Actually what concerned me more than anything is that Ford didn't simply make certain that they were maximizing the positive with trucks before they moved on to fixing the issues with cars. The new Super Duty is nice and the next F150 will likely be another devestating salvo in the full size wars but where is the fresh and innovative Ranger replacement and how has Ford managed to not pop out a redux of the original Bronco created in the same manner as the S197 Mustang? The truck market in America will never go away, it simple evolves...so why isn't Ford chasing customers more effectively in the market where they execute best? For Ford trucks are typically easy to execute well and very profitable, so why aren't we seeing what would effectively be a sure thing for Ford? If you're losing money the first thing you want to do is make certain you maintain any advantages, and in this area Ford arguably dominates. So why the lackluster effort in so many areas?

Sure. But with the market percentages and cost vs profit, I don't Ford has the pockets.

I kinda disagree on the truck market. Though there are people who will always buy a truck or SUV it is a shrinking segment at best. I do agree with you on the Ranger though, that has got to be the oldest truck on the market and with rising gas prices may become more popular than the F-150 some years down the road. I personally was a truck and SUV guy for years but now im looking at AWD cars.

If you'll notice one of Detroit's consistent errors that is costing them dearly now is that they virtually abandon any segment once it is no longer the 'hot thing'. You can't stay consistent if all you ever do is chase the hottest segments. 150k Rangers and Broncos a year could be very profitable right now, but Ford can't do much about it anytime soon because they let the Ranger flounder and now the truck effectively has to have a complete overhaul to be truned into a competitive truck and Ford is in a place where they have to pick and choose their investments.

Even worse, back when Ford decided to let the Ranger flounder the prevailing wisdom on the matter from most internet pundits was that the market for such trucks was no longer as good and Ford needed to chase the hotter segments. Look where that wisdom has gotten them. Now people want Ford to pull back their devlopment as it relates to large trucks despite the fact that this segment is still the largest in the US auto industry by some margin. This would be a mistake of colossal proportion. Look at Toyota for an example of why, because they are rich not because of the huge boon the SUV market provided to the industry (they never saw nearly as much of that market as Ford and GM did) but rather because they weren't dumb enough to abandon the mid-size sedan segment to chase those profits.

Why do you think Toyota is seriously getting into this market just now in the first place? They know that everything is cyclical, that engineers will be pushed to find a way to make a product so lucrative remain succesful even in a world of rising gas prices, and they expect Ford and GM to be dumb enough to let their game here slide opening the door for Toyota to do exactly the same thing they did in the sedan segment only this time it will be full-size trucks.

Luckily Ford has shown that they don't plan to walk away from full-size in any measure, likely because they can't afford to, so the above appears less likely.

I agree with you on the Ranger why did they just give up on it? Critics must still give credit to most of Ford's other trucks though! The new Explorer,Expedition and soon F-150 are some of the best trucks on the market but sadly they are not selling well. A perfect example is the Explorer, once one of Ford's bread and butter vehicals the 06' Model was a vast improvment over the previous 02-05 models. My local dealership has $7500 rebates on the Explorer and $10,000 on the Expedition. I personaly love the Explorer, but I can't justify the purchase with $3+ gas prices. I feel Ford's problem in the truck market is the same in the car market, They flat out ignor the economical/compact market! This can be traced back to several vehicals. I remember how popular cars like the Escort and Focus once were but lack of updating ultimetly killed the escort and has led to poor Focus sales, while Honda and Toyota eat up all the compact market. While i'm speaking of the compact market Ford now also has to look into sub-compacts like the Yaris, Fit and Versa from the successful Japanese companies to once again become competitive.

Just to chime my 2 cents in here ...

I am now on my second Ranger. My first was a 1991 Ranger XLT with the 8-plug 2.3 4-cylinder. I got 179,xxx miles out of it before the engine blew.

NEVER ... did I have engine, trans, or electrical problems prior to the engine going and NEVER ONCE needed a front-end alignment (TRUTH TOO).

The 2002 Ranger I have now is an XL that I purposely bought because it was an XL. I buy these Rangers for 2 purposes only ... cheap basic economical transportation and for WORKING ... I don't need a Lincoln or Cadillac truck (although I can afford one). When this Ranger wears out I'll by another one.

Before we bought my wife's current ride in 2005, we looked and test drove both the Chevy Cobalt and the Ford Focus (the vehicle we were replacing was a Mitsubishi Gallant).

The Focus was very underpowered compared to it's Chevy counterpart the Cobalt. I was kind of surprised with the performance the Cobalt did have for the car it is. Neither of them (both 4-cyl. cars) could compare to the 2.5 in the Gallant. I hate to say that but it's true. That was the best NA 4-cyl. I have ever driven to date (but I HATE FWD and foreign cars). We did not buy either one because of the safety features that came standard with what we did buy.

Now ... Guess what we wound up with ... a Jeep Liberty!

Never been disappointed with that purchase. Very safe vehicle and has all the performance we need for a road cruiser and is loaded with safety features which is what I wanted for my wife.

My point is this ... What we started out looking for; the class of a vehicle, the performance, the economy, and the safety features, ALL CHANGED before we plopped the down-payment down and drove out of there.

You have to figure that a lot of folks do this when they go to buy a car (mostly other than a hot rod-type ride).

I'm just trying to show how I personally spent money for basic transportation for myself as compared to how I spent money for basic transportation for my wife. My needs and values for her were very different than they were for myself although the same objective (in buying a car) was accomplished.

I don't know how all this will factor in to pony-car sales, but I do feel the folks that NEED a Lincoln Navigator and/or a Cadillac Denali (or whatever it is) are in a smaller minority of buyers than say Mustang enthusiasts who want more engine performance options than a 4.6 in all Mustangs except one, with that one exception (the GT 500 and for that matter, the recent Ford GT) being ridiculously overpriced.

Now, my question(s) is this ... Why not just offer an Explorer or Bronco and scrap the Lincoln Navigator? Why does Ford have to produce such an expensive SUV when they could've offered one helluva Crown Vic and/or better-optioned Marauder?

Wouldn't it be a good argument that the Explorer and Bronco are all that are needed for that class of vehicle(s) and therefore design and production costs could be saved and/or transferred to the other vehicles in the fleet and hopefully cause them to be sold cheaper?

I wonder how much Ford spent on designing the Mariner and the Navigator, and if they had not spent that money on exhorbitant SUV(s) could they have instead placed it towards the economical cars and/or maybe the design of a Mustang-based Cougar, or offer better peformance options (and possibly reduce production costs) for the more mass-sellable Mustangs?

Again ... just something to think about ... (???) :dunno:

Amen!

:metal:

I understand your question. It seems to me the rise in popularity of 'SUVs' and car like equipped SUV/truck occurred with the rise in production of FWD passenger cars, and demise of RWD passenger cars especially sedans. People wanted RWD and something more substantial, perhaps body on frame and 'safe', whether it was conscious on their part or not.

Had Ford done more with the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis line at the same time, perhaps a tudor etc, and actually marketed the line, things might be a little different.
There is no doubt though that people have flocked to SUVs, and the luxury versions.

The Marauder was a fully optioned vehicle. The only real options were a trunk oganiser and in trunk CD changer. It had everything else really.
What they had in the works, but dropped, was a Super Charger. That would ahve been a popular option. (tehr are many supercharged Marauders out there now anyway) A 5.4 in that package may have been tough to do, but not impossible. The "little" 4.6 DOHC engine though holds it's own very well, and has really proven itself in the Marauder.
There are many oother points about the package that could be brought up but it's really irrelevent here.

What I mean by Ford giving up on the Ranger is that the platform is one of the oldest in the industry. How many times will they put a new grille and headlights on it before they actually update the platform? I agree that the high feature luxo SUVs are a little crazy Navigators and Escalades both cost over 60k now! But, they are highly profitible. I think many forget to realize how materialistic the American people are! Also the USA is by far the richest nation in the World. Manufacturers like BMW, Mercedes, Ferrerri.... would be out of business without the American market. Both the Navigator and Escalade are highly profitible SUVs designed alongside their sister brands. Development costs of say the Cadillac are shared with GMC, HUMMER and Chevy. Ford and GM are trying to hang on to the truck market as long as they can because it's one of the few strongholds they have plus trucks are typically more profitible than cars. I'm not sure about the safety rating of the Focus but i'm sure it is rather high. Ford has some of the highest rated cars in safety (Mustang, Taurus, Explorer...) The Marauder was a cool car but I think they pulled the plug on it because it was a sales disaster. As far as the 4.6 I totaly agree Ford should have an optional third engine choice to slot between the GT500 and the GT. My giggest gripe with the current Mustang is that I want something more than a GT and the Shelby GT and Bullitt only have an additional 15-20HP, while the GT500 is by far way too overpriced. I'm not sure on this one but isnt the Expedition basically the Bronco? I remembered hearing they killed off the Bronco name because of the bad publicity it was given during the OJ Simpson trial. In fact I think the last year on the Bronco was 95' while the Expedition started production in 96'.

Not the reason at all. The cars were profitable for Ford, and by reports they were not unhappy with sales. One of the main reasons the car was not continued was they did not want to spend money on the fly by wire retrofit of that engine in the Panther platform. Engineering for it was diffferent than for the SOHC. The Marauder had a run from June 2002 to the end of 2004, and that was all that was planned for. Just over 11,000 were sold.
Marauder wheels are now offered as an accessory wheel for the Mustang, and for 2008 an option for the V6 Mustang. They are 18" forged polished aluminum, probably the highest quality wheel offered for a Mustang.

Didnt Ford drop production of the entire 4.6 DOHC lineup after the 2004 Model year? I'm pretty sure the Marauder had the non-SVT DOHC 4.6 from the Mach1. Was the throttle-by-wire the silly reason to stop production of the DOHC? I personally feel that Ford should have continued to produce the Terminator as a mid-level Mustang and share that tech to keep the DOHC alive in the Marauder or a new Cougar. Think about it a Cougar Eliminator or mid-level Mustang with a Terminator 4.6 tweaked and retuned for about 420HP (easy task for Ford) This way people could use the Cougar as an alternative to a Mustang GT without having to go for a GT500, thats just an idea I got kicking around

The Mach 1 and Avaitor used the all aluminum DOHC after the Marauder.
The engine as far as I know was sourced from SVT, but obviously not the 2003 Mustang Cobra.
An engineer told me Ford moved to teh 3 valve because they could produce the engine at much less cost with (almost) comparable performance.
I think you'll only see teh 4valve DOHC in specialty applications now

As bad as Nassar was, the problems started even before Nassar.

Red Polling (SP?) suggested back in the early 90s that Ford should get out of the car business all together to focus on trucks and SUVs because trucks and SUVs were so much more profitable than cars. This was the start of Ford under investing in cars and the problems Ford faces today.

The one thing that continues to annoy me is that Ford does have some great cars but we don't see them in the USA. The Falcon in Australia not only is better looking than the Taurus inside and out with high quality materials, but its also a solid RWD car that can carry a big 5.4 or turbo 6. Ford could have beat out the Charger as the full size 4-door muscle car years ago if they imported the Falcon, heck they could have named it cougar for all I care! I would buy a Falcon if Ford gave me the option as a US consumer.

Oh yeah and how about the world beater, the Euro Focus. Not only is the car built on a much better platform than ours, but it is also better looking. Even the old Focus in Europe had the RS model with optional AWD and a 220HP V6 while we got stuck with the enemic SVT Focus!

Finally I'm in the market for a sporty AWD sedan. I have been holding out as long as I can with my current ride hoping for Ford to offer an SVT version of the Fusion but no dice. Instead I am prepairing to purchase the closest thing I can get to a fun Ford Sedan, a Mazdaspeed 6. It has AWD, unique styling, 6 speed, and a Turbo 4 with 280HP. What I don't understand if that the Fusion shares the platform with the Mazda 6. Why didnt Ford use the AWD, Turbo 4, 6speed and put it into a Fusion? I love the Mazda but I prefer the styling of the Fusion.

Phil, although the Fusion and Mazadaspeed6, may look identical..are you sure they both share the same platform ?


I thought the Fusion shared the same platform, with the Mercury Millan :dunno:

The Ford CD3 platform (desinged origionally by Mazda for the 2003 6) is used for the:

• 2003–present Mazda 6
• 2006–present Ford Fusion
• 2006–present Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ
• 2006–present Mercury Milan
• 2007 Mazda CX-9
  
• 2007 Ford Edge
  
• 2007 Lincoln MKX
  

Exactly. And now we have folks batering about arguing that Ford should all but adbandon trucks outside of the F150 and focus exclusively on cars since the truck market has gotten soft. Somewhere, between these two extremes, is the common sense approach Ford needs to follow.

The only dowwnside to those wheels are the width. They should have been wider...

But it is the same forging, same wheel. The changes are only in machining and are as you say, very minor.

Marauder wheels will fit the '05 and later Mustang, and the so-called Mustang versions will fit the Marauder.