Grrrrr - Edmunds has just reviewed the new Ford Escape.

[Blue Oval Guide]

Edmunds has just reviewed the new Ford Escape.

 

Richard Jensen

 

Among the many improvements that have been made (better sound deadening, better interior, fully updated sheetmetal, standard RSC/ESP, side and head airbags, etc.), there was a noticeable carryover in the vehicle’s engine compartment: the entire drivetrain has been left intact from the previous model. And a step backwards: Even the top of the line $30k AWD V6 “Limited” model with navigation and what-not comes with STANDARD DRUM BRAKES. Last year they were disc brakes.

 

According to at least one Ford insider, the guy who led the Escape program has accepted an early retirement offer.

 

 

Sadly, it appears this offer was made about two years too late.

 

While the interior upgrades on the Escape are a welcome change, as is the thorough reskin, the combination of carryover and retrograde changes are not excusable.

 

Fortunately, Ford can very quietly add standard disc brakes for the 2009 model year, as well as an improved powertrain.

 

But like the Explorer/Mountaineer and Expedition/Navigator before it, the Escape/Mariner/Tribute redesign displays the inertia in place at Ford’s product development units. Where new products are launched (Five Hundred/Fusion/Edge), Ford has steadily improved its game, each new product being a better competitor in its segment than the one before–but with existing products, the notable successes (Mustang, F-Series) are those that have historically been successes, while the other products/platforms display the same frustrating half-steps that have plagued Ford for over a decade.

 

The Expedition is a fantastic competitor to the Tahoe, and among the Ford updates from the last five years, ranks up there with the Mustang and F-Series. But the Explorer is saddled with questionable looks, the Mountaineer is practically indistinguishable from the previous model, the Navigator is underpowered, and the Escape/Tribute/Mariner triplets suffer from an update that apparently was focused entirely on surfaces. The carryover powertrain on these models suggest that the Focus powertrain to be revealed in a few weeks (or at New York) will also be carryover, and this is the source of a fair amount of frustration with Ford.

 

Specifically with Bill Ford.

 

I don’t think that Bill Ford was prepared to believe, and it certainly seems as though no one under him was prepared to tell him, just how messed up his product teams were. Where Ford has started from scratch, they’ve made astonishing improvements: The Five Hundred was the first new car launched by Ford NA in five years (stop and think that one over), and was, if not a screaming success, immediately competitive with fullsize sedans in its purview. The Fusion, coming out the following year, was a noticeable improvement over the Five Hundred, and the Edge, now on sale, is at the head of its class–where the Fusion was a contender, and the Five Hundred was competitive.

 

This is what Ford is capable of, so it is justifiably irritating to see such inconsistency in Ford’s product updates.

 

Hopefully, with the changes being put in place, and the offering of retirements and buyouts, Ford can clear out the deadwood in NA product development that has prevented Ford from developing a solid and consistent lineup.

 

The bottom line, however, is that Ford’s product development system is fundamentally flawed, and has been for some time. During the 80s and 90s, Ford’s successes blinded officers of the corporation to this–or officers of the corporation (e.g. Jac Nasser) knew that there were problems, and REFUSED to fix them, refusing to expend any effort at all on fixing them. When in the early 00s, it was clear to everyone that the wheels had fallen off–with no new product planned from 2000-2004, the people immediately below Bill Ford either refused to accept that major overhaul was required, or they refused to inform him of what they knew–that product development was screwed up.

 

Let’s consider the situation Bill Ford found himself in (seeing that he, in my opinion, receives an unjustified amount of the blame for the state Ford is currently in): Bill Ford came to the CEO’s office having completely avoided the product side of the business. He came up through finance. This is not necessarily bad: Trotman and Nasser were product men.

 

However, he knew nothing of product, and likely was heavily dependent on what his people in NA product told him. Likely, they lied through their teeth, or they played such a game of ’see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ with their subordinates that they were unqualified to give him the information he needed.

 

It is preposterous to suggest that, were Bill Ford informed that NA product development needed to, basically, be torn apart and reassembled, he would’ve said, “Nah, we’ll be fine”. Among snippets that have escaped from the last few years, it appears that Bill Ford was increasingly frustrated with the quality of information that he was receiving, and that he believed he was being misled on a regular basis. Steven Hamp was appointed chief of staff, apparently to provide some kind of BS detection regarding the information being passed to Bill.

 

Seemingly the only way that any accountability was brought to Ford’s management was through the appointment of an outsider that made it perfectly clear he wasn’t going to accept BS from anyone.

 

Certainly, Bill Ford could’ve implemented Mulally’s Thursday meetings, but Bill Ford was not only lacking in the 30 years of experience that Mulally brought to Ford (Mulally was on his 4th jet project by the time Ford graduated from Princeton), he was also lacking any outside perspective on how to run the company.

 

Even if he had initiated meetings that put everyone on the same room, and in the same conversation, it’s doubtful whether this would’ve improved the quality of information he was receiving.

 

Bill Ford was, in many ways, a flawed CEO, but at the time that he assumed that role, there was no one else at Ford. Nasser had driven the remaining capable executives from the company, and had made himself foremost in the crew of liars and cavilers bent on preserving their jobs by hiding as much of the truth as possible from Bill.

 

Looking at Ford today, there are many things that they are doing right, but it is impossible to look at what they had and squandered in the marketplace, as well as the ongoing legacy of decades of bad business practices, without wondering what-if?

[JETSOLVER]

No need to wonder what if, as the balance sheet and the media, not to mention those of us who for whatever reason still carry a torch are asking the same questions OVER and OVER and OVER again.

 

Lets see the Bold Moves thing spin the Edmunds(first of many now no doubt)critique. Or, they can just do as in the past, skip over it like it never happened...they have plenty of experiance and skill at that.

Edited January 2, 2007 by JETSOLVER

[ZanatWork]

To quote Robert Plant: "...and it makes me wonder..."

 

The Escape is a painful example of how many utterly LOST people still exist within Ford's product ranks. With its carryover drivetrain and moronic move to rear drum brakes, the Escape confirms the bad news to the Blue Oval faithful: everything we've suffered through in recent years apparently isn't over.

 

Let's list some other dufus moments in recent Ford history:

 

The Aviator is constantly reviewed as "not nearly different enough fropm the Edge".

 

The Navigator was sent into battle at a 100 hp disadvantage, while also steering and braking worse than the competition.

 

The Fusion continues to offer a sporting chassis with less sporting equipment than its competition.

 

The Focus, after years of complaints about its inferior underpinnings compared to its European and Mazda/Volvo brethren...is being re-hashed on the same old bones.

 

I'll also mention, just for fun, the Ranger and the Crown Vic...but anyone here knows all about them, right?

 

 

Now...anyone even vaguely familiar with the auto industry knows that the new product of today was signed off on 2 or more years back. Thus, it would be ridiculous to blame Alan Mullaly for any of the above. What these vehicles DO demonstrate, however, is how little Ford's product people have known of their respective markets. Apparently, the Mustang and F-series teams need to train the rest of the company.

[Hemiman]

Edmunds has just reviewed the new Ford Escape.

 

Richard Jensen

And a step backwards: Even the top of the line $30k AWD V6 “Limited” model with navigation and what-not comes with STANDARD DRUM BRAKES. Last year they were disc brakes.

 

 

Fortunately, Ford can very quietly add standard disc brakes for the 2009 model year

 

 

 

2009? WHAT? Howabout making the change back to discs right NOW! There is absolutely no reason why they can't. It's this kind of "accepted" slow reaction that keeps Ford in it's steady decline.

[uvls16]

Edmunds has just reviewed the new Ford Escape.

 

Richard Jensen

 

Among the many improvements that have been made (better sound deadening, better interior, fully updated sheetmetal, standard RSC/ESP, side and head airbags, etc.), there was a noticeable carryover in the vehicle’s engine compartment: the entire drivetrain has been left intact from the previous model. And a step backwards: Even the top of the line $30k AWD V6 “Limited” model with navigation and what-not comes with STANDARD DRUM BRAKES. Last year they were disc brakes.

 

According to at least one Ford insider, the guy who led the Escape program has accepted an early retirement offer.

 

 

Sadly, it appears this offer was made about two years too late.

 

While the interior upgrades on the Escape are a welcome change, as is the thorough reskin, the combination of carryover and retrograde changes are not excusable.

 

Fortunately, Ford can very quietly add standard disc brakes for the 2009 model year, as well as an improved powertrain.

 

But like the Explorer/Mountaineer and Expedition/Navigator before it, the Escape/Mariner/Tribute redesign displays the inertia in place at Ford’s product development units. Where new products are launched (Five Hundred/Fusion/Edge), Ford has steadily improved its game, each new product being a better competitor in its segment than the one before–but with existing products, the notable successes (Mustang, F-Series) are those that have historically been successes, while the other products/platforms display the same frustrating half-steps that have plagued Ford for over a decade.

 

The Expedition is a fantastic competitor to the Tahoe, and among the Ford updates from the last five years, ranks up there with the Mustang and F-Series. But the Explorer is saddled with questionable looks, the Mountaineer is practically indistinguishable from the previous model, the Navigator is underpowered, and the Escape/Tribute/Mariner triplets suffer from an update that apparently was focused entirely on surfaces. The carryover powertrain on these models suggest that the Focus powertrain to be revealed in a few weeks (or at New York) will also be carryover, and this is the source of a fair amount of frustration with Ford.

 

Specifically with Bill Ford.

 

I don’t think that Bill Ford was prepared to believe, and it certainly seems as though no one under him was prepared to tell him, just how messed up his product teams were. Where Ford has started from scratch, they’ve made astonishing improvements: The Five Hundred was the first new car launched by Ford NA in five years (stop and think that one over), and was, if not a screaming success, immediately competitive with fullsize sedans in its purview. The Fusion, coming out the following year, was a noticeable improvement over the Five Hundred, and the Edge, now on sale, is at the head of its class–where the Fusion was a contender, and the Five Hundred was competitive.

 

This is what Ford is capable of, so it is justifiably irritating to see such inconsistency in Ford’s product updates.

 

Hopefully, with the changes being put in place, and the offering of retirements and buyouts, Ford can clear out the deadwood in NA product development that has prevented Ford from developing a solid and consistent lineup.

 

The bottom line, however, is that Ford’s product development system is fundamentally flawed, and has been for some time. During the 80s and 90s, Ford’s successes blinded officers of the corporation to this–or officers of the corporation (e.g. Jac Nasser) knew that there were problems, and REFUSED to fix them, refusing to expend any effort at all on fixing them. When in the early 00s, it was clear to everyone that the wheels had fallen off–with no new product planned from 2000-2004, the people immediately below Bill Ford either refused to accept that major overhaul was required, or they refused to inform him of what they knew–that product development was screwed up.

 

Let’s consider the situation Bill Ford found himself in (seeing that he, in my opinion, receives an unjustified amount of the blame for the state Ford is currently in): Bill Ford came to the CEO’s office having completely avoided the product side of the business. He came up through finance. This is not necessarily bad: Trotman and Nasser were product men.

 

However, he knew nothing of product, and likely was heavily dependent on what his people in NA product told him. Likely, they lied through their teeth, or they played such a game of ’see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ with their subordinates that they were unqualified to give him the information he needed.

 

It is preposterous to suggest that, were Bill Ford informed that NA product development needed to, basically, be torn apart and reassembled, he would’ve said, “Nah, we’ll be fine”. Among snippets that have escaped from the last few years, it appears that Bill Ford was increasingly frustrated with the quality of information that he was receiving, and that he believed he was being misled on a regular basis. Steven Hamp was appointed chief of staff, apparently to provide some kind of BS detection regarding the information being passed to Bill.

 

Seemingly the only way that any accountability was brought to Ford’s management was through the appointment of an outsider that made it perfectly clear he wasn’t going to accept BS from anyone.

 

Certainly, Bill Ford could’ve implemented Mulally’s Thursday meetings, but Bill Ford was not only lacking in the 30 years of experience that Mulally brought to Ford (Mulally was on his 4th jet project by the time Ford graduated from Princeton), he was also lacking any outside perspective on how to run the company.

 

Even if he had initiated meetings that put everyone on the same room, and in the same conversation, it’s doubtful whether this would’ve improved the quality of information he was receiving.

 

Bill Ford was, in many ways, a flawed CEO, but at the time that he assumed that role, there was no one else at Ford. Nasser had driven the remaining capable executives from the company, and had made himself foremost in the crew of liars and cavilers bent on preserving their jobs by hiding as much of the truth as possible from Bill.

 

Looking at Ford today, there are many things that they are doing right, but it is impossible to look at what they had and squandered in the marketplace, as well as the ongoing legacy of decades of bad business practices, without wondering what-if?

[Hugh]

2009? WHAT? Howabout making the change back to discs right NOW! There is absolutely no reason why they can't. It's this kind of "accepted" slow reaction that keeps Ford in it's steady decline.

Where to start?

 

It seems that there is such desperation at Ford here for example, that the're going to have to pull an "Apollo 13" action.

 

"Right! We need to put this square peg into this round hole with this material."

 

Now: Place a either the 221 hp D30 and 6F or better yet, the 240 hp version (sorry Jaguar) and make it fit. I don't think the D35 is avaliable yet but in the meantime...ANYTHING PLEASE!

 

As for the brakes. I remember the press release for the 2005 Focus had new discs with less dust and longer life and shorter stopping distances. You can't use those in the back/front/whatever?

Edited January 2, 2007 by Hugh

[Bluecon]

I have been wondering--

Is RJ really Bill jr.?

Neither one has ever got anything right.

[RichardJensen]

Howabout making the change back to discs right NOW!

Well, for starters, there's at least a half a year's worth of DRUM brakes on order.

 

They could make at best a late MY switch to discs, since the 2008 MY will be quite long,

 

But it would cost a fortune, now, to switch to discs.

[RichardJensen]

I have been wondering--

Is RJ really Bill jr.?

Neither one has ever got anything right.

This is your only warning, Bluecon.

 

One more swipe like that, and your posts will be subject to censorship.

[Kokomo M/W]

This is your only warning, Bluecon.

 

One more swipe like that, and your posts will be subject to censorship.

I hope you said that in jest, if you can't take that ,then censor me also, or is this something I don't know about being a new member??

[Kokomo M/W]

2009? WHAT? Howabout making the change back to discs right NOW! There is absolutely no reason why they can't. It's this kind of "accepted" slow reaction that keeps Ford in it's steady decline.

Coming soon to a FORD dealer near you :happy feet: POWER STEERING!! AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION!! (optional)

[Blueblood]

I heard a rumor that the 09 Escape will have a wonderful cost saving drum brakes for the front as well, and the D30 will be getting a bold new 2 barrel carb and a 3-speed tranny to further reduce costs.

 

No word yet on whether power steering, a/c, and FM radio will still be available. Other rumors suggest the return of leaf springs and an 8 track for 2010..

 

BOLD moves!!!! Nobody else is doing any of these things!!

 

The lines will be long at the local Ford dealer after consumers see the radical return of the things Americans miss. Toyota has no chance of overtaking Ford!!

Edited January 2, 2007 by Blueblood

[pcsario]

ROFL... Now the grouches are even vindicated by RJ. Priceless.

 

After all the recent statements from Mullaly and Co (the official BON grouches), a retraction piece from RJ vaguely accepting defeat was to be expected.

 

Nice timing/camo.

Edited January 3, 2007 by pcsario

[ANTAUS]

Very well written piece RJ. I believe it sums up pretty much everyones frustration with such a product. And probably the wave of negative reviews the Escape will righteously deserve. As it is the Escape is on it's last leg...platform wise, and drivetrain wise. It's just unfortunately it'll depart so negatively. And whats worse it's replacement might sport the Escape name, which (because of this issue) will resonate in a negative manner with consumers for the next 2-3 years.

[Bluecon]

I hope you said that in jest, if you can't take that ,then censor me also, or is this something I don't know about being a new member??

Ya, you must be new.

RJ has been on a streak of wrong predictions and is a little touchy about it.

[RichardJensen]

Kokomo M/W:

 

Read the Rules of Conduct: ad hominem attacks are not permitted. Habitual offenders, and offenders who ignore warnings are subject to post editing and removal.

 

It is not our policy to ban users for disagreeing. However, to prevent the kind of mindless mudslinging that characterizes boards such as the Combustion Chamber at AW and others, we do insist on a certain level of decorum here.

[RichardJensen]

Very well written piece RJ. I believe it sums up pretty much everyones frustration with such a product. And probably the wave of negative reviews the Escape will righteously deserve. As it is the Escape is on it's last leg...platform wise, and drivetrain wise. It's just unfortunately it'll depart so negatively. And whats worse it's replacement might sport the Escape name, which (because of this issue) will resonate in a negative manner with consumers for the next 2-3 years.

The Escape is not ***all*** bad: improvements to the interior, and a decent sheetmetal update are both very welcome, as is the increased standard safety equipment. The new lower price is also a plus (the base XLS is about $800 cheaper than the 2007 model).

 

However, the powertrain decision is questionable, at best, and the drum brake retrogression is inexcusable.

 

That said, I am not going to paint a black and white picture of Ford Motor, I'll leave that to other forum members. There is much to fix, but there is much that has been fixed.

[LSFan00]

Kokomo M/W:

 

Read the Rules of Conduct: ad hominem attacks are not permitted. Habitual offenders, and offenders who ignore warnings are subject to post editing and removal.

 

It is not our policy to ban users for disagreeing. However, to prevent the kind of mindless mudslinging that characterizes boards such as the Combustion Chamber at AW and others, we do insist on a certain level of decorum here.

 

I appreciate this effort.

[Embalmers]

Not that I'm complaining, but Richard there's little continuity in this article. One minute I'm reading about the Escape and it's shortcomings, the next minute I'm reading about Bill Ford missing the boat. I'm in full agreement that "Bold Moves" are necessary to convince the general public that Ford is serious about a turnaround and, sadly, drum brakes and carryover powertrain are little indication that is going to happen. Come to think of it, I recently had my 2001 Suburban to the dealership for a 100K checkup and they found the left rear caliper sticking, taking out the rotor. The service manager is a good friend of mine and he told me that they have had numerous issues with the rear discs on the full size trucks/SUV's. So much so, apparently that GM is going back to rear drums in 2008.

[g48150]

I suppose the "expert grouch" should step in and take the thread over. But you guys already heard what I had to say, this asshole is gone, the platform manager in charge of the Escape is gone.

 

This man walked on water. Period. Why? Because the Escape was and is the "sales leader" when it comes to small SUVs. Anyone who's even gotten a glimpse of the new RAV4 and CRV know that this is the end of that.

 

I now work near the Nissan Tech Center in Farmington Hills and saw a production ready product from Mr. Ghosn (rhymes with phone). The Nissan X-Trail. I gotta tell you guys, from the side it looks exactly like a Range Rover, spitting image, I'm telling you.

 

Nissan X Trail

[realworld]

4-wheel discs remain standard on Hybrid models. I'm not sure why.

[RichardJensen]

Not that I'm complaining, but Richard there's little continuity in this article. One minute I'm reading about the Escape and it's shortcomings, the next minute I'm reading about Bill Ford missing the boat. I'm in full agreement that "Bold Moves" are necessary to convince the general public that Ford is serious about a turnaround and, sadly, drum brakes and carryover powertrain are little indication that is going to happen. Come to think of it, I recently had my 2001 Suburban to the dealership for a 100K checkup and they found the left rear caliper sticking, taking out the rotor. The service manager is a good friend of mine and he told me that they have had numerous issues with the rear discs on the full size trucks/SUV's. So much so, apparently that GM is going back to rear drums in 2008.

Regarding the first point: It's a blog, I'm allowed to wander from one topic to the next. However, the two are related in a 'big picture' sort of way: This latest gaffe with the Escape is just one more indication of the deeply flawed review structure at Ford--bad ideas get green-lighted, and that needs to stop.

 

Also, there's no rumors of discs going away on the F-Series, and Ford's been using rear discs longer than anyone, besides that, the Escape is not a fullsize truck, there's no reason to go back to drums.

[RichardJensen]

BTW, there should be a :P up after "I'm allowed to wander"

[bb62]

Richard, I wish you would recognize that Bluecon is right when he says you miss the target with your analysis. As a former insider at a significant level, I can say with assuredness that you are indeed incorrect with many (but also clearly not all) of your assertions. I will try to show where you misinterpret how Ford operates or the facts are wrong. Let’s look below at just a few examples from your paragraph:

 

 

quote: According to at least one Ford insider, the guy who led the Escape program has accepted an early retirement offer.

 

The problem with the Escape would not be the Escape chief engineer (CE). The problem is with the cycle planning process that only allocates limited funds to support product upgrades. Minimize the funding and the options for the CE become likewise minimal. The problem is however that Ford has for the past 4 to 5 years refused to fix the cycle planning process. Their solution has been to push the decision making higher and higher into the organization until the senior team was overwhelmed. Partly this is due to the mistakes of Ford 2000 where planning has been de-emphasized as a career path and instead has become a pass-through rotation for engineers. As such, very little upfront planning accompanies any of the cycle plans. The 80s may have been overkill with the detail in the back-up books, but now there is nothing justifying decisions other than senior management whim.

 

quote: The Five Hundred was the first new car launched by Ford NA in five years (stop and think that one over), and was, if not a screaming success, immediately competitive with fullsize sedans in its purview.

 

quote: Hopefully, with the changes being put in place, and the offering of retirements and buyouts, Ford can clear out the deadwood in NA product development that has prevented Ford from developing a solid and consistent lineup.

 

These two quotes show that you don’t understand what is happening inside Ford. It’s not deadwood being cleared out – it’s the solid folk who provided Ford’s backbone for decades. And your statement is a case in point given that the CE of the Five Hundred was one of the first to go in what was purely a political move. He went from hero to zero in about a month when a certain Product Creation VP decided to make some changes to bring in “his” people. An old manager of mine years ago told me that reorgs aren’t about efficiency, they’re about power. And they’re not about deadwood either.

 

quote: Let’s consider the situation Bill Ford found himself in (seeing that he, in my opinion, receives an unjustified amount of the blame for the state Ford is currently in): Bill Ford came to the CEO’s office having completely avoided the product side of the business. He came up through finance. This is not necessarily bad: Trotman and Nasser were product men.

 

This entire paragraph is completely false. Bill Ford’s career inside Ford was primarily product planning – NOT finance. And Nasser was not a product guy AT ALL. He was a finance guy from the word go. He was the protégé of Wayne Booker (a finance guy) who pushed him through all the key finance positions before he started taking general management positions. Bill Ford had a decade of product experience more than Jac Nasser. An old friend of mine bumped into Nasser a year or so ago and he stated that he was much happier buying and selling companies for a bank – which is precisely what he did at Ford.

 

quote: I don’t think that Bill Ford was prepared to believe, and it certainly seems as though no one under him was prepared to tell him, just how messed up his product teams were.

 

There was nothing wrong with the specific product teams – unless you are referring to the entire “energy room process” – but that wasn’t a multitude of teams but rather a single effort to drive compatibility into the target setting process. But as I stated before – there were no career planners to make the process work.

 

quote: Ford’s successes blinded officers of the corporation to this–or officers of the corporation (e.g. Jac Nasser) knew that there were problems, and REFUSED to fix them, refusing to expend any effort at all on fixing them.

 

Nasser never believed there were problems (at least of the sort you allude to) – how could he refuse to fix something he didn’t believe was there. Sure the management team recognized the need for continually improving the PD process but Nasser was primarily interested in getting the Ford stock to approximate the dot.com multiples of the day – he spent very little time on process. As such he shed assets that never should have been shed. He eliminated engineering capability if they took to many assets. And he drove teams to deliver product with too few resources assuming that process enablers proposed were as good as implemented.

 

quote: Among snippets that have escaped from the last few years, it appears that Bill Ford was increasingly frustrated with the quality of information that he was receiving, and that he believed he was being misled on a regular basis. …… Steven Hamp was appointed chief of staff, apparently to provide some kind of BS detection regarding the information being passed to Bill.

 

 

Bill Ford is an idiot because he didn’t depend on the team he put in place – not because the quality of information he received was questionable. Case in point is Greg Smith who in his last year with Ford was made Vice-Chairman to help advise Billy in corporate operational issues. So in one year, How many times do you think Billy availed himself of Greg’s (considerable) expertise…..None. Billy listened more to his UofM business school professor and some green advocate than he did to the management of his own firm. Now it’s not a bad thing that he did consult those people – but the problem was that was all he consulted. And that’s why Greg resigned.

 

 

quote: Bill Ford was, in many ways, a flawed CEO, but at the time that he assumed that role, there was no one else at Ford. Nasser had driven the remaining capable executives from the company, and had made himself foremost in the crew of liars and cavilers bent on preserving their jobs by hiding as much of the truth as possible from Bill.

 

Heh heh – much of this IS true.

[sranger]

The company I work for has about 50 people on auto allowance plans and they trade vehicles every 3-4 years. The topic of new cars comes up often and most people read about the new models frequently. In other words this is an informed group. There are a few of us that own Ford products. I currently have a 2005 Mariner and a 2005 Mustang GT. I previously had a 2000 F150 and before that a Ford Ranger. So, I can honestly say that I have liked owning some of the recent Ford Products.

 

After chatting with several people at work, I asked them about the new Edge. Only three knew what it was and they said that they had read that it was getting mediocre to bad reviews. As the Ford discussion progressed, common theme started to emerge. The budget minded people were saying that they would "settle" for a Ford if it was heavily discounted and they though they were getting bargain. The non-budget minded people all preferred a foreign brand and never seriously considered a Ford.

 

What I realized in that moment was that most of the people that I know have decided (with the exception of the F150 and Mustang) that Ford products are something that you "settle" for if they can be had at a significant discount. They are no longer vehicles that people actually want. It might not be a fair or accurate perception, but it is wide spread. Reviews like this one are only going to reinforce this negative perception.

 

I thought that summed up Fords current situation. What do you guys think?