Sedan and Wagon Mustangs? WTF?
12/13/06, 04:04 PM
#41
Ford should make sedan and station wagon versions of the Mustang. While they're at it, the brilliant minds at Ford might as well stick the Mustang name on a mini-van, a pickup truck, SUV and a FWD econobox. Why not stick "Mustang" on EVERY vehicle Ford sells.
By doing this the idiots running Ford would finally run Ford into the ground and out of business for once and for all so I would be forced to buy vehicles built by a company who doesn't have their heads stuck up their rear ends.
If anyone still cares at all about FoMoCo, it sounds like its time for another letter writing campaign like when Ford was about to kill the RWD Mustang in the 1980s.
By doing this the idiots running Ford would finally run Ford into the ground and out of business for once and for all so I would be forced to buy vehicles built by a company who doesn't have their heads stuck up their rear ends.
If anyone still cares at all about FoMoCo, it sounds like its time for another letter writing campaign like when Ford was about to kill the RWD Mustang in the 1980s.
12/13/06, 04:12 PM
#42
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
I think it would be great to use this platform to build a smaller, tight-handling RWD 4-door (a North American brother to the australian Falcon). Throw an IRS and a few extra doors and give it to lincoln or Mercury. But calling it a Mustang would be like AC/DC putting out a pop album and touring with Backstreet boys to reach a larger audience.
"Strummin' With the Devil"?
http://www.strumminwiththedevil.com/...tid=39&id=1019
12/13/06, 04:24 PM
#43
After all these years,
My C/T still sucks!
My C/T still sucks!
Join Date: May 5, 2004
Location: Orlando(DP!) Florida
Posts: 7,187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I swear by all that is holy- if they do this, I am selling both of mine and turning them into corvettes. 
Thats like the Ford **** Probe of the early 90s- Fugliest thing ever. Thank GOD it didn't become the mustang.
Thats like the Ford **** Probe of the early 90s- Fugliest thing ever. Thank GOD it didn't become the mustang.
12/13/06, 04:41 PM
#44
After some research, and some kind assistance from a couple of Aussie Ford forum members who are surprisingly in the know, I think that we we have here is a case of automotive journalism gone bad.
First, the 'next Falcon' platform everyone keeps talking about is the upcoming 2008 E8 refresh for those who didn't know. To make this clearer E8 is simply a refresh, if a significant one, of the current Aussie Falcon's arhcitecture employing an updated version of the current Territory's IFS, an updated version of the current Falcon's IRS, and what is effectively an updated version of the platform which under-pinned the first Ford Mustang and is nearing 50 years. (by the time the next gen Mustang debuts it will be over 50 years old for the curious)
I am not at all surprised that there is a Falcon due on an evolution of the existing architecture for the 08my and in fact knew that this was coming some time ago. But when people began discussing the possibility that the future Mustang would be Falcon-based I simply assumed that we must have info on the next Falcon redesign after E8 since the suggestion that the current Falcon platform would be considered for the same, revised or otherwise, seemed ridiculous. Especially not after Ford nearly closed the Australian plant and then considered moving the Falcon onto a lengthened development of D2C. (ironically enough this means that these people are fowarding the idea that D2C will be replaced by a platform it was once slated to replace!) But since, as I now know, the discussion, or even vague rumours for that matter, surrounding any upcoming Falcon platform besides E8 are non-existent I have come to understand that this is indeed the platform all the stir is about.
Before any protests arise in defense of the Falcon I am indeed familiar with the wonders that can be wrought through ingenuity and significant labor. And yes I realize that no portion of the chassis has made it through those fifty years untouched. But I am also familiar with the basic laws of science, and the shortcomings of continually evolving any basic design, and can say without reservation that the Falcon platform must be a relatively cobbled and compromised design by this time whatever wonders the Aussie's might have previously wrought from it. Porsche even gave up on the original 911 platform before it got this old, and that was as adaptable and timeless as you can get.
Yes, they have made a valiant effort with the same, but the value in using this chassis has got to be heavily vested in the fact that Ford Australia's plant, which Ford previously intended to close until an Aussie govt bailout changed things as I indicated above, is already setup to deal with this basic platform. Once you try and establish production of the same anywhere else that advantage is lost and cost rises considerably, a reality which calls into question why Ford would ever seriously consider doing so.
Realistically what those who would argue that the next generation of Mustang will be based on this chassis are truly claiming is that Ford will replace D2C, a platform which has superb rigidity, is inherently flexible despite what some claim, and is inexpensive to manufacture by an evolution of the chassis which under-pinned the original 1965 Mustang. And by the time the next gen Mustang rolls around even E8 will be at least 4 years old, so now we are talking about a fairly old update of an ancient platform! If this sounds absurd that is because it is. An evolution of D2C which includes IRS seems a far more logical, and far more likely, platform to underpin the next Mustang than does E8. Wether or not that is the route Ford goes remains to be seen.
When you take into consideration issues like Ford Australia's President hinting that V-8 usage for the Aussie Falcon is only secure in the near term, a develpment which may be related to rumours that the new Falcon platform might not be wide enough to accomodate the upcoming Boss V-8, the assumption becomes even more absurd. (by US standards the current Falcon couldn't even employ the existing Romeo V-8 due to ridiculously small clearances...so if it can't easily be made quite a bit wider there will be an issue)
IMO rumours that Ford would base an upcoming, rwd Lincoln concept, and if we are lucky possibly a Lincoln product, on the upcoming E8 chassis, along with possible rumours that the Mustang will eventually adopt Control Blade IRS, a system which the Falcon already employs, led to what some journalist saw as the equivelant of putting two and two together. No doubt some here will argue that basing a Lincoln on this chassis would be no different han basing a Mustang on it. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Basing a Lincoln sedan on E8 makes sense and solves several issues including how not to tarnish Lincoln's image further by using too many fwd platforms while still developing near term product. It is also prudent since Holden's new sedan has been a slow seller, a development which no doubt has Ford worried that they have more capacity to build Falcons than they will have demand for Falcons. Developing a Lincoln sedan from E8 makes perfect sense since it solves both issues and since, in the short term, it utlizes a program which was already existing to support another brands product portfolio, and as it utilizes exisiting excess plant capacity. This is a far cry from trying to base a future Mustang built in the US on E8.
I'd also be willing to forward a guess that the ridiculous 4-dr Mustang rumours happened in much the same way. If a Lincoln is going to be based on the upcoming Falcon, which indicates that the chassis has been revised to accomodate LHD applictions and U.S. safety standards, the possibility that the Falcon itself, or the Territory for that matter, might show up would seem pretty good as well. If you are inclined to believe that the Mustang will be Falcon based making the leap of faith required to assume that any incoming Ford sedans would be 'Mustangs' probably wasn't too difficult.
First, the 'next Falcon' platform everyone keeps talking about is the upcoming 2008 E8 refresh for those who didn't know. To make this clearer E8 is simply a refresh, if a significant one, of the current Aussie Falcon's arhcitecture employing an updated version of the current Territory's IFS, an updated version of the current Falcon's IRS, and what is effectively an updated version of the platform which under-pinned the first Ford Mustang and is nearing 50 years. (by the time the next gen Mustang debuts it will be over 50 years old for the curious)
I am not at all surprised that there is a Falcon due on an evolution of the existing architecture for the 08my and in fact knew that this was coming some time ago. But when people began discussing the possibility that the future Mustang would be Falcon-based I simply assumed that we must have info on the next Falcon redesign after E8 since the suggestion that the current Falcon platform would be considered for the same, revised or otherwise, seemed ridiculous. Especially not after Ford nearly closed the Australian plant and then considered moving the Falcon onto a lengthened development of D2C. (ironically enough this means that these people are fowarding the idea that D2C will be replaced by a platform it was once slated to replace!) But since, as I now know, the discussion, or even vague rumours for that matter, surrounding any upcoming Falcon platform besides E8 are non-existent I have come to understand that this is indeed the platform all the stir is about.
Before any protests arise in defense of the Falcon I am indeed familiar with the wonders that can be wrought through ingenuity and significant labor. And yes I realize that no portion of the chassis has made it through those fifty years untouched. But I am also familiar with the basic laws of science, and the shortcomings of continually evolving any basic design, and can say without reservation that the Falcon platform must be a relatively cobbled and compromised design by this time whatever wonders the Aussie's might have previously wrought from it. Porsche even gave up on the original 911 platform before it got this old, and that was as adaptable and timeless as you can get.
Yes, they have made a valiant effort with the same, but the value in using this chassis has got to be heavily vested in the fact that Ford Australia's plant, which Ford previously intended to close until an Aussie govt bailout changed things as I indicated above, is already setup to deal with this basic platform. Once you try and establish production of the same anywhere else that advantage is lost and cost rises considerably, a reality which calls into question why Ford would ever seriously consider doing so.
Realistically what those who would argue that the next generation of Mustang will be based on this chassis are truly claiming is that Ford will replace D2C, a platform which has superb rigidity, is inherently flexible despite what some claim, and is inexpensive to manufacture by an evolution of the chassis which under-pinned the original 1965 Mustang. And by the time the next gen Mustang rolls around even E8 will be at least 4 years old, so now we are talking about a fairly old update of an ancient platform! If this sounds absurd that is because it is. An evolution of D2C which includes IRS seems a far more logical, and far more likely, platform to underpin the next Mustang than does E8. Wether or not that is the route Ford goes remains to be seen.
When you take into consideration issues like Ford Australia's President hinting that V-8 usage for the Aussie Falcon is only secure in the near term, a develpment which may be related to rumours that the new Falcon platform might not be wide enough to accomodate the upcoming Boss V-8, the assumption becomes even more absurd. (by US standards the current Falcon couldn't even employ the existing Romeo V-8 due to ridiculously small clearances...so if it can't easily be made quite a bit wider there will be an issue)
IMO rumours that Ford would base an upcoming, rwd Lincoln concept, and if we are lucky possibly a Lincoln product, on the upcoming E8 chassis, along with possible rumours that the Mustang will eventually adopt Control Blade IRS, a system which the Falcon already employs, led to what some journalist saw as the equivelant of putting two and two together. No doubt some here will argue that basing a Lincoln on this chassis would be no different han basing a Mustang on it. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Basing a Lincoln sedan on E8 makes sense and solves several issues including how not to tarnish Lincoln's image further by using too many fwd platforms while still developing near term product. It is also prudent since Holden's new sedan has been a slow seller, a development which no doubt has Ford worried that they have more capacity to build Falcons than they will have demand for Falcons. Developing a Lincoln sedan from E8 makes perfect sense since it solves both issues and since, in the short term, it utlizes a program which was already existing to support another brands product portfolio, and as it utilizes exisiting excess plant capacity. This is a far cry from trying to base a future Mustang built in the US on E8.
I'd also be willing to forward a guess that the ridiculous 4-dr Mustang rumours happened in much the same way. If a Lincoln is going to be based on the upcoming Falcon, which indicates that the chassis has been revised to accomodate LHD applictions and U.S. safety standards, the possibility that the Falcon itself, or the Territory for that matter, might show up would seem pretty good as well. If you are inclined to believe that the Mustang will be Falcon based making the leap of faith required to assume that any incoming Ford sedans would be 'Mustangs' probably wasn't too difficult.
What we don't know is how Mulally wants to incorporate his 'global' business plan in the coming years. Platform sharing (LHD/RHD, RWD/AWD, FWD/AWD, etc.) needs to be addressed. What is the likelihood of a 'new' RWD global chassis? FMC currently has (under FMC banner) D2C, Panther, and E8 . . . . correct? Or am I missing one? I suppose they still have DEW98 and D2 (which both suffered from cost issues.)
12/13/06, 04:44 PM
#45
I Have Admin Envy
Thread Starter
My question to all of you is this. If said car was to be badged as anything other than as a "Mustang" then there would be no remorse, correct? On that note why is it such a bigger deal if it is badged as a Mustang? Look what they did with the Charger and how many there are on the roads. Ford could be raking in cash from everyone other than enthusiasts like us by making a "Mustang" as a sedan or wagon.
There is a major difference difference between the Charger and Mustang. Because the Mustang has had a constant 40 years of evolution and it is a much stronger automotive and brand icon than almost any car ever produced, any tweaking of the successful forumla that it has had for the last 40+ years would be foolish. This is not a question of an evolving design, its about altering the DNA of what is Ford's halo vehicle.
The Charger nameplate has had its ups and downs over the last 40 years, moreso than the Mustang. It had a great initial run with the 66-74 models and then was relegated to be a trim package on the Cordoba. It then reappared as a rebadged FWD econobox. The fact that it was tacked on a 4-door sedan doesn't really affect its heritage IMO, because there have been so many gaps in the history of the nameplate.
To say that Ford has a better idea of what a Mustang is than its hardcore enthusiasts know is not necissarily true. I've met product planners in other companies who are utterly clueless about their own products and instead choose to drink the company kool-aid. I think that a plan like this would have as big of a backlash as when they wanted to replace the Mustang with the probe in 1988.
I was about to call b.s. on the parent article, but jsaylor explained it in much more detail than I ever could. Essentially the timelines for each lineup don't match and the 2010 Mustang has already been engineered in the USA. It would make sense in the global scale to combine both RWD chassis to save money and it will happen eventually. Currently the Mustang chassis is under-utilized and additional products will help distribute any costs, but Ford would be better off using other names and styling. The fact that those cars would be based off the Mustang mechanicals would be enough of a positive lift for them.
12/13/06, 04:45 PM
#46
Ok how will you change them if you just sold them ? but I'm not going to sell mine because I'll be DEAD by then and I will not care wtf they do because as of Dec 5 still no vin # so who gives a flying frap what they do they sell what they want to who they want also seem to presume how a customer should even order it after all an option is just that an option only they get the last say. Sorry I'm bitter that it's taking them for ever after accepting it Oct 24/06
12/13/06, 04:45 PM
#47
12/13/06, 05:11 PM
#48
GT Member
Join Date: July 30, 2004
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After some research,
Thank you, and yes the AU forum is a great place to expand ones mind and world
But since, as I now know, the discussion, or even vague rumours for that matter, surrounding any upcoming Falcon platform besides E8 are non-existent I have come to understand that this is indeed the platform all the stir is about.
The very same one now rumoured to be in Dearborn. Right now, in several versions.
Once you try and establish production of the same anywhere else that advantage is lost and cost rises considerably, a reality which calls into question why Ford would ever seriously consider doing so.
May I show you something in a Thunderbird er, LS?
When you take into consideration issues like Ford Australia's President hinting that V-8 usage for the Aussie Falcon is only secure in the near term, a develpment which may be related to rumours that the new Falcon platform might not be wide enough to accomodate the upcoming Boss V-8, the assumption becomes even more absurd. (by US standards the current Falcon couldn't even employ the existing Romeo V-8 due to ridiculously small clearances...so if it can't easily be made quite a bit wider there will be an issue)
This is legal crash clearances right? As the FPV version of the chassis under discussion currently has the very same 4 valve 5.4 MOD with a different intake. That is, the engine in the GT500 and formerly in the 2000 COBRA "R".
Basing a Lincoln sedan on E8 makes sense and solves several issues including how not to tarnish Lincoln's image further by using too many fwd platforms while still developing near term product. It is also prudent since Holden's new sedan has been a slow seller, a development which no doubt has Ford worried that they have more capacity to build Falcons than they will have demand for Falcons. Developing a Lincoln sedan from E8 makes perfect sense since it solves both issues and since, in the short term, it utlizes a program which was already existing to support another brands product portfolio, and as it utilizes exisiting excess plant capacity. This is a far cry from trying to base a future Mustang built in the US on E8.
There is also some discussion that this chassis may underpin several US products. If it is here, and there are bad decisions made in planning(like that never happened) all bets are off.
I'd also be willing to forward a guess that the ridiculous 4-dr Mustang rumours happened in much the same way. If a Lincoln is going to be based on the upcoming Falcon, which indicates that the chassis has been revised to accomodate LHD applictions and U.S. safety standards, the possibility that the Falcon itself, or the Territory for that matter, might show up would seem pretty good as well.
Separate from the name/badgeing debate, what need does Ford N.A. have for an entire series of product based of off something that the home office in AU doesn't want? Or is Ford going to invest its entire $43 billion in rebates?
Thank you, and yes the AU forum is a great place to expand ones mind and world
But since, as I now know, the discussion, or even vague rumours for that matter, surrounding any upcoming Falcon platform besides E8 are non-existent I have come to understand that this is indeed the platform all the stir is about.
The very same one now rumoured to be in Dearborn. Right now, in several versions.
Once you try and establish production of the same anywhere else that advantage is lost and cost rises considerably, a reality which calls into question why Ford would ever seriously consider doing so.
May I show you something in a Thunderbird er, LS?
When you take into consideration issues like Ford Australia's President hinting that V-8 usage for the Aussie Falcon is only secure in the near term, a develpment which may be related to rumours that the new Falcon platform might not be wide enough to accomodate the upcoming Boss V-8, the assumption becomes even more absurd. (by US standards the current Falcon couldn't even employ the existing Romeo V-8 due to ridiculously small clearances...so if it can't easily be made quite a bit wider there will be an issue)
This is legal crash clearances right? As the FPV version of the chassis under discussion currently has the very same 4 valve 5.4 MOD with a different intake. That is, the engine in the GT500 and formerly in the 2000 COBRA "R".
Basing a Lincoln sedan on E8 makes sense and solves several issues including how not to tarnish Lincoln's image further by using too many fwd platforms while still developing near term product. It is also prudent since Holden's new sedan has been a slow seller, a development which no doubt has Ford worried that they have more capacity to build Falcons than they will have demand for Falcons. Developing a Lincoln sedan from E8 makes perfect sense since it solves both issues and since, in the short term, it utlizes a program which was already existing to support another brands product portfolio, and as it utilizes exisiting excess plant capacity. This is a far cry from trying to base a future Mustang built in the US on E8.
There is also some discussion that this chassis may underpin several US products. If it is here, and there are bad decisions made in planning(like that never happened) all bets are off.
I'd also be willing to forward a guess that the ridiculous 4-dr Mustang rumours happened in much the same way. If a Lincoln is going to be based on the upcoming Falcon, which indicates that the chassis has been revised to accomodate LHD applictions and U.S. safety standards, the possibility that the Falcon itself, or the Territory for that matter, might show up would seem pretty good as well.
Separate from the name/badgeing debate, what need does Ford N.A. have for an entire series of product based of off something that the home office in AU doesn't want? Or is Ford going to invest its entire $43 billion in rebates?
12/13/06, 05:16 PM
#49
I lust for a M24
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Football HOF, Canton OH
Posts: 7,045
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
God people are so childish...
If a RWD sedan (basically the new Falcon) coming here makes you want to sell your Mustang, you're not a "Mustang person"...
Please, sell em now frontrunners, I'm sure you're jumping ship as soon as new Camaro and Chellenger come out anyways...
If a RWD sedan (basically the new Falcon) coming here makes you want to sell your Mustang, you're not a "Mustang person"...
Please, sell em now frontrunners, I'm sure you're jumping ship as soon as new Camaro and Chellenger come out anyways...
12/13/06, 05:36 PM
#50
I Have No Life
I bleed Mustang... through and through... but I'm also open to other things too.
This would be no different if I was a Camaro guy and they said it was going to be a 4 door either...
At what point do you say 'thats a stupid move'
4 doors are okay? ok, what about a minivan named Mustang, or SUV, or crossover, or MiniStang
Galaxie and JSaylor (i'm hoping) are on the ball.
I can't see Ford being that stupid
but if they are
I gotta be on the lookout for the next thing :P
This would be no different if I was a Camaro guy and they said it was going to be a 4 door either...
At what point do you say 'thats a stupid move'
4 doors are okay? ok, what about a minivan named Mustang, or SUV, or crossover, or MiniStang
Galaxie and JSaylor (i'm hoping) are on the ball.
I can't see Ford being that stupid
but if they are
I gotta be on the lookout for the next thing :P
12/13/06, 06:05 PM
#52
I Have Admin Envy
Thread Starter
From "on the table" at Autoextremist.. I couldn't have said it better myself
Ford. Publisher's Note: Autoweek is reporting on its website that the Ford Motor Company's future product plans include developing "a bold strategy to take the legendary Mustang mainstream. Ideas include both sedan and wagon variants of America's original muscle car, with those cars joining the traditional coupe when the sixth-generation Mustang arrives in U.S. showrooms in 2011." Ugh. What part of this idea did anyone down at Ford think was good? It's one thing to develop cool, performance offshoots of the rear-wheel-drive Mustang platform in the interest of expanding the product portfolio - as long as you don't call them Mustangs. The Mustang is an icon, pure and simple. It survived the ill-fated Mustang II period and the reduced horsepower era, and it lived to run wild again. But a sedan or a wagon variant would be absolutely devastating to the brand, in no uncertain terms. A little history lesson for everyone over in Dearborn - way back when John Z. DeLorean took over the reins of Chevrolet, he attempted to end the "exclusive" arrangement for Corvette. He wanted to build it as an offshoot of the Camaro and thus save a ton of production cost and make him look like a genius. He even thought about making a 2+2 version. Fortunately, the True Believers became outraged, and cooler heads prevailed within GM and his plan went nowhere. Memo to Ford: A cool, high-performance rear-wheel-drive sedan and wagon would be an excellent addition to your product portfolio. Go to the well and pull out some of the great names from Ford's past (you have plenty of 'em), and then build those cars. You need them desperately. But leave the Mustang out of it, or you'll destroy the legacy - and the future - of the one passenger car you have that has instant name recognition for everyone in America. - PMD
12/13/06, 07:12 PM
#56
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call it a Torino, Fairlane, Falcon But no 4 door Mustangs!
This is just like 1982 all over again
That was the year Mercury made 4 door Cougars
- and that car never, ever recovered from the embarassment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Call it a Torino, and I might buy it instead of the Impala SS or Chrger my wife is considering to replace her lease. (I've got her convinced if they make the Playboy Pink Stang though)
That was the year Mercury made 4 door Cougars
- and that car never, ever recovered from the embarassment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Call it a Torino,
and I might buy it instead of the Impala SS or Chrger my wife is considering to replace her lease. (I've got her convinced if they make the Playboy Pink Stang though)
12/13/06, 07:56 PM
#57
As for the implementation of E8 in the States, and why I think that is an unlikely option for Ford. The appeal of the existing Falcon platform is, as I said earlier, based largely on the fact that it is a known quantity and the Austalian factory is already set up to build it which obviously makes it a cheap option. In a cash strapped company like Ford this makes many of the shortcomings one might expect from a chassis this old seem liveable.
However, when you start talking about the prospect of creating all new tooling and tapping all new suppliers for a possible North American assembly line virtually all of those low cost advantages are lost. In light of this, and given that Ford could just as easily base any new NA products on D2C with the advantages that tapping existing suppliers for the Mustang's hardware would bring, I am extremely skeptical that rumours of E8 coming here as anything but a finished car on a ship are just that, rumours.
To be fair, and despite my skepticism that any proposed cost benefits from doing so would be likely to arise, there might be an argument for a four door E8 assembly line in the states as opposed to creating a D2C based sedan. I say this since there would be minimal engineering involved in building an E8 based sedan anywhere since you'd simply be building the same car in two places. Obviously you could simply mirror the tooling used for the Falcon and make a twin, but this is an argument that only wins on an argument for minimal investment, and likely needs to heavily employ "soft" tooling to be credible. A reality which would make for limited production and a short life cycle, but if those are what Ford intends expecting a possibly global rwd platform to replace all of these in a few years anyway I can see some logic.
In contrast, the case for moving the Mustang, or any two door coupe for that matter, to E8 is so horribly conceived I find it difficult to believe that Ford is seriously considering the same. And I can find nothing but very vague rumours from questionable sources indicating that this is the case.
Related to what Ford NA might need with product Australia doesn't want. I don't know that I would say that Ford Australia doesn't want their product. But sales of the new Holden are apparently well below expectations so Ford has to be worried that they may have more capacity than demand warrants. In light of that, and given Australia's relatively small capacity, I could see Ford of Australia building cars for NA since they would be unlikely to ever be able to build very many. And so long as they aren't as poorly executed as the GTO was selling 30k rwd Lincoln sedans and 30k Ford Falcons a year in the U.S. market hardly seems a stretch.
As for Ford's ability to make awful decisions. I hear ya' man, I hear ya'. But beyond the other arguments the above just doesn't sound like something a student of Toyota would ever seriously consider, outside of possible expanding E8 sedan and suv production to other facilities at the most. And Mullaly claims to be a die-hard student of Toyota manufacturing methods. Maybe that is worth something.
