Ford Edge called a hit

[robertlane]

Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc., puts the wagon-like Edge in the same echelon as the Mustang and F-150 -- even a little better. His verdict: "Best Ford ever."

 

ARTICLE LINK

[bec5150]

The best vehicle Ford ever produced? If I am to take that statement at face value, I would have to say the guy is off his rocker. There is nothing revolutionary about the Edge, either from a marketing or engineering standpoint.

 

I think the biggest "marketing" hit was the 64 1/2 Mustang. I say marketing because mechanically the vehicle was no more than a Falcon.

 

As far as engineering out of the park, it has to be the Taurus. The reasons why the 85 Taurus was the best vehicle Ford ever produced could fill another thread and I am not here to hijack. But I gotta say, on my list, it's the Taurus.

 

But he's giving an opinion, as am I, so no flaming please.

[Ron W.]

"The 2007 Ford Edge's shape takes cues from classic sports-car design with its raked windshield and contoured corners. The company's biggest dealer says Ford has a hit with the crossover vehicle. (Ford Motor Co.)"

 

And the Mazda and the Nissan and the Lexus and the ..... why follow, again.

Don't get me wrong i hope it's a winner but......

Edited November 5, 2006 by Ron W.

[fllcobra]

It looks like it will be a winner, particularly with guys. The problem with the RAV-4, CRV, Murano and even the CX-7 have feminine styling ques that appeal directly to women. The Edge is a vehicle that I wouldn't mind driving.

 

On a positive note, I saw 5 Ford Fusions within a 5 minute trip yesterday. Hopefully, Ford will maintain an inventory that keeps up with demand. Loaded versions of these cars only stay on the dealer lot for a couple of weeks. I could find one with the equipment I wanted when I was looking. It looks like that may be changing.

Edited November 5, 2006 by fllcobra

[Extreme4x4]

I did find the MT SUVOTY award to be particularly funny.

 

The Edge is not a SUV. It has never pretended to be an SUV. Gee, what a surprise, they didn't like it as an SUV.

 

I also found it funny that almost everything they complained about, other writers (many of them) disagreed with them on.

 

Oh well, its too bad it didn't have an H, or a funny T on it. Then it would be ensured to be a major hit.

 

Frankly, I see it doing very well. It is exactly what I wanted when I bought my Tribute. If/when I replace my Tribute, it will get a serious look (along with the MKX, as I am willing to pay more for a higher feature content, better materials, and more exclusivity).

[Admiral]

Good, more evidence that MT has bats in their belfry. Reviewing the SUVOTY comparison reveals more errors:

1) Edge is listed as being rated at 18/23, while the MKX shows 20/27. How? They both had AWD.

2) The MKX is somehow faster to 60 mph (7.9 compared to 8.0). Car and Driver clocked an AWD Edge at 7.6.

3) The Edge is rated as having five stars in the safety category, the MKX recieves only four! WTF, they're the same vehicle!!!

4) The Chrysler Aspen is said to have only a four-speed automatic, yet its spec sheet iscorrect in listing it as having five.

5) The Suzuki XL7 is said to reach 60 mph in 7.7 seconds, yet its sidebar lists it as reaching it in only 7.4 seconds.

[bifs66]

I think the biggest "marketing" hit was the 64 1/2 Mustang. I say marketing because mechanically the vehicle was no more than a Falcon.

 

As an owner of a new 64 Comet HT (Falcon's sib) and a new 1965 Mustang Fastback GT, I can assure you that the Mustang was no Falcon! There is NO underbody (frame-like) structures, NO external sheet metal, NO glass, suspensions, etc. that is actually interchangeable between the early Falcon and early Mustang. The six cylinder Mustang shared engines, transmissions, and rear axles with the Falcon; but the V8 Mustang shared these components with the Fairlane. All of Ford's 60s unibodies (Falcon, Fairlane, and Mustang) were similar in concept, but were, infact quite different.

[bec5150]

As an owner of a new 64 Comet HT (Falcon's sib) and a new 1965 Mustang Fastback GT, I can assure you that the Mustang was no Falcon! There is NO underbody (frame-like) structures, NO external sheet metal, NO glass, suspensions, etc. that is actually interchangeable between the early Falcon and early Mustang. The six cylinder Mustang shared engines, transmissions, and rear axles with the Falcon; but the V8 Mustang shared these components with the Fairlane. All of Ford's 60s unibodies (Falcon, Fairlane, and Mustang) were similar in concept, but were, infact quite different.

You get my drift, though. The Mustang, at it's core, was a 2 door, 4 place coupe. NOthing revolutionary there.

 

But the marketing on the Mustang...when the Mustang came out, the only folks that didn't know about it were in caskets and urns.

[RichardJensen]

Bec, I think you just don't 'get' the Edge. It's going to have a short shelf life as a 'hot' car, and hopefully will not fall off a cliff when it stops being popular.

 

Looking at the '07 lineup from different car companies and it's clear that the Edge is this year's 'it' car. In the $20-35k midrange price category nothing else coming out looks quite as capable of catching on as a 'must have'.

 

It seems, fortunately, Ford has enough value baked into the Edge, that it should still sell well after it stops being the next big thing.

[bec5150]

Bec, I think you just don't 'get' the Edge. It's going to have a short shelf life as a 'hot' car, and hopefully will not fall off a cliff when it stops being popular.

 

Looking at the '07 lineup from different car companies and it's clear that the Edge is this year's 'it' car. In the $20-35k midrange price category nothing else coming out looks quite as capable of catching on as a 'must have'.

 

It seems, fortunately, Ford has enough value baked into the Edge, that it should still sell well after it stops being the next big thing.

We'll see.

[OAC_Sparky]

We'll see.

In six months.

[Mark B. Morrow]

As an owner of a new 64 Comet HT (Falcon's sib) and a new 1965 Mustang Fastback GT, I can assure you that the Mustang was no Falcon! There is NO underbody (frame-like) structures, NO external sheet metal, NO glass, suspensions, etc. that is actually interchangeable between the early Falcon and early Mustang. The six cylinder Mustang shared engines, transmissions, and rear axles with the Falcon; but the V8 Mustang shared these components with the Fairlane. All of Ford's 60s unibodies (Falcon, Fairlane, and Mustang) were similar in concept, but were, infact quite different.

 

The '64-'66 Mustang did share its dash board (with a different pad) with the '64 Falcon/Comet as well as a lot of the hardware. The Falcon Sprint used the same 260 cu/164 hp engine as the early Mustangs. One more curiosity is that underneath the Mustang emblem on the standard steering wheel is the Falcon Sprint name and crossed checkered flags. This probably leads many to believe that more was shared. Certainly the body, floors, rocker panels and trunk structure were different.

 

Internally, the engineering plans referred to the Mustang as "Falcon Special". I have reprints of the Body and electrical assembly manuals with these notations.

[OAC_Sparky]

Actually, 5 months, 28 days.

 

:lol:

[Mark B. Morrow]

The best vehicle Ford ever produced? If I am to take that statement at face value, I would have to say the guy is off his rocker. There is nothing revolutionary about the Edge, either from a marketing or engineering standpoint.

 

I think the biggest "marketing" hit was the 64 1/2 Mustang. I say marketing because mechanically the vehicle was no more than a Falcon.

 

Before the Mustang the Falcon held the record for first year sales of 418.000. It was Fords first large scale production of unit body cars. Falcon was a substantial departure for Ford. The '58 T-bird was the first unit body Ford.

[grbeck]

You get my drift, though. The Mustang, at it's core, was a 2 door, 4 place coupe. NOthing revolutionary there.

 

But the marketing on the Mustang...when the Mustang came out, the only folks that didn't know about it were in caskets and urns.

 

There was nothing revolutionary about the Mustang's engineering...what was revolutionary was the style and overall level of standard features available at that price.

 

In 1964, the auto market was much more segregated than it is now. The foreign nameplates offered bucket seats, floor shifters and handy size, but they were noisy, cramped, underpowered and had "character" (a polite way of saying that they could not be counted on to start every morning).

 

Domestic big cars were comfortable, roomy and reliable, but handled like a boat and were mostly equipped with bench seats and a column-shift automatic.

 

Domestic compacts were relatively slow and plain in styling and appointments. They were still competing with the old Rambler. The exception was the Corvair Monza coupe and convertible, but mainstream American car buyers did not want a rear-engine car, and its handling was somewhat controversial even before Ralph Nader's book.

 

The Mustang erased those boundaries...here was a reliable, relatively well-made American car with sporty looks, bucket seats, carpeting and floor shifter as standard equipment...and at a price everyone who could buy a new car could afford. The engine was up front where it belonged, and the long-hood, short-deck styling really was sharp. People today tend to forget what a big deal bucket seats and a floor shifter in an American car were back in 1964.

 

There is nothing revolutionary about the Edge's engineering. But if it is perceived as offering a new level of style and features for the price, it could be a hit. Not a Mustang-level hit, or even a 1986 Taurus-level hit, but a hit nonetheless. In a few weeks, we'll find out...