Good News- Interceptor Concept is a Reality!

[RichardJensen]

I would say, Mustang drive line components and yes suspension components, could be engineered into a legitimate RWD platform.

The suspension components would either be too heavy for the Mustang or too light for the Lincoln. Take your pick.

 

You could tar up the handling by using heavy full size sedan suspension components, increasing unsprung weight.... And compromising the geometry, for sedan application. And where would you be? You'd have an IRS that would struggle to be as competent as the SRA in the current Mustang. Not unlike the situation seen with both the Challenger and the Camaro.

 

Oh and Richard, You are absolutely right-- the Camaro is an ugly, bloated large car platform-let's see is that a RWD or FWD platform?. And I'm sure the fact that it is outselling Mustang is an aberation that will be a one time phenom. once all the Bowtie fanatics slack their thirst -right?

Well, let's see: How many Mustangs have been sold over the last 8 years? And how many Camaros?

 

In its first year back, competing against obsolete power plants, the Camaro outsold the Mustang by a few thousand units. That's hardly a harbinger of future success.

[jpd80]

Okay, let's talk about component sharing between a 185" long 3400 lb Mustang and a 4200lb 200" long flagship RWD sedan.

 

What can you share?

 

• Floorpan? No.
• Firewall? No.
• Front subframe & engine bay? No.
• Safety cage? No.
• Seat frames? No.
• Suspension components? No.

 

Essentially the only things you can share between these two RWD vehicles are components that can be shared with almost all other products (electronics), or with the F150.

 

A classic example of this is the bloated and misshapen Camaro. It's built on a full size sedan platform.

I wouldn't subscribe too much to any theory suggesting that FoA would cock up the Mustang as badly as Holden

did with Camaro. Where Holden went wrong is that they made too many parts common, parts that hurt weight,

they could have used a lighter top hat. All of that is possible with derivatives on a shared platform.

 

A true derivative shares at maximum around 40% of its parts with the originator vehicle, increase the percentage

beyond that and the vehicle is compromised to cost and the individuality lost. Camaro is a classic example of this,

too much of Commodore's heavy framing was retained

 

Vehicles can exist as derivatives and still have completely different sheet metal, only power train, electrical and

suspension need be shared. The proof of that is with Territory, it was given a dedicated floor pan and shares

roughly 40% of its parts with Falcon sedan and I have every belief that if a Falcon-Mustang collaboration was forged,

both vehicles would have different floor pans and top hats keeping all of the good traits and none of the bad.

 

Citing GM as an example of why something shouldn't be attempted is to confuse a base issue with a culture that

continues to build compromised vehicles for its markets, Ford has no such impediments.

Edited January 12, 2011 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

The Mustang is roughly Fusion sized, so a Fusion sized Falcon, IMO would work quite nicely with the Mustang. And maybe even a $35k (today's prices) entry lux. for Lincoln.

 

--

 

Those who believe that Ford can realistically share a significant part count between a $50-$60k D or even E sized Lincoln sedan and the Mustang.......................................................

Edited January 12, 2011 by RichardJensen

[ford4v429]

The panthers weren't bad because of RWD - they were bad in spite of it

 

what was so bad about the panthers? they didnt sell because they were unimproved forever while 100% fresh designs were being tooled up all around- was it any wonder why sales were down? the old windstar, the old taurus'- they had head gasket/tranny and rust issues that made them 'bad products' in the eyes of many- myself included, and the biggest reason I dont want any more transvers/FWD cars...I like to work on my own stuff and they are a pain in the butt.

the panther had a plastic intake manifold design issue- IIRC that was about all I ever heard anyone complain about- the only rust prone area was top/rear of the front wheel arch...windstar rockers, explorer rockers, fox chassis rockers, extended cab truck rear door/rockers, truck core supports- all things many folks have told me they hated about 'how Fords rot out so fast'...to me those were also 'bad products'- wether sucessful or not for Ford, I know a few folks that made it their last ford because of it.

panthers dont rot out if marginally cared for, they were dead reliable, they were pretty 'unbreakable', I dont know anyone thats ever complained about one falling apart- just that they were so stale looking.

 

to me they were bad only in that Ford insisted upon it by not investing a cent in them. just another opinion

 

wether the platform died because of lack of upkeep, or lack of investment was justified by poor sales, its a what came first the chicken or the egg type arguement- but still, forget sales, it was a very decent product in the eyes of many, compared to a lot of other 'successful' junk thats been peddled over the last 2 decades.

[Bob Rosadini]

How much profit does Chrysler get for that AutoWeek cover?  Not a dime.  What a stupid point.  The Lincoln LS was MT COTY (AND RWD) yet they lost money on it because it was too expensive to build. My "stupid point" was that the original Interceptor made the cover of Autoweek TWICE.  Isn't  that what concept cars are supposed to do?  Generate buzz? Or are you implying that coverage on the cover of Autoweek is for sale?You're confusing popularity with good business decisions.I don't think anyone here thinks RWD is bad.  The panthers weren't bad because of RWD - they were bad in spite of it and there was no business case to continue with them.  Ford had plans for a global RWD program but the cost was too high to justify the benefits (remember, Ford was almost bankrupt at the time).  It made more sense to use the existing platforms.We're saying Ford made the right business decision and that it can't afford to cater to special interest groups or magazine editors because they don't buy many new cars.

[Bob Rosadini]

How much profit does Chrysler get for that AutoWeek cover? Not a dime. What a stupid point. The Lincoln LS was MT COTY (AND RWD) yet they lost money on it because it was too expensive to build.

 

You're confusing popularity with good business decisions.

 

I don't think anyone here thinks RWD is bad. The panthers weren't bad because of RWD - they were bad in spite of it and there was no business case to continue with them. Ford had plans for a global RWD program but the cost was too high to justify the benefits (remember, Ford was almost bankrupt at the time). It made more sense to use the existing platforms.

 

We're saying Ford made the right business decision and that it can't afford to cater to special interest groups or magazine editors because they don't buy many new cars.

 

 

Sorry about that double post. As I was saying, my "stupid post" as you put it had to do with the Interceptor making the cover of Autoweek TWICE. Isn't that what concept cars are supposed to do-generate buzz? Or are you saying the cover of Autoweek is for sale too? As for the LS being a money loser because it was "too expensive to build" I guess I would say- how the hell do you build a car and not know what your manufacturing costs are going to be?- Perhaps they thought it was going to command a better margin? And it didn't- but whose fault is that? It came out to rave reviews as an American Bimmer and they pissed the opportunity away with lousy marketing- again IMO.

 

The Panthers were bad? Really? By what standard? You come across as a "its all about the money" guy. Think Ford didn't make money building Panthers? But again- self fulfilling prophecy- spend no money on it, -either design or marketing and its dead. My last two cars before my SHO were CV's. Last one was a Sport that gave me a consistant 21- 24 mpg-with a trunk usually full of files, surveying equip. etc. But please do elaborate on just how "bad" the Panthers were.

[Bob Rosadini]

I wouldn't subscribe too much to any theory suggesting that FoA would cock up the Mustang as badly as Holden

did with Camaro. Where Holden went wrong is that they made too many parts common, parts that hurt weight,

they could have used a lighter top hat. All of that is possible with derivatives on a shared platform.

 

A true derivative shares at maximum around 40% of its parts with the originator vehicle, increase the percentage

beyond that and the vehicle is compromised to cost and the individuality lost. Camaro is a classic example of this,

too much of Commodore's heavy framing was retained

 

Vehicles can exist as derivatives and still have completely different sheet metal, only power train, electrical and

suspension need be shared. The proof of that is with Territory, it was given a dedicated floor pan and shares

roughly 40% of its parts with Falcon sedan and I have every belief that if a Falcon-Mustang collaboration was forged,

both vehicles would have different floor pans and top hats keeping all of the good traits and none of the bad.

 

Citing GM as an example of why something shouldn't be attempted is to confuse a base issue with a culture that

continues to build compromised vehicles for its markets, Ford has no such impediments.

 

Thank you!

[Bob Rosadini]

The suspension components would either be too heavy for the Mustang or too light for the Lincoln. Take your pick.

 

Make up your mind.

Well, let's see: How many Mustangs have been sold over the last 8 years? And how many Camaros?

 

Give me a break-Last 8 years?-Let's see Camaro was out of production for how many of those 8?

 

In its first year back, competing against obsolete power plants, the Camaro outsold the Mustang by a few thousand units. That's hardly a harbinger of future success.

 

Obsolete power plants?? the pushrod Chevy competing against "obsolete power plants"????

 

Richard you are grasping at straws

[akirby]

what was so bad about the panthers? they didnt sell because they were unimproved forever while 100% fresh designs were being tooled up all around- was it any wonder why sales were down? the old windstar, the old taurus'- they had head gasket/tranny and rust issues that made them 'bad products' in the eyes of many- myself included, and the biggest reason I dont want any more transvers/FWD cars...I like to work on my own stuff and they are a pain in the butt.

the panther had a plastic intake manifold design issue- IIRC that was about all I ever heard anyone complain about- the only rust prone area was top/rear of the front wheel arch...windstar rockers, explorer rockers, fox chassis rockers, extended cab truck rear door/rockers, truck core supports- all things many folks have told me they hated about 'how Fords rot out so fast'...to me those were also 'bad products'- wether sucessful or not for Ford, I know a few folks that made it their last ford because of it.

panthers dont rot out if marginally cared for, they were dead reliable, they were pretty 'unbreakable', I dont know anyone thats ever complained about one falling apart- just that they were so stale looking.

 

to me they were bad only in that Ford insisted upon it by not investing a cent in them. just another opinion

 

wether the platform died because of lack of upkeep, or lack of investment was justified by poor sales, its a what came first the chicken or the egg type arguement- but still, forget sales, it was a very decent product in the eyes of many, compared to a lot of other 'successful' junk thats been peddled over the last 2 decades.

 

Name one new mass market body on frame car platform created by ANYBODY in the last 10 years. Body on frame cannot compete with modern unibody designs. If they could everybody would be making them.

 

They weren't bad vehicles per se - they just got replaced by better technology.

[Bob Rosadini]

Name one new mass market body on frame car platform created by ANYBODY in the last 10 years. Body on frame cannot compete with modern unibody designs. If they could everybody would be making them.

 

They weren't bad vehicles per se - they just got replaced by better technology.

 

Who said anything about BOF?? This BS started because I had the f-ing nerve to make a comment about someone building "an Interceptor"- and we then went down that ......."RWD can't make any money, no one wants RWD blah blah".

 

And read your post-your implication was that they were "bad vehicles". nothing could be further from the truth. Everything that Ford builds should have the longevity, durability and low cost of ownership that the Panthers provided.

[akirby]

Sorry about that double post. As I was saying, my "stupid post" as you put it had to do with the Interceptor making the cover of Autoweek TWICE. Isn't that what concept cars are supposed to do-generate buzz? Or are you saying the cover of Autoweek is for sale too?

 

How much profit does Ford get from "buzz"? Ford can build the best RWD V8 powered sports sedan in the world and get tons of "buzz" but in the end it comes down to the cost of developing the platform versus the sales volume and cost. Since Ford did not have a suitable existing RWD UNIBODY platform available to make the Interceptor (it was all smoke and mirrors using pieces from different platforms) the "buzz" was useless.

 

As for the LS being a money loser because it was "too expensive to build" I guess I would say- how the hell do you build a car and not know what your manufacturing costs are going to be?- Perhaps they thought it was going to command a better margin? And it didn't- but whose fault is that? It came out to rave reviews as an American Bimmer and they pissed the opportunity away with lousy marketing- again IMO.

 

They based it on 100K units including European sales which was TOTALLY unrealistic. It used expensive aluminum suspension parts and low volume V8 engines making it more expensive than necessary. Had it been able to use the cheaper 4.6L V8 it could have had a lot more power and been cheaper to build and it might have survived on 50K units given a few other variants. Incidentally it was the aluminum suspension that prevented the 4.6L V8 from fitting. There was room in the engine bay but not enough to put the engine in from the bottom on the assembly line because the suspension was in the way.

 

The Panthers were bad? Really? By what standard? You come across as a "its all about the money" guy. Think Ford didn't make money building Panthers? But again- self fulfilling prophecy- spend no money on it, -either design or marketing and its dead. My last two cars before my SHO were CV's. Last one was a Sport that gave me a consistant 21- 24 mpg-with a trunk usually full of files, surveying equip. etc. But please do elaborate on just how "bad" the Panthers were.

 

They were great cars in their day. Going forward there is no place for body on frame sedans. Name one other mfr who's making a new mass market BOF sedan today. Do you think that's by accident? Anybody who's driven a pre-2011 Explorer back to back with an Edge or MKX can tell you the advantage of unibody construction. My wife had 2 Explorers, an Expedition and an Aviator - all BOF SUVs - and recently switched to a 2008 Edge. It's like night and day. Better ride, better handling, better NVH, better fuel economy, better crash performance, etc. etc. etc.

 

Continuing to believe that the Panthers could have been updated and been competitive in today's car market against modern unibody offerings is naive.

 

How many modern pushrod engines are left and how many are now OHC? Same reason.

[Bob Rosadini]

How much profit does Ford get from "buzz"? Ford can build the best RWD V8 powered sports sedan in the world and get tons of "buzz" but in the end it comes down to the cost of developing the platform versus the sales volume and cost. Since Ford did not have a suitable existing RWD UNIBODY platform available to make the Interceptor (it was all smoke and mirrors using pieces from different platforms) the "buzz" was useless.

 

 

 

They based it on 100K units including European sales which was TOTALLY unrealistic. It used expensive aluminum suspension parts and low volume V8 engines making it more expensive than necessary. Had it been able to use the cheaper 4.6L V8 it could have had a lot more power and been cheaper to build and it might have survived on 50K units given a few other variants. Incidentally it was the aluminum suspension that prevented the 4.6L V8 from fitting. There was room in the engine bay but not enough to put the engine in from the bottom on the assembly line because the suspension was in the way.

 

 

 

They were great cars in their day. Going forward there is no place for body on frame sedans. Name one other mfr who's making a new mass market BOF sedan today. Do you think that's by accident? Anybody who's driven a pre-2011 Explorer back to back with an Edge or MKX can tell you the advantage of unibody construction. My wife had 2 Explorers, an Expedition and an Aviator - all BOF SUVs - and recently switched to a 2008 Edge. It's like night and day. Better ride, better handling, better NVH, better fuel economy, better crash performance, etc. etc. etc.

 

Continuing to believe that the Panthers could have been updated and been competitive in today's car market against modern unibody offerings is naive.

 

How many modern pushrod engines are left and how many are now OHC? Same reason.

[Bob Rosadini]

How much profit does Ford get from "buzz"?    Ford can build the best RWD V8 powered sports sedan in the world and get tons of "buzz" but in the end it comes down to the cost of developing the platform versus the sales volume and cost.  Since Ford did not have a suitable existing RWD UNIBODY platform available to make the Interceptor (it was all smoke and mirrors using pieces from different platforms) the "buzz" was useless.They based it on 100K units including European sales which was TOTALLY unrealistic.   It used expensive aluminum suspension parts and low volume V8 engines making it more expensive than necessary.  Had it been able to use the cheaper 4.6L V8 it could have had a lot more power and been cheaper to build and it might have survived on 50K units given a few other variants.  Incidentally it was the aluminum suspension that prevented the 4.6L V8 from fitting.  There was room in the engine bay but not enough to put the engine in from the bottom on the assembly line because the suspension was in the way.They were great cars in their day.  Going forward there is no place for body on frame sedans.  Name one other mfr who's making a new mass market BOF sedan today.  Do you think that's by accident?  Anybody who's driven a pre-2011 Explorer back to back with an Edge or MKX can tell you the advantage of unibody construction.  My wife had 2 Explorers, an Expedition and an Aviator - all BOF SUVs - and recently switched to a 2008 Edge.  It's like night and day.  Better ride, better handling, better NVH, better fuel economy, better crash performance, etc. etc. etc.Continuing to believe that the Panthers could have been updated and been competitive in today's car market against modern unibody offerings is naive.  How many modern pushrod engines are left and how many are now OHC?  Same reason.

Thank you for the education on just why the LS was doomed- I guess I will take your word for it- bottom line all foreseable conditions right? (except the sales figure) I guess what you are saying is there were some pretty dumb people running that program huh?

 

As for my comment on the Interceptor that started this issue, I guess you are saying that the entire concept issue is a big waste of my shareholder dollars? Because if you "run it up the flagpole and people salute" and you do nothing about it, what is the point. You are saying the Interceptor had NO chance of EVER going to production?

 

Last point, while I have done many posts suggesting that STAP could have remained viable for not a lot of dollars, at no point did the Panther, or "let's save BOF" ever come into this discussion. So while one genius refers to my initial post as "inane" and while you suggest my comments were "Stupid", I beg to differ with you. The discussion here, and my point was, I believe there is a place for RWD in Ford's product slate.Oh, and as for pushrods, Richard is the one that suggests the Camaro's success this year is because it is competing against the 2010 Mustang and its "obsolete power ". Unless I missed a news flash I do believe there are some pushrods under the hood of that Bowtie??

[akirby]

Thank you for the education on just why the LS was doomed- I guess I will take your word for it- bottom line all foreseable conditions right? (except the sales figure) I guess what you are saying is there were some pretty dumb people running that program huh?

 

I think it was simply an overzealous product planner who overestimated and the bean counters didn't spot the flaw in the business case. The point was you can build anything by throwing money at it but for it to be successful you have to figure out how to build it profitably.

 

As for my comment on the Interceptor that started this issue, I guess you are saying that the entire concept issue is a big waste of my shareholder dollars? Because if you "run it up the flagpole and people salute" and you do nothing about it, what is the point. You are saying the Interceptor had NO chance of EVER going to production?

 

Apparently they took a Falcon frame and cobbled up some Mustang chassis parts underneath it. It wasn't even a running vehicle. The first thing they showed Mulally when he arrived was the Interceptor. He absolutely loved it and his first question was "when are we going to build it"? When he was told that it couldn't be built and that it was just a show car he went nuclear and declared that Ford would no longer be producing concepts that they had no intention of building.

 

But my original point regarding concepts and buzz is......so what? It's good for some quick press and some oohs and aahs but after that - what does it buy you?

 

What's better - a concept car that isn't like the production car or a fantastic new vehicle that's ready to hit the showroom floor in the next few months? Concepts have their place - conveying future design language and features e.g. - but selling vehicles isn't one of them because they don't do that.

 

Last point, while I have done many posts suggesting that STAP could have remained viable for not a lot of dollars, at no point did the Panther, or "let's save BOF" ever come into this discussion. So while one genius refers to my initial post as "inane" and while you suggest my comments were "Stupid", I beg to differ with you. The discussion here, and my point was, I believe there is a place for RWD in Ford's product slate.Oh, and as for pushrods, Richard is the one that suggests the Camaro's success this year is because it is competing against the 2010 Mustang and its "obsolete power ". Unless I missed a news flash I do believe there are some pushrods under the hood of that Bowtie??

 

Ah yes - the fantastic pushrod 6.2L V8. Let's compare it to a modern OHC engine.

 

Camaro SS

V8, 6.2 Liter

Horsepower 426 @ 5900 RPM

Torque 420 @ 4600 RPM

Gas Mileage 16 mpg City / 24 mpg Hwy

 

 

Mustang Boss 302

V8, 5.0 Liter

Horsepower 444 @ 7400 RPM

Torque 380 @ 4500 RPM

Gas Mileage 17 mpg City / 26 mpg Hwy

 

The 5.0 has more hp and gets better fuel economy with 20% less displacement and I'm sure it's lighter.

 

 

The issue with RWD is that Ford doesn't have a viable RWD platform sitting around to use. If they did then the MKS would already be using it. They couldn't afford to build an all new RWD platform from scratch 3 years ago so they did the best with what they were given. Now that it's successful Ford has chosen to continue down that path. It's hard to argue with success and $5B in profits.

 

If you stand to make $1B in profit either way and you have 2 choices for platforms - existing D3 for $200m or a new RWD platform for $1B, which one would you choose? Hint - one makes $800m profit and the other one doesn't.

[RichardJensen]

Obsolete power plants?? the pushrod Chevy competing against "obsolete power plants"????

 

Richard you are grasping at straws

1) I'm supposed to make up my mind? Me?

 

It's not me, it's you. You have to make your Sophie's Choice. Tell me: Do you want the Mustang to have poor response because the suspension is too heavy, or do you want the Lincoln to have a weak frame because the suspension is too flimsy to handle a more rigid frame? Those are your choices if you share a suspension between a Mustang and a full size Lincoln 'flagship'.

 

2) That's precisely my point. The Camaro was off the market for EIGHT years, had newer power plants, and outsold the Mustang by what? 6k units?

 

3) Yes. The Camaro was competing against the 4.0L V6 (which is gone), and the 4.6L 3v V8 (which is also gone). Those engines were EOL in 2010--obsolete, and the Camaro had brand spankin' new ones. The 6.2L V8 is forty years younger than the Cologne V6 (which started life in '66 as the Taunus V4, and was used in--among other things--the Saab Sonnet), and both engines were newer than the 3V modular V8 in particular, and certainly the modular V8 in general.

 

So yes, that pushrod V8 (and the DI DOHC V6) were competing against 'obsolete' engines. Engines that are NO LONGER AVAILABLE IN ANY FORD PRODUCT.

Edited January 13, 2011 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Apparently they took a Falcon frame and cobbled up some Mustang chassis parts underneath it. It wasn't even a running vehicle. The first thing they showed Mulally when he arrived was the Interceptor. He absolutely loved it and his first question was "when are we going to build it"? When he was told that it couldn't be built and that it was just a show car he went nuclear and declared that Ford would no longer be producing concepts that they had no intention of building.

No, it was a stretched and altered Mustang shell on (LOL) DEW running gear, the front suspension was double A-Arm

and the IRS was old fashioned Multi-Link. Nothing about Interceptor of MKR had anything to do with the Falcon platform

whatsoever. the fact that major dimensions in MKR were near identical with the then unreleased FG Falcon was pure

mischiefous coincidence by the styling team.

[akirby]

No, it was a stretched and altered Mustang shell on (LOL) DEW running gear, the front suspension was double A-Arm

and the IRS was old fashioned Multi-Link. Nothing about Interceptor of MKR had anything to do with the Falcon platform

whatsoever. the fact that major dimensions in MKR were near identical with the then unreleased FG Falcon was pure

mischiefous coincidence by the styling team.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I think you said something about it being the same size as the Falcon and I misunderstood.

 

The point remains though that they were all smoke and mirrors. Or "All Hat and No Cattle".

[ford4v429]

Everything that Ford builds should have the longevity, durability and low cost of ownership that the Panthers provided.

 

Amen on that.

 

I think therein lies the problem- if every car lasted like these, would it be GOOD for a reputation/return buyers/future sales, or would it cost in more years between replacements? I betcha Ford and every other manufacturer has invested a lot in just that question- make it just good enough not to piss folks off, but not so good it wont get replaced for a decade. the key to commanding replacement position in the market is offering improvements over the old one...

 

:deadhorse:

the 2011 Grand Marquis 'ultimate edition' I had was stripped compared to the 2000 we just got for a winter car...no compass in the mirror, no trunk mounted CD changer, no power 6 way passenger seat, cheap ass leather seating surfaces- otherwise it was IDENTICAL to the 11 year old one that still starts/rides/drives/looks like a new one... wonder why they didnt sell? they didnt need to invest heavily in a RWD platform any more than in a new ranger platform- they just need to UPDATE what theyve got- its tried and true, tooling for the chassis LOOOONG paid for, just freshen up the stodgy styling and update the interiors like about every other model gets every couple years and ADD updates rather than deleting stuff to make sure and drive that last nail in the coffin... I know I'm a broken record here, but if they put a 56 F100 shell (+ a 4 place panel truck version) on the ranger chassis, it would sell, put the EB 3.5 in the panther along with some styling and sync, etc, it would sell (well, maybe if dealers were allowed to sell them???)...how well it would sell? I'm sure marketing folks would laugh...and yet those folks still dream up fine new things like prius pickups... the investment would be so relatively low compared to a clean sheet of paper, it still amazes me they didnt try. theyre not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but the bathtub, bathroom, and the whole house to boot. still think they arent using the tools at their disposal as effectively as possible, instead its easier just to toss out the whole thing and roll the highly educated dice on another all new product- or just exit the market completely.

 

I still wonder- has the panther actually cost ford money, being dumped at bargain basement fleet sales, or is it just the lower margins compared to a Mexican Fusion that mandated killing it?

Edited January 13, 2011 by ford4v429

[twintornados]

.....How about a slew of BMW's, Mercs, Hyundais- (you've heard of them), ugly 300 C's. Now you will all say.."but how much do THOSE cost-not a relevant comparison". but if I took the time, I would find all your posts that preach about the benefit of higher selling price! Check the box boys- you spin things as you see fit-

None of those vehicles fit your stated demand of a six passenger RWD sedan, and FYI....it isn't about a higher selling point....it is a better profit margin that counts.

Edited January 13, 2011 by twintornados

[akirby]

Why did DLP, LED and Plasma replace CRT televisions?

[NickF1011]

if every car lasted like these

 

Citation needed.

 

I don't think there is anything more than anecdotal evidence of the Panthers actually lasting longer than any other vehicle on the road.

[silvrsvt]

I still wonder- has the panther actually cost ford money, being dumped at bargain basement fleet sales, or is it just the lower margins compared to a Mexican Fusion that mandated killing it?

 

The problem is that once Ford started putting money into the Panther, there was no likelyhood of seeing a return on that said investment. The market for the panthers was litteritly dying out as the car got older and the baby boomers didn't want anything to do with it. The Panther has been ignored for the most part since 1992 when the styling was changed making it somewhat modern looking. It never sold more then 100K units for the past 19 years or so, even when Explorers or Tauri where having 300-400K years.

[jpd80]

Thanks for the clarification. I think you said something about it being the same size as the Falcon and I misunderstood.

 

The point remains though that they were all smoke and mirrors. Or "All Hat and No Cattle".

Just imagine the stir that would have been created at the show

if the MKR was a Falcon with a Lincon top hat and production ready....

 

That's what really disappointed Mulally, he could see the potential.

Supercharged 5.0 under the hood and provisioning for AWD....

Edited January 14, 2011 by jpd80