thats one ugly car.. it even looks bad in Redfire.. which is the color of my 06 GT...

 

Perhaps Ford employees could say more on this, but running changes, based on warranty claims and problems reported that result in TSBs, are made in response to some of these things. I do wish the rattly plastic would be addressed!

Unless a "what you see is what you pay" pricing model is adopted wholesale like GM's Saturn, there is not much to be done about ADMs. Hot cars will always demand premiums. Having owned a Chevrolet, 2 Mitsubishis, a Nissan, 2 Dodges, and 5 Fords, I can safely say one must find the right time to purchase a desirable car, unless we are talking about higher volume vehicles. Pricing is more like to be favorable to the purchaser then. Product knowledge and customer service attitudes are always great, but like any sales organization, that is going to be dependent on how the individual retail outlets choose to pay and train their staff, along with having GREAT PRODUCT to sell. At the various dealerships I have been for the different makes, I have seen the attitude of "my customer comes first" out there, depending on the staff hired by the dealership.

Developing a concept is definitely a tricky proposition. It's part of innovation, although one can certainly argue what is "realistic" in terms of the market. Being able to better sense and respond more quickly would most likely help in this. Maybe it would be cool if 3-D virtual models could be used to do market research rather than producing a physical concept. I could see people whipping out the 3-D glasses at an all-hologram car show

Yeah, that was a big black eye for Ford...the "entitlement" mentality rears its ugly head. Not a smooth move!

For Mustang, I would agree that more attention could have been paid there.

I'd rate them a B-/C+ but they personally don't get under my skin enough that I would not buy the car. It's about the same as the last generation to me.

I am so-so on the beauty of having one and can take it or leave it.


If they want my gas that bad, they can choke on it

I thought this issue was more related to fuel delivery systems since some people don't have problems with this. The testing processes for the filler system could have probably been better.

What parts are not painted now that should be? I must go look again at what's missing!

Yeah, that ain't good...

Yeah, the carpets could be thicker.

Yes, would be much appreciated!

I personally have not experienced that in my '07.

Every engineering decision is going to be made on the basis of "what does a customer for this car care about". It will be different for different models. The Mustang's chassis has been MUCH improved, both in terms of crash worthiness and strength. If there are wholesale failures that affect braking, fuel delivery, or safety systems (seatbelts, airbags), then I would worry about things I could not see. Meeting government regulations is part of the deal. There are examples in Ford's history of things where safety was compromised (Explorer/Firestone tire, original Mustang rear fuel filler design, Pinto), but again, every manufacturer has something like this in some of their products. At this point in time, safety sells to the larger population, so compromising in this regard would be fatal. I don't think the engineers and much aligned "bean counters" at Ford do this on a grand scale.

I would say Ford's ability to operate in a fashion which leverages its global strengths to produce products a local level could stand major improvement. Some vehicles have been well-received, some should have had better ongoing enhancement. I am not aware of any car company that would want to have a vehicle that lasts for 20 years - they would go out of business! All engineering is about cost/functionality trade-offs, so the accountants do have a role to play. Some of the public facing executives might be "fat, lazy, & greedy", but I would not characterize them that way all across the board. Those type of people exist in every major corporation.

The bottom line is that Mustang enthusiasts want to continue having a car which is fun-to-drive, reasonable in price, reliable, and have an experience with their dealership that makes them more likely to be a repeat buyer in the future. All of those things are happening out there, but I would hope the Ford CEO would have a major effect on culture over the next 12-18 months so they become more prominent. We will see what happens.


I think it depends to whom you talk. I have heard others I know talk very positively about what they see. The CEO will be in the best position to deal with the management layers that are needing to re-think how the individuals business units operate. That is with whom the lasting mark will be made, as opposed to the people closest to the execution of design, engineering, and manufacturing of the vehicles.

 

The question is, will we get them here

 

When Ford replace the Crown Vic in 2010.

 

well I'll put it this way ?? if Ford plans on replacing the panther platform ie crown vic for the next RWD sedan, wagon ect ?? then fine I don't have a problem with it..However ? I don't agree that Ford should just turn around and scrap the current D2C Mustang platform which is still a very fresh and young platform and let's not kid ourselves ?? if it hadn't been for the very huge success that Ford has had with the current Mustang ?? Ford would already be in bankruptcy court facing possible extinction..I'm also quite certain that the engineers over at Ford are quite capable of updating D2C to compete with the upcoming Camaro and Challanger as well as basing other RWD coupes such as a new Lincoln coupe and the Ford 49 concept coupe could also be a very huge success if ever brought to production..

 

I think someone is kidding YOU. Mustang sales represent a very tiny fraction of Ford's profit. The Mustang's success will no more save the company than its failure will sink it.

 

I sincerely disagree. The Mustang, in both brand awareness and showroom traffic, is worth much more than just the balance sheet of Mustang sales shows.

It is a bright spot that boots morale within Ford and the image of the company from outside. Regardless of your feelings of the rest of the FMC lineup, the Mustang is both a guiding light within the halls of Ford and definitive proof to journalists, analysts, and the buying public that, without a doubt, that Ford can still produce a market dominating product.

The Chrysler 300C doesn't balance the "C" portion of DCX, either. But it has generated so much positive press that no one seems to care as much about lots full of Durangos, Aspens, Rams, and Commanders, as much as they do about lots full of Explorers, Five Hundreds, and Focuses ( or is that Foci? )

In any case, the Mustang is critical to Ford's success.

However, I do agree that Ford cannot survive on the Mustang alone. But with the Edge/MKX and other products in the pipeline, it won't have to. Drive an Edge- you'll be surprised.

 

Forgot to mention in my previous post.

Let's not all get our panties in a twist. Automotive journalism ( if you can even call it that ) in Detroit is surprisingly poor. If you believe every Photochopped sketch you see in a magazine, or every journalists idea of what they "think" they heard, GM and Ford would have merged and this would be TheMustamaroSource.com ( or perhaps TheCamastangSource.com ). If you have old car magazines, go back through the news sections and tell if everything is really a crystal ball from the future.

Remember, these magazines are companies. They feed off stuff like this, just like the Enquirer feeds off what alien impregnated Britney Spears. They need to sell magazines, and they can embellish or modify info to their liking to get you to freak out and type on a forum: "look at what I found in Autoweek" with a link. Then 10,000 people go to their site, which not only increases their hits making their advertising space more valuable, but also makes them $ off the advertising that's already there. And maybe a few of you will buy the magazines too.

In any case, this seems like a switch-a-roo of the words "platform" and "badge". Ford just killed off the Lincoln LS, which leaves the Mustang and the Crown Vic as the only rear drive cars. If Ford wants to do a rear drive sedan or wagon in the short term, the first logical and least expensive choice would be to base it off the Mustang platform. A platform is essentially the engineering hardpoints and mechanicals. These are what take the longest and are the most costly to produce. So building a 4 dr or wagon off the Mustang means using these hardpoints ( like the previously mentioned LS and its DEW98 cousins Thunderbird and Jag S type ) to produce similar vehicles with reduced time and cost. It does not mean PimpMyRidin' or MonsterGaragin' the actual Mustang we know and love by stretching the body and shoving in an extra door. Once you do that on a unibody car, you have to pay for a whole new body, so you get to make it look different for free.

Same deal as the old Taurus/Sable/Mark VIII, the current 300/Charger/Magnum, and the coming GM Zeta Camaro/GTO/Impala/Bonneville.

So relax, everybody. I believe Ford when they say there is no Mustang-badged sedan or wagon coming. But if they want to do a rear drive, Dodge Charger/2008 Impala/BMW 3 series fighting sedan based off the S197 platform, I say godspeed my blue oval friends.

 

Then explain this ?? if the Mustang's success isn't saving Ford Motor Co. other than what Ford has already borrowed ? then just exactly what is

 

I totally agree and couldn't have said it any better myself...

 

Once again ? I'm in total agreement with you, However ? wasn't the Lincoln LS a Front Wheel Drive sedan ? at least that's what I thought it was anyhow

 

Ford Squashes Four Door Mustang Rumor Well it certainly looks like the Ford Mustang enthusiasts have nothing to worry about for now. Just minutes ago, Ford released an official press release squashing any belief that the legendary pony car that so many people love would be turned into a gelding with two additional doors. Was this just media spinning to get attention? Did Ford really intend for people to hear about this plan? Was this just a ploy to see how people would react? If it was a joke, it was somewhat a sick one. Let's just hope this latest affirmation that the Ford Mustang will remain a 2+2 settles into something concrete and permanent.

 

That was my point.

The whole 'loss leaders' to get people into the store strategy is a separate debate. And given the Stangs I see sitting on lots for months on end, and the healthy discounts being given on them, I would argue that Ford may have played that card already.

 

"...other than what Ford has already borrowed"?

Please explain the question?

 

Nope. The LS, T Bird and Jag S type are all rear-drive. See this link:
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_05.htm

The new Lincoln MKS is front or AWD, ( basically, like an Audi A6 ) and was based off the FWD D3 platform, i.e. Five Hundred/Freestyle/Montego, which itself was based off the Volvo S80.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_MKS

 

Whoops! Not so fast. As recently as July of last year (05) Ford thought enough of another near and dear brand that the company put out another press release in a long line, stating the VERY SAME THINGS as you cite almost word for word!!
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/featu...?release=21205

And now, its dead. Not just the product, but the sales, marketing and owner loyalty teams. Ouch, thats a bad precident.

So, no, don't believe that Ford "gets" or even has a clue about things, just base the future on hard sales because there is NOTHING dear and sacrosanct at Ford any more. The entire company is in play and that is an indication of just how bad it is(was/will be?).

 

I agree. However, this press release was pre-Way Forward Plan. Like Aston Jag and other parts of PAG, SVT was a brand that was put on the table for review.

If SVT was dead, as you say, we wouldn't have the GT500 today. Think of "SVT" it as Ford's version of Cadillac's V series, or Chevy's SS, or Jag's "R" or Saturn's "Red Line". It denotes the high performance version.

And remember, hard sales mean nothing. Profits do. If you sell 80,000 Fusions and make 1,000 on each, you have 80 million. If you sell 8,000 SVTs and you make 10,000 on each, you also have 80 million. And its a lot cheaper to develop a supercharger, etc for an existing Mustang than it is to develop a whole new vehicle, as they did with the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr.

But you do need a great base vehicle as a foundation. The GT500 makes sense because you have a great base product in the Mustang to start with. My guess is they're refocusing their efforts on making the base car a winner, then add the SVT icing. There is no point in SVT-ing a car if it's just not competitive to begin with. ( SVT Taurus? )

The way I view SVT status is- Ford and SVT haven't broken up, they're just on "a break" until Ford works on its own issues. A hiatus of sorts. They could break up, I hope it doesn't happen. But the fact that after putting everything on the table for hard look, that we still got the GT500, further demonstrates 1) there are still people at Ford who "get it", and 2) just how revered the Mustang is.

Like any big organization, there are people who get it, and people who don't. Ford is no different. Let's hope the people who agree with me and you, those who "get it", prevail. That's why the Mustang is critical to Ford's success, because obviously everyone, from design, to engineering, to marketing, to sales, finance, and executve management all "got it".

 

No one is pulling harder for a rethink of the recent demise of SVT.

But my point was that the press release isn't even 18 months old!! And since that point another "ready to go" product(Adrenaline) was canned and the GT program is forgotten. That is how quickly the big Blue Oval's "LOYALTY" to a brand can dissapear and how easily they can and will forget about all that steak and go for the sizzle.

In another example, see GM's edict about no more Impalla SS stuff, they now use it as an example of what should NOT be done to credibility. With that right thinking, do you think that the Camaro SS will not be a killer app?

Please hold in mind that a good chunk of Ford is now held in dubious trust by those who neither know nor care about cars. They only want a return on investment, and if my financial advisers are any guide, they could care less how returns are created. Once the house is mortgaged, it is a small step to selling it to get out from under.

 

Seems they may be changing . . .

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...347A057C9DE%7D

 

Agreed. When you mortgage your home just to pay the bills, you're in T-R-O-U-B-L-E.