syrtran

Did anyone else notice that the grille is now reminiscent of the CV? Think it'll convince enough retirees?

Motor Trend claims that each vehicle is compared to others in its class, and has to demonstrate innovation or a lot of improvement over other vehicles in that class. (In reality, there's an awful lot of subjective 'leeway' that gives MT the ability to choose their favorite, as opposed to the best) The F150 and Ram go head-to-head and also include other full-size trucks like the Silverado /Sierra, Titan and Tundra. The Merc's competition would be mid-sized luxury SUV/CUVs like the BMW's X5, Lexus RX, Caddy SRX, and Lincoln MKX. The Flex would be compared to minivans, the Jetta to other C/D class sedans, and the Genesis to other luxury D's, including the Lexus ES and Lincoln MKS. Why the M is in the truck class is beyond me - SUV's used to have their own award, and CUVs used to be classed as cars. IMO, the ML is the granddaddy CUV. My guess is for both the ML and Jetta, simply because of the diesels. The engines are the only reason these are even being considered, as neither comes close to MT's own definition of "all new or vastly improved." The Flex won't win - too many other minivan/cross-over wagons have better cargo space.

Even considering that the list at the link is just a rumored list, I wouldn't consider the majority of those cars as "heritage" vehicles. Most are just 1-off production-based show cars. A G6 Pace car? Really? HHRs? Why are these even in GM's collection in the first place? Better to let them go and save a few bucks on storage space and upkeep. The real heritage cars probably aren't going anywhere anytime soon - the Buick Y-job, the original Le Sabre, the Firebirds, the Caddy Sixteen, the odd 'Vette or two. The Pennzoil #4 would bring a good penny, though, even if it's not the actual Indy-winner. Roger Penske may have actually touched it HIMSELF!!! :D

Not to barge into this very serious thread, but I don't think I've ever before seen anyone mistake Nick for an important religious leader. For one thing, Jesus wasn't German. :D

I sure hope the Lienerts aren't planning on picking up an SS convertible for under $31K. (There's a hint in the previous sentence that explains the "sloppy journalism." It's also interesting how this particular blog doesn't allow comments. ) The 2009 GT is under $28K, and the GT Premium is just over $29K, so the 2010 will most likely still undercut the Camaro.

The average American has problems saying the phrase "I was wrong." To the average American politician, the phrase "I was wrong" ranks right up there with "I love taking bribes," or "Yes, I've had sex with many Congressional pages." They will just ignore the import (lack of) sales figures, and keep aiming at Detroit.

Yes, you are. Fairmont/Zephyr's 'predecessor', the US Granada (This was typical of US Ford styling) The Granada being sold in Europe at the same time Which one does the Zephyr look more like?

Here's an idea for a future SVO (or SVO-like) Mustang. The upper grille is based somewhat on timmm55's chop in the Detroit Auto Show thread, and on the original SVO. The lower grille is (loosely) Falcon based. Since the intercooler belongs in front and not under the hood, I've put heat extractors on the hood instead of a scoop. The rear spoiler is a flat lip spoiler as opposed to a duck-tail. And, of course, rear wheel spats. I would expect the engine to be an EB V6, although it would be interesting if Ford could conjure up a 4-banger approaching 300HP. I haven't drawn wheels, as I'm no good at it, and I don't have an eye for wheel designs - most of mine end up looking like the Cragar S/S, which wouldn't be appropriate anyway.

As I said above, the final version might be a bit different. The facts that they had to stretch the Tourer's body to fit the wheelbase, and that it's still several inches too narrow (large wheel flares are definitely not a Honda styling theme - neither is silver tape) leads me to believe that there's another body to fit this suspension. It reminds me of the Freestyle-based Flex mule. And LLN sources be damned. This could just be a mule for the next Pilot.

I didn't mean to imply the Pinto shouldn't be on your list, I was just comparing the media "feeding frenzy" on the CV to the same thing on the Pinto. You can add Samurai-tipping and Audi "unintended acceleration" to that list. These four items are why Consumer Reports is on my "must-not-buy" list. One thing the original article missed on the Aztek that soured it in a lot of peoples' minds was the dealers' adding every option to their initial vehicles, driving prices well above $25K. And they shouldn't have mentioned the Corvair (in the prologue). It was a technological tour-de-force in its day, and it sold well, even after Nader's book was published. The only reason it had any kind of stigma was because Nader lied. The only times the swing-axle was a problem was in situations that would've made any 'normal' car of the day impossible to control. The Corvair was used in road racing all across the country.

The Pinto didn't deserve the bad press, either. NHTSA listed less than 100 fires, with only a couple dozen deaths. (*) And how many were on the road? A couple million? Perception is the biggest problem. Here and in the linked article, we're discussing cars mostly made over 10 years - and some over 30 years - ago. I'd stick a current Cobalt's reliability up against the Sentra's any day. And there's that wonderful +1 MPG highway over the equivalent non-Hybrid Civic. We've also seen the latest reliability ratings for Ford vehicles that puts them in the same company as Toyota. But, then, the news media ignore these and dredge up Pintos and Vegas. Of course, none of the anti-domestic people seem to remember that '70s and early '80s Civics and Accords had useable lifespans of about 3 years before body rot took over. There were even rumors of Accords with rust direct from the factory. Toyotas were a bit better - about 5 years. Of course, one made the point of not noticing just how thin those Corollas' and Coronas' doors were back then. Ford's biggest historical problem was rust - the 1970's were the worst. The early Pinto and Maverick with their lack of inner fenders. the later LTD, Granada, T-Bird and Fairmont with their dipped-in-a-paint-vat chipping along the lower edges of doors and fenders, and the generally crappy rustproofing up 'till the mid-to-late '80s. (*) And, in many cases, the NHTSA made the specific point of how the rear-seat passengers would've survived if not for the fire! That tells me that Pintos generally had pretty good frames back there if they could stop an intrusion in the TWO FEET (or so) between the rear seat and bumper.

Give it an almost Falcon-ish upper grille opening and raise the headlights up a little. Maybe use the new Falcon/Fiesta lower maw as well. I'm not sure what kind of scoop, if any, should be used. The SVO's scoop fed the intercooler, which should properly be in the front instead of under the hood. (For 'heritage' purposes, it would be offset to the right, not centered) Oh, and lose the mid-window rear spoiler - it doesn't need it. The original bi-plane spoiler was created due to the squarish roofline of the Foxes, which had a bit of rear turbulence. The bi-plane negated the turbulence and removed much of the drag and lift caused by it. The original SVO's styling wasn't to try to make it look different, it was all about the aerodynamics.

As I recall, probably incorrectly as it's been a loooong time, the reason sequentials went away the first time wasn't because of cost. It was because several states (I'm sure NY was one of them) got really pissy about them violating the "no flashing red lights on civilian vehicles" laws. I wonder how or if Ford got around these. It would suck to have some states allow them, and for those owners to drive into NY and get a ticket.

I think the point is that a Fusion GT would be a bit more than a "trim package." The Fusion Sport is already more than a trim package, as it has the 3.5, 6-speed auto, and a retuned suspension. I don't believe that a Fusion GT would hurt the Mustang GT's image now any more than the Escort GT did back in '83. Personally, I'll wait for the 300HP EB 3.0, 6-speed Select Shift, electric-Konis-at-all-4-corners, form-fitting-bucket-seat Fusion SVT. And I, for one, have not forgotten the Probe GT.

I agree with you. I think the article is wrong about one thing, though: that front end is probably not finalized. It's just a bog-standard US Accord front clip. Considering that and the ill-fitting, modified Euro Accord Tourer body, along with the taped-on flares, the final vehicle may look nothing like this. I'd guess this is about as accurate as the Explorer mule from a couple weeks ago, albeit this is a better cob-job than that was. IMO, this is a drivetrain mule. As far as a late-2009 production, I doubt it. It's probably going to be a 2011 model, at the earliest.

Don't forget that our NY senators are inhaling the same powder. (And I'm a (D)!)

According to this BOF post, the Camry sold over 470,000 units in 2007 in the US - its best-selling market. You've never actually met an American, have you? Why - in the land of ~$1.00/gallon gas taxes, where most grocery store parking lots could easily hold a soccer - er, football - pitch (plus bleachers), where average side roads are over 5 meters wide, where the top-selling vehicle (still!) is almost 6 meters long, and where, in many cases, public transportation costs more than driving the same distance in a Camry - would you think most of us would rather choose a vehicle smaller than our water closet? Remember: we think the Focus is too small.

Or they could've just acquired the drive train from AC Propulsion like Tesla did.

Just detailing what others have already pointed out. Let's see, in 1968 Ford had: Jeep-like Bronco Mustang Falcon Fairlane/Torino (including Ranchero) Galaxie/LTD and light-duty trucks - F-100, F-250 and F-350 all shared body panels and interiors. and in 1970, the Pinto would be added to the list Today: Focus Mustang Escape Fusion Edge Taurus Flex replacing Taurus X Explorer *Crown Vic (fleet only) Expedition F150 (Now where did those dashes go?) Super-Duty And we can add Fiesta (and maybe Ka) in a couple years. Also, back before 1973, there was no federally-mandated crash testing, and rollover testing was unheard of, so yearly detail changes were easily doable, and a mid-cycle refresh took less than 18 months. (And, before anybody asks, the 'tran' is short for Transportation )

The only studies I've heard about that point out any effectiveness with drool - sorry, DRL - have either been in portions of Canada that experience night 1/2 the time and dusk the rest, or in mountainous sections of Arizona and Nevada where DRL helps make it easier for your eyes to spot oncoming traffic when your vehicle goes from bright, over-sunny areas into dark shadows. For the rest of North America, they are no more effective than not having them. I should say, though, cars with headlights on during rain (or snow) storms are easier to see (and it's the law here in NY), so I agree with:

Who do you think the southern MI police will notice first - the peanut-spotted Fords doing 15 over or the innocuous silver 911 going 5 under?

That's why you get them first! Remember that you have to behead them, or they'll keep coming. I find that linesmen's pliers work well.

It "has" to be a 5.0 because that's what the rumors say the displacement is going to be. The MX-6 preceded Fields. The MX-3 preceded Fields. The RX-7 preceded Fields. The RX-3 preceded Fields. The Cosmo (both versions) preceded Fields. Mazda's niche in the US has always been fun cars. God Damn! It looks like reading comprehension has gone out the window!. Either that, or you people never actually read the article. I've got it in front of me right now (on paper - pg 11, Oct. 13 2008 issue) and nowhere does it use any words like "needs to," "must," "has to," "required." She is giving her own opinion that Ford should grow a pair and actually try to lead once in a while. BTW, that exact sentiment of Ford needing to grow some has been stated multiple times by multiple people on these very boards: Where's the manual V6 in the Fusion? In fact, where's the 'sport' for the Fusion Sport? Why is there no Focus RS/ST/SVT? How about a Taurus SHO? Whatever happened to the F-150 Lightning? WHERE'S THE FREAKING COUGAR? Fields is a wuss. Thankfully, in these two instances, neither writer is acting as "reporters and reviewers." They are columnists, who are paid to give opinions. IOW, they're EXPECTED to be biased. Note that I'm not defending her position. I'm defending her from people calling her a "hack," "bitch," etc. I actually (partially) agree with Borg, here. I'm not a fan of diesel (not yet, anyway), and I don't think most Americans want one. Personally, I'm looking forward to EcoBoost. But, when people have less clue than the writer they're attacking (see rant above about reading comprehension), and especially when they attack the writer instead of the opinion, then I'm going to step up in defense.

Do you people realize that "that ignorant dipshit/hack/bitch/woman" has been writing about, driving, and racing cars since before most of you were born? Denise McCluggage has been a contributor to Autoweek since it was Competition Press - some 50 years. She is an icon at racetracks and on paper. She has interviewed the likes of Phil Hill and Dan Gurney. She has rubbed shoulders with Jackie Clark and Jackie Icyx. She has talked with Henry Ford II and Roger Smith. She knows more about the automotive industry than many insiders. She knows more about cars than you do. All she is asking for is for Ford to take a chance on diesel. It's her opinion that it could work. (BTW, it's supposed to be her opinion - that's an opinion column!) How does that make her a hack? And Mark Fields is a wuss - ask anyone who's looking for the 5.0 in next year's Mustang. [ /Autoweek subscriber ]

Does anybody have sales numbers for GEM in California?