[I'm sure this subject has been beaten into the ground,]

Wheel on the wrong side and incomplete development/insufficient refinement. Australia's a small market. They can't afford to put as many hours into developing cars for it, and don't. So the quality and refinement levels tend to be below what the American market demands. Also not cold weather tested like vehicles designed for North America are. GM had to put quite a few hours into tweaking and redoing the Monaro before selling it as the GTO. Still ended up with some very oddly placed controls.

 

That is an incredibly inaccurate assertion; that the Ford Aus cars are not as refined/high-quality as US cars. Needless to say, in the progression from concept to dealer-lot vehicles, Ford NA has a track record of eliminating any refinement the designer had in mind, in over-bean-counting every component, and supplier-produced sub-component. That's why the suppliers are all on the brink of bankruptcy, and why quality sub-components are not found/consistently improved upon in Ford NA vehicles. If Ford did nothing but ship 2,000 Falcon's and 2,000 Mondeo's into dealer lots in LA, and got through with the OK to sel this as a pilot program, you would be shocked at the press it would receive.

[B-segment]

So we have the Interceptor, and the Edge has current marketing hopes, but is there a car below Fusion which Ford will start building hype/hope for in the near future (like at the NAIAS)?

 

Has anyone even heard a rumor that Ford is considering bringing over some of the Euro-spec small deisels, or doing anything approaching exciting in this non-400hp segment?

[The Ford Interceptor]

I agree that the tail lights look to be drawn by a toddler, but more importantly, though the proportions are right, the chrome is wrong, it won't compete with other products American consumers will be buying in 2008-2012 well with a solid rear, and the front is the ugliest first 2 feet on a vehicle not produced by Hyundai or called a Subaru Tribeca in 15 years.

[Learning from GM]

Taurus is an example of what ford does wrong; abandon products. GM and Mountaineer are not too disimilar examples.

 

That PAG and Lincoln sell more than Lexus would make sense, given the vastly greater investment in distribution for all of the L-M, Jag, Volvo, LR, and Aston distribution outlets/dealers. Oh, and the fact that all of those brands have been around at least 50 years longer than Lexus, which basically only sells derivative-toyota's with V-6 engines. The huge distribution/marketing/renewal-for-the-product-every-4-years overhead of the spectrum of brands/products is exactly why Ford's premium products are not profitable. Yeah, there are sales (but not near the programmed volume at any of those brands; coincidence?), but let's not pretend that total sales for PAG vs. total Lexus sales is a benchmark.

 

LS was also not a failed experiment, but a continuation of the Taurus theme. Great car, marketed ok, not updated in time, manual never offered with the V8 or re-tuned suspension, styling never updated well in time, materials quality neutered by the bean counters. Meanwhile, Ford has another great concept coming out this week (MKR), as the S-type (LS in Jag attire) re-skins in a completely different R&D/marketing effort as the XF. If the combined spend of those two programs for a 4-door premium sedan had been put into one effort, huge cost savings, and yes focus, would have the car on-market today, and profits/sales would be coming in. The irony of all of these models evolving from the original Scorpio/DEW98 program is almost too delicious to enjoy.

 

That is just one example, of the problems the whole corporation faces from the brand/model diversity dilemma. The result is stale/un-updated products like the Ranger/LS/Taurus.

 

Example 2: a fortune was paid to advertise in the latest Bond movie. Ford put in 3 European models (little attention really in the film). Why pay to advertise the European-only Ford vs. Ford NA? Why Jag/Aston but not Lincoln? Why have either of those debates when your competitor wouldn't have to have it (Toyota/DC)?

[Learning from GM]

This is a good article. I feel keeping Mazda and LR (since it is pairing with Jag dealers), and not-shutting the door to Lincoln makes sense, but the conclusions are logical. Mercury is essentially dead.

 

As to the analogies to Mr. Mulally's previous high-level orchestration of shutting down diverse aircraft models; this is false. Boeing did not simply stop making 757's, 727's etc, it invested in new products, irrespective of what it's competitor was doing, based on where it felt it could make money and where the market was going. Boeing listens to it's (few; something like 80 airlines) customer's extremely closely. What he did do, and where the analogy to the car industry is close, is eliminate hugely expensive customization of everything from cockpits, seats, and galley locations etc., so that the product is more standardized than previously. This was ballsy as it risked alienating key customers. I believe that in the auto industry, the un-needed customization is to be found in Mr. Jensen's touted model/customer/radio diversity. If the Edge is the same thing as the MKX which is a CX7 and the ford/lincoln/mercury roll off the same line, the costs to customize each model, for what is really the SAME target market, outweigh the benefits.

 

Mercury will get the ax first, but the interesting consideration will be how this is done in the market; can Ford then sustain the Lincoln dealer base effectively, or consolidate it in a reverse of how Lexus established their dealer network 15 years ago? Will domestic LM dealers be happy with the slate of new products? One big local DFW LM dealer went under last week, with sales having fallen from 400 per month to 45 or so since the 70's. Mercury would, I would guess, get less than 20 sales per month at this large big-market dealer (Eagle LM in Dallas), but if they had tried to stick it out for another 12 months, taking away that anemic monthly sales total would have done them in for sure.

[New Volvos Look Like Euro Fords]

Looks good. Ford needs to become a global car maker, with several brands having different models/interpretations of similar platforms/designs. Great yet diverse powertrains, safe vehicles, quality materials and excellent support/service. What would be the problem with that? Global auto tastes are not that different, and it can be done.

[Car-Based Explorer?]

Yep. Which is why I'm not a fan of Ford abandoning traditional minivans. No matter what, they truly offer the most versatile vehicle for families, hands down. The sliding doors are a huge part of that. So, I think Ford should be offering a traditional minivan alongside the CUV's, but I know Ford is trying to go where the money is, and like you said people will pay a premium for CUV's but not nearly as much for minivans.

 

 

Having shopped (sienna/odyssey), owned (sienna), and re-sold pretty-loaded minivans with 2 kids, I assure you that people pay a premium for these vehicles. Ford is plenty capable of building a class-leader, but needed the powertrain first. The 3.5 and new transmissions should make it possible. There is no point in having any product in the lineup that is just plain crap, since sales will suck, then the brand and other models get black eyes (freestyle). Do it right or just forget about it.

[Lincoln MKR]

This is an aggressive concept, let's hope some semblance makes it to production within 2 years. My Mark VIII still feels plenty powerful to me on the highway, I can't believe the price of admission has gone from 280 RWHP all the way to the mid 400's in 10 years, but it is true. What's next, 600 HP electric cars?

[Learning from GM]

I'm not going to continue this discussion. We are on hopelessly different wavelengths here. You are apparently willing to view the alteration of public opinion as being almost an afterthought, something that will naturally occur, given the right product.

 

I, on the other hand, view public opinion as the PRIMARY challenge facing any effort to re-image Mercury. Bringing the product over is an afterthought, IMO. Bringing product over is EASY. Getting people to buy it is HARD.

 

Well then don't continue the discussion, and whatever you do don't condescend to my level of thought. Getting people to buy good product is EASIER than getting them to buy me-too products. Less than 5 percent of the public thinks about mercury when considering a new car; good press, and good products would change that, and quickly. Arrogance doesn't mean you are right.

[Lincoln RWD Concept @ NAIAS]

So basically, Ford is resurrecting and updating the LS! Great!

[Learning from GM]

The Cadillac comparison to Mercury is as fruitless as the BMW one. Caddy in 1998 still sold over 182,000 cars, and that was a weak lineup. That is rapidly becoming a fantasy number for Mercury, and even in 1998 let's face it, the Cadillac brand was at least held in some esteem, by their aging customers. GM's management of the brand has been just stupid, and the edgy style and similarly dumb naming system (talk about poor emulation of the Germans!) has flopped, so I'm not going to advocate dumping 5 billion dollars over 5 years to prop up Mercury to somehow become like Cadillac, nor will I admit that Cadillac should serve as a warning to Ford not to invest in or develop quality, unique products for Mercury vs. Ford NA. Since Ford won't even do that for Ford NA vehicles (Focus, Ranger, Taurus) and essentially has done NOTHING for Mercury lately, the "foreign" makes are almost the only hope for the brand. GM designs and builds some of their best large 4-doors for the Chinese market, but I don't care.

 

You are just plain wrong and buying into PR-spin if you think Ford wouldn't like the Fusion plant to profitably make and sell over 200K per year. Caddy today sells almost twice what Mercury does, on volume, and more in terms of $$. Obviously Ford is going to continue to consolidate, as you said, architectures and put out American-built/customized vehicles, but with Mercury for all intents and purposes dead right now, and dragging down Lincoln dealers effectively, let's concentrate on what could be done to help that distribution channel; good products with bright futures. There is excess capacity of some European vehicles, like it or not, and it can be tapped into and grown.

 

The Mondeo, my personal favorite, would admittedly not be one yet, but creating a demand:availability gap hasn't hurt some folks (see: hybrid Accord/Camry/Civic, as over-priced "foreign" 4-doors for example). Getting the organization to practice bringing over such designs and getting them through the regulatory/production hurdles you see as implausibly costly would also, long-term, help the company. Local competition from the European branch could even, deep breath, increase competitive design pressures internally, and not just the concept vehicle folks.

[Car-Based Explorer?]

A re-styled Freestyle with the 3.5, or even a nice diesel would sell very well. The 3.0 just isn't enough on that vehicle, which is heavier than the 500. Who knows where it will all get built, but I am guessing the Mustang won't leave it's current home, nor will the Freestyle/500.

[Learning from GM]

Mr. Jensen,

 

Different radios is not a problem for the Corolla, or C-class, or Mini, but to Mercury, you paint it as a show-stopper, along with the cost to ship them over here.

 

Good products, which have a track record of being good, exist in the corporation, and the cost to bring them over to revive a dead brand here is nominal. Oh, by the way, it might create positive perceptions for the Ford brand as well, to have these nice vehicles, and their successors building some brand awareness of Mercury, in people who haven't studied the XR7 lineage.

 

Why continue to have the 500/fusion trim-level-modified into a Mercury, when the brand can simply satisfy the passionate loyalists and generate great press, sales, and, dare I say it, profits? C-Max, Focus, Mondeo, and the Asian Ranger even in volumes of 150K per year total would both double current sales, eliminate under-capacity problems for Hermosillo, and allow Ford to concentrate ad and product development spending on the 500/Fusion/Escape on only the Ford versions, saving over $50.00 in Mercury product development costs over the next 10 years. And you'd still get your precious "designed for the US" products from Ford NA.

 

Mercury doesn't have to become the American BMW, it just needs good products. Then, the partnership with a revitalized Lincoln lineup might even make sense, at the dealer level.

[Learning from GM]

It doesn't matter that BMW and Toyota manufacture cars here, nor does it matter that Ford manufactures cars in Canada and Mexico. Ford = domestic, cheap, and poor quality.

 

It will take years before Ford can start commanding a premium for quality products, and reliable products. Until that happens, they need to be able to attract buyers based on SOME distinctive quality, and since the ONLY distinctive quality they have is their heritage as an AMERICAN brand, their cars need to have a cohesive, distinctive, and AMERICAN look.

 

(pardon the caps, using bold or italics for emphasis is a pain with this posting tool).

 

The only thing Toyota has is good product and a consistently demonstrated commitment to refine that product, and improve upon it year in and year out (from the common consumer's perspective. No one said Mercury should become a premium $300K-vehicle manufacturer. Ford Motor Company has good products that would (a) do well to prop up a brand that has been neglected, (B) build some reputation for globalizing its platforms and © show that it is listening to its most ardent customers in it's home market in bringing quality products to American customers. Mercury sells 10,000 cars per month. There is just no point in continuing the brand as-is just because it "is American, and it's customers know that."

[Learning from GM]

2 years of new production=4-5 years of (hoped-for) volume.

[Learning from GM]

Save VW, look at the avg price for for all those makes you have listed...most of them sell for well over 30K and much smaller number then Ford. Ford can't survive on just selling 80K-100K units of one model type.

 

MB built 630,000 C-classes sold all over the globe over 6 years (2000-this month, when the last W203 was assembled). They did this from one plant, with ridiculous labor costs. In the US that was a bland, over-priced vehicle sold in various flavors at high prices to keep that "elite/luxury" image MB has built up here. It's frequently a taxi/fleet vehicle in other parts of the world, though. I rented one from Budget last time I was in Germany. The only reason not to copy that business model (one car sold in various forms globally) is the political legacy of the corporate parent; fomoco. Consumer tastes just aren't that different from Frankfurt to Chicago to Melbourne today. MB isn't anywhere near perfect, nor are their products even reliable for that matter, but Ford could and should, while firing/laying off a significant portion of it's domestic force over the next 12 months, rationalize its product planning to reflect a global plan.

 

As noted above, the super-secret "unveiling" to journalists of 5 more years of bland NA products doesn't portend well for the goal of profitably growing sales.

[Learning from GM]

Getting away from the personal battles here, as a Ford Motor Company fan, who has owned several products from this corporation, I believe that it is asinine to continue to develop different platforms for different markets. The differences in European/American/Australian crash test requirements, and the FACT that buyer preferences have shifted globally as a consequence of the real change in the price of oil today and in the future mean that global platforms make much more sense than they did 10, 15, 30, or 50 years ago. This is less reflected in sales in the midwest or open portions of Australia, but on the coasts Ford needs to bring the Europeans Fords over soon, and I don't care if they call them Pluto's in copying GM. The car markets on the coasts demand this product.