mackinaw

Personally, I much prefer the new split-grill design to the MKZ inspired grille. The split-grille gives the car more personality. As to why they did it, I suspect the largely positive reaction to the Lincoln concept at last year's NAIAS prompted the designers to change course.

While "Auto Extremist" often comes off more as "Auto Whiner," I think DeLorenzo has nailed this one. As good as the upcoming MKS looks to be, it's styling is hardly distinctive. Some of the concepts shown in the article are quite good and, more importantly, really look like a Lincoln.

You hit the nail right on the head. When this thing goes down the road, there is no mistaking it for anything else. I saw a fully production-ready Flex while in Dearborn a few months back, and this vehicle actually had people turning their heads to see what it was. I don't think that ever happened with a Windstar.

You can listen to the interview on the WJR website.

Some would argue that's a good thing.

I remember reading on one of the Detroit papers, several years back, that Jason has done some stand-up comedy at one of the Detroit comedy clubs.

About a month ago, while in Dearborn visiting family, I followed behind a production ready, top-of-the-line Flex motoring, appropriately, down Ford Road. It was a grayish-silver in color and was quite striking. What I found most interesting was the reaction of the people in nearby cars. They actually turned their heads to see what the hell this van was. When was the last time a Ford vehicle caused people to stop and take notice? Peter Horbury has repeatedly said that future Ford designs are meant to polarize. It sounds like he's succeeding.

From all indications, Mullaly is one hell of a manager, and is exactly what Ford needs right now, but the jury is still out on how well he knows cars.

I kind of like it.

And you won't be seeing any increase until we get beyond the effects of the "rental car" old Taurus which went out of production about a year ago. Most of this year's decrease is due to Ford's conscious effort to cut back on supplying cars to the rental market. It will be interesting to see how year-to-year sales compare once we get into calendar year 2008.

Folks seem to forget that there's no law that says GM (or Ford) has to build cars/trucks in the U.S. If Gettelfinger "wins" this, you can expect GM and Ford to slowly and methodically move vehicle production elsewhere.

Great ad!

Back in the mid-1990's Chrysler styling lead the U.S. auto industry. Not any more. This Dodge thing is pretty boring and forgettable.

One slight correction, Halewood is currently producing the Jag X-type and the new little Land Rover. But you're right. Jag has way too many assembly plants for the amount of vehicles they currently sell. Therein lies their profitability problem. They would probably be much more profitable if they were produced all of their products in a modern, flexible manufacturing plant. Admittedly, this isn't now possible considering the vastly different platforms and body construction techniques Jag currently uses. I suspect the new owners, whoever they may be, will eventually try to consolidate production at one plant.

At least regarding Jaguar, I remember reading, a few weeks back in one of the Detroit newspapers, that even if the new Jag XF is an absolute smash hit, Jag could still do no better than being in the red by about $300 million USD/year.

Agreed. All Ford said is that they are conducting a strategic review of Volvo which they should finish up by year's end. We'll know then if they will sell Volvo or keep it. Hopefully this thread will die until then, but somehow I suspect it won't.

See this which appeared in Monday's Detroit Free Press: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707170339 A frank and sobering assessment of the whole Volvo situation.

This is what it would take for Ford to get rid of Volvo, "According to an $18.5-billion credit agreement with several lenders late last year that helped boost Ford's reserves, the automaker is not permitted to sell Volvo unless it uses at least half the cash from the sale to pay the debt and reinvests the remaining proceeds in Ford's business within 15 months." This is from Sarah Webster of the Detroit Free Press. Read the entire article here: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707170339 A good, but somewhat sobering, read.

The man difference here, as stated in the Financial Times report, is that Ford apparently decided to "sell" Volvo sometime in the past two weeks. The earlier BMW-will-buy-Volvo rumors date back to late May.

Latest, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1525908520070715

I'm in the "where's there's smoke, there's fire" camp and am not going to quickly dismiss this possible Volvo sale as rumor. People keep on forgetting that Mullaly has been on the job less than a year. The more experience he gets, the more he learns and the more apt he is to make drastic changes. That's what he was hired to do, make the difficult decisions. Personally I hope they keep Volvo, but won't be surprised at all if it's sold.

Ford doesn't own Mazda. The have a controlling interest (34%). Big difference.

For what it is worth, the Wall Street analysts, who spend their lives analyzing spreadsheets, figure Ford's turnaround will take between five and seven years. The key word here is "patience."

Fields says Volvo is not for sale (6-26). Volvo forecasts higher sales for 2007 (6-26). Merging Volvo back into Volvo? (6-27).

If Ford was flush with cash, they'd probably love to keep Land Rover. But with Jaguar losing money, and with Ford management apparently having lost patience, it makes more sense to package both of the British brands together if you're serious about selling them. Plus Land Rover and Jaguar are slowly being joined at the hip. Both the Jag "X" type and the new Land Rover LR3 are being built at Jag's Halewood assembly plant. Personally, I hope Ford keeps PAG. I just don't know if that's possible given the restructuring problems facing Ford NA.