The worsed CURRENT Ford Motor Company Product

[turbo_diesel_focus]

Mazda B-Series is horrible

 

Ford Ecovan...nastly cheap japanese product

 

Ford Icon...horribly outdated 1980s origined Fiesta! OLD OLD OLD

 

Ford Ranger...old, cheap, totally outdated(sorry all you Ranger fans!)

 

Mazda 2.... JUST a box on wheels

 

Ford Focus North America...totally outdated old, needs replacing NOW!

 

Jaguar X-Type, poor materials, outdated, get rid!!

 

Ford Freestar and Mercury Montery- Thank god they have been axed!

[Tiberius1701]

So...anything good to say?

[Hemiman]

The entire Lincoln (Pontiac) line up. No V-8 pushed them down from Buicks level.

[Edgey]

I'll go with the Freestar/Monterey as the only really bad products in the Ford line. I wouldn't put the Ranger or Crown Vic up there. Just because their old doesn't mean they are incapable. The Ranger is one tough truck for the money! Ford and GM have hands down the worst minivans in the business, they aren't even remotely competitive. Why anybody would spend the money on such mediocrity is beyond me.

 

The Focus is very good Ford product, It's unfair to categorize it as poor simply because its cosmetically deffecient.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Edgey

[macattak1]

Mazda B-Series is horrible

 

Ford Ecovan...nastly cheap japanese product

 

Ford Icon...horribly outdated 1980s origined Fiesta! OLD OLD OLD

 

Ford Ranger...old, cheap, totally outdated(sorry all you Ranger fans!)

 

Mazda 2.... JUST a box on wheels

 

Ford Focus North America...totally outdated old, needs replacing NOW!

 

Jaguar X-Type, poor materials, outdated, get rid!!

 

Ford Freestar and Mercury Montery- Thank god they have been axed!

 

 

Greetings,

 

What is wrong with the Ecovan considering its segment and competition?

Ranger has dwindled and personally I find that sad. But it is still the best looking small truck IMO and well built and tough enough.

What do you want the Mazda 2 to be?

The Focus is very nice and way better than a Corolla and burns much cleaner. Not as good as a Civic or some of them but also cheaper. Maybe needs a redesign in looks, but I think most are happy.

Jaguar, I thought, was killing the X-Type as they should. No reason to bring the name down.

Ford is really dropping the ball when they say and show that they can not compete in the MV market.

 

Peace and Blessings

[Michael Reynolds]

Please tell me you didn't mean to type 'worsed'.

[atomcat68]

I'll choose the one that stacks up poorly against the competetion, the Freestar.

[DCK]

In North America:

 

Focus

Ranger

Freestar

Crown Vic

Grand Marquis

Town Car

Navigator

Montery

Freestyle

500

Montego

 

I'll go with the Freestar/Monterey as the only really bad products in the Ford line. I wouldn't put the Ranger or Crown Vic up there. Just because their old doesn't mean they are incapable. The Ranger is one tough truck for the money! Ford and GM have hands down the worst minivans in the business, they aren't even remotely competitive. Why anybody would spend the money on such mediocrity is beyond me.

 

The Focus is very good Ford product, It's unfair to categorize it as poor simply because its cosmetically deffecient.

The focus rides on a decent platform.......other than that it is a very shitty vehicle in todays time, maybe if they never abandoned it.................

Edited September 30, 2006 by DCK

[ehaase]

I have to say the Five Hundred is a disappointment. Great interior and trunk space, but poor interior materials and noisy, thrashy drive train ruin the car. Frankly, I found the rental Focus I drove last year more refined than the Five Hundred I drove a few weeks ago. The Monte Carlo and Buick Century I drove a few years ago on GM's antiquated W body platform were more quiet and comfortable.

[turbo_diesel_focus]

:happy feet: :happy feet:

So...anything good to say?

 

 

i was bored, so thought i would find fords not so great models!! :happy feet: :happy feet: :titanic:

[Tiberius1701]

:happy feet: :happy feet:

i was bored, so thought i would find fords not so great models!! :happy feet: :happy feet: :titanic:

 

 

OK, at least you have an excuse... ^_^

 

BTW as the former owner of a Merkur XR4Ti, I miss the old Sierra! Talk about a car with character-and I don't just mean styling!

Edited September 30, 2006 by Tiberius1701

[Edgey]

I have to say the Five Hundred is a disappointment. Great interior and trunk space, but poor interior materials and noisy, thrashy drive train ruin the car. Frankly, I found the rental Focus I drove last year more refined than the Five Hundred I drove a few weeks ago. The Monte Carlo and Buick Century I drove a few years ago on GM's antiquated W body platform were more quiet and comfortable.

 

Although modern and state of the art, the 500 does not satsify the expectations of many sedan consumers. It is very easy to be disappointed with the 500 since it looks so great on paper. There is SO much to like about the 500 but it's tainted by some very big deffeciencies. The drivetrain, while complient when dirven respectfully, is otherwise thrashy and anemic and makes the car very difficult to live with in aggresive driving situations. I have to agree with ehaase when I find the Focus to be just as good, and in some ways, better than a 500 in some surprisng ways (power, smoothness, noise, etc.)

 

The 500 is an example of how new vehicles don't always meet or exceed the aging competition.

 

I have no doubt that the 500 will solve most of its problems in 2008 and I look forward to the result.

 

The 500 interior is stark and dreadful but it has slightly better material quality than some other Fords. I hope we see an improved design in 2008 but Ford has yet to offer a competitve interior package in its more affordable products. I hope we see that change soon because their high end vehicles show promise, even if I still have to question their design approach.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Edgey

[RichardJensen]

The 500 interior is stark and dreadful

I am of quite the opposite opinion. I consider the layout of the Five Hundred interior to be fine. Materials quality is mid-grade, not 'dreadful', and stark seems a bit harsh in a world full of F150 XLs.

[Edgey]

I am of quite the opposite opinion. I consider the layout of the Five Hundred interior to be fine. Materials quality is mid-grade, not 'dreadful', and stark seems a bit harsh in a world full of F150 XLs.

 

I think it would be more appropriate to compare them to something like a Camry or Accord. Their interior designs have a wider variety of textures, colors, and trim. The 500 dash is very linear, hard, and slab-like. The same is true of the door trim. The design seems to contribute to its apparent cheapness; it looks built for rigidity instead of comfort and ergonomics.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Edgey

[RichardJensen]

I think it would be more appropriate to compare them to something like a Camry or Accord. Their interior designs have a wider variety of textures, colors, and trim. The 500 dash is very linear, hard, and slab-like. The same is true of the door trim. The design seems to contribute to its apparent cheapness; it looks built for rigidity instead of comfort and ergonomics.

Again, I find the Accord center stack to be hopelessly complicated. On more than one occasion, of getting into an Accord in a car dealership, I've turned up the fan, when I meant to turn up the radio volume. Not good.

 

While I consider the quality of the fake wood in the Five Hundred to be rather lousy, as opposed to the fake birds-eye maple (with matte finish) in the higher end Accords, I can't find much more to fault, regarding materials. Slightly better skins on the doors, perhaps, and the top of the dash.

 

I wouldn't fiddle with the layout one iota.

Edited October 1, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Edgey]

Again, I find the Accord center stack to be hopelessly complicated. On more than one occasion, of getting into an Accord in a car dealership, I've turned up the fan, when I meant to turn up the radio volume. Not good.

 

While I consider the quality of the fake wood in the Five Hundred to be rather lousy, as opposed to the fake birds-eye maple (with matte finish) in the higher end Accords, I can't find much more to fault, regarding materials. Slightly better skins on the doors, perhaps, and the top of the dash.

 

I wouldn't fiddle with the layout one iota.

 

Once you are a owner of any particular car brand, you will adapt to their conventions. I assume you are a Ford owner so your expectations of where things are layed out are different. I've had many people get behind the wheel of my Fords and not know how to tun on the headlights...and don't get me started on cruise control .

 

I've driven the 500 and the only thing that surprised me were the windshield wiper controls, which only took me a few moments to figure out. I really don't like the scroll wheel to adjust the interval, it's not easy to grip in gloved hands.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Edgey

[Biker16]

Mazda B-Series is horrible

 

Ford Ecovan...nastly cheap japanese product

 

Ford Icon...horribly outdated 1980s origined Fiesta! OLD OLD OLD

 

Ford Ranger...old, cheap, totally outdated(sorry all you Ranger fans!)

 

Mazda 2.... JUST a box on wheels

 

Ford Focus North America...totally outdated old, needs replacing NOW!

 

Jaguar X-Type, poor materials, outdated, get rid!!

 

Ford Freestar and Mercury Montery- Thank god they have been axed!

if it sells and makes money why wouldn't we keep it.

 

Ford need alot more product.

 

You have don't seem to have a grasp of world car markets.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Biker16

[waymondospiff]

#1 - So many polls recently. Well, two at least.

 

#2 - The Accord's interior is one of those things that can be a bit odd at first, but once you live with it for maybe three days it's second nature. Like Mazda's "up high" radio displays. I think as cars continue to add more complex systems the resulting interfaces will need longer adjustment times. As long as the design is sound in the long run, things are okay. Good example, Accord, which is an attractive design with easy to use functions. Bad example, iDrive, which no matter how long you use it is still cumbersome and needlessly complex.

 

#3 - Worst cars:

Jaguar X-Type - not a competitive car and drags down the whole brand with it.

Ranger/B-Series - could be a good seller, but lack of updates has badly hurt the vehicle & brand.

Freestar/Monterey - easy, but needs to be mentioned.

AM Vanquish - a nice car, but not unique or good enough to be a high end flagship.

Econoline - still sells well, but only because of a lack of competitors, not because it's good.

 

Scott

[scuzzi]

I would go for the Edge/MKX.

 

Although they aren't on the market yet, there are too many problems. Critical welds are breaking, parts don't fit on well etc. You know, typical first generation launch. Gotta wait for a year or two before they get the bugs worked out.

After that I would have to go with Fords idea of the 'people mover' (aka. Fairlaine). Only seen it in the news and future plans but it looks like a 1980's station wagon. Ford is only gonna bury itself with that thing.

[06StangAwesomecar]

Let see, compared to the imports I would take any Ford, they(Fords) are all better. :happy feet:

[RichardJensen]

You have don't seem to have a grasp of world car markets.

Uh. The moniker is "turbo diesel Focus". Do they sell those here?

 

The Accord's interior is one of those things that can be a bit odd at first, but once you live with it for maybe three days it's second nature.

I guess that kind of attitude offends me, as one who (among other things) designs interfaces for a living. Most of the past week has been spent trying to figure out the most intuitive way to label content management software, as well as what features will be expected, and where they will be expected on the page.

 

I don't believe in putting design ahead of functionality, and saying "people will get used to it".

 

I'm a believer in "self evident applications". I understand that with increasing complexity, you will have a learning curve when you switch brands, just as I expect our clients will have a learning curve with this software. However, I make it a point of effort to make that curve as flat as possible.

 

I understand that people want more 'excitement' from their vehicles, but I don't consider bad design to be 'exciting'. It is, in the end, just bad design.

 

Not as bad as the iDrive, I'll grant you, but still needlessly bad.

 

I mean, you don't have to have the 'stereo box' and the 'HVAC box', as Ford does, but geez, to intermingle the controls, as though they represented even remotely related aspects of the vehicle.... You might as well put the cruise control, mirror controls, seat controls, and power window switches in the mix as well.

Edited October 1, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Noah Harbinger]

I would go for the Edge/MKX.

 

Although they aren't on the market yet, there are too many problems. Critical welds are breaking, parts don't fit on well etc. You know, typical first generation launch. Gotta wait for a year or two before they get the bugs worked out.

 

Looks from your other posts that you're on the assembly line? What are you seeing going on with the launch?

[Roadrunner]

I think it would be more appropriate to compare them to something like a Camry or Accord. Their interior designs have a wider variety of textures, colors, and trim. The 500 dash is very linear, hard, and slab-like. The same is true of the door trim. The design seems to contribute to its apparent cheapness; it looks built for rigidity instead of comfort and ergonomics.

 

I agree regarding the 500's door trim, but not its dash. The door trim is boring as get-all.

However, the dashboard and interior otherwise is well laid out, except for the Limited's odd-looking oval clock.

 

No comment about the steering wheel column and accesories, although they could be better, from what I remember.

[Edgey]

The 500 interior is intuitively layed out, I'll grant you that, but I can also say that because I'm a Ford owner. I do understand the need to design for usability, however there is nothing about the layout in the 500 that would have been compromised by better aesthetic design. These really are not mutually exclusive concepts and you can see that in vehicles like the F-150 (not the XL) and the Navigator. There is one major functional deffeciency in most Ford dashboards, especially the 500, and that is the positioning of the Navigation display. Now that most Ford vehicles are being equiped with the technology, everything will have to go back to the drawing board to bring it up to code for the hardware.

[Biker16]

Uh. The moniker is "turbo diesel Focus". Do they sell those here?

I guess that kind of attitude offends me, as one who (among other things) designs interfaces for a living. Most of the past week has been spent trying to figure out the most intuitive way to label content management software, as well as what features will be expected, and where they will be expected on the page.

 

I don't believe in putting design ahead of functionality, and saying "people will get used to it".

 

I'm a believer in "self evident applications". I understand that with increasing complexity, you will have a learning curve when you switch brands, just as I expect our clients will have a learning curve with this software. However, I make it a point of effort to make that curve as flat as possible.

 

I understand that people want more 'excitement' from their vehicles, but I don't consider bad design to be 'exciting'. It is, in the end, just bad design.

 

Not as bad as the iDrive, I'll grant you, but still needlessly bad.

 

I mean, you don't have to have the 'stereo box' and the 'HVAC box', as Ford does, but geez, to intermingle the controls, as though they represented even remotely related aspects of the vehicle.... You might as well put the cruise control, mirror controls, seat controls, and power window switches in the mix as well.

 

 

Richard just because people are acostomed to doing things one way does not mean, that the way things are done can't be improved.

 

Example would be the evolution of Windows, from 3.1-> Vista, there will be a learning curve, poelpe will have to adjust. The basic functionaliy of the cars dont change, the steering wheel turns the pedals stop and go.

 

I-drive was one of those things that needed to happen, We have to fail in order to succeed. I-drive was designed to simplify the User interface, instead of dozens of button you have one multi function knob. I drive Shows us what not to do, it was too much too fast, 12 years old would have the backgrond to easily understand and use I-drive but a 50 year old the n afford the car does not. no matter who you are you will make mistakes, do not judge the mistake, but judge the response to that mistake.