nelsonlu

"Dent the marketplace" is relative. In absolute terms, probably not. (Remember that Ford initially said that they could only make 25,000 Fusion/Milan Hybrids in the first year but that their production ability would go up in the following years -- and this would be in the second year now -- but I still can't imagine, for example, more than doubling that capacity.) But relative to hybrids, I think so. Through June, according to hybridcars.com, these were hybrid models that sold at least 1,000 cars this year: Toyota Prius 66,039 Honda Insight 10,257 Ford Fusion 10,008 Toyota Camry 7,634 Lexus RX 7,045 Lexus HS 6,492 Ford Escape 6,121 Nissan Altima 4,408 Toyota Highlander 3,445 Honda Civic 3,111 Due to marketing, the established foothold, production capacity, and probably most importantly, the actual fuel efficiency, I don't think anyone can touch the Prius any time soon, sale-figure-wise. (Indeed, the Prius briefly rose into best-selling status among conventional cars back when gas was going $4/gallon.) But among the hybrids themselves, I think what the MKZ can do is to put enough of a dent on the HS to effectively make it into a niche model even among hybrids such that it is unprofitable for Toyota. I think, in essence, Ford is trying to use MKZ Hybrid to carve out new marketing territory and hopefully not to detract from the Fusion Hybrid, as well as to enhance Lincoln's reputation. But again, overall, the hybrid car market is still a small one in the overall scheme of things -- even the Prius would only sell probably not that much more than 100,000 a year overall. But it has major halo effect, and further helps establish Ford's experience with hybrids and EVs down the road. Honda, for example, is apparently considering making Civic an all-hybrid model, with no conventional gas model available. Depending on how the market condition, the production capacity, &c. goes down the road (as well as, I think, how well EcoBoost might do in this kind of an application), I can see when Ford may want to make Fusion/MKZ a hybrid-only model as well, and having the MKZ Hybrid out will certainly test how well that will go in the luxury market.

It is not as wasteful. That doesn't mean that it is not wasteful, period.

Toilet paper has real benefits over tree leaves, comfort-wise as well as sanitation-wise. That's why it was invented and caught on. I see no practical benefit for Steve to be trading in a 2010 Taurus for a 2011 Taurus, particularly because the trade-in doesn't even solve the problem that he is complaining about his 2010 Taurus. Again, he's free to make that trade-in despite the lack of particular practical benefit. That doesn't mean that it is wise, for himself or for society at large.

The wastefulness doesn't come in the form of waste in the resources that the car consumes. Rather, the inherent wastefulness comes from the transaction cost that the trade-in itself involves, rather than the cost to you individually (or the benefit derived by Ford, the dealer, or the person who buys your old car). The transaction itself has a cost, because it will require a (not very large, but non-negligible) amount of resource to trade the car in, to handle the transfer, and for the dealer then to get it into another person's hands, and it is a small, but unnecessary cost that is expended that is not coming back. In other words, think of it as economy entropy. Assuming all other things are equal, the economy overall derives a small, but non-negligible, benefit over the actual transactions that occurred/will occur, if the hypothetical next owner of your 2010 Taurus bought a 2011 Taurus instead, while you held onto your own 2010 Taurus, because the transaction cost involved in the 2010 -> 2011 trade-in that you/dealer/next owner incurred. (Which one of you bears that cost the most is debatable; probably you, but in any case, that transactional cost has to come from somewhere.) Again, that doesn't mean that you should be barred from making that transaction. A market economy usually works best when we don't interfere too much with it. But in this case, this set of transactions has an actual cost on the economy over the more optimal set of transactions, and that cost should not be ignored in the analysis.

That is a short-sighted view. Yes, the dealer and Ford (and presumably the next person who buys Steve's old car at a bargain) all received benefit, but the financial cost to Steve is not simply absorbed by Steve himself in the grand scheme of things; because Steve is (presumably) not a person with unlimited resources (after all, I doubt that Steve is Steve Jobs -- and not even Steve Jobs truly has unlimited resources) the money that Steve spent on this (again, in my opinion; I thought it's pretty clear by this point that it's only my opinion; I shouldn't have to write "I believe" every single sentence, should I?) unnecessary purchase is money that he's not spending on *other* purchases. Overall, society still took a hit on the transactional inefficiency of this transaction. And no, this is not communist or even socialist in thinking, unless, of course, you are willing to call that Ronald Reagan appointee Richard Posner a communist/socialist. Am I saying that this was illegal, immoral, or unethical (or should be made illegal)? No. This is part of our free society at work. But it's still unwise and comes at a cost. Steve is free to spend his money for his enjoyment, and I do congratulate him on getting a nice car. That doesn't mean that I have to think that it is a wise thing to do.

As I said before, he is free to ignore my thoughts on this. It is his money, as you wrote above. It's a free country, and that's what it should be. But it's still wasteful and should not be endorsed. Just as I'm not going to endorse it if he was asking whether the Taurus is a good car to have sex in because he wanted to cheat on his wife. It's legal to cheat on your wife. It should remain legal to cheat on your wife. But it should not be endorsed.

Right, but whatever the benefits and cost to you and him/her individuality, there is still an overall transaction cost that is charged to society overall because of the inefficiency created by the unnecessary early trade-in. Whether you or he/she bears the cost or not doesn't mean that there is no cost there.

I don't know if I'm "sour grapes"; I certainly don't know whether I can afford to or not. What I do know is that endorsing this kind of spending is not good for society at large. Among the reasons that our economy is in this mess is that for too long, we had been encouraging people to spend beyond their means. It's probably not beyond his means to spend like this, but it is still wasteful. While this isn't as much conspicuous consumption as the Tesla Roadster and the Fisker Karma (both of which I've criticized the buyers of despite their supposed "greenness"), it is still not something that should be encouraged. There is a cost to society as well as to himself for this kind of spending, and while it is his freedom to spend his money, it certainly shouldn't be worthy of praise. There is a reason why Steve solicited opinions here. I have to write mine as I see it. He certainly doesn't have to listen to me. I myself think that the 2010 Taurus is beautiful and well-designed, 5th->6th shift noise or not. (Certainly this issue has been reported on many other Ford six-speed automatic transmission vehicles and doesn't seem to be unique to the Taurus itself, and certainly doesn't appear to be creating any safety issues.) In my opinion, it is not wise to be spending the kind of money that he would be for a 2011 Taurus for this issue *particularly when the issue is significantly likely to occur as well*. If the issue bothers him enough that he is willing to spend this kind of money to solve it, might as well get a vehicle that doesn't have this issue (which I myself consider a nonissue based on my limited one-week experience with a 2010 Fusion SEL V6 -- while acknowledging that that it is his comfort, not mine, that is important to him), entirely. Like a Fusion Hybrid or an MKZ Hybrid (both of which use CVT).

Agreed. When I was ordering my Fusion Hybrid, I took a look at Atlantis Green, and my feeling was that it was too dark to be seen well in the dark, and I drive a lot in the dark. I went with Ice Blue. (I *might* have been willing to live with Moss Green had they not replaced it with Atlantis Green.)

I'm sorry, but I just can't endorse this wastefulness, whether this is good for Ford or not.

But assuming that it's not something Ford considers a manufacturing defect, what makes you think that the new Taurus that you're getting won't have the same issue? If you really don't want that transmission noise, get a Fusion Hybrid or MKZ Hybrid.

Given the next Mondeo/Fusion is global, I imagine that they're considering whether to have a Mondeo Hybrid for the Australian market...

Given the context, I think Nick meant "Focus" here rather than "Volt."

No electricity in the community also means no gas, since you can't pump gas without electricity. But that is, for sure, a major drawback for EVs. And, in any case, it's not for everyone. But for someone who drives 10-20 miles a day, losing one day of electricity will still leave them with more than sufficient reserves for four more days at least.

Unless I am missing something, this part of your calculation is wrong. A kilometer is 1000 meters. A kilowatt is 1000 watts. Therefore, if you are getting 37.6 km per kwh, then it's also 37.6 meters per watt. This doesn't change your general point, but the general point should be that residential rates are not the same as commercial rates (a valid point). Still, there is no way that the equivalency would come close to even the gas costs that I am paying for my Fusion Hybrid -- and I am paying a much reduced gas cost than the vast majority of car owners.

Edmunds InsideLine Wrapup on MiniE The most surprising claim in the review is that they claim that the MiniE cost less than $30 in electricity over a course of some 7,600 miles. (By comparison, I spend about $45 per 600 miles on my Fusion Hybrid -- the third most fuel efficient vehicle available in North America at the moment.) This, if accurate, shows how it is that all the screams about how expensive EVs are are going to be muffled when it turns out that the owners will be spending next to nothing in fueling costs. If the EVs can survive the worries about their range and reliability, they'll catch on like wildfire.

I find it curious that you're saying that the Caprice will get the market by "offering a big, comfy, and powerful sedan that offers much better quality and fuel economy" than the Panthers, while ignoring that if those are actually the determining factors, the Taurus is going to be more comfy, more powerful, and have better fuel economy than the Caprice.

Or because they don't want to retrain. The county that I work in still uses an antiquated dumb-terminal-based system for criminal justice department information. That doesn't mean that dumb-terminal systems are superior.

Given how much money they'll be paying for all of the recalls, I'm sure that they are actually going to be spending $1 million per hour for "safety upgrades."

Same for the Ford dealer that I got my Fusion Hybrid from -- they said that they're not picking up Lincoln. (I don't know if it had anything to do with the fact that they didn't pick up the Lincoln/Mercury franchise back when a nearby Lincoln/Mercury (where I had gotten my prior LS and the Sable prior to that) closed. Back then, an employee at the Ford dealer told me that had they been offered Lincoln only without Mercury, they would have done it.)

Through six months this year, Chrysler has sold 20,877 300s and 45,785 Chargers. (Challengers are not sedans.) That's, of course, more than the 36,367 Tauruses and 7,649 MKSes that Ford sold, but I wouldn't call the volume sufficiently great that I would think Chrysler's making more money on its 300/Charger sales than Ford is on the Taurus/MKS sales. Not to mention that, once the Crown Victorias (18,439), Grand Marquises (15,702), and Town Cars (6,491) are discontinued, I doubt that all of those sales would be going to Chrysler and Hyundai. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. If Chrysler/Hyundai sales jump after the Panther sales are discontinued, I suppose you'd have been proven right, but I really don't think that would happen.

Because, basically, nobody's buying RWD sedans in large numbers any more? Which non-luxury manufacturer is able to sell them well these days? And the luxury manufacturers that do sell them are really doing so despite their being RWD rather than because of their being RWD. (Remember that over half of BMW owners don't even realize that their cars are RWD...) I can persuaded otherwise if, for example, the Genesis (which Hyundai is trying to push like a luxury model but isn't being treated as one in the marketplace, really) or the next 300 sale figures jump, but I highly doubt that either would happen (for different reasons -- the Genesis is trying to compete in a market that it doesn't really belong, while the 300 has the same flaws as the Panther without the benefits, largely, and I doubt that Chrysler/Fiat is able to fix them). Basically, if Ford does what you suggest, it would be throwing money at a market that is dwindling and may soon be nonexistent against imaginary competitors.

Care to present any evidence that such an animal existed? And assuming that you do have evidence of its existence but is not allowed to disclose it (which I admit may be the case), remember that the Taurus that we see now is heavily loaded with features. Add the same amount of "stuff" to the Grand Marquis, and its fuel efficiency would suffer. Not to mention that its cost, and therefore its price, probably would have been prohibitive.

It would have still have been an issue with that RWD platform. The Panther would still be uncompetitive in the marketplace without the technology/safety/comfort updates, and those do have substantial weight additions. Let's say, in the most optimistic situation, they balance out so that it's a net 0 weight gain. It would still have been at about 4,300 pounds. The Mustang V6 gets 19 in the city and 31 on the highway at 3,400 pounds. Do you realistically think that a Panther, even with the engine update, can substantially better its current 16/24? I find that an extremely doubtful proposition. In particular, the substantially lighter Hyundai Genesis V6 (3,389 pounds) gets 18/27. I just don't see it.

As you already noted, "CAFE requirements are part of it," and you're missing that it's not just CAFE -- the Panther's fuel efficiency issues meant that CAFE or no CAFE, it was going to have to be on the way out, no matter what. In that respect, the Taurus is anything but an "inferior product." Its strengths are not what you consider important, perhaps; that doesn't make it an inferior product. And the issues with the Panther's fuel efficiency meant that it could not easily be properly updated with the comfort/safety/technology advances that the Taurus has. As it stands already, the Grand Marquis weighs 4,117 pounds without those updates that people claim that it could have and should have gotten. The Taurus is substantially more fuel efficient at a comparable weight (4,015 pounds). Adding the equipment that would have been necessary to make the Panther market-competitive would have made its fuel efficiency issues just that much more glaring.