goingincirclez

I think Wal-Mart wrote the book on "demanded price point" manufacturing. But as far as that goes, you could remove the word "Costco" from your statement and fill in the blank with probably any major retailer (except maybe Sears/Kmart)

Oh joy, it's that lame "But sliders would make it a minivan" argument again. WHO THE HELL CARES? Regardless of what it is called, "IT" still IS what it IS. People who would shun a vehicle because of perceived stigma need to get over themselves. Count me in the slider camp. As much as I love our Freestyle for doing what it does, I have to admit there are times, when parked in tight areas, that a slider would be so much more convenient. Also, a slider would be more "FLEX"ible. For when you are trying to shoehorn some random piece of furniture or what have you in there, and by god it really would fit if only the blasted doors swung open *just* a little further... But this is an old debate. Function was sacrificed for Form. Both camps have compelling arguments and we'll never really know which would have been more successful. I will likely still consider a Flex when the time comes to replace the Freestyle.

:rolleyes: So drivers just put aquarium fish or greenhouse plants in the "cab over trunk" area on a wagon? Or could it more likely be those same wagons were also "purpose built" at the time for extra people and/or cargo...? By your logic, all the earliest SUVs were, were pickup trucks with hardtop caps (Bronco, K-Blazer, RamCharger, et al)... So who is shortsighted and confused? I think you proved my point.

Yeah, you got it. And I understand your indifference, it is a hard topic to explain in a few minutes. But I think it's worth pointing out. It seems too many people get hung up over what a vehicle is "called", versus what it actually IS. The typical "oh I could never get a (station wagon / SUV / CUV / Minivan) 'cuz I'm (tall / materialistic / have delusions of _____/ ) myopia. I think most people consider the Freestyle/TX to be a "CUV", or derisively a station wagon. Yet when I parked mine next to 2nd-gen Caravan a few months ago, the differences were relatively little in terms of size and practical space. The TX would be bigger, which surprised me. So what truly defines a "modern station wagon" vs. "minivan" vs. "SUV" vs. "CUV"? The lines blur as much as they distinguish. If the vehicle meets your NEEDS (and consider that term carefully), buy it. But don't be a consumer sheep who dismisses or buys simply because of the genre name and image the automaker wanted put forth.

*sigh* let me try another tack: 1: 2: 3: Alright. In the most simplistic of terms, #1 was stretched up on a higher frame in 1984, which begat #2. Eventually people got tired and ashamed of #2, so it was ruggedized and dressed up into #3 (OK so the Caravan didn't directly turn into the Durango, but look at the space/style and you get my point. The GM minivans DID morph into the Rendesvous / Aztek though). #2 has more space than #1, because the lower floor and higher roof allows more breathing room. Just like a crowded city, you grow up (skyscraper) rather than out to claim usable space. I'll grant you that. But essentially, all an SUV has ever been, is the same old station wagon, REPACKAGED into something "new" and "faddish". It may have slightly more room, because it IS slightly wider, and has a taller BODY. But the same could be done to a station wagon: Honestly, it's not like people suddenly became 6'3" in the 90's. Not everybody NEEDS the SUV-style package and its inherent inefficiencies. It's all just a marketing gimmick. Besides, in your original statement you said a wagon was just "a sedan with a roof (I think you mean "longer roof") and more glass". I was illustrating that there are TONS of modernized station wagons out there... the automakers just decided to call them SUVs at the time. You can't really draw direct comparisons because the vehicles themselves have all evolved in different ways, but hopefully you see my point. I bed you can fit more people AND stuff in an old Crown Vic wagon than you can in the Edge. But the TX trumps them both. Yet they are all basically WAGONS designed and tailored to different needs. And today, now that "S"UV is a bad word, yesterday's "stationwagon" is today's "C"UV. It's the same old shell game.

Exactly. It's just a wagon. The third row is a matter of fads, semantics, and/or regulations (I have seen plenty of wagons with forward-facing third rows - they DID exist). "More space" comes from the evolution of packaging and design. Tall yes, but IMHO that has just as many cons as pros so it's a tradeoff. http://images.sporttruck.com/eventcoverage...lowered_suv.jpg

Take away the typical SUV's ground clearance (or, if you're so inclined, make a "low rider" out of it), and what do you have?

Maybe it's just the all-black appearance, but it doesn't look as bad as I feared. (Note, I didn't say it looks good. Just not "as" bad). What happened to the rear fender - they try to take a lateral incline a little too harshly? Were 22" dubs a bit much for this stage of testing? Or have they not worked out the proper squirrel clearances yet?

Hmm, it is a little overstated, but I love the front airdam, glass roof and tail panels. I can't decide if I like the frenched driving lights though; one minute I do, the next I don't. Lose the stickers, rocker panel trim, hood scoops (a simple shaker scoop might suffice) and you'd have something more... sinister. Agreed that the fit and finish on the hood looks horrible; image compression can't possibly explain that amount of deviation. And the thing I don't get about one-off "prototypes" and preproduction cars is: If you're going to go through the trouble, AND set up a bunch of staged glamour shots, can't you be bothered to make sure everything aligns right? I know how things can slip through the cracks but geez, this is a big-ticket item: treat it that way!

Well said, and I had the exact same questions. Regardless of liability, it was extremely wasteful and could / should have been handled differently. The battery issue was probably the big one. it's very likely that at that angle, some amount of acid leaked out. Battery acid will wreak havoc with almost anything it touches, sometimes only over time. Given the proximity of underhood and electrical components with mixed exposure to brine air, that was indeed a legitimate concern. However, those cars were chock full of "NOS" parts as you say. Perhaps the labor to disassemble and reclaim all the useable components seemed excessive, but unloading them all as "salvage title" vehicles would have addressed it. Think of all the plastic trim parts and window glass alone... nothing should have precluded those from re-use. There was more going on to this story than meets the eye. On the one hand, yeah nothing you can do now so why cry about it... but on the other hand, who made such a stupid decision and WHY? I won't be boycotting Mazda/Ford over the issue, but I am genuinely curious. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction and a shortsighted one at that.

Agreed, and I understand that on one level. No arguments there. However, while I personally love the Flex, I don't really see it as the Second Coming. CAP is not OAP so it's not like the Flex is going to account for that excess capacity. Ford would do well to market and position the Taurus X as an alternative, "traditional" CUV for people who won't buy into the Flex's "Uber xB" look. The Freestyle was slightly ahead of its time, and now that the market is HOT there is NO reason not to try and take better advantage. I mean by your rationale, they shouldn't be remaking the Explorer either. So why not push what they already have in the meantime?

Yeah, I don't have any major complaints about the CVT in ours, but it DOES take some getting used to. It's not as seamless a transition as the automakers would have you believe. I don't really find it lacking in power like most people, but you do have to learn its "likes" and behavior. I definitely do NOT like how it revs on steep grades though, and that is my only gripe. Attacking the 5 - 8% grades on I-68, it would churn 5000rpm to maintain 75mph... Best to back off a bit. Fortunately, while there are lots of hills where I live, they aren't of the "mountainous" variety. Even so it's way more rev-happy than a standard trans, or even the lugger 4.6 in the ol' T-birds.

You'd think they would try to push (advertise) the Taurus X a little more now that sea-change is officially upon us. I've actually been seeing a LOT of those things lately. Memo to Mr. Farley: There's no excuse for such a capable vehicle in the now-hot "CUV" market to be selling so poorly. Everything else is pretty much not surprising. Imagine how much more inside-out things will be once gas gets to $5 and up. To think a year ago, seemed like there was more time... At least the new product is on the way. I hope they don't try to rush it and shoot their feet off quality-wise, but it can't get here soon enough.

Cermak Plaza is one of the greatest unheralded treasures in Chicagoland. If you think the "Spindle" is cool, or terrible, or wierd, kitschy, imaginative, or all of the above, you haven't seen anything. The whole shopping plaza is littered with odd sculptures and whimsical decorations. None are on the scale of Spindle but they were all commissioned by the developer. Here's just a sampling: Spindle was always my favorite though. I viewed it as an old crossroads "destination XYZ miles" signpost. I once took a pic and used it on an album cover. (My only beef with the sculpture was the waste of a perfectly good Capri.) Oh and Rich, that "oldsmobuick" is a 1980 (not 1981 as the ebay listing claims) Pontiac Grand Prix. For more info, visit http://users.rcn.com/jdeubel/plaza/ (not my site) For the record, anyone who wants to see The Spindle removed is obviously too young (or too old) to remember THIS former Cermak Plaza monstrosity: That thing fascinated me as a child, trying to pick out and recognize all the random bits of garbage (there was a HUGE fan blade in the other side), but holy hell what an eyesore it was.

To assure profitability, Why can't Ford "import" a few of them here for sale, in the guise of a special limited edition, akin to all the silly flavor-du-jour Mustangs out there? If they made say 1,000 or even just 500 available at whatever price point is necessary to make a profit, marketed in such fashion, they shouldn't have any problem selling them. Based on customer response, they could then tweak the package to make greater numbers available (without devaluing the original edition) if warranted. Exchange rates excepted (which is why I put the word "import" in quotes; just ship the parts over and build them here), there's no reason not to TRY. They just might be pleasantly surprised, like they have been with take rates on AWD and SYNC.

The Mopar guys have always been into woodies. I remember quite a few 1st-gen Caravans with woody kits (they didn't look too bad actually). But who could forget (or forgive) the 600 / T&C Woody? The Flex has WAAAAAY more design cred to pull off a true "modern woody" than some of the other monstronsities foisted on us over the years. I mean, there's a New Beetle Woody kit fer crhissakes...

I was more surprised to read that their Brazil operations are so significant and profitable. It seems like all we've heard for years is how China was going to save GM, and is Buick's sole reason for continued being. But then I'm not really a business guy. So then that's far for this latest GM course... just like all their alleged product hits (which are very credible in many areas)... the "facts" are not as rosy as what they would have us believe. It's nice to have someone acknowledge this. Everyone said Ford was simply following GM but I always felt that to be false. Quality still needed to be Job 1 and Ford started there... and you hear relatively little about GM consolidating its operations, despite getting a big jump on Ford. One wonders how much backstepping resulted from canceling the Sigma (or was it Zeta?) program...

Key point of the article: It's too bad Ford can't fix this perception problem. The Fiesta, Flex and updated Fusion can't arrive fast enough. The EDGE is solid but probably only has a year or so of "cutting edge" left in it. The Escape and Focus are middling efforts: credible improvements for the most part but lackluster without the shine of SYNC, which expires in a year. Meanwhile Ford has state-of-the art Perfection in the Taurus and X that simply rot on the vine for lack of advertising. Although perhaps that is the price paid for working on the fundamentals first? Maybe that will afford us believers that "fun ride back up" that Mullaly was talking about... *EDIT* Meant that the Edge has a year or so of "fresh" left. Added the FLEX to the upcoming list

There WASN'T anything wrong with them... Ford just let it become the Panther of Minivans. From 1986 thru 1997 - 12 years without any major bodywork or ongoing enhancement, and only one minor interior revision. They were utilitarian and basic, but took everything we threw at ours. The only trouble we had was the dashboard on our first-gen would rattle like crazy. The people that bitch about the CD# and Mustang interiors have obviously never seen an 86-91 Aerostar. They may as well have made the dash out of Legos - at least it wouldn't have rattled then. Oh, and the rocker panels were made out of rice paper or something... the rest of the van was fine but for some reason the rockers would just disintegrate. But I loved ours and am still pleased to see that out of all the first- (and even second-) gen minivans, Aerostars are about the only ones you ever still see... except for the random Astro of that vintage.

Wow... how could I forget that motor. And now that you mention it, I think if you include all the cars that POS was installed in, it could well be THE #1 F-up. Taurus, Thunderbird/Cougar, Mustang, Windstar.... Virtually ALL the cars that started and sustained Ford's "glory roll" in the 80's and through the 90's were populalry equipped with that engine... And multiple extensively-documented failures later, most of those customers probably swore off Ford for good and the roll came to a halt. If not for the 3.8 (and their piss-poor handling of it), than for some the infamous transmissions it was usually paired with, for a near-assured "one or the other" punch. You really couldn't blame someone for ditching. I was one of the "lucky" ones. I knew that motor was cursed when I got my '88, so I did all I could to maintain it properly. Got 144K out of it before the gaskets went with a minor (driveable) leak, which I have been told is quite a feat for a 3.8 of that vintage. And it's a shame really, because it otherwise wasn't a bad motor for its time. The 88 model year had a balance shaft added, and it ran as smooth as silk, only down 10hp to the 5.0 that year, and got 33mpg highway as documented on numerous occasions. But the FWD 3.8 / tranny combo in the Windstar probably burned more bridges for Ford recently than any other vehicle. America's best-selling minivan when it came out... and you don't see any of them today. In fact, you still see more old Aerostars soldiering on, rusted-out rocker panels and all.

On the 9" rear no less. Which has served to make a serviceable Versailles all but impossible to find today. <Homer Simspon voice> *grumble* Stupid Mustang guys *grumble* </simpson>

Have to agree with the Merkur line. What great-looking cars those were, I would STILL love to have an XR4Ti sometime. I'd probably even prefer the Scorpio but geez, I think I've seen one of those maybe like TWICE in my whole life. My favorite Ford Failure (hey - an "F" name!) is the Lincoln Versailles, aka the Lincoln Zephyr's forgotten older brother. Summed up thusly: Hmm, let's take a stodgy 4-door Granada, stick a Town Car grille on the front, a Continental hump on the back, and call it a day. Then sell it next to the Mercury Monarch for a low, low, upsell of $4000 more. Brilliant!!! It bombed so bad, it actually became a decent car in 1979 when they restyled it a little, and included nearly every damn technological feature you could want in a car that year. Still didn't help sales though. Lincoln Zephyr, we already knew ye.

Love it. Would definitely consider one if we needed a small gofermuter-type vehicle. The greenhouse seems a little stodgy in the front to me, but it's still a great looking car for its class. Reminds me a lot of the original Focus in that regard. As an aside... given all the infinite possible combinations, that's an interesting fake Vanity plate they put on there. Like a spelled-out "Boston dialect" pronunciation of "Verve", with the model year "0-10". ^_^

Actually, GM did indeed make the bubble-back G-body in limited production: (Sweet looking car if I may say so) http://www.pontiacserver.com/gph3_9.html I remember seeing those a couple times back in the day... but with less than 1200 of the Pontiacs built most people probably never saw one. I want to say there was a Monte 2+2 but am not certain. I've seen at least one in person in addition to photos of others, but those could have been conversions. I do agree with what you're saying though. It only got worse with the FatBody Monte in 1995 - that started the whole new era of bitching and whining that led to the COT. Boo. FWIW the T-Bird was the last "true"/"almost stock" car that raced in Nascar - over 10 years ago.

Au Contraire: The Festiva hit in the late 80's but as it happened this was just in time for the first Gulf War, with its tandem recession and "mini" fuel crisis, and that is when it finally took off. Remember it doesn't take much to get Americans to bitch about fuel prices. (remember how in 2000 the world was going to end because it was pushing $2.00/gal? Quaint). And fuel crisis or no... you are again proving my point. Given the choice between the Festiva / Aspire that people allegedly "loved" so much... Yeah, they chose the SUV. Oops. The Japanese B's were available because they never quit building and selling them in Japan, unlike the US. Over here, it took $3.00 gas to make them tolerable once more. As well as the Hey, look - an old Festiva reappears too! In the US B cars had always been crap that people never drove unless they HAD to. And that may well be changing. MHO is that sticking the "new guard" of modern B cars with a moniker from the "old guard" of crap was a dumb move. But really, I'm not losing any sleep over it. It's just a fascinating decision. And that's the last I will say.