syrtran

Okay, I wasn't aware of that. I thought it would last until the new Taurus was available. Apparently, their web designer doesn't work Fridays -> Sable site.

failing sales, failing engines, failing bodies, failing suspensions, failing electrics... whatever. (and, no, I've never owned - or fixed - a Fiat) :D

So, the consolidated list: Life support disconnected, but still kicking: Ford Crown Vic (fleet only) Mercury Grand Marquis Lincoln Town Car Mercury Mountaineer Walking the last mile: Mercury Sable Already gone: Lincoln Mark LT Extra credit - missing in action: Mercury Cougar and Ford Thunderbird Edit - See mathewq4b's post. I forgot the Taurus X (already!)

Well, AC usually has an electric clutch, and the sunroof has an electric motor. Also, 2 years ago the price of gas in Texas, as collated at the DOE web site (link) peaked at about $3.00 - for Premium. Maybe he's not remembering the wiring problems exactly? I can't figure out what the bigwigs would say. I also can't think of a reason where ball joints and interior wiring (sunroof) would both be bad on the same vehicle - outside of sheer bad luck - unless the car had taken a salt-water bath. That would've caused other problems, as well. Carfax?

"If it weren't for Amtrak, we'd have no trak at all." (Apologies to Hee Haw fans - and haters ) Passenger rail service doesn't make enough money for the Class Is or IIs to justify them doing it. If Amtrak were private (it actually was supposed to turn private, at one time) it would also run into the problem of the Class Is not having to give its trains any priority whatsoever. Currently, only the government has the 'muscle' to force (priority) passenger rail service. Hence, the whole point of high speed rail service: to offer advantages over both air travel (comfort) and automotive transport (speed). Do you have any multi-lane highways near you where traffic congests, or any single place where people congregate like, say, shopping malls? I'd worry about those before I'd worry about "bombs on a train". You also might want to check just how much money has been spent the past couple decades just inspecting and fixing all the road bridges in the US. Tell me you didn't just compare 12-foot-wide train cars - with aisles that 2 people can pass, freedom to walk around, on-board snacks or food, and multiple "heads" - with a bus. Also, there's no potholes on train tracks, and traffic is much less noticeable.

WTF - What The F...??? FTW - For The Win He likes the hump. Me, too. The rear haunches don't fit in with Lincoln's current look, but they do look nice. I'm also not sure that you should have the grille stick out from the bumper. It looks too much like a Mercury. Overall, it's a nice design, and Lincoln would do well to send the TC off with a similar look. Now, where's the 4-door coupe? ;}

Well... the long-term planner guy was tossed out on his money pouch by the gov't.

The Camaro is a modified (i.e. smaller) version of Zeta. My main point to AM, though, is that there's no indication in the article that GMNA is getting a new full-size Rwd car. His post is implying that Ford is missing the boat again.

Actually, NHTSA are all secretly "classic car" guys. They're worried that someone would title them and get into an accident like that Duesenberg SJ a couple years ago, and a rare Indy Pace Truck C/K 1500 could be lost for all eternity.

Let me translate the article for you: "The Camaro isn't going away anytime soon, plus, we're gonna base an Australian car on the Camaro's chassis."

No, more like: kidnapped by some German guys, drained of all his blood, and left on the roadside for dead. Before the "merger", Chrysler had a viable plan for the future (with cash to pay for it), was improving its reliability, and had product people actually wanted. Without that takeover, Chrysler might've actually still been viable, today. If I had my way, Daimler would get fines applied to all their products (including the Smart and commercial trucks) until it was economically unfeasible for them to be in the US market. That money would go toward paying the government loans to Chrysler.

Um, no. Try reading the article a little closer, next time. And, Critic, shouldn't that be Mustang IV? I.e., Mustang II, II? :P :D

I just watched the replay on Speed. Once again Mr. Kubica proves he's the Jimmy Spencer of F1. He's not always involved, and not always at fault, but things just seem to happen around him. In this case, I think he was trying too hard at a particularly tricky part of the course. He's too agressive for his own good (or anyone near him). You are aware that our language isn't the only thing we, um, "borrowed" from England, aren't you? :D

While the longest run of the Bronco was as a truck spin-off/Expedition ancestor, some of us are old enough to remember - and prefer - the CJ-fighter (and its optional V-8 :happy feet: ). In that particular case, success of the Raptor wouldn't be a factor. I've also got this nagging suspicion that Ford isn't really looking to add another model of a full-size SUV with the current public perception of the domestic manufacturers. So, a smaller Bronco would be it. I didn't vote since, with all the off-roading I've (n)ever done, the Tribute fits my needs better than a new, small Bronco would. The chops are quite nice, though.

There's no guarantee that they weren't working off the old news rumors. This is a Motor Trend site, after all.

It's 10:00PM on a Friday night. An Insight glides up to a stop light next to a Fusion Hybrid. The Insight owner glances at the guy in the Ford. The Fusion owner nods. The light goes green. Both cars inch forward... < "38 MPG!" > "40!" < "41!!" All of a sudden, a horn lets out a large "WHOOOP!", as the cop sitting behind the Honda gets tired of waiting. :D

Just an FYI: Excaliburs were not kit cars. As to the gaudy Landau's of the '70s, it's a recurring theme - the Art Deco '20s, the tail-fin '50s, and the bling-dubs-and-gold-trim of the late '90s/early '00s. It'll happen again.

From the article: So, LLN, does this mean that you think Lincoln will sell it with the camo still on it? :P

I couldn't find that information on the 'net. I would guess around $2900-$3000. Since "affordable" is both subjective and relative, I'll have to agree to having a different viewpoint. IMO, the Fairlady was affordable up until the ZX models were introduced, and became affordable again when the current model was introduced. Insert common internet meme "[citation needed]" here. I agree that Motor Trend has the appearance of favoritism with Toyonda, but there's no actual proof. (And I don't like Mackenzie's stewardship, either.) As to the COTY, there isn't any extortion - the car companies choose on their own to mention awards (not just COTY). MT just wants - and deserves - a cut, otherwise it can't be mentioned. "Motor Trend" is a legally registered service mark of Interlink Publishing LLC when used with car selection advice. There's no such thing as an 'exclusive' review, and hasn't been for years. The magazine editors just think its readers are idiots that can't see the other 'exclusive' review in the competitor's mag just one foot away on the rack. Everybody had access to the '10 Mustang before the March issues were written. I have to agree, though, that MT might've been reaching in expecting Ford to give them a separate Mustang at this time. :D Okay, I was trying to be nice to them.

I have a model of that tucked away in some boxes. I've had the model since the early/mid '70s. They forgot to mention the rear panel that opens automatically to relieve inside pressure if the side windows are opened at speed. I like this bit: At anything approaching 170 MPH, that thing would go ballistic.

In 1970, a Pinto was $2000. A Mustang 6 was around $2800. The Mach 1 was about $3200. The Boss 302 was over $3500. LTDs were near $4K. A Thunderbird would set you back $5K. Lincolns could be had over $6K. A (base - good luck getting one) $3500 Z that drove like $10,000 sports cars was affordable - and was touted that way by the magazines back then. Do you consider the current Mustang GT to be affordable? Note that the base price is more than a well-equipped Fusion. We're talking about a magazine that reviews cars for the general public. They aren't supposed to be trying to get favorable treatment. Otherwise, they'd be guilty of the bias you are implying they have. In a marketing department, it's natural that you'd only want favorable reviews from a magazine, but jerk them around and that's going to be less likely. Reviewers are just normal people with normal egos, after all. Luckily, they only rag on Ford's PR people in the article. They only have good things to say about the Mustang. BTW, in the April issue, Ford only has a 1-page ad for the F150, while Hyundai has a 2-page spread for the Genesis Coupe. Make of that what you will.

Considering Caterham's design history, shouldn't a new one look like a Esprit or an Eclat?

The early '70s Zs were priced between the MGB and the Corvette - $3500 - $4000. They were about the same price as a loaded Mach 1 (and not much more than the lowly X1/9). That sounds pretty affordable, considering they had handling like Jags and Masers. They were pissed that Ford Marketing wouldn't let them do a head-to-head. You might've been, too, in the same situation, considering that the '10 is "the best Mustang ever."

Um, no. I said, and I quote: What this means is that GM wasn't counting on the banking/securities sector to collapse, and they were close to the edge of profitability (*), more so than Ford. Cars already produced and not sold, and lack of investment income is what's causing GM's problems. (and, yes, internal bureaucracy, too). They were on the road to recovery after the oil speculation balloon popped, then the Freddie and Fannie Show hit. (*) Spending money on future vehicles, like the poorly-named Cruze, improving current vehicles (see: Buick), and developing its 2nd-gen hybrid system. Oh, and as to not "cutting the mustard," that Lumina, while mostly a fleet queen, came pretty close several times to unseating the Taurus in retail sales, and the Cavalier did likewise with the Escort. And as to that aforementioned electric vehicle, you started this thread by wishing that GM had continued the technology. I speculated above that the Volt is the continuation of that technology. As to "Who Killed the Electric Car?", I suffered through that entire movie, once. There are actual, provable lies in that movie that the director never bothered to corroborate. GM never gave anyone as much as a hint that the cars would eventually be sold. It was magazines that started that rumor once GM announced they would produce a streetable version of the Impact. They were leased so that GM could keep an eye on how the cars fared in the real world. That was GM's official statement from day 1. Never trust a documentary made on emotional terms. I apologize if it sounds like I'm "b$%#in' and moanin'." (except for my extreme dislike of that movie - it ranks right up there with Unsafe at Any Speed)

I really have zero problems with the way it looks. I was just curious what it would look like with a 'family' face, i.e., the headlights.