backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Andrwken.. on Jul 2 at 10:52 PM


2010 Ford Taurus SHO

Ford Fusion Hybrid
America's automotive success story continues to soar high

Ford CEO Alan Mulally was mocked by automotive industry analysts and rivals alike.  His company borrowed $25B USD in 2006 at a time when credit was easier to obtain, but seemed less necessary, and offloaded the money-losing Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors in 2008.  Ford also re-mortgaged virtually all the properties it owned, raising a substantial amount of cash.

Now the tables have turned, and Ford is the one laughing.  Ford sales have begun to recover and the company's stock is flying high as it finds itself America's sole major remaining independent automaker.  Twice bankrupt Chrysler is currently owned by Italy's Fiat, while General Motors, which has undergone its first bankruptcy, is now owned by the government. 

After receiving $5.9B USD in government loans to develop advanced hybrid vehicles, Mulally has announced that Ford is carrying out plans to step up production to meet rising consumer demand.  He states, "Our business plan assumed about the amount we got.  It's very consistent with our plan."

Ford lost $14.7B USD in 2008 and a total of $30B USD in the past three years.  However, it now appears on the road to recovery.  States Mr. Mulally, "[Ford] will continue to size production with demand. But clearly with our market share gain, we're increasing production to support the desirability of Ford products."

Still there is some concern over Ford's debt.  Ford says it will be profitable by 2011, but with the government forgiving much of GM's debt, it becomes an issue of which is more economically viable -- Ford's independent image or GM's lean, low-debt profile.

Mr. Mulally merely comments, "We're really on plan with our plan to finance our transformation.  Clearly, we have sufficient liquidity and we've reduced our cash burn and we've also provided guidance that we are going to continue to reduce our cash burn every quarter through this year."

He says that hybrid vehicles and electrics are central for Ford's turnaround.  He states, "We see more and more electrification, both hybrids and battery electric vehicle."

Ford will release a battery-powered commercial van next year.  It will follow that with a Chevy Volt-challenging small sedan in 2012.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By austinag on 6/30/2009 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 5
Ford really does deserve high praise for weathering this economy on it's own financing. Also, I'm excited to drive the new SHO!




By Tsuwamono on 6/30/2009 11:09:56 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, Although I was for giving GM loans because the interest our government and the US government will make on those loans is quite good, I would have preferred GM had done what Ford has done, plan ahead.

Hopefully they can begin to shed the misconception that Fords are bad vehicles. I've owned 2 rangers and an F150 and never had any problems with them. My current ranger is at 230 000k and still runs like new.


By Ranari on 6/30/2009 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
I own a 1995 Mustang GT 5.0, and while it's a piece-o-poo, for well over 200k+ miles it still drives quite well, actually. Honestly, I don't know how many miles it has, but I drive it a lot. The speedometer doesn't work, the odometer doesn't either. Radio doesn't work anymore. Dashboard backlights don't work anymore. Most of the electrical components don't really work well anymore, though the windows and convertible motor work fine. But mechanically? Man, that 5.0 just keeps going and going.

I'd consider buying Ford again. /shrug


By PandaBear on 6/30/2009 4:34:46 PM , Rating: 4
Radio, odometer and speedometer should still work at 200k+.


By Samus on 6/30/2009 6:49:50 PM , Rating: 3
I have two Focus SVT's, not the most reliable focus model, and still have 100,000 miles on one and 75,000 miles on the other, and literally beat the shit out of the low mileage car auto-crossing.

Both have been reasonably reliable. They're not Japanese-reliable, but they are far more complex (suspension and engine/transmission) and more reliable than any other European car I've owned.

I think Ford has done an exceptionally good job globalizing a good car (the Focus) although it has limited success in the USA where many people, especially coast-cities, are more likely to buy Japanese.


By mindless1 on 7/1/2009 12:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
As hard as it is to imagine, you're supposed to fix the speedometer and odometer and keep them working. What are you thinking? "Oh, I don't really really need them so I'll save a buck"?

They are required instrumentation, period. Anyone could just ignore a failure then call their car a piece of poo but at nearly 15 years old it is not surprising a car would need a repair or two.

Considering all the things you list I have to wonder if you just have a blown fuse, loose connector, or frayed wire. They shouldn't be all that hard to fix, it'd just take awhile to pull the dash off... a weekend and a case of beer should be enough to get the job done.


By bkslopper on 7/1/2009 6:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
I have a lesser 3.8 L auto V6 Mustang circa 2000. It has been the most reliable car I've owned. No mechanical problems other than a squeaky front suspension. Annoying, but it starts every time. Original battery, too. It's amazing what happens when a car company sticks with a platform from 1979-2004... they get good at it.


By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 8:58:48 AM , Rating: 1
Ford makes pretty good trucks. Their trucks have been their strong point for years.

I don't like their cars, for the exact reason that Ranari mentions. All the trim falls apart. The chrome flakes off their plastic turn signals, the turn signal levers break. The power windows cease to function. The climate control panel switches cease to function. The vinyl tears and cracks and comes off of the dash and doors and everything else. All much sooner than other companies' cars do, in my experience.

Also, Ford makes the worst alternators I've ever heard of. Over the life of a typical Ford, you will go through as many as 10 alternators. Ridiculous.

However, I have gained a new respect for them now that they are getting through all this stuff without a bailout. I hope their new cars are really good, look cool, and make America proud of our auto industry again.


By fishman on 7/1/2009 10:05:37 AM , Rating: 3
10 alternators? I've gotten 430K miles out of 3 different fords, and have never replaced an alternator.


By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 11:53:14 AM , Rating: 1
That's amazing. My parents have driven Fords my whole life, and are always going through alternators. 10 would be a high end estimate, but I don't think they've had a single one that didn't go through at least 4.


By elgueroloco on 7/1/2009 11:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
The alternators usually last 20-40k miles, so my estimate was based on the idea of keeping one for 300-400k miles, which is probably more than most people get out of their Fords.


By Keeir on 7/1/2009 8:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
With that kind of failure rate, I have to wonder if your parents do something strange to thier cars. Although these things happen (I think someone had 6 straight 360s fail within 1 month), the numbers you are quoting are huge even for Found on Road Dead products.... (Actually, recent years Ford has improved dramatically, not disputing this notion)


By ebakke on 6/30/2009 11:46:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
because the interest our government and the US government will make on those loans is quite good
....umm, not if we forgive the loans.


By Tsuwamono on 6/30/2009 1:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
Canada's government isn't, I don't know if yours will.


By Hoser McMoose on 7/1/2009 3:02:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Canada's government isn't, I don't know if yours will.

The governments of Canada and Ontario, much like the U.S. Federal government, have traded a significant amount of their loan for worthless equity in GM and Chrysler. Optimistically the $10B loan from Canadian governments to GM will be translated into $2B worth of shares 5 years from now.

All 3 governments fully expect to take a HUGE loss on this "investment". Politicians, however, expect to lose few votes.


By Tsuwamono on 6/30/2009 1:22:06 PM , Rating: 5
My rangers and F150s never had transmission problems.

And I tow a 2500lbs camper with my 2.3L Lima ranger all the time. Usually 4-5 times a year for camping.

Either your not maintaining it or you just cant drive.


By Myrandex on 6/30/2009 2:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have absolutely loved my interiors on both of my F150s that I've owned. I have a 2000 F150 XLT and I now have a 2005 F150 FX4. I couldn't stand the competition's interiors when compared to Fords.

Now there are some new ones that I also like, but I still am a huge fan of the Ford interior. I wouldn't mind the Toyota Tundra or the Nissan Titan, but my favorite is still the F150!

Jason


By Samus on 6/30/2009 7:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ford transmissions last forever, even if quirky (like my Tempo which sometimes slipped out of gear on hard left turns) but you must flush them on schedule, and don't beat the shit out of them (especially in cold or hot weather)

Overall, in comparison to other American cars, Ford has always had the best interiors. Usually nice, soft plastic and rubbers, unlike GM's rock hard and squeeky plastics.


By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 12:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
I lied, there is something wrong with my Ranger interior.. The padded arm rests on the doors faded because of my mother smoking in the truck before she died and I got the truck.

I now have yellowish arm rests and regular grey interior.


By LostInLine on 6/30/2009 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 4
$50 Billion in loans. How can GM pay that back. GM can't treat it like a regular payment loan.
Year - Net Income (in millions)
2001 - 601
2002 - 1,736
2003 - 3,822
2004 - 2,701
2005 - (10,417) -- loss (6,000M one time expense)
2006 - (1,978) -- loss
2007 - (38,732) -- loss (38,400M account charge)
---------------
In 7 year GM made $2,133M excluding "special accounting" charges. It would take well over 100 years for GM to pay back the loan through normal means.

So, they have to convert it to stock and sell it. But will that ever be possible?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/06/30/can-gm-repa...


By Pneumothorax on 6/30/2009 5:06:27 PM , Rating: 4
Simple, these loans were basically gifts. Why didn't government just give us $50 billion worth of checks towards your purchase of your next GM vehicle? The taxpayers would've gotten a better deal on that one.


By Andrwken on 7/2/2009 10:52:39 PM , Rating: 1
Wow,

The Kool-aid sure does taste fine around here. Ford didn't plan ahead on those loans to avoid getting a government handout 3 years later (some crystal ball there). They were losing their ass and had to refinance to stay afloat in 2006. If you remember then they were talking bankruptcy if they didn't push all there debt out with refinances. That money was supposed to keep them going much longer than it will now that this recession has chewed it up. To be perfectly honest, I bet in hindsight they would have forgone some of that refinancing and just took the handout like the other two did if they were "planning ahead".

2011 is still a year and a half away and they have blown through most of their reserves. It's quite possible that in a year the roles could be reversed and you will all be bitching about Ford borrowing more than the other two did.

But here's hoping for the feel good story your all predicting.


By Spuke on 6/30/2009 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I'm excited to drive the new SHO!
have you driven one yet? What's it like?


By austinag on 6/30/2009 11:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, poor use of the english language on my part: I'm excited to drive the new SHO, when it comes out! there, that's 37% closer to a complete sentence...


By 67STANG on 6/30/2009 1:15:52 PM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? Ford didn't beg the tadpayers for money. They secured a line of credit from the Govt. *in case* they needed it. They have spent $0.00 of that credit line. A smart business move that further cushions them from bankruptcy in a bad economy. Remember, it was only Chrysler and GM execs that were actually begging for cash.

I think the Taurus exterior is a major impovement on the current model, bordering on sexy (I could do without that funky chrome panel they put on the front fenders, however). The SHO has AWD and 365hp (wouldn't be hard to get a lot more out of it, as it has twin turbos). On top of that, the interior rivals the Germans in quality, form and fit. I'm going to test drive one and see if it behaves as well as my old 528i.


By Spuke on 6/30/2009 1:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
My main issue with the SHO is a lack of a manual or dual-clutch transmission. Otherwise the car is comparable to the BMW 535i but WAY cheaper.


By 67STANG on 6/30/2009 2:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
With you 100% there. It would be nice to have a 6spd manual in there at the very least. I guess they figured a 6spd auto with "flappy panel gear shifters" (as Jeremy Clarkson would say) would be good enough. Probably for the target audience, it'll be a good start.

Definately agree though, subsequent model years should afford more tranny options. Perhaps they don't have a suitable manual tranny that is AWD for this car.


By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 3:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
(All with british accents)

Well done fat man from Kantucky!! -Jeremy Clarkson

Lancia Beta Coupe Superleggera!- Jeremy Clarkson

"This is excellent!- James May
"Why don't all cars have no doors? When I come to power I'm making it a rule cause' this is just better" - Jeremy Clarkson


By 9nails on 7/1/2009 10:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
Even my wife, who doesn't give a darn about cars, loves that show!


By Pneumothorax on 6/30/2009 7:54:40 PM , Rating: 3
My main beef with the SHO is that it's a BIG car. C'mon guys I want an American Manufacturer to build me a 335i sized car with the same power/fuel economy, better interior and offer it for $30K with a 7 speed DSG or 6 speed manual. I'd be all over it. And no giant TL or Infiniti G37 with bees in the can exhaust sound for me.


By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 12:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
You're not asking much are you? lol.


By Pneumothorax on 7/1/2009 11:25:56 AM , Rating: 2
Or at least offer it for $40K. Already saving up for a 335i (possibly a M3), would honestly give American cars a chance, but they don't offer anything in their line-ups in what I want.


By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I'd like to get a fusion. I don't race around and have no need for a BMW. I just need something that gets more then the 10mpg that my Cherokee and my Ranger get for when I'm driving around town or back and forth from base in the summer. I think for the winter I'll still use my cherokee to get to base though lol.

I doubt the Fusion would do well in a foot of snow as anything but a snow plow.


By Spuke on 7/1/2009 1:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or at least offer it for $40K.
The SHO is $40k.


By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 3:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
ownt?


By Pneumothorax on 7/1/2009 7:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read my previous post? The SHO is a fat pig. The 335i is almost a full second faster in both 0-60 and the quarter mile AND gets better gas mileage. I know some of you guys like big 4000+lbs cars, but some of us want a small car with luxury to boot. (And no STi's and Evo's aren't luxury)


By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 10:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if you'll still be saying that after your little 335i meets the solid steel bumper of my Ranger or Cherokee.

Personally I'd rather be in the 4000lbs car if I'm going to get hit by those suckers.


By Pneumothorax on 7/2/2009 1:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't plan on hitting your bumper anytime soon. Besides with your hero Obama running things, the 335i will soon be a giant compared to contemporary cars in 10 years.


By Keeir on 7/1/2009 8:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My main beef with the SHO is that it's a BIG car. C'mon guys I want an American Manufacturer to build me a 335i sized car with the same power/fuel economy, better interior and offer it for $30K with a 7 speed DSG or 6 speed manual.


I agree 100%. I want a 105 Wheel Base car with seating for four, 200+ hp, AWD, and a high quality interior. Be willing to shell out for that.


By Zaphod Beeblebrox on 6/30/2009 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 3
I've always found reading the article prior to commenting is helpful :)


By rcc on 6/30/2009 2:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
Jeez, are you trying to take the fun out of everyone's day?

LOL


By superPC on 6/30/2009 5:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
Amazing how a few good financial planner can do to your company!! although it's not that difficult to see that we're heading to a recession from as early as 2005.


By eddieroolz on 6/30/2009 10:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, if Chrysler went bankrupt twice, shouldn't everybody agree that its time to let that thing die? I'm guessing it will go bankrupt in another 15 years. Just watch me.

But Ford. Man. One company that I'm still proud to call a fan of.

I wish them the best of luck.


By Hoser McMoose on 7/1/2009 3:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm guessing it will go bankrupt in another 15 years.

I'd say you're being optimistic. The Chrysler/Mercedes partnership lasted 9 years when times were good. I'll be surprised if the Chrysler/Fiat partnership lasts even that long before the whole thing collapses.

Some may call me a pessimist but I just don't see either company really succeeding. They don't compliment each other very well and the I can't see the corporate culture mixing.

Who knows though, maybe Sergio Marchionne will pull off a small miracle and make it work.


Ford's Image
By KingstonU on 6/30/2009 11:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
Ford's image in my mind has been improving over the last couple of years, however that is mostly entirely due to the Fusion, especially after the recent redesign and the awesome hybrid version.

Most of the rest of their fleet seems outdated, the focus is ugly and unimpressive, the SUV's are still gas guzzlers.

Ecoboost is also a great idea that is proving to work as it was promoted and I can't wait until it shows up in more of the line up.




RE: Ford's Image
By 67STANG on 6/30/2009 11:40:53 AM , Rating: 3
Ford's been constantly improving quality, and unlike the other 2 U.S. manufacturers, you can actually tell they are doing it.

I currently use a Chrysler 300 as my daily driver, and the fit and finish after 1 year is horrible. I don't know if the California sun has caused shrinkage in the cheap plastics inside, but the interior is falling apart. It's a 2007.... On the other hand, my 2003 Mustang GT has more miles, has taken more abuse and still run flawlessly.

With Ford delivering the new Taurus, Fiesta and the great sales numbers of the new Fusion.. Ford has got a good 1-2-3 punch in the works. 2010 will be a banner year for Ford.

I have also heard a lot of GM fans say they are only going to buy from Ford since they didn't take a bail out. I think that along with the dealership closings limiting brand exposure will push Ford into the #1 spot ahead of GM in N. American sales by the end of the year.


RE: Ford's Image
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 12:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have also heard a lot of GM fans say they are only going to buy from Ford since they didn't take a bail out.
I hear the same thing.


RE: Ford's Image
By rtrski on 6/30/2009 10:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
I say the same thing. Although in fairness, having owned GM and Ford products in the past (and VW, and Toyota), I was already more fondly disposed to the Ford than GM experience.

But them not sucking up my tax dollars to give themselves away to the unions just cemented the feeling.

Funny that they get some 'stimulus' funds from DoE since they were still considered a viable business, while GM and Chrysler got reeee-jected. :D


RE: Ford's Image
By Mitch101 on 6/30/2009 12:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm seriously looking at Ford for my next car. My only gripe is with their styling. Fords tend to blend in. They don't stand out. It seems to follow something that my father would appreciate more than me. Now I'm no spring chicken but a little style thrown in wouldn't hurt.

I think that's were Chrysler excelled is their cars stand out a bit more although the execution on quality has diminished.


RE: Ford's Image
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rock a Mustang if it had front AND rear double-wishbone suspension and 350 hp. Until then, no Fords for me unless it's of the truck variety (which I already own). I might even forgive the weight if they did that.


RE: Ford's Image
By Daphault on 6/30/2009 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ford's been able to squeeze an impressive amount or performance out of that live rear axel. Even so I think I'd prefer the handling and safety, less un-sprung weight, better front/rear balance, etc of a modern IRS setup over the advantages of the live axel. I wonder if the GT-R, STi, EVO X generations' more sophisticated expectations with eventually cause Ford to modernize.


RE: Ford's Image
By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 3:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
We have a V6 Mustang, the solid rear axle is not a problem at all, it is comfortable, ride smooth as you can expect for a sports car, and even the 210 HP V6 has plenty of grunt.


RE: Ford's Image
By fxnick on 6/30/2009 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
I dont see why people get their panties in a bunch about a solid axle.
There cheaper, lighter, less complicated(=less maintenance), also better at the drag strip..
They ride use fine for me.
I remember ford said that IRS would add $5000 to the cost of a mustang.


RE: Ford's Image
By Daphault on 6/30/2009 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
$500


RE: Ford's Image
By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 4:55:38 PM , Rating: 1
No, its $5000. IRS is much more complicated than a live axle setup, which works perfectly fine there is nothing wrong with the rear axle on the mustang. Have you ridden in one? I bet not. Replace the stock tires with better ones and the ride improves immensly


RE: Ford's Image
By Daphault on 6/30/2009 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Ford's Image
By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 7:20:02 PM , Rating: 1
Fine, how's this. The IRS setup itself may only cost $500. But your bringing probably an additional, 3-400 lbs to the mix as well. Whats that going to do? Require more power. Need a bigger engine, or a more powerful one at any rate. That is why the mustang can get by with only a 300HP 4.6L. Because it is lighter than the Camaro and the Challenger. Like I said, we have one. The live rear axle works just fine, no complaints about it at all.


RE: Ford's Image
By Daphault on 7/1/2009 1:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
How's that? Wrong. Again... you spout crap that you don't have any real information regarding. A bit dated, but...

quote:
The IRS assembly weighs about 80 pounds more than the solid-axle setup on the Mustang GT, but it allows a 125-lb reduction in unsprung suspension weight.

From http://www.thecarconnection.com/fullreview/ford_mu...

quote:
Ford engineers said the IRS unit weighs some 80 pounds more than the old live axle, ...

From http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTe...

Friends who have done the swap and casually weighed stuff during their conversions, have come up with 120 to 150 pounds. Even if their efforts are accurate it's still significantly less than your made-up figures. Extra weight is extra weight, but this can be made up fairly easily, and depending on how much of the unsprung weight saving saved is rotational weight, the curb weight disadvantage in certain situations could be even less of a factor than it might at first seem.

The Camaro nor the Challenger are close to pinnacles of chassis design, so they don't really make a good point of reference, unless you are narrowly limiting the comparison to pony cars. I'm not all that surprised that you have no complaints about the live axle, as I said before, in an above post, Ford's done a pretty good job on it. But you certainly aren't seasoned enthusiast, if you think your 7.5+ seconds to sixty V6 "has plenty of grunt". So I wouldn't necessarily expect you to have major complaints on this aspect. Please tell me you didn't get the auto tranny too. Come out to AZ and join in on an friendly open track day or autoX event, and I'll show you what a better all-around, more sophisticated, properly configured chassis can do. I'm not even talking about my '08 GT500 coupe (yes, I have a Mustang too -- because my inner child is barely 5yo and thinks it's fun) nor my heavily modified STi; I'll challenge that V6 in my FWD, 5-door hatch commuter. Also... be prepared to have a bunch of girly Miatas tear you apart at the autoX. ;) Beers on my afterwards.


RE: Ford's Image
By ElFenix on 7/2/2009 12:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
it's the fastest car under $20K MSRP new. that's 'plenty of grunt' for what it is. sure, a V6 camry will beat it, or a V6 camaro, but none of those is the second cheapest car on the lot.


RE: Ford's Image
By joos2000 on 7/1/2009 5:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously mate, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you sprout ridiculous things like 'live rear axle works just fine'? It may be 'fine' in a straight line.

But as soon as the road turns you get powerloss from uslessly spinning inner wheels, unsexy squeels. Good for powerslides and a laugh I suppose, but hardly 'fine' behaviour from a modern car.

FoA should take a look at the FoE/FoAus chassie engineers work. So far (in my opinion, obviosly), the handling and performance in the Falcon XR8/XR6Turbo as well as the hotted up Focus/Mondeo beats the limping mustang easily and readily.


RE: Ford's Image
By rudolphna on 7/1/2009 12:35:18 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry but is it your car? Have you driven one? Doubtful. We don't drive it like a sports car. It really does grip in the turns. And it is "fine" behavior for everyday driving. Unless you have one you cannot talk; because your taking what you know about solid rear axles and immediately applying it to the one in the mustang. It is not an unpleasant car to drive at all. It has a fairly smooth ride. Bumpy roads, which supposedly are the downfall of solid axles, don't even faze it in the slightest. Go drive one.


RE: Ford's Image
By Spuke on 7/1/2009 1:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bumpy roads, which supposedly are the downfall of solid axles, don't even faze it in the slightest. Go drive one.
It's not so much bumpy roads it's taking bumpy corners at speed that upsets the live axle setups. The live axle is fine for most people but if a 93 Civic can have a double wishbone suspension then so can a Mustang. Cost is NOT an issue here. Again, GM put front and rear double wishbones on a car costing $19k base. There's no excuse.


RE: Ford's Image
By joos2000 on 7/2/2009 3:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
So I have to waste the money of buying one before I can post here? Ha! However, I have tested one and what you seem to think is fine, is more like what I would describe as mushy, indistinct and wobbly I am afraid.

And, why would you buy a car with a V8 if it isn't a sportscar? Or at the very least, a sporty car?

Anyway, I love the styling of the Mustang, and I am looking forward to the next generation when they are putting bits that matches the styling in the package.


RE: Ford's Image
By 67STANG on 6/30/2009 4:36:47 PM , Rating: 3
Well, next year you'll get half your wish. Ford has leaked that they are going to put the new 5.0 DOHC "Coyote" V8 in 2011 Mustang. The new 5.0 will put out at least 400hp and some are predicting they will make a "Boss 302" version as well rated closer to 450hp or 475hp.

Not sure if the Mustang will ever get IRS again. They put it on the Cobras from 99-04 and it was not well taken. IRS isn't the best for drag racing, which is how most Mustang owners race their vehicles. The 2010's suspension is borrowed from the previous "Bullit" model and matches or beats the new Camaro's handling. The Camaro has IRS.

I'm not sure how long you are going to be able to get a Mustang with a V8, with the increased CAFE and mileage standards. So, if you want a grunty V8, you might have to buy in the next 2-4 years before all Ford cars (and certainly everyone else) have a boosted V6 as the top option.


RE: Ford's Image
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 12:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
Built not bought young patawan. NONE of my vehicles have the stock engine.

Ranger - Stock = 2.3L Lima 4cyl || Mine = 351 Windsor

Cherokee - Stock = 4L 242 I6 || Mine = 305 Chevy. - only picked the chevy because it fit better :(


RE: Ford's Image
By Spuke on 7/1/2009 1:53:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ford has leaked that they are going to put the new 5.0 DOHC "Coyote" V8 in 2011 Mustang.
That works for me but IRS is a requirement. IRS works fine in drag racing. There are 1000s of cars that can turn a 1/4 mile VERY fast with a IRS setup (see the 9.1 sec Gallardo on Youtube). That's just an excuse IMO.


RE: Ford's Image
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ford's Image
By Flunk on 6/30/2009 1:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
The Fiesta is a good looking little car, if only they could redesign the focus to look more like that.


RE: Ford's Image
By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 3:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they are brining the Euro-Focus over in a few years. which looks much better than the US version IMO


RE: Ford's Image
By joos2000 on 7/1/2009 5:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
Next gen Focus (2011 release I believe) is looking something like this:
http://www.autotribute.com/2009/04/next-2011-ford-...
yum!


Have to say
By FITCamaro on 6/30/2009 11:35:19 AM , Rating: 3
I'm proud of Ford for staying out of government hands. At least for now anyway. They'll get my business should I need to buy a new car. Probably won't be anytime soon though. At least until GM stands for General Motors again instead of Government Motors.

The new Taurus SHO is pretty impressive looking though. Let's hope they don't kill it by pricing it too high.




RE: Have to say
By AlphaVirus on 6/30/2009 11:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
The new Ford SHO is bad (the good kind), also the Fusion Hybrid is sleek. I went to the Ford dealership Saturday and checked out both and was very impressed. The Fusion is about $32K decked out and I believe the SHO is around $42K decked out, the price is pushing me towards the Fusion but the almost 500HP of the SHO is really pulling my feelings.

Here is the site with Taurus pricing
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/pricing/
Here is the site with Fusion pricing
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/pricing/


RE: Have to say
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 12:05:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the price is pushing me towards the Fusion but the almost 500HP of the SHO is really pulling my feelings.
The SHO does NOT have 500hp, it DOES have 365hp/350lb-ft of torque.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/taurus/models/


RE: Have to say
By UNHchabo on 6/30/2009 1:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe he's already planning on replacing the Ecoboost's turbos with bigger ones? ;)


RE: Have to say
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe he's already planning on replacing the Ecoboost's turbos with bigger ones?
I'll be Ford's huckleberry!!!!


RE: Have to say
By Daphault on 6/30/2009 1:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Can't be priced too low either, or quality will likely be compromised and be off-putting for some of us. I was happy to see AWD on the SHO, but lack of a manual gearbox means I will never consider one.


RE: Have to say
By UNHchabo on 6/30/2009 1:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
It will have paddle-shifters, plus you'll be able to manually shift with the shift knob.

Whether or not that appeals to you, they do give the user the ability to shift manually. I love the feel of a traditional stick-shift too, but I consider a "flappy-paddle gearbox" to be good enough.


RE: Have to say
By Daphault on 6/30/2009 2:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm aware. But an automatic transmission is still the same whether it's me controlling the "shift" points or the computer. A computer controlled dual-clutch transmission, on the other hand, is fine, but "manual shift" autos are just dishonest fakes.


RE: Have to say
By Daphault on 6/30/2009 2:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh... and I'm not really a fan of "good enough". :)


RE: Have to say
By Spuke on 6/30/2009 2:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I consider a "flappy-paddle gearbox" to be good enough.
I don't want a traditional auto, paddle shifter or not. I would take a dual-clutch unit. Maybe if sales are good, they'll offer one later. I suppose it doesn't matter, I'm not in the market anyways.


RE: Have to say
By Davelo on 6/30/2009 7:25:56 PM , Rating: 1
Forget it. The new Taurus may look good but don't let looks fool you. It's still a boat, weighing in over two tons. I'll pass.


RE: Have to say
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 12:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
two tons? so it weighs more then my buddys 1999 dually F-350 tow rig?

I'd love to see that.


RE: Have to say
By Daphault on 7/1/2009 1:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Depending on the cab style, bed length, and 2x4 or 4x4, they start at around 5,500 curb and can go north of 7,100. How much do you think a ton is? ;)


RE: Have to say
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 1:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
There are 2240 pounds in a ton.

And since when does a Taurus come with a bed or Cab style?

I was pointing out that a Taurus does not weigh 2 tons.

The ford Taurus for 2009 weighs 3930.8 lbs.

So I repeat, how does a Ford taurus weigh two tons in his mind?


RE: Have to say
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 1:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
btw.. the Honda civic weighs 2881 lbs. Would you also call that a boat?


RE: Have to say
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 1:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
I just now noticed what you were going for with the cab and bed style thing, you were pointing out that a F350 weighs more then the 3/4 ton designation.

But still 99% of cars that a normal sized person can actually fit into are between a 1.5 tons and 2 tons. The taurus isn't two tons but yes it is fairly close.

Good luck finding a quality car under that weight.


RE: Have to say
By Daphault on 7/1/2009 1:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that was the point. Also it seems most people still think short ton when they say ton, and don't even realize there is a long ton. So two tons in that mindset is only 80 pounds off.

Define "quality car". How about the Ariel Atom at 1/2 ton? :)


RE: Have to say
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 2
Its quite a nice looking coffin thats for sure.

A side from that, ill keep my Ranger and Cherokee thanks lol


RE: Have to say
By rudolphna on 7/1/2009 12:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
You must be using the Metric Ton. Imperial Ton is straight 2000lbs. 3930 is very close to 2 tons.


No ones laughing, especially Mulaly.
By Beenthere on 6/30/2009 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
With the U.S. entering the worst economic depression in history no one in the auto industry is laughing. Ford is in big trouble with $26 Billion in debt and they are losing over a billion per quarter. While Ford's sales may have increased as a result of the forced bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, Ford has stated publicly that they will not be able to survive without government loans if either GM or Chrysler filed bankruptcy.

The auto industry vendor suppliers who provide ~80% of the components used to assemble an auto, are filing bankruptcy daily. Some are closing their doors forever. No vendor suppliers means no U.S. auto industry. Even the transplants like Honda, Toyota, BMW, M-B, etc. need these vendor suppliers or they are gone from the U.S. - along with the loss of millions of U.S. jobs directly and indirectly associated with the U.S. auto industry.

We haven't begun to see the pain Bama has inflicted on America as a result of his massacre of the U.S. auto industry.




RE: No ones laughing, especially Mulaly.
By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 3:12:04 PM , Rating: 1
"His Massacre""

Ok I want you to tell me exactly how obama caused the recession and the meltdown of auto sales? Ok we could have just let GM and Chrysler liquidate, and then we would have even MORE suppliers filing bankruptcy because they will never have those companies buying components again.


RE: No ones laughing, especially Mulaly.
By mdogs444 on 6/30/2009 3:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ok I want you to tell me exactly how obama caused the recession and the meltdown of auto sales?

Obama didnt. But I can point you in the right direct, follow the signs to Barney Frank's desk.
quote:
Ok we could have just let GM and Chrysler liquidate

You mean we could have just let them fail, and liquidate, just as they have, without investing our money into companies who can never pay us back? Oh...well you know what, I guess bailing them out, and printing hundreds of billions of dollars to save the Union jobs was worth it - so much that the threat of new global currently, losing our loan status, inflation, and the increase of our national debt all pale in comparison to what would have happened had we actually followed what our system was supposed to do...


By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 7:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
Back to what I said, and you said it too. Allowing GM and chrysler to fail would have resulted in massive supplier bankruptcies, resulting in huge problems for Ford, Toyota, Honda and other companies who manufacture in the US. We would end up importing all the parts from china or mexico. So we are sending MORE money to china, meanwhile losing 3 million jobs in the US. Yeah, thats smart. Nice thinking. That would have gotten us DEEPER into the recession. Why? People without jobs generally don't spend money. What would we have? Millions more people without jobs not spending money= RECESSION. I bet if they went under, we would have a serious depression on our hands. You really have thought this through haven't you?


All I know is...
By Cobra Commander on 6/30/2009 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
...if I had to buy an American car (and quite honestly I still probably would not) it would absolutely be a Ford.




RE: All I know is...
By rudolphna on 6/30/2009 7:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
If you are looking to buy a new car, I suggest you go look at a 2010 Fusion, or a 2009 Escape, or maybe a Mercury Mariner (interior on the mariner is nicer than the Escape IMO).


Chevy
By Zingam on 7/2/2009 1:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, Americans. Yesterday I saw some passenger Chevy van next to an average, large European transporter van and it was much bigger than the latter. And that's what you use to move your fat asses around just to travel from you home to the grocery store? Amazing! That's why you cause economic and environmental disasters.
Can't you just eat less and buy bicycles? It's much more healthy, you know! And cheaper and it will save you the money you pay for junk food, gas, insurances, the doctor, etc.

You are humans and not some fertilizer producing machines, you know!

Good luck!




RE: Chevy
By matt0401 on 7/2/2009 10:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not American but don't you think you're generalizing a little bit there? Perhaps just a little? :P


Interesting
By Flunk on 6/30/2009 1:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I guess Ford is actually managing to move enough cars, that's really nice but I think it's due to the fact that they have attractive cars are reasonable prices more than anything. Yes, the financing is good but that's not why they're selling cars.




Independent
By matt0401 on 6/30/2009 1:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Ford says it will be profitable by 2011, but with the government forgiving much of GM's debt, it becomes an issue of which is more economically viable -- Ford's independent image or GM's lean, low-debt profile."

Corporate image is very important. I can see Ford coming out as North America's largest automaker very shortly.




5 billion
By Zingam on 7/2/2009 1:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
"After receiving $5.9B USD in government loans to develop advanced hybrid vehicles, "

For $5.9 B USD the Chinese will develop space travel!




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki