Michael Reynolds Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 2009 Ford Edge Caught Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Wow. Beaten with an ugly stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) The concept for that came before anyone saw the Flex. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 The concept for that came before anyone saw the Flex. Qué? I take it you meant the Edge, which made its debut at NAIAS a year after the concept that is now the Toyota Venza. Not sure where you are going with that? If anything it goes to show you how long it took Toyota to deliver on a design that has been around since 2005. I also doubt very much so that Ford took the Toyota design and applied it to the Edge. Seriously who copies anything that Toyota introduces? I don't even think the Chinese do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 But the concept DID come AFTER Ford launched the FUSION & showed the 427 concept. Toyota proudly declared that the 3 broad horizontal bars were the 'new face of Toyota'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Yeah I meant the Edge, my bad. Point remains, I don't see any stuff here that would make you say "Edge ripoff" The theme behind the headlights of the Edge was hardly new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) But the concept DID come AFTER Ford launched the FUSION & showed the 427 concept. Toyota proudly declared that the 3 broad horizontal bars were the 'new face of Toyota'. Again, wrong. Shield grilles were hardly new as well, they used to be one of those "unrealistic" touches some concepts had. Ford was simply the first manufacturer to go ahead with a production version of those. There's a reason why there's an ugly vent or huge gap below most 3 bar grille Fords. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 wow, front screams Edge and the rear screams Nissan/Infiniti It would also make little kids scream if they saw it in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) BTW, it's funny to see how some of the same guys who're calling this an Edge ripoff, are the same guys who said the Interceptor concept wasn't a ripoff of the 300C, the Milan didn't copy its tailights from a VAG product, the Explorer didn't rip off VW, etc. This wouldn't be BON if there wasn't a mountain of double standards. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 BTW, it's funny to see how some of the same guys who're calling this an Edge ripoff, are the same guys who said the Interceptor concept wasn't a ripoff of the 300C. Well that was a blatant ripoff especially in the profile. I personally never thought the Interceptor was all that good looling. the grille just didnt seem to work on something that big and squared off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 BTW, it's funny to see how some of the same guys who're calling this an Edge ripoff, are the same guys who said the Interceptor concept wasn't a ripoff of the 300C, the Milan didn't copy its tailights from a VAG product, the Explorer didn't rip off VW, etc. This wouldn't be BON if there wasn't a mountain of double standards. And there's no way you would be defending the car if it were a Ford. The double standard exists on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Well that was a blatant ripoff especially in the profile. I personally never thought the Interceptor was all that good looling. the grille just didnt seem to work on something that big and squared off. Yes, the Interceptor was a ripoff of the 300. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Again, wrong. Actually, no. Every statement I made is correct. The Toyota FT-SX debuted in March 2005. This was after Ford showed the Fusion and the 427. It was also claimed that this was the 'new face of Toyota'. http://cars.ign.com/articles/596/596831p1.html In fact, the Edge's design was already frozen in March 2005, as prototypes were seen cruising in September of that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 BTW, it's funny to see how some of the same guys who're calling this an Edge ripoff, are the same guys who said the Interceptor concept wasn't a ripoff of the 300C, the Milan didn't copy its tailights from a VAG product, the Explorer didn't rip off VW, etc. This wouldn't be BON if there wasn't a mountain of double standards. Wanna know the difference? Freeman Thomas did the Interceptor and the 300C. You tell me how someone can 'rip off' his own work. You can call it derivative, but not a rip off. When was the last time YOU stole something from YOURSELF. As for the "milan copied VW, Explorer copied VW" stuff you are stretching so far as to strain something if you're not careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Actually, no. Every statement I made is correct. The Toyota FT-SX debuted in March 2005. This was after Ford showed the Fusion and the 427. It was also claimed that this was the 'new face of Toyota'. http://cars.ign.com/articles/596/596831p1.html In fact, the Edge's design was already frozen in March 2005, as prototypes were seen cruising in September of that year. So Toyota designed the concept in 3 weeks or less, uh-uh. If you're going to use that logic, it's only logical that other automakers work in the same way. What I was challenging was the notion shield grilles were created by Ford, they weren't, there's nothing on the Edge that you can really call "innovative". They weren't new in the 427. You can find every article about it in existance and absolutely no one talked about the grille as an innovation in design. Anyway, the point of this thread is diluted even more after the fact the Venza didn't go with that design in the end, the rest of the body doesn't say Edge at all and those type of headlights weren't invented by Ford either. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 So Toyota designed the concept in 3 weeks or less, uh-uh. The use of three horizontal bars with minimal spacing between them as a conspicuous aspect of the new "T-Face" design language is most CERTAINLY a direct copy of what FORD had done with the 427. What is not at issue is the use of 'shield' grilles, rather it is the conspicuous choice of three horizontal bars with minimal spacing between them as the corporate "Language" long after Ford had announced a similar strategy. It cannot be reasonably asserted that Toyota designers had no idea what Ford was doing, therefore it cannot be reasonably asserted that they were unaware of similarities between their T-Face and Ford's language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 Yeah I meant the Edge, my bad. Point remains, I don't see any stuff here that would make you say "Edge ripoff" The theme behind the headlights of the Edge was hardly new. Where did I mention that it was an Edge rip off? Didn't imply it either. Simply poked fun that Toyota basically brought a design to the market that we've already seen on a concept and a production vehicle from another manufacturer. I'd be willing to bet if it were the other way around you would be whistling an entirely different tune. BTW there is more than a 'headlight' similarity. Then again what do you know about designs, you were the one proclaiming before the new Focus made its debut that there was no way possible Ford would be able to make the changes to it that they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 Regardless, the concept is old. I can't think of how many people complain up a storm about how long it takes to go from concept to sellable product. Yet, here you have a Toyota product with 'already seen' product language (roofline/headlights/grille/greenhouse) that took Toyota 4 years to get to market. Yes, that's Toyota 'Moving Forward'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) It cannot be reasonably asserted that Toyota designers had no idea what Ford was doing, therefore it cannot be reasonably asserted that they were unaware of similarities between their T-Face and Ford's language. And that did end up being the new face of Toyota, you don't know if the shield grille was part of that. Everything else is there on the Camry and whatnot. Hell, most concepts from Toyota/Lexus STILL have those shield grilles. The shape of the face is retained, they just put a regular grille in place. And regardless if the Edge was frozen or not by that time, using the same logic, then the Edge "ripped off" the FT-SX's headlights since Toyota introduced them "first". All I'm saying is this is the pot calling the kettle back. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 And that did end up being the new face of Toyota, you don't know if the shield grille was part of that. Everything else is there on the Camry and whatnot. Hell, most concepts from Toyota/Lexus STILL have those shield grilles. The shape of the face is retained, they just put a regular grille in place. And regardless if the Edge was frozen or not by that time, using the same logic, then the Edge "ripped off" the FT-SX's headlights since Toyota introduced them "first". All I'm saying is this is the pot calling the kettle back. Only that assumption doesn't make sense. I doubt someone at Ford thought gee what I great idea, lets redesign the front fascia of the Edge/Escape/Taurus X/Flex/F-150 to mimic a headlight design from Toyota. Yeah right. Put down that bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 using the same logic, then the Edge "ripped off" the FT-SX's headlights since Toyota introduced them "first". That's not the same LOGIC. See my LOGIC contains the aspect of INTENTIONALITY, which says that Toyota KNOWINGLY took the 3 bar from Ford. Absent INTENTIONALITY which requires KNOWLEDGE Ford could not have 'ripped off' Toyota. QED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Regardless, the concept is old. I can't think of how many people complain up a storm about how long it takes to go from concept to sellable product. Yet, here you have a Toyota product with 'already seen' product language (roofline/headlights/grille/greenhouse) that took Toyota 4 years to get to market. Yes, that's Toyota 'Moving Forward'. I really couldn't care less about Toyota, but the Venza is more an exception than the rule to that. The Flex supposedly "proves" how quick Ford can go from concept to production... Yet both concepts were introduced in the same year, except in Toyota's case, that was slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I don't think ANYONE here has called the Fairlane > Flex process quick. I certainly wouldn't agree with such an assertion. It is merely 'quick' in comparison to the Camaro launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) That's not the same LOGIC. See my LOGIC contains the aspect of INTENTIONALITY, which says that Toyota KNOWINGLY took the 3 bar from Ford. Absent INTENTIONALITY which requires KNOWLEDGE Ford could not have 'ripped off' Toyota. QED. They didn't take shit, a lot of companies had used those grilles before for concepts, even you admit that, and to this day, Toyota STILL uses them (see most Lexus concepts for example). If they had 3, 4, 7 slats doesn't matter. It's the same concept. So, USING THE SAME LOGIC, then Ford "ripped off" others with the 427 since it shares the basic premise and came later - find me a single article about it praising the freshness, the originality, etc. of such idea as a grille for a car. Yeah... funny how NO ONE came even close to doing that, and that happened for a reason. To suggest Toyota designed the entire grille of the FT-SX after a glimpse of the 427, is just absurd. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 a lot of companies had used those grilles before for concepts Show me one contemporaneous example of a wide three bar minimal horizontal gap grille. See, if you're going to assert something you must be prepared to back it up with proof. For instance, I said that the FT-SX appeared AFTER Ford had 1) shown the 427, 2) announced in trade magazines that it represented the new 'face' of Ford and 3) had shown the Fusion. All of those statements are verifiable by referring to Automotive News. Now, what evidence can you furnish to show that the grille design consisting of three wide horizontal bars with minimal spacing between them was 'commonplace'? Because if you cannot provide evidence, there is no basis for your assertion. --- And you're probably one of those guys that thinks a liberal arts education is useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.