2009 Milan pic?

[RichardJensen]

What's weird about all this timing is that the prototype in the Winding Road shots (not the cooling mule) is production ready; it has the chrome grille and the production headlights, and it was shot a few days ago. It will not take over a year and a half to put that vehicle in production, so I have no idea why WR and others are suggesting a late 2009 launch date. I would bet this vehicle came off the pilot plant assembly line, which means it is very close to production ready.

 

We saw Edge prototypes that were at a comparable level of fit and finish driven by what appeared to be Jim Padilla's kid about a little over a year before Job 1, and that was for a product that was going into a brand new facility.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Gener...rticleId=107367

 

The idea that this isn't going to be on the market until mid-late 2009 is somewhat difficult to believe.

Edited December 22, 2007 by RichardJensen

[FordBuyer]

What's weird about all this timing is that the prototype in the Winding Road shots (not the cooling mule) is production ready; it has the chrome grille and the production headlights, and it was shot a few days ago. It will not take over a year and a half to put that vehicle in production, so I have no idea why WR and others are suggesting a late 2009 launch date. I would bet this vehicle came off the pilot plant assembly line, which means it is very close to production ready.

 

We saw Edge prototypes that were at a comparable level of fit and finish driven by what appeared to be Jim Padilla's kid about a little over a year before Job 1, and that was for a product that was going into a brand new facility.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Gener...rticleId=107367

 

The idea that this isn't going to be on the market until mid-late 2009 is somewhat difficult to believe.

 

Well, I guess the next three months will tell all to see if it does show up during auto show season and press release that comes with it. But for the negatoids on here Ford will get flamed no matter what it does with Fusion.

 

If it comes out this year without many new engines, it will get flamed for that. And if waits until 2009 to bring it out with full array of engines, it will get flamed as nothing more than lame refresh. Ford loses either way. The negatoids actually expect Ford to spend billions completely reegineering a three year old car to make it completely new after three years on market when Toyota and Honda do it about every 6 years. As it is, Ford will probably spend at least $500 million refreshing the triplets. Not bad for a midcycle refresh for anyone. Save the money for the next generation Fusion coming in another three years. Ford unfortunately cannot affod to make any big mistakes anymore. The next big mistake could be fatal. The Fusion has great quality, reliability rating....keep the refresh so that quality stays outstanding and quality does sell.

[silvrsvt]

I do have to say this much, I'm shocked at how close those photoshops are to what the production model is, well what we can tell under all that camo.

 

Though i do have to say I don't care for the MKZ ass that much in the photoshops

[Edstock]

I don't care for the MKZ ass that much in the photoshops

 

The tail lights are . . . . you might have a point. The bumper and trunk lower panel, though is nice and clean, IMHO.

 

[TomServo92]

The tail lights are . . . . you might have a point. The bumper and trunk lower panel, though is nice and clean, IMHO.

 

 

Those taillights look more like the original Zephyr Concept lights:

 

Edited December 23, 2007 by TomServo92

[DCK]

Well, I guess the next three months will tell all to see if it does show up during auto show season and press release that comes with it. But for the negatoids on here Ford will get flamed no matter what it does with Fusion.

 

If it comes out this year without many new engines, it will get flamed for that. And if waits until 2009 to bring it out with full array of engines, it will get flamed as nothing more than lame refresh. Ford loses either way. The negatoids actually expect Ford to spend billions completely reegineering a three year old car to make it completely new after three years on market when Toyota and Honda do it about every 6 years. As it is, Ford will probably spend at least $500 million refreshing the triplets. Not bad for a midcycle refresh for anyone. Save the money for the next generation Fusion coming in another three years. Ford unfortunately cannot affod to make any big mistakes anymore. The next big mistake could be fatal. The Fusion has great quality, reliability rating....keep the refresh so that quality stays outstanding and quality does sell.

Toyota and Honda do it every 5 years with 3 year refreshes.

 

There is nothing wrong wih expecting Ford to offer competitiv engines. And if the refresh waits till the fourth year, it means the product will most likely be on the market for 7 years before it is remodeled and a product already lacking in keyareas will not survive well.

[silvrsvt]

The tail lights are . . . . you might have a point. The bumper and trunk lower panel, though is nice and clean, IMHO.

 

 

 

i don't like how the bumper has the up kick matching the tail lights...though not enough not to buy one though

Edited December 23, 2007 by silvrsvt

[FordBuyer]

Toyota and Honda do it every 5 years with 3 year refreshes.

 

There is nothing wrong wih expecting Ford to offer competitiv engines. And if the refresh waits till the fourth year, it means the product will most likely be on the market for 7 years before it is remodeled and a product already lacking in keyareas will not survive well.

 

Toyota recently reported when talking about the Camry that it's on a SIX year cycle, and not a five. I guess that could change, but then again the Corolla recycle got delayed at least a year and is not even out yet. And they make $13 billion a year as a company and still they are delaying their redesigns. Ford is not doing too badly considering they are broke and not swimming in cash like Toyota as Americans gave all their hard earned money to them.

[rmc523]

i don't like how the bumper has the up kick matching the tail lights...though not enough not to buy one though

 

I agree, I dont like that part of this chop either. I do think the taillights look nice though, more like the Zephyr concept. Also, that design ties the MKZ in more with the MKX and it's taillight design.

[rmc523]

The Milan will be loosing the LED tail-lights.

 

How do you know that?

 

Also, if that's true:

 

1) Why?

 

2) Would it be getting the new Taurus/X type taillight bulbs, that light up as quickly as LEDs, but aren't?

I was beind a Taurus X last night and he put his turn signal on, the light flashed quickly as LEDs do.

[RichardJensen]

i don't like how the bumper has the up kick matching the tail lights...though not enough not to buy one though

While the gist may be accurate, the details on that photo chop are almost certainly not.

[hbalek]

How do you know that?

 

Also, if that's true:

 

1) Why?

 

2) Would it be getting the new Taurus/X type taillight bulbs, that light up as quickly as LEDs, but aren't?

I was beind a Taurus X last night and he put his turn signal on, the light flashed quickly as LEDs do.

 

The current Mountaineer with clear tail lamps, the new Sable and also the Taurus X have an LED tail lamp. It's just not LED's PLURAL. It's actually one LED diffused like an old fashioned incandescent. The only big disadvantage I see with this type is in broad daylight or direct sunlight, where I noticed they get washed out. You can barely see them lit up!

[rmc523]

The current Mountaineer with clear tail lamps, the new Sable and also the Taurus X have an LED tail lamp. It's just not LED's PLURAL. It's actually one LED diffused like an old fashioned incandescent. The only big disadvantage I see with this type is in broad daylight or direct sunlight, where I noticed they get washed out. You can barely see them lit up!

 

Okay, that would explain why they light up as quickly as models with all LED taillights, like Infiniti models. I didn't know that they were a single LED made to look like a normal incandescent. I think part of the washout affect may be caused because the taillights are clear, not red, but I could be wrong.

[Edstock]

Okay, that would explain why they light up as quickly as models with all LED taillights

 

It's amazing that the human vision system can see the start-up/shut-off difference between filament bulbs and LED's — I haven't seen any numbers, but the difference is, just guessing, about 1/100 of a second, maybe less, like 1/300 of a second.

[rmc523]

It's amazing that the human vision system can see the start-up/shut-off difference between filament bulbs and LED's — I haven't seen any numbers, but the difference is, just guessing, about 1/100 of a second, maybe less, like 1/300 of a second.

 

I agree, it is amazing. I don't know actual numbers either, but I'm sure you're close to the time difference.

[RichardJensen]

1/60th of a second.

 

The eye cannot register changes faster than that (old fluorescents cycled on and off 60 times a second, and that is the lowest refresh rate you can set a monitor to--if you want to give yourself the king of all headaches, use a monitor set to 60hz refresh under a 60hz fluorescent).

 

Good old persistence of vision. It's why the Roadrunner's legs were all blurry. Or why it made sense that they were blurry.

[Edstock]

1/60th of a second.

 

Yes, of course.

 

I can't count how many times I would visit people who had their monitor at the 60Hz default, who did not know it could be changed, let alone how to change. Flickerville, forever.

[RichardJensen]

Yes, of course.

 

I can't count how many times I would visit people who had their monitor at the 60Hz default, who did not know it could be changed, let alone how to change. Flickerville, forever.

I once barely made it home from Gateway, after spending two hours staring at a 60hz monitor under 60hz fluorescents; I was seeing double when I could focus on anything at all. I had such a headache I felt like hitting my hands with hammers to dull the pain.

Edited December 25, 2007 by RichardJensen

[aneekr]

The current Mountaineer with clear tail lamps, the new Sable and also the Taurus X have an LED tail lamp. It's just not LED's PLURAL. It's actually one LED diffused like an old fashioned incandescent. The only big disadvantage I see with this type is in broad daylight or direct sunlight, where I noticed they get washed out. You can barely see them lit up!

Correct. This system for standardized LED fixtures was developed by Osram Sylvania; its trade name is "Joule". GM uses it on the '08 Malibu LTZ. The refreshed Milan may well use it too.

[P71_CrownVic]

It's amazing that the human vision system can see the start-up/shut-off difference between filament bulbs and LED's — I haven't seen any numbers, but the difference is, just guessing, about 1/100 of a second, maybe less, like 1/300 of a second.

That difference...results in a 17' shorter stopping distance at 65MPH.

 

Muth Mirror Co.

[ANTAUS]

There are some vehicles (like my LS), where you have the 3rd light with LED, while the others being filaments...It's interesting driving behind these vehicles because you can always tell where the LED blasts on quicker than the regular bulbs. I'm looking to replace my filaments with aftermarket LED's.

[rmc523]

There are some vehicles (like my LS), where you have the 3rd light with LED, while the others being filaments...It's interesting driving behind these vehicles because you can always tell where the LED blasts on quicker than the regular bulbs. I'm looking to replace my filaments with aftermarket LED's.

 

I notice that on vehicles too. Or in Milan/MKZ's case, the regular taillights being LEDs, w/ the 3rd light being a regular bulb (which looks horrible)

[silvrsvt]

1/60th of a second.

 

The eye cannot register changes faster than that (old fluorescents cycled on and off 60 times a second, and that is the lowest refresh rate you can set a monitor to--if you want to give yourself the king of all headaches, use a monitor set to 60hz refresh under a 60hz fluorescent).

 

Good old persistence of vision. It's why the Roadrunner's legs were all blurry. Or why it made sense that they were blurry.

 

All depends on the tech being used also, Most LCD displays max out at 60 Hz, but yet you don't get those bleery eyes/headache like you do running a CRT monitor.

[RichardJensen]

That difference...results in a 17' shorter stopping distance at 65MPH.

Hmm. It's actually 1/5th of a second faster.

[RichardJensen]

All depends on the tech being used also, Most LCD displays max out at 60 Hz, but yet you don't get those bleery eyes/headache like you do running a CRT monitor.

Probably because LCDs don't refresh the same way as CRTs.