I think you need to go back and re-read what you just wrote. While I agree that Ford does invest a lot in the Mustang, there is a good reason for it-it's the only performance car the dumb~~~~s in this country will regularly purchase. America has absolutely no interest in buying performance vehicles. None. Look at how bad the GTO flopped. Find me a car as nice as the GTO with the same performance for the same price. You won't, yet people wouldn't buy it. Yet people are more than willing to fork over the same money for 4 cylinder automatic Accords. That sends a very clear message to automakers, I think. If you look at it that way, why would any automaker develop performace vehicles for the American market when people flat out refuse to buy them. It wastes resources. I also disagree with most of your assessment of Ford's lineup. Let's go through them.
Fusion. Has been rated higher in initial quality than both Camry and Accord the past few years. Next year it gets the 3.5 rated at I think 263 hp and AWD. Performance-check. Reliabiltiy-check. Styling-it's been selling well, so sorry you don't like it, but check.
Hyundai scores well in 'initial quality', but ohhhhhhh well. I'd like to see a car that's as attractive as its Mazda counterpart, and do you remember that wonderful bit of sexiness that was the Iosis concept vehicle?
Guess what's showed up as the face of the next Mondeo. I would gladly buy a Mondeo over the US Fusion.
AWD is not standard and simply comes along pirated from the Mazdaspeed6.
We will see if the new 3.5 is reliable, or even a worthwhile engine. While it has matched the performance numbers set as a benchmark by Nissan's 3.5L V6, reliability and quality will be the big issues for this car. I wouldn't hate this car so much if the front end looked as if it had SOME effort put into it-- as in, attractive enough to make me feel like I wouldn't mind seeing it in my driveway every day.
Five-hundred. Fills a necessary market segment that is boring to us. It's a nice car, not very exciting, but it has to be boring to sell to old people. And it sells decently, so I see no problem with it.
Why is the Lincoln division so much better looking?
If the Five-Hundred was doing its job as a full-size sedan, it'd be worth the police agencies using them as police duty cars. It hasn't done the job well enough and the Crown Vic continues to fill that slot while the Dodge Charger and Chevrolet Impala are taking police marketshare away from it elsewhere. Second, I've seen quite a few Chargers and Impalas on the road-- how many Five-Hundreds have you seen lately?
Focus can still hold it's own. Remember the SVT? That didn't sell, did it. Would you consider the Civic to be considerably higher performance than the Focus? Cause performance doesn't seem to be the driving force behind the cheap car market. The Civic has a reputation for being very reliable, and that has taken it a very long way. The other platform would be nice, but I don't think it would make a huge difference in sales, because the biggest difference there is performance, which we have already determined isn't important.
Because they didn't sell us the turbocharged RS version, they sold us a lousy non-turbo, unexciting 170hp vehicle. Not exactly my cup of tea, and I'm not going to pay the SVT premium for little more than a Celica GT-S, particularly when I know a much better version is being sold elsewhere.
Mondeo. Remember the Contour? Same car. Ford couldn't give them away, not even the SVT's. Another performance car that wasn't the Mustang that consumers told Ford to shove up their ~~~ (like the SC/SHO/SVT Focus.) Nice cars that people just wouldn't buy.
Wrong. The reason Ford couldn't give the Contour away was because of the total lack of quality and abysmal reliability of the 4-cylinder versions. It sold quite well initially, and as the things fell apart, Ford could not repair the vehicle's reputation and thus had to discontinue the name in the US. Had Ford invested in something called QUALITY CONTROL, the Ford name would not have been so tarnished and unfortunately, as a result of the half-assed build quality of the contour, many people said that they will never buy a Ford again.
Tiny cars. Good luck selling those in America. Good idea that will not catch on, I don't think. And Americans will not buy diesels, regardless of how much sense they make because Americans are stupid. I wouldn't mind being wrong about this one though, because they wouldn't be bad to have around.
Just look at the sales numbers, Toyota's Yaris is selling so well that dealerships cannot keep the things stocked. The Prius has waiting lists just to buy one, and Honda's Fit is selling extremely well. Nissan's Versa isn't doing too hot, but then again, that thing totally sucks balls and isn't delivering the gas mileage numbers people want out of their tiny car.
Vans. Ford's vans suck. You are correct. I don't think there are huge margins in the van market though, and the Odyssey is very, very hard to beat.
Yes it is hard to beat, but the S-Max or Galaxy would make nice competitors.
However, in reading the new issue of consumer reports, the Kia Sedona outscored all of the american van offerings. When Kia is better than you, something needs to be done.
Hybrids. If you buy a hybrid, you are stupid, don't like having money and are incapable of critical financial analysis. Sorry.
Give it a second thought. A decent hybrid offering would boost sales and give the marque a more eco-friendly image, if nothing else it'd be good for PR. However, Toyota's new Supra is looking at 400hp and is going to be a hybrid, and Honda's new NSX replacement will be hybrid as well, if the rumors are true. While Hybrids are currently for old people and hippies, there are a freaking LOT of them around. I almost as many Prius on the road now as I do Camrys and Accords. There is a definite market for it.
Your lineup.
The Falcon. I like the car. A lot. I would buy one if it had the balls that the GTo did. Most Americans won't though, cause it's GTO ish and Americans apparently don't like those. I think the Fusion fits that segment well, and the performance will be there next year.
The Falcon *does* have the balls the GTO does. The Falcon comes from the same place the GTO (Holden Monaro) comes from. Part of the reason the GTO isn't selling well is because nobody knows it's out there. It has had a virtually non-existent advertising campaign, like the Lincoln LS enjoyed.
The Thunderbird won't be back for some time, and it will never have the performance that you want. It's a novelty car, nothing more.
Yeah, that's just wishful thinking, I know. I don't ever expect the car to come back as a 4-seater. I just threw that out there.
Your Mustang desires are insane. 500 hp for the highest level is plenty. 600 is ridiculous. Will they even be allowed to sell that? It will never happen. And the Mustang will never compete directly with the Si.
Mustang has to do something or else Corvette *will* remain king-of-the-hill performance wise, particularly with the scary fast Corvette SS (see: blue devil) sporting a supercharger that is currently running laps around the nurburgring.
Have you seen HP numbers of normal cars these days? The BMW M5 and M6 are driving around with FIVE HUNDRED AND FIVE horsepower, and Corvette Z06's already have that. The Corvette SS will see at LEAST 100hp more, putting it well into the 600hp range. The Bugatti Veyron, while just an engineering excercise, puts down 1001 HP, and while you will probably never see one, it just goes to show that you can build and sell a car that comes with 1000hp from the factory. At this point 1001 HP is unfeasable for a normal car, I see no reason why 600hp cannot make an appearance as the Uberstang, particularly when the Shelby Cobra model already out puts down over 500hp. I don't see why they can't wring 100 more ponies out of a more advanced engine when Chevy is doing it, using an engine design that is over 50 years old. Given the Mustang is Ford's performance every-car we should have at least 3-4 engine options for the car, according to price, perhaps V6, V8 3v, V8 3v S/C, V8 4v S/C I/C. Independent rear is LONG overdue for this car, and it makes absolutely no sense to make an effort NOT to include one. It should at least be an option. The ride and handling of the car REALLY suffer for it. It should be included, if only to improve ride comfort and control. Our 2000 Mustang is so jittery on the 405 fwy that I had to spend an extra 400 dollars putting ZR rated 255 series tires on the thing just to make it finally stick to the damn pavement when there's bumps and such. None of my independent rear vehicles have that problem. The damn windstar is more surefooted on the freeway. Lastly, while the Mustang does not compete directly with the Civic Si it is very near its performance bracket and the average buyer is around the same age, so there is some market overlap.
Ford's SUV's are most likely the best out there. They don't make the Excursion, but if people will buy big pigs like that then why shouldn't Ford build them? They make huge margins on those, facilitating the development of other programs (which, unfortunately, you don't like.) And I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the F-150. It's the best selling truck for a reason, and that reason isn't because it's uncivilized. I can't figure out how a truck can get more civilized than that. If you can then maybe you need to go work for Ford and help the idiot engineers develop a truck that will sell better than it already is. That truck more than holds its own against ANY competition in terms of reliability and performance. And you want to bullet proof the Ranger? The only trucks in the same galaxy in terms of reliability are the Hilux/Tacoma. A 4 cyl, 5 speed Ranger is already virtually indestructable. What more do you want man?
Have you read the reliability reviews for the Ranger? More complaints than I had time to read. That said, have you watched CNN lately? Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Kosovo. Everywhere you look, the bad guys are a bunch of dudes riding around in an ancient toyota truck that's still running strong. The mexican gardeners know it, that's why they're all driving toyota pickups and using Honda lawn equipment.
The F-150 just isn't as nice as say the Titan, Ridgeline or Tundra. I have driven all of them, and the F-150's 5.4 just did not feel lively or pull at all in a decent manner, even with the truck completely empty. Tachometer should be standard on the truck-- there's no reason why I should have to use the technician's digital odometer trick every time I want to see the tach. It costs an extra what, $.50 to include one per car?
Really, I don't have that much to complain about with the F-150 except how the seats feel, and the way the engine feels. When I was working at U-Haul, our tired, 180,000 mile 460 V8's felt way more energetic even in a heavy-~~~ F-250 Boxtruck than the 5.4L Triton did in the unburdened 2005+ F150. The Triton V10 did not feel terribly energetic or strong, either in the newer 2005+ F250 boxtrucks. While these were stripped out models, I drove and compared the standard, regular person F-150 with a 5.4L and was unimpressed with the interior quality and style of the car. The F-250's style is just fine, though. I'm cool with the F-250. But my complaint about the Tach still sticks. It costs an extra $.50, so why not include it? Why skimp on something that everyone else includes as standard? Why do I need a full-size tach on my windstar and not on my f-150?
Ford GT. They don't even make this anymore. And you need to elaborate on how having more power than it already does would help fuel economy, because that logic escaped me. It's a moot point anyway, though, because fuel economy does not matter at all in the segment. But that doesn't matter either, because Ford really doesn't even need to be toying around in the super car market anyway. The GT served its purpose, and now its done. Ford isn't in the super car market, and they don't need to be wasting tons of money developing limited production vehicles that no one here would ever be able to buy anyway.
I said the fuel economy isn't that big of an issue given the segment, but it is problematic when compared side-by-side to the other supercars in its segment. You have to fill it up more than you do any of its competitors, save for the Zonda, but the key complaint is the ABYSMAL reliability. How are you going to look cool in it if it's always on a flatbed on the way to the dealer, or at the dealer being fixed? As for being able to buy them, maybe noone can buy them where you live, but around my neck of the woods quite a few folks can afford them and several people have (not people I see on TV mind you, but real everyday folks I've seen driving around) bought them. Unfortunately, they're in the shop as frequently as a Mercedes Benz.
Styling. Do you think the Camry is an exciting, cutting edge design? How about the Accord? I don't. People don't seem to care though. The Fusion fits right in with those designs, I think. And you make mention of the Subaru Legacy. Have you ever really looked at a Legacy GT? That car is incredible. But they're not moving 250,000 units per year selling those here either, because that's not what Americans want. It's not a Ford thing, it's an American auto buyer thing.
Yes, I have looked at a Legacy GT and driven the thing. It is an AMAZING piece of machinery. But at what it costs and with its lack of customer incentives, it is a hard buy. Furthermore, it isn't hardly advertised. I see quite a few Forester, Tribeca and Impreza ads, but nothing for Legacy.
As I said above, Ford got the back end of the fusion ok- the complaint was it looked too much like a legacy, which isn't a bad thing-- the problem is the front end is totally unattractive. I could live with the face of a Camry or Accord in my driveway but seriously, I can't stand how it looks like a last-gen Honda Prelude in the front. It looks like they had the design all nice, and then somebody smacked the clay model really hard in the front with a board by accident, night before the unveiling and flattened it, and then they were all like, "well, um, no time to fix it, let's just leave it like that."
Yes, I know Americans want conservative design in their boring everyday car, and you know what? That's fine by me. I know people don't want to stand out. But I also know people aren't going to want an eyesore. Just look at the example set by the Aztek. The Accord, Camry, Altima and the ilk are all decent to look at. They are not eyesores. The Mazda6, the Fusion's platform-mate and mechanical brother, is a very attractive, sexy car. I don't see why the Ford version can't be half as sexy. That's my primary complaint with the car. While Accords and Camrys are selling like hotcakes, when the Taurus was still around, were people buying it? No. They weren't, because the alternatives were better looking, offered better fuel economy and were more reliable. Now we have the fusion, which is as unattractive as the Taurus was in its final years, and it's just rubbish to look at. I wouldn't want one in my driveway when I could have a Mazda6 or an Accord instead. I mean, at least make it as pretty as an accord, for christsakes.
Basically, your analysis of the situation makes little sense to me. You're basically saying that getting rid of/restyling the already segment leading SUV's (disregarding the margins they make on them), adding a bunch of performance cars that the public has repeatedly stated they don't want and won't buy, and investing heavily into the untested super small car market segment will save Ford. I'm sorry you don't want a Mustang. I don't want one either. But people only seem to like the Mustang, and Ford has always had trouble getting people to buy anything else performance wise. Next year we get a pretty kick ~~~ Fusion, and I'm kind of excited about it. But don't blame the Mustang or Ford for not wasting development resources on building performance oriented cars that Americans won't buy. They've done it before, and they've always flopped. Blame Americans who won't buy the cars that both you and I would very much like to see here. And you can blame unions-those disgusting entities will likely be the end of both Ford and GM.