GT-Keith Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 LOL. But then you have the 4WD brigade with their switchable transfer cases and free wheeling hubs..... That's a different market segment I know but it points out that the expectations of the vehicle segment should govern what is acceptable and what is not ......by gauging buyer uptake of technology. Lol. From the sounds of it, It doesn't matter if you get the same capabilities as "proper" AWD systems. If its not done this way, or that way, it's sacrilege. The fact that AWD/4WD terms have diverged(4WD = truck/SUV; AWD = car/CUV) and then converged again to some degree(4WD Unibody Jeep Cherokee) is just too confusing to me. It's like the "Sports car" designations... You need a team of cryptoanalyst from Bletchley Park just to cypher these moot designations. Here's an idea: If all four wheels are/can be powered, then it's 4WD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 IMO, the only meaningful difference is manually engaged low speed 4x4 as seen on trucks vs. AWD systems that are either full time or automatically engaged as needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Agreed. Popular Maniacs and Motor Trend seem to think that they have the same uses/capabilities. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 The trouble IMO Ford has had with AWD in past is disappointing fuel mileage. I remember a few years ago standing by Fusion stand at NAIAS, and highway mileage for AWD Fusion said something like 24mpg. A lot of people standing by me looked at that fuel mileage sticker and everyone commented upon the crappy fuel mileage. I spoke up and said the FWD model did much better. Now I know with EB that number doesn't look so bad anymore. I also remember a few years ago Fusion AWD owners commenting on BON and other Ford sites about their crappy fuel mileage in real world experience. Subarus seems to do better job of getting better fuel mileage out of its AWD models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 The trouble IMO Ford has had with AWD in past is disappointing fuel mileage. I remember a few years ago standing by Fusion stand at NAIAS, and highway mileage for AWD Fusion said something like 24mpg. A lot of people standing by me looked at that fuel mileage sticker and everyone commented upon the crappy fuel mileage. I spoke up and said the FWD model did much better. Now I know with EB that number doesn't look so bad anymore. I also remember a few years ago Fusion AWD owners commenting on BON and other Ford sites about their crappy fuel mileage in real world experience. Subarus seems to do better job of getting better fuel mileage out of its AWD models. The difference was 1 mpg. 2008 3.0L AWD 17/25 combined 20 2008 3.0L FWD 18/26 combined 21 Perhaps you were comparing the 3.0L AWD to the 2.5L FWD which is not apples to apples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 The trouble IMO Ford has had with AWD in past is disappointing fuel mileage. I remember a few years ago standing by Fusion stand at NAIAS, and highway mileage for AWD Fusion said something like 24mpg. A lot of people standing by me looked at that fuel mileage sticker and everyone commented upon the crappy fuel mileage. I spoke up and said the FWD model did much better. Now I know with EB that number doesn't look so bad anymore. I also remember a few years ago Fusion AWD owners commenting on BON and other Ford sites about their crappy fuel mileage in real world experience. Subarus seems to do better job of getting better fuel mileage out of its AWD models. 2012 Ford Fusion 3.0L V6 (240 hp) AWD 18/26 3.5L V6 (263 hp) AWD 17/25 2012 Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 (170 hp) 23/31 3.6L H6 (256 hp) 18/25 Clearly Ford is doing just fine in comparison with Subaru. If anything Ford and Subaru need to catch up to Audi. 2012 Audi A6 3.0L S/C V6 (310 hp) 19/28 2012 Audi A4 2.0L T/C I4 (211 hp) 19/29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 The fact that AWD/4WD terms have diverged(4WD = truck/SUV; AWD = car/CUV) and then converged again to some degree(4WD Unibody Jeep Cherokee) is just too confusing to me. Haven't the Cherokee and relatives always been unibody? They've never been on car platforms, though, unlike the Compass and Patriot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT-Keith Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) Haven't the Cherokee and relatives always been unibody? They've never been on car platforms, though, unlike the Compass and Patriot. That's very true. The consensus appear to be that 4x4(or off-roading) = body-on-frame and nothing else. Same with "Serious" towing = body-on-frame, etc. My point is that if it's not done a certain way then it's regarded as crap. I prefer to judge a car on an application basis. The AWD system in the SHO works. How much better would it be if it had a full-time, manually engaged, rear-biased AWD system? Probably not at all or at least worth it :shrug: A6 A4 Don't they have direct injected engines and 8spd autos? Edited December 19, 2011 by GT-Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) That's very true. Don't they have direct injected engines and 8spd autos? Yeah and they also compete on a level above the Fusion and Legacy. I added those merely to assert that more can be done to further efficiency with AWD. I do believe that Ford is moving in that direction as well, for instance the Ford Edge 3.5L AWD gets 18/25 which is the exact same as the current Fusion 3.5L AWD. I feel this demonstrates clear progress in AWD efficiency for Ford. The fact that a CUV that weighs considerably more, has worse aerodynamics, and has more power than a car but gets the same mpg is impressive by any measure. Edited December 19, 2011 by stpatrick90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 2012 Ford Fusion 3.0L V6 (240 hp) AWD 18/26 3.5L V6 (263 hp) AWD 17/25 2012 Subaru Legacy 2.5L H4 (170 hp) 23/31 3.6L H6 (256 hp) 18/25 Clearly Ford is doing just fine in comparison with Subaru. If anything Ford and Subaru need to catch up to Audi. 2012 Audi A6 3.0L S/C V6 (310 hp) 19/28 2012 Audi A4 2.0L T/C I4 (211 hp) 19/29 octane requirements?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 octane requirements?.... The Ford and Subaru take Regular, the Audis take Premium which in part allows them to accomplish the mpg that they do. However my MKS recommends premium, but I run it on regular most of the time and get the same mpg as when I run it on premium. And with that said the fact that the larger, heavier and more powerful Taurus and MKS can obtain the same mpg as the Fusion is quite an amazing feat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Back to the original post, I think Ford should just go back to how non-commercial vehicles were sold in the late 40s and early 50s. You have one car and one truck model. Taurus and F-150. Just limit your lineup to the biggest vehicles that will fit on a public highway. That is all anyone really needs, right? I mean, hell, they are already headed that way with their trucks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Back to the original post, I think Ford should just go back to how non-commercial vehicles were sold in the late 40s and early 50s. You have one car and one truck model. Taurus and F-150. Just limit your lineup to the biggest vehicles that will fit on a public highway. That is all anyone really needs, right? I mean, hell, they are already headed that way with their trucks... That's a brilliant idea. We can call it the "How to Put A Car Company Out of Business In Less Than a Year" strategy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Back to the original post, I think Ford should just go back to how non-commercial vehicles were sold in the late 40s and early 50s. You have one car and one truck model. Taurus and F-150. Just limit your lineup to the biggest vehicles that will fit on a public highway. That is all anyone really needs, right? I mean, hell, they are already headed that way with their trucks... Heck, why doesn't Ford just go back to relying on F 150 and Explorer carrying everything else, how could that plan ever let us down........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 That's a brilliant idea. We can call it the "How to Put A Car Company Out of Business In Less Than a Year" strategy. well, in defense, it worked for Carbon Motors right?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 well, in defense, it worked for Carbon Motors right?..... How many different F-150 "models" are there? LWB, SWB, long box, short box, cabs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 How many different F-150 "models" are there? LWB, SWB, long box, short box, cabs? 5 wheelbases, 3 cab configurations, 3 box lengths,4 engines, 2 and 4 wheel drive, approx 15 different colors, bench or bucket, 15 or so different seat codes ( color and type ) and 4 pages of stand alone and grouped options.....thx Ed, time to commit suicide.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 That's a brilliant idea. We can call it the "How to Put A Car Company Out of Business In Less Than a Year" strategy. I hope you recognized the sarcasm and didn't really take that seriously... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 5 wheelbases, 3 cab configurations, 3 box lengths,4 engines, 2 and 4 wheel drive, approx 15 different colors, bench or bucket, 15 or so different seat codes ( color and type ) and 4 pages of stand alone and grouped options.....thx Ed, time to commit suicide.... GESUNDHEIT! Doing the client-dance must be a horror-show, sometimes. Are the SD lease/buyers any less grief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 5 wheelbases, 3 cab configurations, 3 box lengths,4 engines, 2 and 4 wheel drive, approx 15 different colors, bench or bucket, 15 or so different seat codes ( color and type ) and 4 pages of stand alone and grouped options.....thx Ed, time to commit suicide.... Before you go, Repeter, en Francais SVP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 GESUNDHEIT! Doing the client-dance must be a horror-show, sometimes. Are the SD lease/buyers any less grief? +1. You probably still get the customer asking "Why can't I get ....?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) +1. You probably still get the customer asking "Why can't I get ....?" Yeah, there's no 3 door 3 wheel drive half long bed/ half short bed model with leather seats and a rubber floor mat powered by a Super/Turbocharged V-7 engine painted Grabber blue with red stripes. You call this fulfilling customer choice? Edited December 22, 2011 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBirdStangSkyliner Posted December 22, 2011 Author Share Posted December 22, 2011 I am a little surprised that a guy with a 64.5 Mustang and a 66 Thunderbird is apparently fine with the current Ford line-up. I have a 66 Thunderbird and there are so many amazing details in that car. I can spend lots of time sitting in the car just admiring the controls, the cockpit styling, etc... I know that this kind of unique product won't come around again, and certainly not at the same relative price difference from the main-line models which the 66 Thunderbird enjoyed. To me, the car is still a metaphor about how Ford needs to figure out how to make money selling moderate volume, distinctive vehicles. I don't know if they made money on my particular Thunderbird. It was 20 years old when I got it. It was one of the primary reasons why I purchased four brand new Fords after that, though. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Yeah, there's no 3 door 3 wheel drive half long bed/ half short bed model with leather seats and a rubber floor mat powered by a Super/Turbocharged V-7 engine painted Grabber blue with red stripes. You call this fulfilling customer choice? I was been facetious. For me, I'm the customer who asks for the hi-end stereo in the mid-range model as a stand-alone and the answer I got was 'Best Buy or Moon and Tunes." After I got my Moonroof, I can't imagine not having it. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I am a little surprised that a guy with a 64.5 Mustang and a 66 Thunderbird is apparently fine with the current Ford line-up. I have a 66 Thunderbird and there are so many amazing details in that car. I can spend lots of time sitting in the car just admiring the controls, the cockpit styling, etc... I know that this kind of unique product won't come around again, and certainly not at the same relative price difference from the main-line models which the 66 Thunderbird enjoyed. To me, the car is still a metaphor about how Ford needs to figure out how to make money selling moderate volume, distinctive vehicles. I don't know if they made money on my particular Thunderbird. It was 20 years old when I got it. It was one of the primary reasons why I purchased four brand new Fords after that, though. Yeah, but remember all the bad stuff about those cars... They rusted easily, they were overweight and oversized for the space available to the passengers, they were dirty, they weren't very fuel efficient, they required a lot more regular maintenance, they were built to much looser tolerances, they were dangerous to you and others, they didn't last as long, they didn't have as many features, etc. It's a different time. Customers are looking for different things, and Ford for the most part has met those new customer expectations as evinced by increasing retail and overall market share, as well as increasing transaction prices. Now that's not to say that Ford can't do more, but it's hardly reasonable to say that Ford's current lineup is lacking in any significant sense. 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.