Ford Mondeo

[silvrsvt]

Manual transmissions cost less than automatics to produce. I can't see where they would be "bleeding money" on it. They install on the assembly line the exact same way as automatics also. The only difference that complicates assembly AT ALL is putting in that 3rd pedal.

 

But the cost is in testing for Emissions, I'll go out on a limb and say its more difficult to program an ECU for an manual transmission for emissions since you can have people shifting at different points in the RPM band vs the fixed shifting and additional engine management that comes with using an Automatic transmission...I know that Automatic equipped cars tend to idle higher then their stick counterparts due to the torque converter.

 

Feel free to flame me if I'm wrong...

[NickF1011]

But the cost is in testing for Emissions, I'll go out on a limb and say its more difficult to program an ECU for an manual transmission for emissions since you can have people shifting at different points in the RPM band vs the fixed shifting and additional engine management that comes with using an Automatic transmission...I know that Automatic equipped cars tend to idle higher then their stick counterparts due to the torque converter.

 

Feel free to flame me if I'm wrong...

 

Emissions?? Mazda already runs the 5-speed/V6 engine combo. I imagine the ECU programming would be hardly any different from that. You're just grasping at straws now.

[bolita]

Emissions?? Mazda already runs the 5-speed/V6 engine combo. I imagine the ECU programming would be hardly any different from that. You're just grasping at straws now.

 

I completely agree

 

As far as I know, emissions tests are certain fixed conditions which can be emulated either with manual or auto...

 

I also feel that if positioned correctly, enthusiast cars can sell in adequate numbers. Doesent the Impreza WRX reach over 20/22K units per year? At current sales rate, that would be 15% of Fusion sales.

[Pablo2079]

Halo cars do help when it comes to positive press. A glowing review might be done on the top end (halo) verison of a model, even though the large majority of car buyers will go for something lower on the totem pole. The existence of a halo car alone brings up the prestige of the cars beneath it. The car buying public are not a bunch of bean counters, there is a lot of emotion rolled up into the process. B)

[ZanatWork]

Richard, I don't agree with your malarky, and you know it.

 

I SAW the the Mustang's effect on showroom traffic late '04/early '05, and had plenty of Ford service customers telling me all about it. I absolutely disagree with your "malarky" claim, and it's hardly the first time we've locked horns on the whole "halo car" thing.

 

As the existing Fusion engine is available with a manual in the 6, anyone babbling about development costs and what-not can go sit in the corner. As for the one I want and would buy...and I'm not the only one here, or elsewhere...an awd Fusion with a manual/DSG and at least 250 hp would, AGAIN, possibly list the Fusion from its bridesmaid status.

 

Which aids, y'know, perception...which is among the biggest MARKETING (still with us, sparky?) hurdles facing the domestics.

[silvrsvt]

Emissions?? Mazda already runs the 5-speed/V6 engine combo. I imagine the ECU programming would be hardly any different from that. You're just grasping at straws now.

 

My reasoning was based on the 04 Mach1 and Marauder...they both had auto 4.6 4V engines, which was never offered before..

 

I guess I'm wrong...

[NickF1011]

My reasoning was based on the 04 Mach1 and Marauder...they both had auto 4.6 4V engines, which was never offered before..

 

I guess I'm wrong...

 

Eh, the Mach 1 emissions tweaking was probably barely any different at all from the 99-01 Cobra setup. The Marauder, yeah, you're talking a new engine in a new body. With the similarities between the Mazda6 and Fusion, I imagine the tweaks wouldn't be any different than they were for the Mach 1 from the Cobra.

[RichardJensen]

I SAW the the Mustang's effect on showroom traffic late '04/early '05, and had plenty of Ford service customers telling me all about it.

Yeah. And look what it did for sales of Ford's other products. Or are you going to spin the old "They'd be worse off without it" line of unprovable malarkey?

 

Further, you do know per a Ford insider, that Mazda's 2.3L turbo DISI engine flunked Ford's inhouse durability testing. It is by no means a given that Ford would simply take a Mazda transmission and use it in the Fusion.

 

As to this continual reference to 'lifting the Fusion from bridesmaid status', might I suggest that you remember that magazine paper is nothing more than toilet paper with less cotton and more clay.

 

The only results that matter are bottom line results for Ford. Is the Fusion selling? Yes. Is it selling to expectations? Yes. Is it keeping Hermosillo chugging along? Yes. Is Ford planning mid-cycle improvements that may include your ever-loving manual transmission? Yes.

 

However, if Ford opts NOT to add a manual transmission to the Fusion in the next couple years, and yet they CONTINUE to sell at a good steady clip, keeping Hermosillo chugging along, what is that to you?

 

Buy a Mazda. Go 'round and 'round until you find one with a "1Z" VIN and you're supporting good old American labor at Flat Rock Michigan.

Edited May 3, 2007 by RichardJensen

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Umm, I believe that the 4V mod 4.6 / Auto combo existed in the following vehicles before the existence of the marauder and 04 mach !

 

Lincoln Mark VIII

Lincoln Aviator

Lincoln Continental

 

Unless you're talking about it being offered in another model line other than the Lincolns.

[silvrsvt]

Umm, I believe that the 4V mod 4.6 / Auto combo existed in the following vehicles before the existence of the marauder and 04 mach !

 

Lincoln Mark VIII

Lincoln Aviator

Lincoln Continental

 

Unless you're talking about it being offered in another model line other than the Lincolns.

 

 

From what I understand the Intech 4.6 V4 Lincoln engines aren't the same breed of 4.6L V4 Engines found in the the Mach 1 or Marauder..it was the same engine found in the previous Cobra. Much like the current 4.6 3V engine in the the Explorer and Mustang...they aren't the same exact beast

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Now, as for the debate over a stick in the v6 Fusion, and on a related note, an SVT version.

 

A stick for the v6 is not currently needed on the CD3s. Period. They are able to run the plant at capacity at the moment without expending any other development money on the CD3s and a stick, for what little volume it actually ADDs just isn't worth the time to develop at this point. Yes, I know that the Mazda6 has a stick with their D30. We know that they already have provisions for the stick in the 4 banger. So, its not like its going to take a whole shed load of money to do. On the other hand, there is still some development work that will need to be done there.

 

If Ford is to take a lesson from their recent history, they are going to look at the most closely related vehicle to gague its market acceptance. What vehicle will that be? The Focus ST from 05-06 would likely be their starting point. From what we know, it didn't do so well. It didn't command its MSRP and was dropped from the lineup. You can claim that the market is different there, and you'd be partially right. But, its still a sedan with a stick and a larger engine than the volume leader.

 

As for an SVT fusion. As much as I'd love to see it and drive it, I couldn't justify buying it myself. So, I can't sit here and beg them to build it. Will it do well in the market? Not likely. The MazdaSpeed 6 and the Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT are both firmly camped in that territory if they want to go AWD with it. If they want to stick with FWD, then they need to out do the altima 3.5 SE-R, out sprint the camry V6, and upgrade the interior to match the price. It'll sticker well north of what the Lincoln MkZ does, and I don't think that Ford wants to do that. That would take a decent amount of money to do in the first place. There's no D35 / manual combo to work from, so that would have to be tested and done. Unless they went with the powertrain from the MS6, which they seem to want to keep Mazda Exclusive for now. Then, would be the expense of tuning the handling of the CD3s. Not going to be cheap. And, for all that work, what will you add to the production run? A few thousand units at best? How many of those would have been Fusion sales anyway? How many of those would have been MkZ sales?

 

At this point, it just isn't worth it. Now, as for the MCE, THAT may be the time to do something. There's going to be a sportier engine combo for the fusion is Blue II is to be believed. There's going to be a boost in v6 performance. There's going to be a new base 4 banger with a new 6 speed auto. There's also going to be a hybrid. So, the number of choices for the CD3s will be myriad. There's going to be hardly a choice missing. About the only thing that we don't have a confirmation on is a handling package for the CD3s to go with that sportier engine.

 

So, for the sake of all of us, quit whining about the lack of a manual for the fusion v6. Its selling well as it is (present industry wide downturn excepted) and is due for an MCE soon that will include many improvements. They're not going to just whip the manual out of the blue anytime before the MCE. So, just deal.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

From what I understand the Intech 4.6 V4 Lincoln engines aren't the same breed of 4.6L V4 Engines found in the the Mach 1 or Marauder..it was the same engine found in the previous Cobra. Much like the current 4.6 3V engine in the the Explorer and Mustang...they aren't the same exact beast

 

Technically speaking, there was a revision made to the overall block design between the "intech" generation and the Mach1/Marauder generation. It was, however, not a huge change and torque levels didn't change drastically. so, while they aren't exactly the same engine, the bolt patterns for the trannies were the same, the power levels were similar, and the overall plumbing of the system was largely compatible. Not like reinventing the wheel, just changing the compound on the tires more or less.

[RichardJensen]

I think there is a handling package on the way for the '08 MY. Reports are that it's an option on the dealer guides.

[falconman13]

If Ford is to take a lesson from their recent history, they are going to look at the most closely related vehicle to gague its market acceptance. What vehicle will that be? The Focus ST from 05-06 would likely be their starting point. From what we know, it didn't do so well. It didn't command its MSRP and was dropped from the lineup. You can claim that the market is different there, and you'd be partially right. But, its still a sedan with a stick and a larger engine than the volume leader.

Good point

[ZanatWork]

Well, richard, let's try the following: I'll have some car reviews available to read for some test subjects, and you bring the Charmin...preferably unused.

 

We'll see which gets read more.

 

I'm trying to figure out why anyone says it's BAD for the Fusion to have a "sport" option, or why some people will dig in their heels against such a car, insisting that it doesn't matter to Ford's image or bottom line.

 

That's really, fantastically ignorant. None of you saw the 80's resurgence, that's certain.

 

I've had a front-row seat to Ford's story for most of my life, as my family has been loyal to the brand for a long time. I remember Fords being more boxy than Volvo in the early 80's, I remember Ford's future looking extremely bleak indeed at the same time, and it appeared Detroit was doomed by gas prices and outdated thinking.

 

I also remember the '83 Thunderbird...and the turbo coupe that spun off of it. We know now that the car was a restyled Fairmont and the motor was a huffed-up Pinto part...but it got notice, and success in NASCAR in the same period helped.

 

I remember the Taurus/Sable of '86 (the Sable was far and away more impressive to look at), and how it had the potential to be a great car, not just a slinky alternative to the Cutlass Cieras of the day. I remember, then, the SHO...and almost 20 years later, clubs with almost fanatical owners still dot the landscape.

 

Ford turned perceptio on its ear with a frull-frontal assault. Hey, check out the T-Bird that's winning almost every speedway race in NASCAR! Check out the Mustang/Capri, which Jack Roush was campaigning very successfully in Trans-Am and GTO! The T-Bird/Cougar and Mustang/Capri could be had with either turbo 4s or V8s, and the 5-liter performance generation took off. Hell, Saleen built Rangers for awhile...and the first Lightning was born.

 

When Ford surged past Chevy in sales, they did it with a strong performance message, reinforced in both print and video. Most lines had a "halo" model, and both good press and good sales followed.

 

Don't bother with the "different time, different rules" drivel, please. The products and their advertisements created excitement and gave a feeling of almost brash confidence. Now, kids, let's look at what's being done in comparison!

 

D3 cars essentially ignored, no "halo" models to speak of.

Focus mismanaged to a fare-thee-well, last halo model years gone.

Fusion steady, but posted a rare sales decline last month. Maybe it NEEDS a special sub-model....

Edge doing well, but I'm near psychosis from too many times hearing that "I like to live on the Ed....JUH" song.

Crown Vic old, being sent to fleets only.

Ranger...yeah, let's not even get started.

 

I'm sorry, folks, but there's no way to convince me or ANYONE with more sense than God gave Cap'n Crunch that it's a bad thing to have a top example of any given line, one that makes its whole line look a little better.

 

Oh, btw, the Mondeo? The actual thread topic? Get it here at the soonest FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE opprotunity...but it also needs some more motor for this market.

[RichardJensen]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone says it's BAD for the Fusion to have a "sport" option, or why some people will dig in their heels against such a car, insisting that it doesn't matter to Ford's image or bottom line.

Who says it's bad? I'm saying it doesn't necessarily make sense. You're the one trying to paint this in black and white.

 

As far as the rest of your post, your allegations that Ford's 80s resurgence was tied to power and performance.............. Not even going to dignify that with a response.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Zan, the only thing I'm going to point out to you on your "total performance" message here is to go back and look at what the competition had "back in the day" when the Taurus SHO was born, or when the SuperCoupe appeared, or when the 5 liter performance generation came into being. There wasn't a compelling alternative to the SHO. The coupe market was much stronger then than now. And racing series rules hadn't turned NASCAR into a spec series that resembles the WWE at 200 mph. The Trans-Am series still had a following and got air time.

 

Now, there's a sea of competing vehicles out there in every segment of the market. Ford has a rep for building absolute crap that they're trying to get over. And environmental regs are looming just around the corner that could scrap a whole lot of what everyone's got on the table.

 

This isn't justification of why there shouldn't be a stick for the v6, or there shouldn't be an SVT fusion. This is an explanation of the new risks that Ford is facing. They've already set what they're going to do for the next model year. The year after that is an MCE. We know a lot is coming for that MCE. They may have enough to make an SVT irrelevant. That turbo 4 banger with 260+ hp for the MCE and a handling package that seems to be coming for next year should make for a very fun combo.

Edited May 3, 2007 by old_fairmont_wagon

[silvrsvt]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone says it's BAD for the Fusion to have a "sport" option, or why some people will dig in their heels against such a car, insisting that it doesn't matter to Ford's image or bottom line.

 

I don't think anyone is saying its bad, but is it necessary to have one? NOPE

 

There are far more important things to worry about then sport/halo models at this point in time...

 

Lets get the breadwinners fixed first then worry about the fancy stuff later...

[Deanh]

Manual transmissions cost less than automatics to produce. I can't see where they would be "bleeding money" on it. They install on the assembly line the exact same way as automatics also. The only difference that complicates assembly AT ALL is putting in that 3rd pedal.

 

And whoever said it, manual cars do NOT need separate crash tests than automatics. The weight difference between them is negligible. Heck, certain cars aren't even crash tested because they are BASED on another existing product that has already passed the tests. The DEW98 T-bird didn't even have to be crash certified by the NHTSA before it went on sale, simply based on crash performance of the Lincoln LS. They tested it anyway, but it didn't have to be.

Nick........yes they may cost less..but do they.....say it costs an additional 6 million to develop the manual...and you sell 1200, at a return of 3000 per car= 3,600,000, auto already developed, but just for s and giggles...10 million to initialise, you sell 12000 @ 2250 per car = 27,000,000 ....which is more expensive for the return....and that is if a transmission is ready and available to handle torque and power curves NOT built from scratch.......because they sell less they make less money for the manufacturer...the 5-6 speed market is probably less than 5 % of the autos.....oh..and I was the nimrod that mentioned crash tests, I was speculating ....surprizes me they aren't to tell the truth...as different trannies would react differently in simailar instances....may argument? is not about costs or anything though...just palin business sense.....if it was your money being invested would you go for that 5%??????? I doubt it.........

Edited May 3, 2007 by Deanh

[ZanatWork]

Zan, the only thing I'm going to point out to you on your "total performance" message here is to go back and look at what the competition had "back in the day" when the Taurus SHO was born, or when the SuperCoupe appeared, or when the 5 liter performance generation came into being. There wasn't a compelling alternative to the SHO. The coupe market was much stronger then than now. And racing series rules hadn't turned NASCAR into a spec series that resembles the WWE at 200 mph. The Trans-Am series still had a following and got air time.

 

Now, there's a sea of competing vehicles out there in every segment of the market. Ford has a rep for building absolute crap that they're trying to get over. And environmental regs are looming just around the corner that could scrap a whole lot of what everyone's got on the table.

 

This isn't justification of why there shouldn't be a stick for the v6, or there shouldn't be an SVT fusion. This is an explanation of the new risks that Ford is facing. They've already set what they're going to do for the next model year. The year after that is an MCE. We know a lot is coming for that MCE. They may have enough to make an SVT irrelevant. That turbo 4 banger with 260+ hp for the MCE and a handling package that seems to be coming for next year should make for a very fun combo.

 

The 4 banger apparently flunked Ford's durability tests. Dammit.

 

I'm...well, I'm astounded at the "go forward with less" attitude here. Congrats, I'm sure that the "don't push the envelope" attitude will work just as well as...hmmm...it didn't really ever work. Oh, well.

 

I guess I'll just have to wait for the Taurus SHO that's apparently on the horizon, though I'd prefer something lighter. So sad to see such a waste of such a nimble chassis.

 

 

Oh, and Richard...your last bit was the best malarky deposit I've seen here in maybe years.

[NickF1011]

Nick........yes they may cost less..but do they.....say it costs an additional 6 million to develop the manual...and you sell 1200, at a return of 3000 per car= 3,600,000, auto already developed, but just for s and giggles...10 million to initialise, you sell 12000 @ 2250 per car = 27,000,000 ....which is more expensive for the return....and that is if a transmission is ready and available to handle torque and power curves NOT built from scratch.......because they sell less they make less money for the manufacturer...the 5-6 speed market is probably less than 5 % of the autos.....oh..and I was the nimrod that mentioned crash tests, I was speculating ....surprizes me they aren't to tell the truth...as different trannies would react differently in simailar instances....may argument? is not about costs or anything though...just palin business sense.....if it was your money being invested would you go for that 5%??????? I doubt it.........

 

 

There's zero reason why the already existing 5-speed manual from the Mazda6 couldn't be used in the Fusion. There would hardly be any R&D costs associated with offering it. So, your whole argument about recooping costs for development goes out the window. I'm betting annual sales of the manual would be FAR higher than a measily 1200 units also. Besides, why is it Mazda can offer a manual in the Mazda6 when their overall volume is FAR lower than the Fusion? If Mazda can manage it, Ford can. Period. There's no other argument against that. The only valid reasoning is that Ford doesn't WANT to. Why? Who knows? We all know how many brilliant decisions Ford has made over the past decade or so.

 

I just don't see why Ford wouldn't go after a market segment that definitely DOES exist. It's not a large one, but why take buyers IMMEDIATELY off your list of potential sales when they could simply be kept there? They would have had at least one more Fusion owner in me if they offered the V6 with a manual.

[RichardJensen]

They would have had at least one more Fusion owner in me if they offered the V6 with a manual.

Instead you bought a Mazda6.

 

As you say, it is a SMALL market. Therefore, why should Ford attempt to divide it between the Mazda6 and the Fusion?

 

---

 

And before you point out that Ford only owns 34% of Mazda, the reality is that this just makes it hard for Ford to do irresponsible things like raid it for cash. It has next to no impact on day to day operations.

Edited May 3, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

There's zero reason why the already existing 5-speed manual from the Mazda6 couldn't be used in the Fusion. There would hardly be any R&D costs associated with offering it. So, your whole argument about recooping costs for development goes out the window. I'm betting annual sales of the manual would be FAR higher than a measily 1200 units also. Besides, why is it Mazda can offer a manual in the Mazda6 when their overall volume is FAR lower than the Fusion? If Mazda can manage it, Ford can. Period. There's no other argument against that. The only valid reasoning is that Ford doesn't WANT to. Why? Who knows? We all know how many brilliant decisions Ford has made over the past decade or so.

 

I just don't see why Ford wouldn't go after a market segment that definitely DOES exist. It's not a large one, but why take buyers IMMEDIATELY off your list of potential sales when they could simply be kept there? They would have had at least one more Fusion owner in me if they offered the V6 with a manual.

Maybe Nick...the real reason is a performance version IS on the horizon...like everything else things take time...and my numbers were hypothetical....maybe Ford has also looked at the numbers Mazda is moving and hesitated...would not surprize me.. I REPEAT...the market for thet car is miniscule at the least.....and NOT worth the risk right now...bigger fish to fry..as in MAKING MONEY! And I used purely hypothetical numbers to show the discrepencies, evn gave the manual more profit than the auto....if Ford isn't building it ( right now anyway ) there is a reason....and I would have to say it is monetary. PS ...just for s and giggles...how many 6 speeds did Mazda sell last year....

Edited May 3, 2007 by Deanh

[NickF1011]

Instead you bought a Mazda6.

 

As you say, it is a SMALL market. Therefore, why should Ford attempt to divide it between the Mazda6 and the Fusion?

 

---

 

And before you point out that Ford only owns 34% of Mazda, the reality is that this just makes it hard for Ford to do irresponsible things like raid it for cash. It has next to no impact on day to day operations.

 

Small doesn't mean non-existent. What is the market for 600 horsepower Mustangs? That's not stopping Ford from going there.

[RichardJensen]

Small doesn't mean non-existent. What is the market for 600 horsepower Mustangs? That's not stopping Ford from going there.

I'm talking Ford Motor Company, not cars with blue ovals on their trunks.

 

Ford Motor Company already has manual transmission V6 sedans and wagons--sold under the Mazda brand. Having their feet in a very small market with a well respected entry, the question really does become, is it worth it?