Meelaan

Ok... so it's not the specific magnitude of the front overhang, but the proportion of the front + rear overhangs to the distance between the rear of the front tire and front of the rear tire (we'll call this the "wheelbase" for the purpose of this discussion). Aesthetically speaking, you'd want to make sure the wheelbase length is twice what the front and rear overhang lengths total together. On that Flex image, the front axle looks too far back. Either that, or the windsheild appears too far forward. I measured the distances and the wheelbase is only 1.5 times the overhang total. Yes, this is nerdy of me. Oh well. It's a car nerd forum. But as mentioned, all of this visual interpretation is mainly due to the big black bumpers.

That depends on if you put a $1,000 value on a civilized driving environment that includes: - 6-way power seat with lumbar - 6-CD in dash changer with 6-speakers & MP3 capability - Fog lamps - 16" aluminum wheels - Audio controls on steering wheel - Message center in gauge pod Seems to me it's a no-brainer. If you finance a vehicle for 3-5 years, it'll amount to a few dollars difference a month. Really, $1,000 is nothing when you're considering buying a new car. Add in the fact that you NEVER pay sticker price for the vehicle, and it makes even more sense.

This is the picture I'm referring to: Can't tell whether it's moving forward or backward. The fact that the front and rear overhangs are equal pushes the appearance of the wheels toward the middle of the vehicle. It looks friggin' awkward. And yes, Sizzler... you made the same observation I had a few weeks ago. A quick comparison reveals just where Ford got it's "oh-so-unique" idea for the exterior of this "revolutionary" life-saver:

Good point. Ford is up to their eyeballs in alligators. Idiots can't even properly consider a handle on a hatch. Ford's new internal slogan needs to be "No more excuses."

Does it really matter when these vehicles never get their advertised MPG anyway?

You may want to ask Nissan then why they invested so heavily in the new Altima Coupe--so much so that the only exterior panel shared between the vehicles is the hood. Nissan sees the coupe market in the tight grip of Honda and Toyota alone. That's the value in the investment. Although the Monte Carlo couldn't make a case for it (an inherently poor offering), that clearly doesn't mean there's no market. Accord Coupes and Solaras sell well from what I can see. They clearly offer something their sedan stablemates don't. While I can't make a case for a Taurus Coupe as it's a very large, duty-purpose vehicle for that type of transition, the Fusion could do well to be offered in a similar vein to what Nissan's done with the Altima (although I've read reports that the new Altima Coupe is not very good). Offering a coupe version gives that sporty halo effect to the sedan.

What do you mean its not tweaked enough??? The Taurus has got a fender vent now!!! COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!

DELICIOUS. I want mine with cheese, ketchup, mayonaise, and hold the onions.

Absurdly long front overhang. Can't tell which direction the car's moving in. Looks like a friggin' street car. This is one element most car designs sucks at. A short overhang on the front is sexy (BMW).

15"s ride soft and quiet.

Marketing, marketing, marketing... Duh. 1. Unibody passenger cars are by default not rated above 1,000 lbs. for towing. However, in the case of the Freestyle/Taurus X, I would be willing to argue that Ford simply kept the numbers low for the sedan version in order to give the TaurusX some sort of SUV appeal. The FiveHundred/Taurus probably can tow 2,000 lbs just like it's station wagon twin. It's just marketing. 2. Does this mean the Magnum and Charger are substantially different in towing abilities? The only way the Magnum surpasses the Taurus X in towing is if its equipped with a V8. The differences in the Taurus and its wagon sibling are skin deep, no matter how a commercials might twist it. Clearly the 3.5L hinders its capability. 3. Again, the tow rating difference is spin. The TX's lower towing rating compared to its competition probably has something to do with its passenger sedan roots and subsequent V6 limitation.

The answer is in, can a FiveHundred/Taurus tow 3,500 lbs? It's the same vehicle as the Freestyle/Taurus X. This is like trying to differentiate a Crown Victoria from a Country Squire. Taurus X is just a station wagon version of the Taurus. Duh.

EXACTLY. Just because it's a two-seater convertible does NOT relegate it to the Miata crowd. Err... no. That looks like a pedal car. EDIT: Although the initial subject was regarding making a T-Bird out of an active platform, here's what we SHOULD have gotten the first time. This keeps the original car's proportions and signature styling elements rather than making it a low-rider New Beetle.

I agree. No model name on the vehicle. Maybe not even the blue oval logo anywhere. Why do we want to associate fleet products with Ford anyway? If it must have a Ford logo, put the word "Commercial" under it to differentiate the offering. The big difference should be keep the Five Hundred grill and rear trim as it's about as generic as possible.

The failure of the last Thunderbird was due to it A) not having fins (what the hell is a Thunderbird without wings?), B) having an overly rounded front (looks like a docile goldfish), and C) being nice to drive, but not particularly good at anything one thing expected of a small ragtop (it basically competed with the Sebring convertible). It's that simple. Ford (and moreover, Mr. Mays) screwed the potential for the Thunderbird by using Mays' design philosphy of "everything-has-to-look-like-a-New-Beetle." He did it with the Five Hundred's roofline. He did it 100 times over with the Thunderbird. About the only vehicle design he positively influenced was the Mustang, and really, that was a no-brainer. The current Mustang looks like a Mustang, but honestly, it could have been designed in the dark by a one-eyed blind man. You want a Thunderbird again? - Give it fins. - Make the front fascia slant forward. - Give it performance credibility. EDIT: By the way... sorry, but that photochop looks like a circus clown concept. Did you even try here? Where did you get the idea that because a convertible has two seats instead of four that it has to lose total length from the car? Thunderbirds are L-O-N-G. Long hoods. Long trunk lids. Long doors. Large displacement motors. No cab forward.

There was another suit against Honda about the odometer being fraudulent on Civics. This was last year that the class action suit took place. I had a 2002 Civic at the time and received the paperwork about the suit. I read the details and all that would happen upon winning the suit is our warranties would be extended for the estimated discrepency time. Of course, if your warranty already exceeded the total years of coverage, nothing would happen. Unless you'd had work done out of pocket due to milage being exceeded first. Anyway, it was a worthless effort. Very curious though that Honda would have such a large number of vehicles with odometers that run up miles early. Could this perhaps be why people think they've put "90,000 miles on their Honda without a problem?" Maybe cause it was actually 70,000 miles instead.

Now you're talkin! "Pimp my ride."

If that's not photoshopped, I'm the Queen of England. My parents each had first gen Maverick Grabbers when they got married back in 1970. My Dad liked my Mom's so much, he had to get his own. Mom's was black with avacado striping. Dad's was white with avacado striping and interior color. Four-door Mavericks = What would I do to your particular vehicle? Probably get it in good running order, then take it down to Maaco for a semi-decent paint job... but the one where badging and trim are at least removed first. No point in spending over $800 for a paint job on a car like this. It's like a middle child. Oh... and lose the railroad tie bumpers. <BARF!> Or, you can transform it into a road warrior vehicle and go completely ape shit with flat black paint, faux-guns on the hood, chain-link fence on the windows, etc.

Guys, that's the same truck we have but with different front facia and sheet metal on the bed. Don't be fooled. The reason it looks "big" as one poster suggested is because Thai people are small. Don't we think any "next" Ranger would look something like the F-150 we have now? That red truck that keeps getting photoshop attention looks like a Tacoma. Good work on it though.

Merry Christmas. Note: I in no way condone doing this to this vehicle.

That's a pretty modest "upgrade." But hell, any bit of interior brightwork is a classy touch.

I would not suggest trying that.

I wish one of its new features was looking less like a swollen Easter egg.

Fixed.

I think everyone's jumping into personal attacks on SVTMAN without reason. He's bringing up valid points toward the BUSINESS SENSE of marketing. It's a point of view that is ARGUABLE, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to sit on his head. Put it in perspective: He's making OBSERVATIONS, and drawing PERSONAL conclusions. Just like anyone in this thread can. If you disagree, argue your case as to why you think you're right. Accusing someone of being uptight because he wants to intellectually analyze public opinion of global marketing is fucking retarded.