 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / June 2006Ford's Kill List
Some interesting commentary: --- In the old days, our car companies sometimes killed model names. Fairlane went at Ford, Bel Air went at Chevy, and who has heard of the Dodge Royal Lancer? Killing actual models - not the names, the vehicles - was rare. That's because here we're talking about killing hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, in tools and dies and brand identity. Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler killsPlymouth. It's a rare thing. Except at the Ford Motor Co. Here's a list of Ford cars and trucks killed or soon to be killed. This list goes back to 2000. Look how long it is: Taurus (to die soon) Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already) Thunderbird (The only Ford anyone turned to see, dead) Lincoln Blackwood (Who approved this and is he still at Ford?) Lincoln Aviator (not bad but gone anyway) Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales) Ford Contour (the $6 million baby, the failed transplant) Mystique (the Mercury Contour) Continental Excursion (the bigger they come?) Lincoln LS (this car was murdered) Mercury Cougar Mercury Villager NoOp Comment: He forgot about the Marauder. That's thirteen vehicles, and I may have missed some. I've never seen anything like it. And we know there are more to come. The Ford GT is going, and I suspect the Windstar minivan and its Mercury sidekick, the Monterey, are not long for this world. When the Wixom, Mich., plant closes I suppose the Lincoln Town Car will go. And I've never been able to figure out the plan for the Ford Freestyle, which is the new crossover (though it looks just like a station wagon) built in Chicago. One day it's going to die, then it's going to live, then there's to be a Mercury version, then there's not. I've lost track and stopped trying. Anyone can kill a model or two. But look at the list. There are so many at Ford. Is it any wonder the company's in trouble? This list says that the Ford team has had no idea of what makes a successful car and that even if they have one they don't know how to sell it or fix its problems. I would say there are examples of both in that list. For example, look at the Blackwood, that strange Lincoln $50,000 SUV/pickup that had no four-wheel-drive and really couldn't even work as a pickup despite the big box. That should never have been built. Whose idea was this and is he still at Ford? The Contour and Mystique, Ford's world cars, didn't work here at all. Ford always had dreamed of a world car, so I suppose that no one wanted to tell the boss that they wouldn't work here. But the Thunderbird and the Lincoln LS are examples are cars that came out with great fanfare, were hits initially, but faded because of ineptitude at the company level. Ford just failed to improve the cars or correct the problems, and when the going got tough, Ford turned quitter. The Taurus, once the best-selling American car, and Mercury Sable (they sold 100,000 a year!), were well accepted by the public with good quality, too. Instead of correcting the problems, Ford quit on them. The Excursion. Okay, it was big, but there's room for a big vehicle. Look at the Suburban. Alas, you've got to know how to sell it, or at least care. And the Escort? Nearly 300,000 sales just six years ago (2000). Don't even ask. The Lincoln Aviator was another that should have been more successful. Ford just seemed to stop caring about the car. Cars and trucks, even the successful ones, do run into problems and most automakers correct the problems. At Ford when there's a problem they seem to quit, give up, and kill the car. What is strange is that this is a company that really knew marketing and how to sell, and had great dealers, too. Somehow the men who knew how to sell were driven from the company. Those left just don't seem to have the knack. Ford's new plan is called the "Way Forward." They might go forward by learning from the past. Here are some suggestions: When a vehicle line has problems, fix them. Your former top-selling vehicles like the Focus and the Ranger have problems today. They are dying out there. Don't just sit there, fix the problems! Expand your lineups with variety. If you have a four-door sedan (like the Lincoln LS), figure out how to build an SUV/CUV/sport wagon from it, and maybe a coupe or convertible. If you've got something that sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the Mercury Mustang? Mercury was never good enough for a version of the small Focus? Why not? If you have any belief in brand quality or brand identity, stop changing the names of the cars every minute. --- NoOp Comment: And you can add the name distruction at Lincoln with their whole lineup soon changing over to Alpha characters. Does the market really demand cars to be named MKZ, MDX, ABC or XYZ? Patrick >Some interesting commentary: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler >killsPlymouth. While I have not done so, have you also gone through the list of GM products and compiled a list of the models they have killed off? -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg >>Some interesting commentary: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Spike I heard the name Chevy Corsica mentioned today. That, and its companion two-door version, the Beretta... Ahhhh, now THERE was a piece of automotive beauty. dwight > I heard the name Chevy Corsica mentioned today. That, and its > companion two-door version, the Beretta... Ahhhh, now THERE was a > piece of automotive beauty. Let us not forget the wonderfulness of the Vega, the Corvair, the Monza, the Citation, the Chevette and all the other incredible pieces of automotive history Chevrolet has given us. Then there's Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs, each with many, many, many "killed" names. >> I heard the name Chevy Corsica mentioned today. That, and its >> companion two-door version, the Beretta... Ahhhh, now THERE was a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then there's Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks and Cadillacs, each with > many, many, many "killed" names. Now, don't start on the Corvair. The last gen was a truly wonderful car that was unfortunately killed off by a paranoid nut case. > Now, don't start on the Corvair. The last gen was a truly > wonderful car that was unfortunately killed off by a paranoid nut > case. I can't even begin to imagine why people think Ralph Nadir had anything to do with killing off the Corvair? Corvair sales were not high the first year, dropped the second year, dropped again the third year, etc. etc. By the time Nadir wrote his book, the handwriting was on the wall. Every year it was produced it was outsold by the Ford Falcon and the Plymouth Valiant and THAT, boys and girls, is why GM stopped making it. BTW, the Corvair was also a total piece of crap, unreliable, uncomfortable, sluggush, bad handling and worst of all, for a car supposed to be an economy car, it got poor gas mileage. The design was also unsuitable for change, as Ford and Chrysler realized what the public wanted the Falcon and Valiant got air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, V8 engines, etc. >> Now, don't start on the Corvair. The last gen was a truly >> wonderful car that was unfortunately killed off by a paranoid nut [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >uncomfortable, sluggush, bad handling and worst of all, for a car >supposed to be an economy car, it got poor gas mileage. Ever own or drive one? The last year turbo models were a real kick in the a.s. They go for semi-big bucks nowadays. Nobody can say that about an Edsel. >The design was also unsuitable for change, as Ford and Chrysler >realized what the public wanted the Falcon and Valiant got air >conditioning, power steering, power brakes, V8 engines, etc.  SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>BTW, the Corvair was also a total piece of crap, unreliable, >>uncomfortable, sluggush, bad handling and worst of all, for a car >>supposed to be an economy car, it got poor gas mileage. >> > Ever own or drive one? Yes, unfortunately. > The last year turbo models were a real kick in the a.s. They go > for semi-big bucks nowadays. Nobody can say that about an Edsel. Have you checked Edsel prices lately? Those in decent condition are going for around $10,000.00 or so and the Corvair turbos around the same. Personally, I'd rather have the Edsel. A LOT less maintainence. XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns97D7865E8B1A4xs11eyahoocom@ 70.169.32.36: >> Now, don't start on the Corvair. The last gen was a truly >> wonderful car that was unfortunately killed off by a paranoid nut >> case. > > I can't even begin to imagine why people think Ralph Nadir had anything > to do with killing off the Corvair? His name is spelled 'Nader'. And the reason you can't even begin to imagine why people thought he had anything to do with killing off the Corvair is because you're an idiot. > Corvair sales were not high the > first year, dropped the second year, dropped again the third year, etc. > etc. By the time Nadir wrote his book, the handwriting was on the > wall. The Corvair basically failed because: a) It was too radical for its time and people weren't ready for it. b) Ford introduced the Mustang. c) Nader wrote 'Unsafe At Any Speed'. d) The Camaro was soon to be released. > Every year it was produced it was outsold by the Ford Falcon and the > Plymouth Valiant and THAT, boys and girls, is why GM stopped making it. That's one of the reasons, but it's far from the only reason. > BTW, the Corvair was also a total piece of crap, unreliable, > uncomfortable, sluggush, bad handling and worst of all, for a car > supposed to be an economy car, it got poor gas mileage. Obviously all spoken out of ignorance. All of the above is simply nonsense. > The design was also unsuitable for change, as Ford and Chrysler > realized what the public wanted the Falcon and Valiant got air > conditioning, power steering, power brakes, V8 engines, etc. And the ignorance continues. At any rate, the Corvair was years ahead of its time, and was eventually sold as a higher-performance alternative to the Falcon, which it consistently beat. Even with the 260 V8, the Falcon couldn't keep up with the 150-hp Corvair Spyder. In 1965 GM put a Corvette-style IRS into the car along with a n/a 140-hp motor (4 single-barrel Rochesters and dual exhaust) and the top-of-the- line turbocharged 180-hp motor. Even with it's increased power and unmatched handling, the car died for the aforementioned reasons. Most people who trash the Corvair have never driven or owned one; they only know heresay. > Even with it's increased power and unmatched handling, the car > died for the aforementioned reasons. Most people who trash the > Corvair have never driven or owned one; they only know heresay. And facts, which you seem to be short of. >> Even with it's increased power and unmatched handling, the car >> died for the aforementioned reasons. Most people who trash the >> Corvair have never driven or owned one; they only know heresay. > > And facts, which you seem to be short of. Idiot. LOL! >>> Even with it's increased power and unmatched handling, the car >>> died for the aforementioned reasons. Most people who trash the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Idiot. LOL! Me? You're the one who spouted all the hearsay and ignorance. BTW, while I appreciate your attempt at playing spelling teacher, "Nadir" is correct, you might look up the word. He earned the title because his book reached the depths of yellow journalism. Obviously you've not heard him referred to that way but that doesn't surprise me. >>>> Even with it's increased power and unmatched handling, the car >>>> died for the aforementioned reasons. Most people who trash the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Me? You're the one who spouted all the hearsay and ignorance. Dude, you are truly stupid. If you had an ounce of brain in the rock you call a skull, you could've easily verified anything I said with a few simple searches. > BTW, while I appreciate your attempt at playing spelling teacher, > "Nadir" is correct, you might look up the word. He earned the title > because his book reached the depths of yellow journalism. Obviously > you've not heard him referred to that way but that doesn't surprise me. The name is Nader; if you were trying for a pun (and a bad one at that) you certainly missed the boat big time. >> Me? You're the one who spouted all the hearsay and ignorance. > > Dude, you are truly stupid. If you had an ounce of brain in the > rock you call a skull, you could've easily verified anything I > said with a few simple searches. I have and it's all your (incorrect) opinion. The Corvair died because people didn't buy it, they didn't buy it because it was a truly dreadful car. It was on it's way out before Nadir wrote his book and proved how low journalism could sink. My comments about the unsuitability of the design for modification were a major reason it died, as I pointed out, while Falcon and Valiant attracted buyers with V8 engines and lots of big car accessories the Corvair wasn't able to join the group which additionally reduced sales of the later years and that was reported and commented on by most of the trade magazines. But you keep right on believing your fantasies, I'm sure you know so much more than people who were there.... "Unmatched handling" indeed, and you call me truly stupid? Obviously there are two possibilities, you never drove a late model Corvair or you never drove any other car. >>> Me? You're the one who spouted all the hearsay and ignorance. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have and it's all your (incorrect) opinion. Now that's interesting. You say you've verified everything I said with a few searches, but then you say it's my opinion. Stupid? Yup. BTW, opinions can't be incorrect by definition. > The Corvair died because > people didn't buy it, they didn't buy it because it was a truly > dreadful car. And this is fact as opposed to your opinion? LOL! > It was on it's way out before Nadir wrote his book and > proved how low journalism could sink. Uh, we basically agreed on this. It's not a point of contention. Hullo? Anybody home? > My comments about the unsuitability of the design for modification were > a major reason it died, as I pointed out, while Falcon and Valiant > attracted buyers with V8 engines and lots of big car accessories the > Corvair wasn't able to join the group which additionally reduced sales > of the later years and that was reported and commented on by most of > the trade magazines. Your comments are basically uninformed opinion. You really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. As an example, you mentioned "air conditioning". It's a simple fact that Corvairs had air conditioning. D-oh. > But you keep right on believing your fantasies, I'm sure you know so > much more than people who were there.... Too funny. > "Unmatched handling" indeed, and you call me truly stupid? You betcha. > Obviously > there are two possibilities, you never drove a late model Corvair or > you never drove any other car. And here's where youre idiocy shines. I've driven over a dozen last-gen Corvairs and owned three of them at different points, two of which I built. I know these cars inside and out from first hand experience, and all of the ones I've owned would easily run rings around your Falcons and Valiants. I currently own a '93 5.0 LX with a few goodies, and it's a safe bet that any of my Corvairs would've easily outhandle a stock- suspensioned Fox Mustang. So what do you _really_ know about Corvairs except what you read on the Internet? <snip> >At any rate, the Corvair was years ahead of its time, and was eventually >sold as a higher-performance alternative to the Falcon, which it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the aforementioned reasons. Most people who trash the Corvair have never >driven or owned one; they only know heresay. While it did have some excellent handling characteristics, most who drove them to their upper limited where very unfamiliar with the dynamics of driving a rear-engine high-powered light car. This caused many an unnecessary crash and is partly what prompted Nader's book. The fact is, no matter how much anyone try's to deny it, there was a definite problem with the 1960-1963 Corvair. And that problem, a weakness in the rear suspension, was not a problem of design - as the original designs for the Corvair in fact took this into account. The problem was clearly that marketing and cost-cutting won out over intelligent engineering. The designers that planned the Corvair knew that anti-sway bars would be needed to support the added weight of the rear-mounted engine. But to save a measly $4 per car, those bars were not included in the final product, and the inevitable disaster struck. Here's an interesting quote from "Car And Driver"'s 1959 article on the Corvair (the complete text of which can be found at the Car And Driver Web Page on the 1959 Corvair ): Let us be honest, as usual: The Corvair is fundamentally a profound oversteer. With 62-percent of its weight on the back wheels it could only be otherwise if very ingenious suspension techniques had been called into play. This was not the case. As cornering forces on the Corvair chassis increase there is an initial very mild understeer tendency, probably attributable to the rear suspension geometry, but then, well within the average driver's range of slip angles, oversteer sets in in a gradual way that is easily countered by the excellent steering-whose very lightness, of course, is in part a function of the oversteer. Having heard that Uncle Tom himself had declared that he "tried but just couldn't lose the Corvair", I asked Chevy's affable engine development engineer Bob Clift to keep a path clear to the basement while we tried some very fast turns. By making extremely deep corrections it was possible to hold the car on a line but, as in any automobile ever built, there was a point beyond which it wasn't prudent to proceed. For a moderately skilled driver the Corvair is a genuine ball to drive, it being possible to hustle hard into tight corners and bring the tail around with just a twitch of the wheel, counter-steering until the slide stops and the time for acceleration arrives. This is not, of course, everybody's way of driving. Chevy spokesmen have said that they didn't feel a front anti-roll bar was needed because the car's center of gravity was so low that it doesn't roll much. This is true enough, from that standpoint, but such bars are also powerful tools for adjusting handling, and one of the first things that should be done to this car is to replace that anti-roll bar. Since this would only actually counterbalance the difficulties that exist at the rear, however, thorough redesign should commence at that end. With the conventional design methods used, the high spring rates needed to support the rear end weight have resulted in unduly high roll stiffness at the rear, a sure harbinger of oversteer. A solution like that on the Mercedes-Benz 300SL Roadster is called for, having a single central coil or a pivoted transverse leaf spring to support loads without affecting roll. For all its novelty the Corvair is surprisingly naïve in this major respect. Whatever the reason for the problems, by the time that the '65 redesign fixed all of Corvair's shortcomings (except its relatively high cost to build), it was too late - Corvair's name was mud with the public. This would not have been an unsurmountable problem had Chevrolet believed in the Corvair, but the fact was that several Chevrolet executives of the time did not like or understand the Corvair, and as a result Chevrolet's solution to the PR problem was to kill the line... a sad, and completely unnecessary course of action, but perhaps perfectly in line with GM's tradition of picking the lowest cost solution over the most innovative or intelligent. Now lets fast forward to the Pontiac Fiero, another rear-engine Sports Car that was nit-picked by the bean counters into an economy car. Again the last generation of it showed what it could become, but by then it was to late and alas another rear-engine GM Sports Car bit the big one. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > rear-mounted engine. But to save a measly $4 per car, those bars were > not included in the final product, and the inevitable disaster struck. Exactly. GM basically gambled that drivers wouldn't push the car to that extreme, thereby masking the issue. However, because the car was considered more or less "sporty" for its time, some people did push it with unfortunate results. > Here's an interesting quote from "Car And Driver"'s 1959 article on > the Corvair (the complete text of which can be found at the Car And [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > but perhaps perfectly in line with GM's tradition of picking the > lowest cost solution over the most innovative or intelligent. To sum it up, the last-gen cars basically had Corvette IRS; the pre-'65 cars had VW swing-axle setups. The last-gen cars were truly the "Poor Man's Porsche", with fabulous handling and decent power with the 140 and 180 hp engines. With simple tire/wheel upgrades to 14" or 15", those cars were unbelievable. > Now lets fast forward to the Pontiac Fiero, another rear-engine Sports > Car that was nit-picked by the bean counters into an economy car. > Again the last generation of it showed what it could become, but by > then it was to late and alas another rear-engine GM Sports Car bit the > big one. Actually, the Fiero is mid-engine (like the Toyo MR2), and it had both front and rear trunks (if you want to call them that). As for the bean counters, marketing, and engineering, you'd think GM would've learned by then, but no. They still have yet to learn. BTW, there's an LS2 Fiero that comes to Friday night cruise every so often down here. Real slick install - looks totally stock until you lift the deck lid. > Now lets fast forward to the Pontiac Fiero, another rear-engine > Sports Car that was nit-picked by the bean counters into an > economy car. Again the last generation of it showed what it could > become, but by then it was to late and alas another rear-engine GM > Sports Car bit the big one. According to a Car and Driver article published when the car was new, GM allowed the bean counters to de-sport the car but supposedly GM planned to fix the car by upgrades over the years, suspension one year, engine the next, etc. But sales were slow and the rumored upgrades never happened. >> Now lets fast forward to the Pontiac Fiero, another rear-engine >> Sports Car that was nit-picked by the bean counters into an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >engine the next, etc. But sales were slow and the rumored upgrades >never happened. The upgrades sure as hell happened with the final years suspension being developed by Lotus. The 88 GT is fairly sought after and demands a premium price compare to any other 88 model. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. >>> Now lets fast forward to the Pontiac Fiero, another rear-engine >>> Sports Car that was nit-picked by the bean counters into an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > being developed by Lotus. The 88 GT is fairly sought after and > demands a premium price compare to any other 88 model. If I recall, it died with pretty much the same engine choices it originally had although there was an upgrade to the V6 as an option and as for the suspension, it was improved but still assembled from stock GM parts. How much Lotus had to do with it is open to question as GM didn't acquire Lotus until later... Supposedly the 1989 was the one that could have sold like hotcakes but it never made it to market, probably killed by the bean counters or who knows? No idea where you found this "gem".... kindest thing would be to put it back. "killing" actual models...... I have no idea hwere that term originates.... The Galaxie died a long time ago - Ford has only the Crown Vic left as a car with a full perimeter frame. What do you think the sales figures would be on a modern day Galaxie (not some horrid Monte Carlo/GTO/Charger type quest for sales - but a full on 4000+ pound rear wheel drive, big V8 monster).... for an answer, we only need to look as far as the last incarnation of the Marauder.... Times change and consumer tastes change.... The 500 - it's a Taurus but it's not a Taurus.... Windstar became Freestar (from 50 feet I can't tell the difference). The Freestyle was born.... what would they call it... it ain't a Fairlane, it ain't a Cougar.... it is a totally new concept as far as Ford is concerned. It's not a van, it's not an SUV, it isn't replacing anything directly..... Every auto maker is looking for a "hook"... that mystical something that will stir a consumers juices enough to lay down coin of the realm.... The PT Cruiser, the HHR and that goofy looking almost a pick-up truck that Chevy is peddling... The author has some real trouble distinguishing between car LINES and car MODELS.... Chrysler killed the Plymouth and Ford pretty much killed Mercury because the marques put them in direct competition with themselves.... Look at the Chevy and GMC pick-ups.... Some folks think that the GMC is a much better truck than the Chevy... even though they are built from the same parts..... Then there are those things that need to die... desparately need to die.... Most of you are too young to remember the Olds Firenza and the class action lawsuit it fostered..... The Cadillac Cimarron (I don't care if your Cavalier has leather seats.... it ain't a luxury car).... Things that died early..... the final years of the Corvair showed some (IMHO) awesome styling cues.... They were fairly nice to drive - powerful in the Spyder trim but they fell victim to Ralph Nader and those people that think they know how to drive fast but really don't know how to drive fast.... The mass produced automobile is nearly 100 years old..... I don't think there's is a whole lot of "adventure" left, but technology is moving way too fast... > "killing" actual models...... I have no idea hwere that term originates.... > The Galaxie died a long time ago - Ford has only the Crown Vic left as a car [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an answer, we only need to look as far as the last incarnation of the > Marauder.... The Marauder was executed poorly. What I saw was a blacked out old man's 4 door grand marquis / crown vic. I didn't see a galaxie 500XL or a Marauder. I saw an old man's car trying to look cool. It had 2 too many doors and too formal of a roofline. Keep in mind there is a good deal of difference between a Marauder and a galaxie 500 XL in convertible or fastback form. I can tell you never drove one..... this was NOT an old mans car. And it was NOT poorly executed - it was the wrong car for the times. Plain and simple... As for the late Marauders, you are right that there is a world of difference between it and the Galaxie (and I don't recall specifically mention the 500XL - only one of a few model variants) - it might have something to do with the 30 or 40 intervening years. You do realize that the original Mercury Marauder shared a lot with the Galaxie? FWIW, I didn't post this useless article, I merely commented.... >> "killing" actual models...... I have no idea hwere that term >> originates.... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > difference between a Marauder and a galaxie 500 XL in convertible or > fastback form. > I can tell you never drove one..... this was NOT an old mans car. I said it looked like an old man's car trying to be cool. And it does. > And it was NOT poorly executed - it was the wrong car for the times. > Plain and simple... A squared off blacked out large 4 door formal sedan... All wrong. > As for the late Marauders, you are right that there is a world of difference > between it and the Galaxie (and I don't recall specifically mention the > 500XL - only one of a few model variants) - it might have something to do > with the 30 or 40 intervening years. You do realize that the original > Mercury Marauder shared a lot with the Galaxie? Components, but not style. >I can tell you never drove one..... this was NOT an old mans car. And it was >NOT poorly executed - it was the wrong car for the times. Plain and >simple... Ala Avanti, Hawk, or the Commander.... Wrong cars, wrong time.... Had they caught on, we might be discussing in a Studebaker Avanti, Hawk, or Commander newsgroup instead of Ford Mustang.... >As for the late Marauders, you are right that there is a world of difference >between it and the Galaxie (and I don't recall specifically mention the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> difference between a Marauder and a galaxie 500 XL in convertible or >> fastback form. -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg >> "killing" actual models...... I have no idea hwere that term originates.... >> The Galaxie died a long time ago - Ford has only the Crown Vic left as a car [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Marauder. I saw an old man's car trying to look cool. It had 2 too many >doors and too formal of a roofline. Are we changing the subject to D/C 300s? -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >Some interesting commentary: > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >their whole lineup soon changing over to Alpha characters. Does the >market really demand cars to be named MKZ, MDX, ABC or XYZ? A couple of observations: 1. Models, car names, come & go. Some go for ever. Can anyone say Edsel? Some leave the scene to come back reinvented, reincarnated. 2. Plymouth was once upon a time a standalone manufacture, became part of a larger whole and then was completely discontinued as a brand. Just like GM killed off the Oldsmobile. The list of dead car companies is quite extensive. Remember AMC? 3. Many models of one marquee are simply guised up versions of one of the parent companies other models. i.e. the Aviator is just an Explorer in evening wear. Same thing applies to the Navigator, Escalade and many other so-called premium or luxury lines. Nothing other then guised up lower-end models. In order to bring back the Aviator all Ford would have to do is fancy up the current Explorer again. Just some of my less then astute quick observations. I am quite sure there are plenty of other examples. SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. Forget "AMC"... does anyone remember the Nash and then the Nash Rambler and then the Rambler???? What would a 2006 Hudson or Studebaker look like? Anyone ever seen a Borgward? Instead of seeing suspicious things regarding car names, I see too many journalism grads looking for any excuse to avoid doing real work for a living... >Forget "AMC"... does anyone remember the Nash and then the Nash Rambler and >then the Rambler???? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >journalism grads looking for any excuse to avoid doing real work for a >living... I figured with most of the group being Pupsters, AMC was about as far back as I could go. Hell what kind of engines would a 2006 Packard have in it? SignatureFor choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly death. For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and possibly death. Choose your fights carefully. > Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit > it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Taurus (to die soon) > Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already) Seems to me I was just reading something about the Taurus continuing to be built in large quantity, to satisfy demand through rental and fleet sales. Still one of the most popular rentals for travelling business folks. Throughout its lifespan, the Taurus (and, for that matter, the Escort) has proven that it was hardly a failure. But times change, corporate philosophy changes, and they move on to new models with new characteristics demanding new name badges. I don't really read anything into this. dwight >> Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit >> it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > built in large quantity, to satisfy demand through rental and fleet sales. > Still one of the most popular rentals for travelling business folks. Part of the reason for this is Ford has decide NOT to allow fleet (& rental) sales of the Taurus's successor, the Five Hundred. That doesn't leave many options. > Throughout its lifespan, the Taurus (and, for that matter, the Escort) has > proven that it was hardly a failure. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > dwight By the way, I just had a new Taurus (1600 miles) rental car this week, the damn thing would only accommodate driver and passengers of a about 5'8" or so. It was so cramped inside I could not believe it. The new Mustang has more leg room, at least the length between the front seats and the firewall. The space was very disappointing. > Throughout its lifespan, the Taurus (and, for that matter, the > Escort) has proven that it was hardly a failure. > > But times change, corporate philosophy changes, and they move on to > new models with new characteristics demanding new name badges. In Europe, a few years back, the new escort line got called Focus and Ford marketed it as such. A name change rather than anything else. The European Ford Taunus morphed into the Sierra(Tempo) which morphed into the Mondeo (Contour). Same class of car basically, just a new name. GM did the same with their Opel Kadett (Pontiac LeMans) same car, but new name. Forgot what is was. The whole reason was they told the names sounded dates, old fashioned and they tried to spruce them up with new more modern names. Signature_ 2005 Mustang V6 Convertible (Mineral Grey) |_| Member Modern Mustangs of North America (MMNA) |__|ofh@tampabay.rr.com http://mustang.fdns.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Paul" <esealp@maps.on> wrote> GM did the same with their Opel Kadett (Pontiac LeMans) same car, but new > name. Forgot what is was. And the newest of the batch. The GTO from Australia. SignatureScott W. '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ > Taurus (to die soon) > Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already) They deserve to be. Now if they would only bring over the falcon/fairline from down under to replace them. > Thunderbird (The only Ford anyone turned to see, dead) It was blah. > Lincoln Blackwood (Who approved this and is he still at Ford?) > Lincoln Aviator (not bad but gone anyway) Lincoln trucks. Who cares? > Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales) It's called 'focus' now. > Ford Contour (the $6 million baby, the failed transplant) > Mystique (the Mercury Contour) Marketeer neglect. > Continental It will return at some point I'm sure. > Excursion (the bigger they come?) It deserves to die. > Lincoln LS (this car was murdered) Don't know too much about it, comment seems consistant with ford. > Mercury Cougar The two door contour was a good idea, one I had back in '96 in fact. but calling it cougar was a mistake. Making a new mustang based cougar may be a good idea if there is a market for it that won't hurt mustang. > Mercury Villager It's a minivan.... blah. > NoOp Comment: He forgot about the Marauder. True. > The Ford GT is going, Instant collectable. > Whose idea was this and is he still at Ford? The Contour and Mystique, > Ford's world cars, didn't work here at all. Ford always had dreamed of > a world car, so I suppose that no one wanted to tell the boss that they > wouldn't work here. They would have worked if Ford marketed them properly. Instead they tried to sell them as if they were upgraded Tempos and Topazes. They were not the A-to-B basic toasters that they replaced. They were good driving cars that should have been marketed as such. > The Taurus, once the best-selling American car, and Mercury Sable (they > sold 100,000 a year!), were well accepted by the public with good > quality, too. Instead of correcting the problems, Ford quit on them. They were mostly large volume crap compared to what ford sells in other markets. > Alas, you've got to know how to sell it, or at least care. And the > Escort? Nearly 300,000 sales just six years ago (2000). Don't even ask. Focus. > sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the > Mercury Mustang? It would be called Cougar... see above. > Mercury was never good enough for a version of the > small Focus? Why not? I guess they made the bobcat so why not? >> Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales) > > It's called 'focus' now. They are 2 completely different vehicles. >> sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the >> Mercury Mustang? > > It would be called Cougar... see above. It would have to be different enough not to directly compete with the Mustang, just like the original of '67. Yes it was a pony car, but it was about luxury with balls. The Mustang was never about luxury. >> Mercury was never good enough for a version of the >> small Focus? Why not? > > I guess they made the bobcat so why not? It'd be exactly like the Neon. They didn't even bother changing the name between Plymouth and Dodge. Or the "cloud cars" between Plymouth, Dodge, and Chrysler. Same EXACT car with a different name and a few different options. What a complete waste! SignatureScott W. '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Actually........the Mercury version of the Mustang is the Capri. > >> Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales) > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Chrysler. Same EXACT car with a different name and a few different options. > What a complete waste! > Actually........the Mercury version of the Mustang is the Capri. Only for a short while. Most Capris were fords imported from other markets. > Actually........the Mercury version of the Mustang is the Capri. Actually, you're a dumbass who obviously doesn't know his pony car history or pay attention very well. Try reading what I wrote AGAIN and this time pay attention to the year I was talking about and more specifically the first gen COUGARS!! f-ckin lameass! SignatureScott W. '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>> Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales) >> >> It's called 'focus' now. > They are 2 completely different vehicles. No sh.t. There were at least a couple completely different escorts. pinto-escort-focus, same place in the line up. >>> sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the >>> Mercury Mustang? >> It would be called Cougar... see above. > It would have to be different enough not to directly compete with the > Mustang, I addressed that in 'above' part. >>> It's called 'focus' now. > >> They are 2 completely different vehicles. > > No sh.t. There were at least a couple completely different escorts. > pinto-escort-focus, same place in the line up. Yes, the same place when it comes to "entry level" in all sense of the term. But you made it sound like you were saying they were the same platform, just rebadged. THAT's what I thought you were talking about. SignatureScott W. '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ > Some interesting commentary: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already) > Thunderbird (The only Ford anyone turned to see, dead) I must admit I have never driven one, but based on looks alone, the redesigned Thunderbird was lucky to survive as long as it did. I never could have gotten past the ugly looks to ever drive one. I think the looks of this body were a god awful abortion, it looks like it might appeal to the Miata crowd or something. Every time I see one (witch is almost never) on the road, I can't help but wonder how that ugly thing survived as long as it did... > Patrick I always called the Mercury Mystique was the Mercury Mistake. :) > Some interesting commentary: > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.