goingincirclez

Oh heavens, I've "lost all credibility" with someone who lacks reading comprehension, whatever shall I do. Nice try. I wasn't comparing the Freestar and Windstar, I was comparing the Freestar and FreeSTYLE. Thanks for proving my point if not dodging it altogether. Moron. Go back and reread my post. I don't have a problem with the name. But plenty of other people WILL. And that is STUPID but it is something Ford could have avoided altogether. You and I know what the Verve/Fiesta look like and don't give a shit what it's called. Hooray. But how many Joe Morons out there will overhear someone talking about a "Fiesta" and dismiss it offhand without bothering to find out what it looks like? Do you get all excited when someone talks about their new Suzuki Aero? Or Chevy Aveo? Chances are your past bias or preconceived notions cause you to dismiss it altogether without a moments' thought. And don't make this an issue of semantics... if not for those specific models, then surely another one. Everyone here is guilty of this. And by the way, if people "loved" their Festivas so much, they wouldn't have been just a flash in the pan during the last perceived fuel crisis, dumped for the Aspire which itself barely lasted 4 years - and Ford wouldn't have been caught with their pants down lacking a B car today. I may not be God, but you sir are delusional. Good Day my blessed moron.

The name thing really was retarded. And I'm right there with you on the styling and price... Peter Delorenzo even printed an email from me when it was first unveiled in 2004 that basically said the same thing as you. "30K for a bloated Escort Wagon? I think not!" That said, having bought one used for a more reasonable price, it really is a nice vehicle and it's a shame it didn;t find a stronger niche, or that people couldn't get past the looks. I love it. More versatile than an SUV without the piss-poor ride, handling, and mileage. It does everything my family needs, and while the D30 is loud, it gets along just fine (besides, I always said my lead foot could use a proper foil, heh heh). I truly believe the styling deal was just a case of bad timing. When you look at it, it truly is like a lowered Explorer from that generation - all the cues are there. When it was designed, this surely seemed like a sure-fire bet. Nobody would have argued. Then by the time it hit the lots, that style just fell way out of favor - as reflected by the dive in Explorer sales. Typical murphyism for Ford. It sounds like they addressed all the faults with the Taurus rename and it's a damn shame it didn't pay off. Although Ford is certainly reaping what their lousy / absent marketing has sowed. Morons. And yeah, as long as CAP has the capacity, why not throw Mercury a bone? All we hear around here is how "it costs nothing to keep Mercury, and it sells more cars to people who do';t want a Ford, so they should keep it". Well, here's a situation that pokes holes in THAT argument. In that sense, the Freestyle / Taurus X will go down as something of an enigma: A wonderful vehicle that should have sold well but never did, for reasons nobody will ever fully understand. Hopefully when the time comes to replace ours, the Flex will be the answer.

I don't have a problem with the Festiva name in Europe. It has established cred and a certain bit of cachet over there. It makes sense. And yes, a getting hung up about a name is stupid. But you of all people should know that nobody ever went broke underestimating American stupidity. On the flipside of that coin, to Ford's potential detriment, the name "Festiva" will call up instant flashbacks in the minds of many people who stupidly will never give the car a chance beyond that. Joe Public's loss maybe... but another loss that Ford can ill afford. I don't have a problem with the name in Europe. I don't have a problem with the cars being the same. And as a matter of fact, I _personally_ don't have too much issue with the name Festiva myself... I love the car and would consider one, and I'm not concerned about the "image" a chrome nameplate would portend (but then I am one of the idiots who owns a Freestyle LOL). But remember, image is everything and that's why America mortgaed itself subprime to but all kinds of stupid shit because of a name with perceived "cachet". (Coach handbags? Williams-Sonoma cookware? Puh-lease!) And with that being said, I do think that name is a big mistake for the American market. But that's just MHO and I would love to be wrong.

Yeah, the piece of shit worst-in class minivan was renamed to sound almost identical to the brand-new segment creating vehicle. Brilliant! Consumers couldn't keep them apart. Journalists couldn't keep them apart. Hell, even auto writers, and plenty of the so-called "experts" HERE got them confused more often than not. The bad product clouded perception of the new one before the new one ever had a chance. Yeah, but people won't have issues keeping "Fiesta" and "Festiva" apart. Right. Who in their right mind ever wanted to be seen in a US Festiva? IIRC You're not from here. I can tell you virtually all of them were dead and buried and unseen within 5 years, until the new fuel price spike a few years ago made them resurrected accessories of necessity. Trust me, plenty of the people who could AFFORD the upcoming B-car remember the Festiva... and most of them would have chosen the Geo at that time. I do remember the US Fiesta, I had a friend who had one. The person who compared it to a go-kart wasn't far off the mark, it was a lot of fun for what it was. Unfortunately, I remember the super-thin doors and panels with exposed painted interior metal. Didn't leave a comforting impression. But then that was a car from 30 years ago so it's an apple to a modern orange. I'm not actually worried about that. You are right that the car SHOULD sell on merits regardless of name. Key word is "should". It might not though. Consumers are fickle. And you are absolutely delusional if the think the prevailing US sentiment of the name "Festiva" is favorable. Plus, rightly or wrongly there's also a lot of anti-hispanic sentiment in the country now so a car with a "Mexican" name would be seen as another attempt to sell out. I counter the Ford should avoid any and ALL potential negativity where they can, and the name was a freebie! Verve or even some stupid made-up word with no track record would have been better. The fact that we're (the forum) even having this discussion proves this is one more small stupid hurdle that a new Ford product didn't need to have to overcome.

The word being confused (fiesta <> festiva) is a matter of semantics. The _confusion_ itself is a true concern. Fiesta is a terrible name, not in the least because it DOES readily look and almost sounds like Festiva. And any negative connection is something that should be avoided. People who downplay this are kidding themselves. I mean we all know how well Freestar - Freestyle worked out, right?

The '79-97 style F-150 was always my favorite; especially the "aero" refined 91+ versions. Just a classic design: boxy yet refined, all-business yet friendly at the same time. Good smooth clean lines with bold edges that said "tough". I too find the new trucks (by everyone) to be excessively overwrought. Stupid chrome gew-gaws, excessive step-in heights and and goofy taillight shapes are just so much bad form usurping function. Still it must be pointed out that however bad the new F-150 may seem, it is still more rationally understated than the Tundra and Titan - the latter two trucks are nothing short of hideous. In contrast I think the new Ram to be a good cohesive design... nothing really new perhaps but definitely regains a good look by toning down the cartoonish proportions of the '03-07 front end. The new GMs are a styling mismatch to eyes, but are not as bad as the Japanese trucks. I think the Ford straddles the line pretty well, depending on the trim level. Regarding logo size: Instead of a silly oversized oval that looks like a bumper wart or tailgate zit, Ford really SHOULD revisit the embossed lettering of old. That's one of my favorite features of the old trucks. It was matter-of fact yet classy and tough at the same time. It fills the space without looking out of place, and today could even pass as a suitable "retro" touch since that's all the rage. It could even save costs since the name is embossed in the panel stamping, and not some separate trim piece. Imagine: instead of that silly metal "Built Ford Tough" plaque falling from the sky to crack concrete, they change that commercial tag to show a big "F O R D" getting stamped into the truck... the TRUE badge of toughness.

Here's one from my house just for you Rich: Note the slogan... has any vice ever been better targeted to the religious set? No pious Chicago Catholic would be caught imbibing anything else! :beerchug: File under: Best. Fleamarket find. Ever.

Those are two different cars. The first two pics show white spots on a black car... the third has black spots on a white car. And it's not just schizophrenic paint on different sides... because if you look closely at the roofs, they are different also. Now... "how do you see a zebra?" :D

Oh, and one more amusing thing about FWD / RWD: It's sort of a cruel paradox: it might be easier to cross up a RWD car... but it's a lot more forgiving and easier to save. There's a bigger gray area to play in. With FWD... there's a fine line. It might be harder to reach it but once it's there.... you're done, son.

Tires really do make a big difference in snow. When I had the Pirellis on my T-Bird... man, that thing would stick like gorilla glue on dry and even wet... but sucked ass in the snow. May as well have been on ice. Now, it wasn't "impossible" to drive. Tricky at times? Why yes, certainly. But really nothing I couldn't handle. I was able to commute 35 miles each way across numerous hills and twisties, unplowed, without incident. I learned to DRIVE and thus was able to adapt to the conditions and handle them. Eventually I had to replace the tires so I went with some basic Goodyear all-seasons. Not a week later, we had an ice storm. I was able to drive 89 miles, mostly on ice / snowpack, carefully but without incident, and the experience was MUCH better with appropriate tires. I also once saved my '88 from spinning sideways into the ditch on a black-iced stretch of I-65. The dozens of cars in the median and ditches were a mix of FWD and RWD. It can happen. I was shocked as shit to suddenly be facing the median in a split second... but I was able to save myself, because I learned what to do in a RWD car.... in short, I knew (know) how to drive. Is FWD better in snow? Based on my sole experience with a FWD minivan during the Lexington Ice Storm of 2003... I would say yes, unequivocally. MUCH easier going than my RWD Thunderbarges... I simply can't deny it. BUT... I will NEVER let concerns over "driving in the snow" dictate the drivetrain layout of my vehicles. I had driven RWD in the snow. My parents did. My Grandparents did. People managed and survived it all the time. Without ABS and Traction Control even! It's really not that big a deal if you know what you're doing. Bad things can happen regardless of F/RWD. People still f up even with ABS and TC. It's all about driving choices. But if you'd rather not learn to drive, and reply on the car to do all the work for you, well by all means load that sucker up with every appliance known to the insurance industry.

Ha ha, the very first Versailles I saw - in a southern KY Wal-Mart parking lot in 1998 (key point, no?) - brought a similar reaction. As it turned into a parking space it was "Ah goody, and old Granad- ! - How the hell did they shrink a Town Car front en- ! - WTF did they do to the trunk?!?" Needless to say I was all around that car once the owners left. Oh the horror! Lincolns darkest days for sure. And yes indeed, the Versialles survives in more Mustangs (courtesy of that rear end) than it does as a Granada clone... Some Granadas also had the 9" coupled to a 351. .... The styling of the 80's Fox Conti never bothered me much, until the suspension bags inevitably broke. Then it was just a garden slug.

Meh... for all the work that went into that Town Camino, it just seems so piontless. I mean, why do they not show any pics of the bed? It looks carpeted.... And the craftsmanship on the tailgate should be better. For an "astronomical cost" I'd expect flush hinges, not some exposed things that force the corner taillights to bow outward (the bumper seams are not flush). Passenger door looks to have some issues at the rocker panel too. I had forgotten, however, how silly front seats used to be. Can you say "sofa"?

Indeed; it would be a Ford Farce for sure.

Wow... I can't decide which is uglier, the Town Car or that Aston concept. :eek5: Pretty please Richard: Is death an option? (BTW just curious if you see the "Sentinel" in "Art & Science"? I have to say with humility that it always seemed familiar to me, but I was shocked when I only just yesterday bothered to find those pics at the same angle and put them side by side. Did GM hire that designer?)

To that you can add the last Thunderbird... which looked like a melty cartoonish version of the classic. The other problem with revived designs and even just names (GTO) is that the originals persevere through enthusiasts, who are often hyper-critical and unwilling to flash a candle toward the new. You have to really nail every facet of the mystique that an original seems to possess. Ironically, Ford has experienced some success with this, as the new Mustang is maybe the only revival that has worked. Although it may be approaching thin ice, there are still possibilities. The problem with a revival is the esoteric question: what makes a classic design, a classic design? What design makes a Lincoln, a Lincoln? After all, the original Contis were gorgeous cars. But then the faux-Rolls grilles, and padded oval opera windows were very much everything Lincoln stood for 10-15 later and were incredibly popular in their time. Which holds more wieght? But I think most would agree... a Lincoln that looks like a Japanese car, while respectable on its technical merits, is perhaps not what a Lincoln should be.

Cadillac finished it: The whole "Art & Science" thing was regarded as unique and out of left field, but look closely. The cues are definitely Sentinel. A - finished - Sentinel.

YES! Thank you! The Sentinel is the one I was thinking of. And yes, I hated it at the time and STILL do... and it seems Ford got a hangover themselves after it debuted. But just tell me that Cadillac didn't take that ball and run with it....

Just making sure you realize we are on the same page: I DID say that he runs dangerously close to GM puffery... but what else would you expect from a former and legacy GM-er? That said, I do think there are merits to some of what he says about Lincoln. A lot of those sentiments have been said and argued here. I just thought the presentation was interesting. --- STILL can;t find that damn Lincoln concept from the late 90's! It was a long coupe that took Ford's then-current "new edge" styling over the top to the point of killing it, and then POW Cadillac was all about it.

You're right about the concepts... something would be lost. Invariably something always is. I mean, the MarkX concept had the eggcrate grille that looks SOOOO much better than what ended up in production on the MkX. And yet, for myself I can't help but think that those concepts had more to begin with. They're undeniably, exclusively Lincoln, and American. No confusion with Toyo-San there. I'm not intending to dog on the MkS, because I too think it's a handsome car. And the market (which currently precludes me) will ultimately decide its fate. But still it doesn't make me say Oh My God - because I've seen it before. And Delorenzo is 100% dead-on accurate about the problems with taking Lincoln global as a result. Need to fix NA perception first. ---- The real kicker is that whole "GM revived Cadillac" thing he's all about, was born of GM taking the styling from another Lincoln concept and running with it. I will have to find the concept, I can't recall it right now.

This week's Autoextremist (which runs dangerously close to GM puffism some days) is very relevant. Make sure to read the top article.. And ESPECIALLY check the pictures. Now what's in the past is in the past, and I'm not purely espousing or championing a move to "retro" Lincolns or anything like that... but for crying out loud you can't possibly say the MkS looks better than any of those concepts (except, ironically, the 2000 Continental which suddenly seems dated in the front end). Autoextremist.com I especially like the way he put it, to paraphrase: "What car is going to make anyone stop and say "Oh My God - that's a Lincoln?!"

I'll take the blue '88 parked next to it instead, thanks. Man, that's what mine will look like someday... just a darker shade of blue. Got the 5.0 HO, NOS interior parts and other goodies all lined up / in hand for it and everything.... just no space for the build. Ever notice how good those cars look on the road today, some two decades later? Timeless. :shades: (Incidentally, the one in the pic is an '88 instead of '87 by virtue of the all-black (no chrome) rear window trim).

Hear, hear! Now that would be a welcome touch of "retro".

That recessed area is where the separately-applied Ford logo would go.

Very nice update. A little reserved, but it looks classy. I see shades of the 90-97 F-150 in the front end, and those were always my favorite. Nice to see how the bombastic Super Chief concept cues played down into "production". Something about the '04 F-150 looked like it was trying too hard, when it didn't really have to. This one looks all business without pretense.

Unfortunately that's almost a requirement to fulfill the purpose of a "B" car. A "B" car's primary reason for being is to offer an economical package: cheap to buy, cheap to own, cheap to maintain. NOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE (i.e. Mini, Miata, etc) but by an large, especially from volume makes in the US (like Ford), this is why you have a B car. Bigger wheels are more expensive to begin with. Bigger wheels also mean more unsprung weight, which is a drag on both performance and fuel economy (Fe being a PRIMARY reason why most people "settle" for a B car in the first place!). Bigger wheel wheels also need larger tires, which are expensive to replace. Bigger wheels generally need a wider tread to remain stable, which adds to rolling resistance and thus hits fuel economy once again. Bigger wheels also cause a harsher ride and wear suspension parts quicker, due to the necessary lower aspect ratio of the tires. Now I'm not saying that Ford SHOULDN'T offer bigger wheels as an option for those concerned with looks. But there are very good reasons why small wheels are used on small cars. The Verve could well break with those conventions. But if the market is not quite ready to bite on the "volume premium small car" idea, Ford should be ready with both sets - just in case.