People didn’t start flocking over to CamCords in one day, I don’t expect them to flock back as quickly either. Gotta start from somewhere.

How many of y’all have seen any Taurus or Sable ads recently?

Ford neglected both of the cars for years, and now isn’t any different.

Does Ford really believe that ppl will trade in their Camry’s and Accords en-masse for a Taurus?

It’ll never happen.

I do hate to hear that and furthermore I refuse to believe something so positive could come at the hands of Mark, I would still be spending $50K a week to fly to Miami on the corporate jet if I hadn’t been called out, Fields.

Let he who doesn’t care about his retirement plan returns cast the first stone…

If Ford had Toyota’s reputation, this current Taurus would be just fine. It’s fundamentals like platform, engine, transmission, NVH, handling, safety, quality, etc. are good – probably great.

But it is wrapped in a design that will not get noticed by anyone. And lacking Toyota’s household name for cars, Ford needs to be noticed.

Ford vehicles have to have striking designs. The Fusion does have a different design, and it has built a small but enthusiastic following (satisfaction rates are far higher than the Camry’s, for example). That is the only way to attract traffic to the showroom, get butts in the cars and get cars off the lots. It doesn’t take much of a song and dance once you drive one. The Focus, for all of its styling criticisms (and some obsession with electrical tape as an indicator of build quality), gets noticed by the average Joe. Some people really like it. Some hate it. I’m in the latter category, but I understand what it can do for Ford, and it is, in fact, on a great platform with decent fundamentals as well that will attract a buyer if they are receptive to the styling.

The updated Taurus next year will do exactly as the Focus’ design does except in a more positive direction. The designers have been set free. And who set them on their initial path? Mark Fields. I know you’ll hate to hear that, but he was the one who looked at the first sketches of the Fusion (a smaller 500, basically) and sent it back to have the 427 concept’s cues put on it. Since then, he has been championing new designs, different designs, edgier designs and breaking apart the designers’ reliance on focus groups and unnecessary engineering limits (there are some necessary ones, clearly) – and he finally has someone to back him up: Mulally.

And Ford has (thankfully) already set about updating the Focus. That starts production in early/mid-2010.

I don’t see good looks as much getting in the way of function. They shouldn’t. And I wouldn’t want them to. I suspect the bean counters dumb them down for other reasons.

Hopefully once they’ve finished polishing the Taurus, they’ll turn their attention to the Marge Simpson Focus.

Any dedicated Simpsons fan will tell you that Marge drives a Canyonero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Simpson_in:_%22Screaming_Yellow_Honkers%22

Let’s see, the designer of the PT Cruiser left Chrysler and joined GM to develop the HHR. Not bad but same basic idea and I like it okay. The Audi guy joined Ford and designed the 500. Again not bad but the same basic idea as the Passat/Audi (which I like). Now the Chrysler 300 guy joins Ford and the new Taurus looks like a 300!!!

Uh – can’t these designers come up with something new or are they doomed to simply repackaging the same ideas over and over??? Sort of like the Brady Bunch spoof movie where the Dad builds a dozen buildings for various needs that all resemble their house…

If the 300 is all so great and popular why wouldn’t a Ford Taurus owner already be driving a 300 already???

The 500 was a good design, the 300 is fine too, and the new Taurus will be fine too I’m sure. I don’t think it’s the cars’ designs that are getting old to me but the hype that these car companies use to try to make me think that somehow the new car is the end-all-be-all of automotive ownership. It’s just a car. A nice car possibly. And a big expense. Rather than through the whole car out the window and start again fresh – why not make incremental changes that improve on the old design which improves a car’s quality and longevity???

This is exactly the type of thinking that is dooming the domestics to fail.

Good Enough is NOT good enough!

The big problem is the cheap materials used for the rest of the interior, and the lack of sound-deadening material.

Why does the Fusion have them?

Actually you could live (barely) with drums the seats still suck though.

and when you talking about perceived value….

Excuse me? The ENGINEERS are dumbing down the designs? So the engineers continually dumb down the vehicles their hapless managers and finance department heads beg to be made more exciting? They take the beautiful, exciting designs given to them by…Mark Fields? Derrik Kusak? Jay Mays, Peter Horbury, Bruce? and dumb down and decontent them on their own volition? They put that stupid ass Passat canopy on the Taurus and the fake plastic fender wart on the Focus?

And I was just feeling optimistic about Ford’s chances hearing Mullaly’s plan to improve cycle time. Could be hard to do whilst trashing the people who have been beat down, jerked around, and relentlessly laid off and also need to actually do the work to enact said plan.

That is the number one priority at FoMoCo. Saving every $$$$$ possible while the company big shits rake in mutl-millions in wages every yr.

As for the Focus they have drum brakes over the entire model range that squeak every winter and rubbish seats. if they fixed that instead wearing out a chamois, they save their arses.

what we need to do is remove the words “sporty” and “sleek” from designers vocabulary. these end up translating to “halfass” like the grand am.

Put me in the minority here, but I’m not terribly enthusiastic about this idea. If something is going to be harder (read: more expensive) to build, I feel that there should be a good functional reason behind it. If “design” just means “our artists’ conception of aesthetics” then I’m unimpressed; if it means “our engineers’ concept of what’s more aerodynamic, or safer, or some such,” then I am more sympathetic to increasing production costs.

But then, I’m not much of a connoisseur of the visual in car design. Again — put me in the minority. I care more about things like power, efficiency, driving dynamics, reliability and maintainability than I do about the finer points of “looks.” Frankly, given good workmanship, I’ll usually find functional to be beautiful — curved for optimum aerodynamics, angular for ease of fabrication and assembly, big-windowed for maximum visibility, enormous hood to hold a big engine, padded all around for safety, or whatever combination of the above they think is optimal for each model and purpose. I care much less about whether a headlight assembly looks modern or retro or too much like the Mercs from the late 1990s, and care much more about whether it puts out enough light in the right direction, whether it’s easy to access for bulb changes, and doesn’t cost to much to make initially or replace in case of damage.

So yeah — maybe I’m a bean-counter at heart. Maybe Chrysler is doing something right with all the fleet sales; they’ve obviously come up with the winning formula for the overall lowest-cost motoring solution — counting cost of acquisition, insurance, upkeep, etc. Maybe Toyota has got a similar formula down for individual sales — where reliability is more important because of the hassle factor and because repairs are more expensive on a retail basis than on a fleet basis. Of course, Toyota makes money and Chrysler doesn’t, at the moment, but I blame management.

In the end, I like to distinguish myself from appliance buyers by saying that not only is a car good for transportation, but it should also be fun to thrash and easy to tinker with yourself, if you’re that sort of hobbyist. Does that make me a Mazda buyer? Others, I guess, really go for looks, and I hope for Ford’s sake that they are a big enough market, and that Ford manages to tap it well.