Revive the "Have you driven a Ford lately?" ad campaign

[matthewq4b]

In the province of Ontario, Sunoco has been putting up to 10% alcohol into their regular for at least a decade.

 

 

Yes But I'm not there now am I ?

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

So which province is the California of Canada, Ontario or Quebec?

[matthewq4b]

Doesn't mirror it exactly, but it's dang close:

 

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/070321.htm

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_...re_through_2007

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

In fact, the two test regimens are so similar that the Transport Canada figures are ratcheted down 15% for Highway and 10% for city, vs the 22% & 10% adjustment with the old EPA standards. ( http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/f...uide/values.htm )

 

Also, the tests are performed by the mfr. just as in the US. They are not performed by the gov't.

 

 

And your point is ? Did I not say that the Testing here does not mirror the EPS testing and you posted links to prove that?

 

 

No Transport Canada dose do the actual testing but they set the guidlines. I was mearly letting people know what Department was in charge of it here.

 

Jeeze anything else to nit pick over while your at it ?

Frack lighten up dude.

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

And your point is ? Did I not say that the Testing here does not mirror the EPS testing and you posted links to prove that?

This is what I said:

 

roughly in line with what the Flex would've gotten under the old test cycle.

 

You took exception to that statement. In fact, the foundation of your reply is a difference in methodology and a difference in gasoline quality between the US and Canada.

 

Therefore, I see no particular reason why you should object to me posting references that prove that the old EPA & current Transport Canada methods are "roughly in line" with each other, and that the differences can be quite easily overstated.

 

Furthermore, I would be extremely surprised if gas mileage tests performed for either the EPA or Transport Canada (probably by the same personnel in the same labs with the same equipment) were performed with different gasolines. Undoubtedly the tests are run with pure 87 octane.

 

IMO, I could just as easily fault you for nitpicking, based on the extreme similarities between the US & Canadian testing methods :P

Edited February 15, 2009 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

And, as always, your mileage may vary.....

[RichardJensen]

For comparison:

 

2006 Ford Fusion 3.0L

 

EPA: 21/29

 

Transport Canada (after .832 adjustment): 20.8/31.6

 

Now, we know that the Transport Canada highway numbers are ratcheted down 15%, while the EPA numbers are ratcheted down 22%, so, if we apply those numbers in reverse (29 / .78, 31.6 / .85 ) we get: 37.2 and 37.2

 

Basically, the tests for the Ford Fusion yield all but identical results. The biggest difference is the different 'fudge factor' applied to the highway numbers.

Edited February 15, 2009 by RichardJensen

[matthewq4b]

This is what I said:

 

 

 

You took exception to that statement. In fact, the foundation of your reply is a difference in methodology and a difference in gasoline quality between the US and Canada.

 

Therefore, I see no particular reason why you should object to me posting references that prove that the old EPA & current Transport Canada methods are "roughly in line" with each other, and that the differences can be quite easily overstated.

 

Furthermore, I would be extremely surprised if gas mileage tests performed for either the EPA or Transport Canada (probably by the same personnel in the same labs with the same equipment) were performed with different gasolines. Undoubtedly the tests are run with pure 87 octane.

 

IMO, I could just as easily fault you for nitpicking, based on the extreme similarities between the US & Canadian testing methods :P

 

 

Uh First off we are not talking about the Old system in the states now are we ?

 

I do not care what they did then I'm talking now. The Transport Canada rating for the 09 flex is 28.6 MPG U.S Hwy and 18.6 City this is after the correction. The EPA rates the 09 Flex at 24 MPG Hyway and 17 city Both FWD units.

 

The current testing methods DO NOT MIRROR EACH OTHER. As I stated

 

The OLD ones were very close But we are not talking about what the flex's mileage was years past now are we?

 

So why would you even bother comparing what USED TO BE DONE to what is being done now?

 

So we have a 4 MPG difference on the hyway and this is with the your supposed claim that the testing regimes are near identical. And that both are using pure 87 octane fuel. Ya ok sure.

 

I never mentioned fuel quality cause quality has B all to do with it has to do with energy content.

 

Our pump gas here has more potnetial BTU's per pound cause there is not the addtive load in it compared to the States. The raw stuff piped from here bound to the U.S has a higher additive load when it leaves the refinery compared to domestic use gasoline.

 

A good chunk of the addtive load are presevatives to keep it from going sour and minmize water absorbtion, since we do not stock pile fuel here like in the U.S, so long term so storage concerns are generally not an issue.

 

And who knows what the hell else is added down stream. Some of the crap speced for U.S bound fuel is astounding. Trimethylpentane, lighter aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthenes ),toluene ,benzene, corrosion inhibitors lubricators,metal deactivators,oxygenates (Used in U.S bound winter fuels),antioxidants ethylene dibromide(Combustion Modifier) MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl we dropped it a few years back but it is still used in U.S Gasoline)

 

Our gasoline here generally has a higher enrgy content. Like it or not that is the way it is.

Also gasoline varies from state to state.

 

And you can not use pure 87 octane as some of the addtives are combustion modifiers and are used to lower emmsions plus a whole host of other stuff that helps the perfomrnace of the engine. This sutff my help build power or allow for a cleaner burning engine but it does take away from over all effcinacy.

 

 

The testing regiems now are NOT close. Comparing the Old EPA testing methods to Transport Canada's current method has no relevence to the conversation at hand. I quoted figures for CURRENT MPG estmates under the current testing regimes.

 

Try to stay on topic and current.

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

Uh First off we are not talking about the Old system in the states now are we ?

Yes, we are. Read my post closely and carefully:

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=464576

 

What are the last three words?

 

Now don't you feel a little sheepish? :P

 

Especially since the words immediately preceding those noted the c. 10% difference between old and new EPA methodologies?

[RichardJensen]

Please note the following statement:

 

Additives in pump gas throughout the US (especially ethanol) CAN and often WILL affect observed fuel economy.

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

(I put it in bold and added a lot of exclamation points because I want you to read it, and so you don't assume that the following contradicts it)

 

 

The test results from the old EPA test regimen and the Transport Canada regimen are so similar that, given the similarity of the test cycles, there can't be a significant difference between the fuels used in the tests.

Edited February 15, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Noah Harbinger]

So which province is the California of Canada, Ontario or Quebec?

 

By which you mean the one everyone wants to move to? :-D

[Edstock]

So which province is the California of Canada, Ontario or Quebec?

That would be British Columbia. IIRC, growing tokage is the largest cash-crop, the police are taser-happy wackos and the gangs are busy shooting people. Quebec is its own world, and Ontario is a lot like the US, but without the litter.

[suv_guy_19]

So which province is the California of Canada, Ontario or Quebec?

 

Ed's right, it would be British Columbia...especially in the lower mainland....and I would love to live there. Ontario would be more like a mix of Michigan and New York. Quebec is like.....well....ummm...Quebec. They are very green though.

[RichardJensen]

By which you mean the one everyone wants to move to? :-D

I'd qualify that as "the one that everyone wants to move to------and from"

[mustangman9494]

let me see as i recall that taurus was very affordable! has anyone any idea how much the new ones will be priced and what levels of trim offered?? i see the that the sho version will be a bit pricey at close to forty thousand?. will the new taurus be able capture the magic of family affordability? lets hope so i don,t see the affordability right now of buying an edge or flex unless your dad buys you one for your wedding. hope they remember the smaller income buyer this time as ford seems to have forgotten that most of are indians and the chiefs are all in financial trouble.

[lovelincolns]

I think the "Drive One" campaign is/was supposed to be a modern interpretation of the "Have you driven a Ford lately?" campaign.

Wouldn't it be great to see billboards all over the country featuring the new Taurus with the words "Have You Driven A Ford Lately" under the car? Commercials on TV would be nice too!

[twintornados]

Wouldn't it be great to see billboards all over the country featuring the new Taurus with the words "Have You Driven A Ford Lately" under the car? Commercials on TV would be nice too!

Yes it would, as long as it ties in with "Ford. Drive one."

[NickF1011]

let me see as i recall that taurus was very affordable! has anyone any idea how much the new ones will be priced and what levels of trim offered?? i see the that the sho version will be a bit pricey at close to forty thousand?. will the new taurus be able capture the magic of family affordability? lets hope so i don,t see the affordability right now of buying an edge or flex unless your dad buys you one for your wedding. hope they remember the smaller income buyer this time as ford seems to have forgotten that most of are indians and the chiefs are all in financial trouble.

 

Let's try to keep in mind what the Taurus has become compared to what it was in decades past, mainly that it's a fullsize sedan now. With that comes fullsize sedan pricing. Of course, Ford has already announced that the '10 Taurus starts at the same base MSRP as the 2009, which is well under $30,000. For those who can't afford that, they need to come to grips that a new fullsize sedan just probably isn't in their budget, just as it probably wasn't 20 years ago either. The Fusion starts well under $20,000 to appease those buyers. The Taurus is intentionally (and rightly so) a significant step up from the Fusion.

[mettech]

Let's try to keep in mind what the Taurus has become compared to what it was in decades past, mainly that it's a fullsize sedan now. With that comes fullsize sedan pricing. Of course, Ford has already announced that the '10 Taurus starts at the same base MSRP as the 2009, which is well under $30,000. For those who can't afford that, they need to come to grips that a new fullsize sedan just probably isn't in their budget, just as it probably wasn't 20 years ago either. The Fusion starts well under $20,000 to appease those buyers. The Taurus is intentionally (and rightly so) a significant step up from the Fusion.

 

 

It is a step up from any American made product outside of Cadillac.

[NickF1011]

It is a step up from any American made product outside of Cadillac.

 

Well...excluding other recent FoMoCo products (Flex, MKT, MKS are all pretty well-designed too) I would tend to agree. The Taurus could be the best value out of all of those though for sure.

[rmc523]

Wouldn't it be great to see billboards all over the country featuring the new Taurus with the words "Have You Driven A Ford Lately" under the car? Commercials on TV would be nice too!

 

Yes it would, as long as it ties in with "Ford. Drive one."

 

lovelincolns, I agree with completely, it would be nice to see that, but I think twintornados makes a good point. At the same time, however, with the "Drive One" slogan being a modern interpretation of the "Have You Driven A Ford, Lately?" slogan, it may work. As others have said (I believe), some regional dealers still use the "Have You Driven A Ford, Lately?" slogan in advertising.

 

Personally, I kinda liked the "Built for the Road Ahead" slogan...I distinctly remember a commercial where they had various lines (such as a baseball foul line, etc.) which then turned into the road lane lines with the cars driving along...haven't been able to find it on youtube though. I think that slogan suffered more because of the lackluster product (design-wise) Ford had at the time. I think it also ties into Ford's recent Drive One, because if you think about it...built for the road ahead could apply to quality (it'll last long), tech (future tech in the cars), safety (safe for long), and fuel economy (long distances b/t fillups).

[428mach1]

The message, what ever the Slogan is -- needs to include the word Quality and value per dollar.-- I like the ad where real people talk about their experience in the new Ford -- Esp where they show the features of the new Fords -- Its going to take time to believe that Ford produces a quality Auto -- Esp after all the bad press -- Time and effort on Fords Part will make the difference -- Nothing else -- The only problem , time is not on Fords side, esp in this market, but they even have me wanting to go down and Check out a SHO -- And I don't even need a car --

[mustangman9494]

why not bring back quality is job one since ford is now on par with honda and toyota in complaints per thousand?

[Cougarpower]

well this one looks nice maybe get the music to todays standards

 

or this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hehFVlqSJ2M...feature=related

 

or this one

 

or this one

 

 

 

some times the fans can do a better work than the true media companies

[rmc523]

I think Ford should expand on the Proof commercial:

[rmc523]

I hope this link works, but I finally found that "Built for the Road Ahead" commercial I was talking about:

 

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...VideoID=2450884

 

It was done back in '05, I liked this ad for whatever reason.