EMDEE

What an amazing thread. It would make a nice case study for a psych class. The main problem I see here is that so many folks have the mistaken notion that their posts are something other than mere opinions. No doubt Ford would be so much better off with some of our posters in the executive suite, that is, at least until they had to face up to the economic realities of running a troubled company in troubled economic times, in a field where product development is ungodly expensive. And that's my mere opinion.

American's distaste for small B and C class cars has little to do with their size. No matter what size the car, there is usually only one person in a car, the driver. What has kept people from buying small cars in large numbers is mostly their cheap presentation and generally lower quality. Nobody likes a car with a cheap looking dash, painted door panels, flimsy seats and thrashy, under powered engines. Both American and Japanese manufacturers have been guilty of equating "small" with "cheap." Even Honda hasn't always made the Civic a pleasant place to be. But look what happens when the companies start making small cars that feel solid, ride and drive well and put quality materials in the dash and interior. Examples: the smallest recent Audis, the Lexus-like touches on the Corolla, and in Europe the small Fords. People buy them and are proud to be seen in them. It's really not that difficult to do. Every manufacturer today seems to know how to make solid car chassis and decent quality interiors and they're all racing to produce a new generation of cars with these properties. Still, we've already heard that Ford USA will not invest as much quality material in the dash and interior of the NA Fiesta compared to the EU version. Bad move. US companies will have just one chance convince buyers that they know how to build high quality small cars. Blow it and they'll lose the market to the Japanese and Europeans. I guess the only real trick isn't so much knowing how to make really attractive, high quality small cars, but knowing how do so and still make a profit. The current weakness of the dollar against the Euro will give the home team an advantage, at least for a while. Let's hope they make the best of it.

We're all guessing, so here's mine. They will sell every one they can make and total sales will be limited only by production capacity. In other words, the same thing that's happening with the Fusion/Milan/MKZ. Every indication is that the Fiesta will have superb driving characteristics as well as high quality for the class. Add to that the good looks we've already seen and Ford will have a genuine hit. They still will need to get the mileage right, and have a relatively high performance version, but that's about all it will take. People in the US seem to think that the Japanese rule in the small car market. Not so. In Europe, where there's a full range of small Japanese cars available as well as European makes, Fords, and GM's best small cars, guess which ones rule? It isn't the Japanese. Small cars with top notch driving characteristics are hit wherever they're available. They're just plain fun to drive and even people who didn't buy them for that reason end up appreciating this aspect of their performance. Well designed small cars are very different from the bland Camry family size cars. To be big hit, they'll have to get 30 mpg in the city, 40 or better on the road. But that's not all that hard to achieve today. Ford has all the "right stuff" in its European small cars and these qualities will quickly be noticed here, just as they were with the Focus.

Have you seen the MKT concept? Without the camo, this vehicle doesn't quite look like anything else on the road. I doubt many would describe it as "slab-sided." The rear three quarters, on the sides, greenhouse and roof, are so unique as to be a bit polarizing. It will be interesting to see how the final version comes out. The camo shots don't give any sense of the overall look.

Yikes! I hate this nonsense about "rebadging." No Lincoln car in decades has simply been a "badge engineered" anything. People endlessly confuse badge engineering with platform sharing. Entirely different things. Taurus and Sable are badge engineered. Taurus and Lincoln MKS (and Volvo S80 and C90) are platform sharing, as are Toyota Camry and Lexus ES350. The Lincoln Navigator is no closer to the Ford Expedition than the equivalent Toyota and Lexus large SUVS (though no one ever seems to mention the connection between the Toyota and the Lexus). The closest thing to badge engineering a Lincoln is the MKX and Ford Edge, but even there, the Lincoln is demonstrably more luxurious, has different interior, different front and rear ends, deeper sound isolation, etc. The upcoming MKT is radically different from the Flex, therefore only platform sharing. Nearly every car company does platform sharing. It's the only cost efficient way to make cars or SUVs. I already hear some writers saying the Lincoln MKS is "based on" the Taurus. Hogwash. There is hardly a shared part between them. A more honest way to put it is that the MKS, as well as the Taurus, are based on the Volvo S80, a substantially more expensive European luxury car which preceded them both.

Something I think everyone is overlooking: the main thing people are doing is keeping what they've got. Sales are down, period, largely because of uncertainty over the economy. Many people who larger, less economical vehicles may have considered trading down but quickly calculated that they'd have to save a huge amount of gas before it would make up for loss in resale value and the cost of a buying a new vehicle. For many, even buying a small hybrid will only break even after many years. Therefore, the easiest and often most economical decision now is to sit tight for a while. Rushing from an Expedition or Navigator to a Focus is not going to be a very satisfying move. People have grown accustomed to some really impressive large, luxury vehicles that only incidentally have modest off-road capabilities. Squeezing a family of five or six, with bigger kids into a small sedan or little station wagon is just not going to happen. For now, I think a lot of people are just toughing it out, maybe driving less when possible. Crossovers and even SUVs will survive. They just need lighter construction and more economical engines, whether diesels, EcoBoosts or hybrids. They are still a very attractive choice to a lot of people, just not a hot item at this moment. There's a certain percentage of people who never needed them in the first place, buying them for image, and maybe those are the main folks who are panicking or rushing into compacts.

Since I've never seen the EOF Mondeo in person, I have no idea whether it's interior is superior to that of the US Fusion. Pictures almost never convey the quality level and feel of an interior. What looks good in a photo might look like Mattel in person. Euro car mags are famous for their gushing approval of things made east of the big pond and their utter contempt of anything that comes from NA, so I don't put much faith in their assessment. Anyway, the Fusion's interior as we know it has only about 6 more months to live and then a new one arrives.

This is all very encouraging but I think some of it is overstated, particularly the notion that product integration planned for the 2013-2014 period has been radically moved forward to 2010-2012. If my memory serves me, they've always been talking about getting the European products over here in 2010 to 2012. Similarly, the release of the 2010 Fusion and Milan and related hybrids had long been claimed for early 2009. No change there. The Lincoln MKT was always going to be "a year after the Flex" and the new Taurus was due in 2nd to 3rd quarter 2009. EcoBoost has been scheduled for spring of 2009 for as long as I can remember. Unibody Explorer was shown and more or less announced several months ago. First use of EcoBoost in 4 cylinder engines was going to be 2010 and still is. First European small car, the Ford Fiesta, was scheduled for 2010 and still is. As for the coming of a total of 6 Euro designs, I suppose that news but since they haven't identified them all, it's just a number for now. Perhaps the only thing that's really news here is the announcement about how they're going to shift some manufacturing plants from trucks to cars. So what I hear is a really a collective presentation of the whole package at a single time, designed to shore up confidence among the investment community and to counter the news focus on Ford's big loss for the quarter. Nothing wrong with any of this. I just don't see it as "news." They're doing all the right things and have been since AM took charge and Bill Ford went back to playing golf.

Is there any reason this discussion is completely ignoring the upgraded 3 liter, 240 HP V6 currently being released in the US in the 09 Escape? It's apparently scheduled to become the V6 in the 2010 Fusion and Milan. With 240 HP, it's already putting out more power than BMWs naturally aspirated 3 liter I6, and more than the na Volvo I6. Can the EB technologies - direct injection and maybe turbos - be fitted to this engine? Or is there a 3 liter version of the 3.5 going to come along? Anyone know? Direct injection alone could add another 20 or 30 HP to the 3 liter, which would put it in the league of the Honda and Toyota 3.5 V6s (and Ford's). The Fusion and Milan probably couldn't handle any more power than that, at least not the current versions.

This forum just slays me. We're up to 4 levels of posts with endless debate and complaints, yet, if I read it correctly, not a single person has actually driven the car. All but a few have not seen it, unless you count looking at two pictures "seeing" the car. I guarantee that no one can tell what quality impression a car actually makes based on a photograph. Photos are two dimensional representations of a complex 3 dimensional object, while the impression of "quality" depends not only on all three dimensions, but also texture, feel, smell, hardness/softness, and the sensations of motion. So I give a hoot what someone thinks about "buttons" as shown in a picture. And while some are complaining about "fake aluminum" my understanding is that the dash piece referred to is real aluminum, just like the wood is seriously real wood, not wud. On another angle, people seem to be comparing it to cars that Lincoln has no intention of competing with. The MKS will never be marketed as a CTS-V or M5 competitor. Wrong market niche. Yet the standard MKS has more, not less horsepower than the standard CTS. By Spring 09, it's optional engine will offer more power than all but the most radical cars, such as the CTS-V and M5, yet offer better fuel mileage than its standard V8 competitors. When considering cars like the CTS-V or M5, or Benz AMG, the fuel mileage comparison becomes ridiculous. Does it matter? I dunno about you folks, but I paid 4.29 a gallon for gas this morning and will bet it will be another dollar or more by spring 09. The MKS, not the CTS, will be defining American luxury in the years ahead. There's nothing luxurious about a CTS when loaded with 4 passengers, while the MKS has the most interior space in the class. To do better you'd need to pay for a Benz S-class, say about 100 grand. Having ridden in one of those recently, it doesn't seem any more luxurious than the MKS. Before sounding off, let's encourage folks to go sit in and drive an MKS. Then, if you still think it's inferior or a dolled up Ford, so be it. Feel the "Bridge of Weir" leather, which to me seems to compare to the best of Lexus. As for driving, I don't know. Like everyone else, I haven't driven one.

I agree - this is the heart of the problem with this announcement. Ford Europe has less experience with mid size cars than the US, and virtually no experience with larger cars. The few times they've tried, they've flopped worse than the US vehicles. Ford Europe is good (but not great) at small and slightly larger cars. The first gen Mondeo bombed on both sides of the Atlantic and it's far too early to say how successful the latest Mondeo will be. Ford's better sources for mid size and larger cars are Japan, Australia and Dearborn. In any case, they don't say when any of this will actually affect products sold here. Dearborn is already finishing up the MKS, Flex, MKT, next generation Taurus (the one they claim brings tears to the eye), and they're making plans with Australia for rear drive large cars. Funny, the article doesn't even mention Australia. Nor does it say much about the red hot crossover market, which again is not a strength of Ford Europe.

I can't help it - I have to respond. The LS sold over 60,000 cars in it first year and 50,000 the next. It failed for one reason: total lack of marketing and support after the first two years. The Cadillac CTS faced the same issues, but GM kept investing in it, creating the V version and now soon the Coupe. Plus they did a total remake after the first 4 years. The LS could have been profitable as well as the basis for other models had they just used their brains. Another one of its "problems" was that it was in many ways better than the more profitable Jaguar Ford was also trying to sell. Despite using the same platform, the Jag's excessive curviness gave it smaller, cramped feeling interior. It also had a less sporting suspension and its looks didn't age as well as the LS. I often wondered if Ford let the LS die as part of an effort to save Jaguar. As for the MN12 TB and the related Mark VIII, I just choke every time I hear this complaint that they were overweight pigs. That is a complete myth. The T-bird weighed about 3650 and the Mark VIII 3850. They were hundreds of pounds lighter than anything remotely comparable. Look at what a BMW 6 coupe weighs, or any the "full figured" Mercedes Coupes. Even the supposedly light weight aluminum Audis check in well over 4000 lbs. The MN12s were misunderstood and misrepresented by the automotive press, the same writers who today don't say a word about about the fat European V8s porking around in the 4000 to 4500 lb range. The T-bird and Mark VIII were downright svelte by comparison, and had much more room in them to boot. They were darn good cars. The writers in their day were comparing them to the lighter, less solid, flimsy GM and Ford mid size cars of the seventies. On the world stage, the T-Bird and Mark VIII were full size sport and GT coupes.

This complaining about FWD cars being hard of mechanics isn't going to fly very high. It's the last thing on the designers' minds. All modern products, from toasters to TVs to cars, are being designed to work well with minimal maintenance for a predetermined, fixed period of time. After that, they are designed to be thrown away and recycled, not repaired and nursed along into antiquity. Beyond their planned life expectancy, they are designed to discourage people from keeping them. This is as true for Mercedes and BMW as it is for Ford, though they might differ in their planned life span. It's a different design philosophy than we had in the fifties, or even the seventies, but it's a key goal for nearly every manufacturer today. Making cars that are easily repairable forces manufacturers to stock parts for decades, which is very expensive and unprofitable. Today, you often can't find parts for cars that are 7 or 8 years old, let alone 15 or 20.

Two things bother me about this thread, and that's one more than what bothers me about Ford's position. Folks seem to have an exaggerated view of the wonders of the Australian Falcon platform. Yes, it was a rear driver all right, but no one ever accused it of being either particularly high quality or particularly refined. I wouldn't worry too much about Ford North America "screwing up" the platform that eventually arrives from Australia. For on thing, Ford NA will be intimately involved in its development long before it arrives here, and very likely for the better. Recall that Ford tried to import Australia vehicles before and they were a disaster. Australian cars have a lot in common with the design philosophy of the Crown Vic - relatively crude, tough vehicles that last forever, but which won't keep BMW and Audi up late at night. Let's not forget that Ford has had plenty of experience in North America with rear drive, including independent rear suspension. Are we forgetting the last T-bird, the Mark VIII, and even the Mustang Cobras of yore?? And that brings me to my second concern. Everyone seems to be forgetting the most sophisticated, most refined, and best handling rear drive car Ford has ever built - the Lincoln LS. That platform and car is still more than competitive today. It is superbly well balanced at any speed, yet rides well and with great control. Until the second generation Cadillac CTS, there was nothing in America that could be compared to it. In the last tests of the final models, they were beating BMW 5 series in every measure of handling. Ford's failure to run a program of continual improvement and development of that car is one of the worst mistakes they ever made. Had they put some development into it, they wouldn't have this problem today. Even now, they could probably resurrect it before 2012 and end up a better car than they'll get out of Australia. The only real complaint against the platform was that it was too expensive. Sorry, but if you want real quality, it costs. The car sold well for the first three years until they failed to do a serious update for the 2003 model year. plans were in place and shared with owners for 400 hp uprgrade long before the CTS. And yes, even the first versions were developed on the Nurburgring in Germany. Letting this car and platform die was a huge mistake.

Joke or not, there's a genuine point that needs to be addressed. Ford is not going to be able to restore trust with ads. I don't doubt that a lot of dealers do all the good things Deanh mentions, but those aren't the things move me to or away from Ford dealerships. I have been buying Ford and Lincoln products, among others, for many years, but I find I have swallow hard and force myself to even walk into a car dealership. I don't ask a lot. If the dealerships just had a few sales people, or a salesmanager, who liked cars and were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the products they are selling, I'd be thrilled and go home happy with a new car every time. But it's almost impossible to get this most basic kind of satisfaction. The salespeople seldom seem to know the difference between a Fusion and a Focus, or for years at Lincoln, the difference between a Town Car and an LS. The salesmanagers only seem interested in "the deal." They run this ridiculous routine in which they drag out the customer's time at the dealership, hustling him back and forth between the salesperson and the sales manager, with one never seeming able to back up what is offered by the other. The game seems to be to wear the customer down until he signs something undesirable just to get out of there. How about training the salespeople in depth about the products, and testing their knowledge and sales skills before turning them loose on customers? Maybe try teaching them to just show a little respect for the customer, to listen to the customers interests and needs... and cut out the "hustle" with salesmanager/closer. And finally, make it a practice to fire any service writer who knowingly pads a repair bill. It really isn't much more difficult than this. But I have yet to find a dealership that isn't at fault in at least one of these areas. And this isn't limited to Ford and Lincoln dealers. You get much the same crap from Toyota, Honda, GM, Chrysler etc. In my experience, only Lexus and some Mercedes dealerships do better. I really hope I've just had an unusual run of bad luck and that car dealers are better elsewhere in the country.