grbeck

There are plenty of hotels in the area, but be warned that they often jack up their prices in anticipation of car show season. It's also possible to camp on the grounds for a fee. Check with Carlisle Events for prices and details. A good place to visit is the Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) Museum in Hershey, Pa. (about 30 minutes away, to the east). It's open on Sundays until 5 p.m. If you're a history buff, the Gettysburg Battlefield is about 40 minutes to the south.

You're lucky if that is all that the cat does while in the car. My friend made the mistake of taking his cat to the vet without putting it in the kitty carrier. The cat hid under the passenger seat and promptly did his business there. You can imagine how hard it is to get cat urine scent out of carpeting...

All I can say is that I have not wanted to buy a crossover, as I prefer the ride and handling of a good sedan. But I want one of these. The design really works.

In the case of the Fusion, I've read it was the dealers who strongly objected to abandoning the name. They claimed that the Fusion name has a lot of equity. Sadly, the Focus name was tarnished by the transmission debacle.

Except Porsche has expanded its offerings to include a sedan and crossovers. In 1990, anyone who suggested that Porsche would build a Jeep Cherokee-type vehicle would have been viewed as certifiably crazy.

Looking on the bright side, it could be said that people who buy a new Escape are buying it because they actually like it, not because of the "deal." Too often it was low price, or incentives, that drove people to buy a domestic vehicle. That erodes brand image over the long haul.

The XT6 isn't a bad vehicle, but it has no real "presence," which is crucial for a luxury vehicle. The Lincoln Aviator does have it. I saw a Hyundai Palisade today, and it has more presence and style than the XT6. That is the real problem here. It's painfully apparent that Hyundai put more thought and effort into the Palisade than GM did into the XT6.

A friend and a family member each bought one of these. In both cases they bought the Rouge because it offered a very low monthly lease/purchase payment for a vehicle of that size.

Yes, because that 20 extra horsepower will be critical in the hypothetical street races discussed over a few beers. If anything, those extra horses become even more critical as more beers are consumed during the discussion.

I thought that Ford is capacity-constrained...which is why the Focus and the Fusion got the ax. Ford wasn't going to use limited production capacity for vehicles that generate small profits.

The challenge with large bureaucratic organizations - whether in government, or in the private sector - is that large sectors of the organization believe they can "wait out" the efforts of a leader determined to change things. That appears to have happened at Ford, which is why Mulally's efforts unraveled so quickly. As for DeLorenzo - he can be entertaining, and his rants have been 100-percent accurate at times. But given his history with Farley, I'm inclined to take everything he says about Ford and Farley with a rock-sized grain of salt.

I've expressed concerns over the new Escape (the door fit on several Escapes I've seen, for example, has been poor), but this test really doesn't give a true comparison of these vehicles. People who cross-shop vehicles tend to know what equipment and trim level they want, so they aren't going to compare an Escape SE to a RAV4 Limited. Any cost savings will not really influence their choice.

Ford doesn't make money selling Edges, Explorers, Corsairs and Nautiluses? I find that hard to believe.

Pickup trucks are generally sold with hefty incentives or discounts. Plus, 72-month loans make them more "affordable" to many buyers.

I hope so. It's frustrating because the basic vehicle is very attractive. They need to address these details.

This is good to know. The Explorer has real presence on the road...it looks better in real life than in the photos (and it's not bad-looking in the photos). But Ford needs to address some details.

The Passport is likely siphoning off sales from the Pilot. The Pilot is a very good execution of a conventional vehicle for this segment. The Explorer, at this point, is a lackluster execution of an ambitious vehicle. The basics are there...Ford needs to get to work on the details.

I read your post, logged on to DeLorenzo's site, and surprise, surprise, this was posted at 3 p.m. today: http://www.autoextremist.com/

But the comparison has been with what Ford has done over the past decade, and will do over the next few years, as opposed to only looking at what Honda and Toyota have done over the past decade. A true apples-to-apples comparison would be what both have done over the past decade, and will do over the next 5-7 years. No doubt Ford has critical new vehicles that will be launched over the next 1-2 years, but so does Honda (new Civic and CR-V, for example). Honda and Toyota aren't exactly sitting still. As for the spending on new technology - from what I've read, every car maker except FCA has been spending heavily on new technology to meet government mandates both here and overseas. (And FCA's lack of spending was a big motivation for the merger with PSA Groupe.) I want Ford to succeed, but there is no doubt that the company jumped the rails during the Fields years.

But isn't that a big part of the problem? We're seeing a deluge of new Ford vehicles and drivetrains now because there was a drought - particularly of the former - for several years. That is where REGULAR updates to vehicles, as opposed to letting everything but the F-Series stay past its sell-by date, would be helpful. And it's not as though Honda and Toyota have been sitting still. How many revamps of the CR-V did we witness while Ford kept the previous-generation Escape on the market? How many times was the Civic redone while Ford kept offering the same Focus (let alone stick with that terrible automatic transmission!)? And some of this is basic vehicle manufacturing. The adoption of new drivetrains or new platforms, for example, is no excuse for shipping Explorers without parts or with sloppily aligned exterior panels. The Explorer is a critical new product. It's a very attractive product that has real presence on the road. But this is the kind of stuff that makes people stick with boring, awkward-looking Toyotas. Or encourages them to try out one of those new Hyundais or Kias.

But this is starting to feel like Groundhog Day, the Dearborn Edition...Ford keeps needing to relearn the importance of quality and regular, meaningful vehicle refreshes. Toyota, and to lesser extent, Honda, have been proving that a consistent focus on these two areas builds brand equity and improves profits over the long haul. Why does Ford have to repeatedly relearn these lessons?

After seeing the Escalade, I still prefer the Navigator. But I don't have the resources to buy either one, so that ultimately doesn't matter.

Ford didn't comprehensively update the Navigator (and Expedition) for several years before bringing out the current version. GM did more to update the Escalade (and its other full-size SUVs). The Escalade thus built up more brand equity and public awareness during that time.

Yes, I think the Escalade will continue to outsell the Navigator. GM's full-size SUVs have a large and generally satisfied audience. Cadillac's problem is with the smaller models. The XT6 and XT5 aren't as compelling as their direct Lincoln competitors.

Not crazy about the small headlights on that massive front, but it's otherwise okay. I don't see it changing anything regarding the public's perception of Cadillac.