Edstock Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "self-aggrandizing rabble!" Sounds like a bunch of politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 "self-aggrandizing rabble!" Sounds like a bunch of politicians. so who are you going to vote for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) I've gotten this same lecture from you before and its still pedantic self-aggrandizing rabble! Design concepts get lost in translation and the trick is to find a design language that survives the process. Ford designers are competent designers, but the company is hopeless at execution. I completely agree with Borg. This is a fact. Ford NA has by far the WORST production designers out of the Big 3, perhaps even globally. The most recent example was the 2006 Zephyr: Edited January 19, 2007 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I completely agree with Borg. This is a fact. Ford NA has by far the WORST production designers out of the Big 3, almost at the top on a worldwide basis. The most recent example was the 2006 Zephyr: The fact even GM can claim their production department is better speaks volumes on this subject. What does this have to do with the Freestyle? Maybe you should start a "Zephyr Concept to Production" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 LOL... touche. Richard was asking for an example, that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) What does this have to do with the Freestyle? Maybe you should start a "Zephyr Concept to Production" thread. I agree, and most of the changes from the concept to production was done due to manufacturing reasons...the Zephyr concept is much closer to the production Zephyr then say the 05 Mustang Concept to the real Mustang Edited January 19, 2007 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I'm not quite clear why so many people whine that the production and concept Zephyr differ so much. Other than the chin-spoiler/l;ower fascia not getting the brightwork, and the rear decklid tail-lights are bigger and designed differently, everything else is the same Granted, your getting a sleaker greenhouse with the higher belt-line, much larger wheels in every concept, other than that, the above pictures show how similar they really were/are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I'm not quite clear why so many people whine that the production and concept Zephyr differ so much. Other than the chin-spoiler/l;ower fascia not getting the brightwork, and the rear decklid tail-lights are bigger and designed differently, everything else is the same Granted, your getting a sleaker greenhouse with the higher belt-line, much larger wheels in every concept, other than that, the above pictures show how similar they really were/are. I agree with you....very similar looking to me....but what the hell do I know:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Remember this? Ford CrossTrainer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) I agree, and most of the changes from the concept to production was done due to manufacturing reasons...the Zephyr concept is much closer to the production Zephyr then say the 05 Mustang Concept to the real Mustang Manufacturing reasons... right. Funny how neither GM or DCX have had any lately. BTW, if you don't want an off topic discussion, then don't address it as such. Enough of the double standard crap. You only seem to focus your "reminders/suggestions" on those you don't like. Edited January 19, 2007 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Manufacturing reasons... right. Funny how neither GM or DCX have had any lately. lets see how the production Camaro changes from the concept show the past couple years... As for DCX: Crossfire: Concept Production: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) Thanks for proving my point. Everyone knows the windshield and the front end were changed due to management orders (focus groups didn't like it), not incompetence. That's a great transition, the production department clearly provided more solutions, than excuses and modifications due to incompetence. "Bububu can't have the same wheels, designs have to change because we can't figure out how to be as good as the competition on this." You also had to use a very old example because all the recent DCX stuff has been spot on, ditto with GM. The Aura was mostly left intact and the Solstice was even better. So either GM or DCX made a pact with the devil (unlikely) or Ford is just plain incompetent in comparison, because they've done nothing but change stuff for the worse lately. This pretty much ends the discussion. Edited January 19, 2007 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 You also had to use a very old example because all the recent DCX stuff has been spot on, ditto with GM. The Aura was mostly left intact and the Solstice was even better. So either GM or DCX made a pact with the devil (unlikely) or Ford is just plain incompetent in comparison, because they've done nothing but change stuff for the worse lately. This pretty much ends the discussion. I guess you never considered the fact that DCX and GM are just showing a prototype of a production vehicle vs concept that a production car is based on? Ford hasn't had a direct translation from a concept to a real car until the GT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) I guess you never considered the fact that DCX and GM are just showing a prototype of a production vehicle vs concept that a production car is based on? Ford hasn't had a direct translation from a concept to a real car until the GT... Yes, Ford did well with a 150k supercar, that changes everything. :rolleyes: Zephyr was a concept in the same way the Aura was. The final results speak for themselves. Anyway, GM - Solstice, concept, not a pre-production prototype. DCX - Search around for the Chrysler Nassau. It's a concept car that was never released, but it was meant to preview the 300C back in 2001. Again, only improvements were made in the production vehicle. Edited January 20, 2007 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Tangents...the very lifeblood of the negatoids! Somewhere back behind the flood of rhetorical bile, the topic was about the spy pics of the new Freestyle. I think the updates help, and that the basic qualities of the car (which are actually quite good, though some spin like tops to claim otherwise-why, can't fathom) are such that the horsepower infusion and the other updates should, if ADVERTISED DECENTLY, allow the CUV to get its sales in much better standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) Thank your buddy silvrsvt for making it an off topic discussion. I only gave an example like Richard requested, and left it at that, but since I didn't put Ford as the best thing since sliced bread, it became an issue with some people. This pretty much ends the discussion. I guess you never considered the fact that DCX and GM are just showing a prototype of a production vehicle vs concept that a production car is based on? Ford hasn't had a direct translation from a concept to a real car until the GT... So... I wasn't the one who made this a subdiscussion, and I never wanted to treat is as such in the first place. Nice try, though. Edited January 20, 2007 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) dp Edited January 20, 2007 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I intend to add a cogent reply detailing how the most recent Chrysler production vehicle, the Sebring, is today all that it's promising concept promised. As soon as either (a) hell freezes over or (B) I can find a picture illustrating the quintessentially hideous design of that vehicle in concept form I will add it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 New page, back on topic. Does anyone know why they changed the AWD system in the refresh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I read at another forum they won't be using haldex anymore, switched suppliers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsaylor Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I read at another forum they won't be using haldex anymore, switched suppliers. Hmm, I didn't think the FiveHundred used a Haldex system. I was under the impression that Volvo got a Haldex setup but the 500 didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Zephyr was a concept in the same way the Aura was. Sorry for the off-topic (again), but this can't rest. The Zephyr concept was an all-new design based on a heavily modified version of the new Mazda6 platform. The concept was built long before the production line was even created. There was no concept version of the Aura. Read that closely. What GM showed off as an Aura concept was actually a production Opel Vectra with new-for-2005 styling. The only thing GM did was replace the lighting bolt in the grille with a stylized planet. Which is exactly what they started selling at Saturn dealers last fall. (BTW, does anyone else here find it funny that the magazines gushed over the 'new' Aura and how it's European style and manners 'wiped out' the memory of the old, boring L-series - you know, the one that was a thinly-disguised Opel Vectra?) Back on-topic, I don't understand why there are so many here putting down the Freestyle. You guys, i.e. motorheads (*), are -not- the Freestyle (or Five Hundred) market. I would've bought one in a heartbeat (hoofbeat?) if they were available in 2001 when I got the Tribute. (*) Yeah, the SVO makes me sort-of a motorhead, too, but it's not like it's a torque-monster GT. Most of you complainers wouldn't even give it a second glance if it weren't a Ford vehicle. IMO, it's just another way for you (all) to vent your trolling on Ford Back in 2001, I -wanted- a wagon. At the time, the only wagon that would've met my needs, the Accord, had just been discontinued (and you still have trouble getting one today!). I grew up in wagons, and always liked the looks of them. If I had the money right now, I'd trade the Tribute in on a Freestyle. The 2008 upgrade takes away the only thing about the original I didn't like - the SUV-like grille. I don't expect there are hundreds of thousands of people like me. Many will find a better fit with an Explorer or an Edge. Me, I prefer the more conservative styling of the Freestyle as compared to the Edge, and I have -no- need for an off-road vehicle like the Explorer - the farthest off-road the Tribute's been is my brother's gravel driveway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 And your basis for saying so is? Do you not see how ridiculously flawed your statements are "nothing 'competent' to date", which encompasses the entire 104 year history of Ford Motor. This kind of overblown language is not designed to do anything but challenge people that disagree. I mean, call it my 'pedantic' nature, but I want sources, I want some substance to back up what gets said here. I almost never see it, and it's one of the things that makes the 'discourse' on this board a joke. Richard, you're asking me to admit to you that Ford design is worth the respect and admiration deserved from a lolely neophyte like myself. Upon what ground do I have reason to do that? I have very reasonably (I thought) explained what I see as the design conundrum apparently being experienced at Ford. Great designs/designers handicapped by a company with the inability to translate the design language effectively. Which one needs to be fixed, I don't know! To be fair, I have not applauded successful designs...but collectively, Ford struggles with consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) Richard, you're asking me to admit to you that Ford design is worth the respect and admiration deserved No. I'm telling you that there is a difference between sounding authoritative and being authoritative. On design, you only sound authoritative, and it comes off as grating as nails on a chalkboard. "Great designs/designers handicapped by a company with the inability to translate the design language effectively" Stated as an opinion carries oh so much more credibility than "They have never .... this or that" or "an absolute disaster", etc. Put some thought into it, F'r cryin' out loud. It's not as though you're an idiot, incapable of discerning why you dislike something. Also, concept to production comparisons with other manufacturers is a risky business, as GM does not, as a general rule, produce pie-in-the-sky concepts to the extent Ford does (Consider the relative shortage of Chevy concept sedans...SS is the only one I can recall). Chrysler does, and its success in translation is as good as the Viper, or as bad as the Airflite to Sebring. Depending on which models you choose to select and compare with which concepts, you can make all sorts of arguments about this or that, but ultimately few people (as an overall percentage) see these cars, and each car company uses its 'fantasy' concepts for different purposes--therefore you cannot establish a one to one correspondence between any two companies for the purpose of comparison. The consumer is (to a certain extent) the only judge of design worth considering, and complaints about the 'tacked on' chrome grin should be weighed against having for the first time in a decade, an identifiable "Ford" face, that consumers can latch onto, and which they are, by and large, reacting fairly well to (as implemented in the Edge and Fusion). Ditto complaints about the Super Duty's massive grille (required for the 12 ton towing capacity on the F450), headlight stacks, etc. On the one hand, you may not appreciate the aesthetics, but on the other hand, are you the target customer? BTW: this is already hopelessly off topic, so I'm not going to monitor it. It was off the rails before the new policy was implemented. Edited January 20, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 (edited) Hmm, I didn't think the FiveHundred used a Haldex system. I was under the impression that Volvo got a Haldex setup but the 500 didn't. I really don't know, all I remember reading is that they will use a cheaper AWD system now. Dunno if its better or not. Syrtran: This is the refreshed '05 Opel Vectra: The Aura: The concept wasn't a modified/reskinned Vectra. They might have similar headlights and grille, but that's it. Their shapes/angles/proportions couldn't possibly be more different in the flesh. Use the wheels as a reference (17" on the Vectra). The Vectra is tall, short, and narrow. As for the Zephyr, everyone remembers that autoshow. It was just a terrible case of bait and switch, lets just leave it at that. Edited January 20, 2007 by pcsario 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.