An "out of nowhere" rear shoulder line over the rear wheels. Rounded front fender line meets upswept greenhouse (good) meets flat, slightly downward-sloped trunk line (bad.) The only "clean" parts of the LaCrosse I can find are the indents on the grille & trunklid and the chrome "wrappers" on the front & rear bumpers. And even if the "wrappers" and side mouldings go together, the lines they draw don't match up. I've heard many things about the LaCrosse, but I don't believe "good" and "design" have ever been mentioned together. Scott

The V50 is brilliant, but for my needs it was simply too small. No kids, just room for hauling. I can't imagine putting 5 people in a V50...although when I was in college we probably could've hauled 7 or 8 people in a wagon... If you really like the C2 platform and are looking for a good deal with room for 5 people, how about the <link="http://www.mazdausa.com">Mazda5</link>? Room for people & cargo, fuel efficient, and fun to drive. If you like Volvos, a base model V70 might be had for less than the V50 as the demand for the V70 is lower and the sticker prices are pretty close. I wouldn't recommend the Pacifica. I've put 2-3,000 miles on Pacificas and they're okay, but they swill gas, are difficult to park, are difficult to see out of, and have a terrible size-to-space ratio. If you like the Pacifica, just go buy a Town & Country: cheaper, more room, drives the same. The Freestyle is nice. I've no idea what they are leasing for, but I remember hearing the residuals on the 500 & Freestyle were decent, so it should lead to a better lease rate, I'd think anyway. The Edge also looks to be nice once it's out. I'd think it'll lease well, hoping for good residuals, but you probably won't find good deals on it. Plus, it's not scheduled to hit dealers until Oct/Nov I believe, and if Ford's previous roll outs are any guide, it'll be April or May before you can find a decent selection at a dealer. How about Mazda CX-7, Mazda MPV (hefty rebates right now), Toyota Highlander, Toyota Rav4, Saturn "Honda-powered" VUE, or Subies: Forester, Legacy/Outback, Tribecca? The Tribecca, if you don't mind the nose, is on a special lease deal of $279/month, 36-months, $2873 at signing right now. Good luck. The great thing about cars nowadays is pretty much everything on the market is a "good car." I'm sure whatever you choose will fill your needs and get the job done. Scott

I think you're comments were a bit harsh, but then the internet isn't the place for people with soft emotions. I've always believed, and from reading BORG's comments think he shared this opinion, that "clean" refers to designs with little or no design flourish, i.e. no character lines, little or no chrome trim, etc. I am no designer so I will defer to your definition of "clean" to mean "repeated, scaled, symmetrical, or continuous design elements." The problem is your example of the 500 with the character line fading to a rear decklid crease seems to be shared with the Malibu. Closely examine the pictures and you'll see a character line starting on the fender ahead of the front doors that travels straight under the rear camouflage. The rear decklid then has a crease that appears to form around the area the character line would intersect. It's supposition however, since the camouflage covers the actual transition. Also, the round "projector-style" front lamps and rear round lamps appear scaled & continuous. In addition the repeated chrome trim around the window mouldings and the bottom door cuts would follow this "clean" rule. Again, I'm no designer, but to my layman's eyes, the Malibu is a "clean" design. And while we're at it, simple and uncluttered too! I must say this design in my eyes moves the Malibu into the "real car" category, not the cheap, rental look of the current Malibu. The real struggle for the Malibu will be living in the Impala's shadow unless the Impala is upgraded and moved into the Avalon's price class. Similar to the 500 in the Ford family, it's squeezed from above (Crown Vic) and below (Fusion.) If GM can follow through on design, price, content, and marketing of a mainstream vehicle they have a shot at long-term sustainability, in my eyes. Scott

Glad to see another positive review. I'm not a fan of Phelan, he seems to focus on odd minor things while white-washing glaring faults. His problem with the CX-7? The placement of the radio's power/volume knob. Ummm...no mention of a missing 3rd row seat? On/off turbo powerplant? Not a mention. Yeah. And he's a professional. I'm not sure the CX-7 is going to be a resounding success for Mazda. I hope it is, but I think the inability to classify it (Compact SUV? Like a Rav 4, Sportage, or Equinox? Midsize SUV? Like an Explorer, Pilot, Acadia?) may hurt the CX-7. There is a rapidly developing "premium compact/2-row midsize" crossover category with V6 Rav 4s, Muranos, X3s, and the new RDXes. I hope Mazda can make a go of it, but will it work? I'm not convinced. An example: you're a dealer and a shopper walks onto your lot looking for an SUV. Where do you take them? To the V6-powered Tribute (CX-5?) for about $23-26K or a turbocharged 4 cyl 5-pass CX-7 for about $25-30K? Not to mention the similar looking CX-9 with powerful 3.5L V6 & 3-row seating for $30K. Most enthusiasts will see a distinction between the Tribute & the CX-7, but will consumers? Here's hoping. Scott

As a very happy Mazda5 owner I feel I need to correct this. Mazda originally targeted 15-20K per annum and sales are on track for around 18-19K. Mazda knew it wasn't going to be a high-volume vehicle, but rather a more interesting "niche" auto that would drive sales (competes with what?) and cost very little (nearly identical to overseas markets' models and uses the same factory.) Part of this low cost was minimal advertising, instead focusing ad dollars on "competitive" cars, such as the 3 & 6 and the upcoming CX-7 & CX-9. People are constantly asking about me about fuel economy, comfort, price, and room. Few people have believed me when they hear the answers: 23-27 mpg (a/c on, automatic, 50/50 city/hwy), sits like a van/suv, $20K, and cargo room on par with a midsize SUV. Thes types of vehicles, especially with gas prices at $3.00+/gal., have a huge potential in the future. If a "mainstream" manufacturer introduced a "C-Class Van" here in the US with a big dealer body & big ad push, they could move some serious volume. I think Ford is missing a big opportunity to be the leader in the Compact People Mover market by not bringing the S-Max/Galaxy/C-Max to the US. Like Mazda, they already have paid for the development of the cars, unless the factories are running at 100%, why not import a limited number of S-Max/Galaxy/C-Max to the US and test the market. Even if they fail, how much is Ford out? Scott

That may be true, but have you visited Detroit Metro recently? Look at the lots (yes, lots plural.) full of brand spanking new GCs & Commanders. Since this topic has become largely about the SUV market, here is my take: Ford once again has no clue how to market a product correctly. GM's planning a big splash for a large 3-row crossover SUV this fall. Large interiors, comfortable ride & handling, and car-like fuel economy. All this for 2007. Ford? They've been there since 2005 with the Freestyle. Room for seven, excellent ride & handling, and 27 mpg. And what does Ford do with this ideal vehicle? Give it essentially ZERO marketing support (Don't even mention the absolutely insipid "Bold Moves" ad mentioning 500 mile tanks with the ex-husband. Oi.) and market the heck out of the "all-new" Explorer in the face of declining sales. I'm at a loss to describe this any more. There are no words for the, uhhh, cluelessness at Ford regarding the Freestyle. The Freestyle should be rolling 150-200K sales/year, instead it's raking in around 70K. Embarrassing. Scott

I believe these are the "known" plans: 2007 Edge/MKX Expedition/Navigator - "redo" Super Duty - "redo" MKZ Fusion/Milan - AWD 2008 Focus - facelift Fusion/Milan - 3.5L? 500/Montego/Freestyle - facelift/3.5L MKS Ranger - facelift Econoline - facelift Crown Vic/G. Marq - facelift What's not there that hasn't been announced? New Mercury crossover? "New" Lincoln T.C. replacement or Grand Marquis stretch? Small cars, announced in theory, but no real model plan or production timeline yet. New Focus? Only four years too late. Fairlane/Lincoln model, 2009? Earlier? Panther revamp or Aussie-based/Mustang-based large RWD? Speed-up a Ranger replacement? Shifting from Explorer/Mountaineer to crossovers? Mustang-based Lincoln Mark IX or Mercury Cougar? I don't think Ford will do it, but I hope Ford will do low-cost "Americanization" of existing Ford of Europe compacts and Ford of Australia RWD performance cars and import low volumes into the American market. Instant new products, low cost developments, and big PR/media buzz. Mercury Territory, Ford/Lincoln Fairlane, Mercury "Madrid" (Ford Focus Coupe-Cabriolet), Ford S-Max/Mercury Galaxy, Ford Falcon XR6/XR8, Ford Ka. Good times. Scott