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.

I dunno about this. The Mazda has been something of a dud in the US market for reasons that seem pretty obvious to me: it's a boring, generic Japanese design. For years, it's been too small to compete with the Accord and Camry. Mazda kept sending us the Japanese version, while Honda and Toyota always created a longer and wider versions of the Accord and Camry for the US market. Ford stretched the platform for US use in the Fusion. Apparently this time the Mazda6 is on the same size plaltform as the Fusion. Still, the only picture I've seen of the new Mazda6 wasn't very encouraging - still a pretty dull conservative design. It's a shame because Mazda builds great cars and their 3 series has some real lookers. Maybe Ford is holding them back?

(BlueII said: "Thomas L. Freidman is a liberal Jewish hack journalist with Newsweek.") (RJensen responded: "Please refrain from using "Jewish" in a manner that could easily be construed as an insult.") I have no ethnic or racial dog in this fight but I find this response from BlueII and his original comment ugly and offensive. If there is a moderator for this site, I'd say that moderation is called for. In the year 2008, in a country called America, it's hard to accept that there are still people around who think and act like this. You sir, simply should keep your puerile biases to yourself. This is car discussion forum. Back to topic: It's pretty amazing to read some of the hostility that comes up against the Taurus. As few people here who apparently has some role at dealerships have pointed out, it would be nice is folks making all the criticism had actually driven the car. I rent one when I get the chance, and have rented all its reasonable competitors. It's a damn good car. And while I'm not wild about its overly conservative looks, I have several times been complemented about the car when I was renting it. There are people out there who really like its appearance and mistake it for a large Audi. Not the worst thing someone could say about. But I really encourage those who think its such an awful car to go out and rent one for a weekend. Drive the hell out of it (after checking tire pressures, the usual). See how quiet, stable and firm it feels at 100 mph. Through it into freeway ramps way beyond the posted speeds. Push it hard. You will be surprised. Give it sharp new body and interior and this car will sell. Part of the problem with the current one is that dealers don't stock it, and even when they have one or two on hand, they make little effort to sell it. They make their money on Edge, Mustangs, Explorers Expeditions and F150s, all of which sell themselves. With few exceptions, dealerships rarely have more than one person who actually knows the cars and how to sell them.

I've heard nothing to suggest a new Taurus would be rear drive. Let's not forget that GM is cutting back on its rear drive plans because of the demands of the new CAFE requirements. If Taurus is to remain a family car, you can bet it will remain front/AWD, just like every other car in this class. The new one they're talking about now is almost certainly a rebody of the existing Taurus; nothing else could be ready this soon. It doesn't need much more improvement than that anyway. The current one is satisfyingly quick, feels like a real luxury car on the highway, and handles better than any previous Taurus (including the last SHO I owned), and as well or better than Accord and Camry. So, with a good looking body, at last, there's every reason to expect it to sell. Throw in an Ecoboost SHO V6 version, and an Ecoboost 4 cylinder version and it could be a real hit, even without a hybrid version.

Not only is it ugly, it was never considered part of the real Mark series. There was far more elegant Mark IV years later in the early 1970's and that was the one that people meant when they referred to a "Mark IV." The Mark V and VI that followed though were little more trim options and the standard Lincoln 2 dr., a real disappointment. I suppose there is room for debate as to just what constituted the real Mark series, but my own understanding of it was that a real Mark was always a 2 door coupe that had the most powerful Lincoln engine of the era, the newest technology (such as anti-lock brakes and the most advanced air suspension systems) and the highest level of luxury. The crown jewel, as least as far as luxury was concerned, was the Continental Mark II of the mid 50's, which was a conscious effort by one of the Ford family members in power at the time to compete with the likes of Rolls Royce and Bentley. I don't know how it actually compared, but it was indeed priced at about the same level as the base Rolls, proportionally way beyond any Lincoln ever since. Performance wise and dynamically, the peak was the Mark VIII LSC of the 1990's, with its double overhead cam 4.6 aluminum V8, a pretty remarkable suspension system and a very unique and high quality interior design. I sure hope it wasn't the last of the series. If my local county is any example, a very high percentage of the Mark VII and Mark VIIIs are still on the road and well kept with obvious owner pride.

The knowledge of automotive history is severely deficient on this site, to the point of being tiring. I'm pointing the example above because it is typical of the comments going on here, not because it's any worse than what others are saying. Point: the rear end of the Mark VII doesn't copy any Cadillac, nor any Lincoln sedan. Every Lincoln in the "Mark" series all the way back to the 1950's had the "continental kit" rear end. It was a distinguishing characteristic of the entire series, not something dreamed up to mimic Cadillac's Seville. Lincoln made one and only one mistake which put the Mark name on a four door, briefly in the 70's. It was awful and they never repeated it. With the Mark VII and Mark VIII, the "continental kit" trunk design became increasingly vestigal, serving only as a link the lineage of past Marks. If they every get around to building an appropriate powerful 2 door coupe named "Mark" followed by a number, I for one hope they give at least a tip of the designer's hat to the old continental kit, no matter what the car mag whiners think of it. They had it just about perfect on the Mark VIII.

Right on! We have no idea what this vehicle is. All we can so for sure is that it's carrying what looks like a Lincoln front clip. It may be very well be a test mule which started as a Taurus X and had the Lincoln MK-whatever front end stitched on for development purposes. A lot of testing goes into the front end of new vehicle to make sure the engine gets enough air, there's adequate crush zones, room for all the options, etc. It is common practice to do some of this kind of testing on mules that join and existing older car and the new front. Joining the new Lincoln front clip to a Taurus X body makes perfect since for testing since they share the basic platform and driveline. People are wasting their breath carrying one about the styling and likely future of the car shown in phone. This is not a concept car, it's likely not a pre-production or early production prototype. We just don't know what it. So who cares what anyone things of it? I'll save my energy for the day when we get to see the real thing, in person.

These are all nice enough designs, but by the time Ford or Lincoln could bring any of them to market, the designs would be hopelessly outdated. They pretty much are already. To do this right, they need to take a design leap into the future, say at least five years out. Otherwise they'll never take the market by storm, which is what they need to do. But don't believe for a minute that there's no market for sporty two door personal coupes. Nearly every car maker is either already making them or coming out with them. Ford is hopefully aware that the Mustang has been one of their few real sales successes. But Mustang isn't the right kind of personal sporty coupe for every driver. There are many other forms that can be exploited, from the simplest small econo-coupe to things like the latest Audi 5 series. BMW is apparently about to energize the whole coupe market with their new 1 series. And there are plenty of people buying coupes at "Lincoln prices."

I'll keep it simple. This is the most moronic, ill-informed, and frequently adolescent thread I've encountered in a long time, and easily the worst I've ever seen on this site. It's enough to keep people from bothering to get involved. Some people just can't seem to disagree without demeaning or ridiculing the other party. We usually call such people "teenagers." On the Taurus: I suspect that precious few of the negative nabobs of negativism blustering here about the Taurus have ever stood within a hundred feet of one, let alone actually driven one. I believe that anyone who takes the time to drive one will see that it is as good or better a car overall than almost anything in its price range. Even the car mags are finding it hard to say anything negative about it. Though it's looks are still less than exciting to many, in a recent two day rental drive in one, I was stopped in parking lots three times by people who asked what kind of car it was, as they thought it elegant and expensive looking. Two guessed that it was a new Audi. The problem many Ford dealers have, in my personal experience, is that they don't have the faintest idea how to sell anything but trucks and Mustangs. This is mostly because trucks and Mustangs are bought by people who make their minds up before going to a dealer at all. As for front drive, gosh, I guess it's so patently inferior that the best selling cars in the country for the last two decades have been front drivers (Taurus, Camry, Accord, depending on the year). I like the feel of rear drive cars like my Lincoln LS, but I've also enjoyed the feel and handling of several front drive cars I've owned. When I lived in Chicago, I twice made the mistake of buying rear drive, a BMW 530i and a Mazda RX-7. In the snowy, icy winters, I had to park both those cars in a garage for most of the season as they were dangerously unstable and way too easy to get stuck. Like most Chicagoans, I switched to front drive and stayed with it until I finally moved to California, where rear drive again became a reasonable option. But not in Chicago. Finally, to the folks here calling others cutesy and insulting names, grow up. What's next, the "N-word?"

I think they've already missed the peak market for this type of vehicle. With the price of premium already hovering near $4 a gallon and in danger of really serious furher increases due to a number of political situations (like the Venezuelan pineapple and his alliance with the madman of Tehran), I don't think cars that get 12 or 13 MPG in real world use are going to be flying out of the showrooms much longer. This is one area where Ford outsmarted both GM and Chrysler. They've had this market entirely to themselves for what will probably be the last hotselling years for some time to come. High powered V8s stuffed into anything less than premium vehicles will, IMHO, see a rapidly declining market until there is a major technological advance that greatly reduces their fuel consumption. Chrysler will probably end up putting a turbo diesel in these things before long. Sure, there will a quick burst of initial sales, most to people who put their deposits a year or more ago. But unless some miracle happens in the oil market and in world politics, the Camaro and Challenger big V8s will quickly start gathering dust. I suspect Chrysler and GM already fear this and it's why they're planning only small numbers for now.

I don't think it's as compicated as all that. People stopped buying basic American cars in the 90's because GM, Ford and Chrysler stopped investing in them. In Ford's case, they left the original Taurus around with only a single minor update for 10 years. In comparison, the Accord and the Camry got an upgrade every two years and a whole new car every four. Then when Ford finally delivered a new Taurus in 96, it started out quite competitive but they just let it sink like a rock for the next ten years, again with only a single minor styling upgrade. What's worse, they cheapened some of its better parts, like the 24 valve 3 liter V6. It started out as a smooth player with power and economy nearly identical to the Accord and Camry. But nooooo... after a few years it was quiety downgraded with cheaper parts, making it noisier, rougher, and falling behind in power while the others improved. All the while, the Explorer was getting bigger and better. Who'd have guessed that it would be so badly humbled by the Firestone tire debacle, right when it was outselling everything. That said, I think people have a pretty short memory. IMHO, the reason the Edge is selling well despite a few rough 'edges' is because it looks great and feels good. Whatever it's faults, it has a look and feel of good design and quality, augmented by a ride that is far better than the truck based SUVs. People who test drive them usually buy them. The Fusion is a good car and also drives well but it gets lost in a parking lot. It just isn't very distinctive to look at. Ford was afraid to take chances with the design (understandable given their plight at the time it was designed). With a sharper, more youthful design (and maybe the 3.5 liter V6) its sales will soar. But if they just let it sit there like they did with the Taurus and others, it will die an ugly death. Ah, but wait until the Flex hits the showrooms. I just saw it at the LA Auto Show and boy, this is somethign special. The exterior is a whole new category, and the interior starts where a Lincoln version usually sits. It's a beautiful, very expensive looking interior that is going to be noticed. And then there's going to be Lincoln version with a completely different body. It's hard to figure how the Lincoln will upgrade the interior since it's already a dazzler. Ford is going to survive and it will even do quite well if it just adheres to a program of continual development and improvement for all its car and trucks. Both GM and Chrysler seem to be on the right track finally.