2010 Taurus SHO

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1
>>> @news.motzarella.org:
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
>>>>>>>>>>> more reliable
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
>>>>>>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
>>>>>>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have
>>>>>>>>> any lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be
>>>>>>>>> any noticeable lag.
>>>>>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>>>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low
>>> levels
>>>>>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO,
>>> is
>>>>>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and
>>> therefore
>>>>>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>>>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>>>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos
>>>>>>>> do deliver the power though and they take very little power
>>>>>>>> doing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will
>>> make
>>>>>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the
>>> way
>>>>>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>>>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There
>>>>>>>> is no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for
>>>>>>>> bearings etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of
>>>>>>>> the intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the
>>>>>>>> engine so they are very reliable.
>>>>>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>>>>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much
>>> more
>>>>>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply
>>> wasn't
>>>>>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know
>>>>>>> some one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have
>>>>>>> to
>>> check
>>>>>>> it out!
>>>>>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a
>>>>>> hood fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a
>>>>>> lot of complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost.
>>>>>> The up side of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make
>>>>>> boost where a supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a
>>>>>> good effort
>>> into
>>>>>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
>>>>>> family sedan.
>>>>> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the
>>>>> expensive side as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it
>>>>> to left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg
>>>> It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then
>>>> maybe
>>> it
>>>> is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with
>>> one
>>>> car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems
>>>> to
>>> be
>>>> an industry wide phenomenon.
>>> The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would sell
>>> better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they really
>>> think the Taurus platform is superior?
>> I think back to the last time an auto company tried the transplant
>> route and it didn't work so well. That was with the GTO. While it
>> looked great on paper it never lit a fire over here in the USA. Maybe
>> the Falcon would meet the same fate. The trouble is ford can't afford
>> to get the Taurus wrong again. I think there is a lot riding on this
>> car for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire company. I can
>> see why they may not want to put that much faith in an Aussie chassis.
>
> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now seems
> to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines this IMO.
> Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the new Taurus
> and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda already has
> on the road.
>
> Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution; I'm
> only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more
> appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.

I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling
isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high
performance variant. I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus
absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a
potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't
have the Obama boot up their ass and the good mojo of taking no taxpayer
bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want to buy
domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are in, of soon
to be, in bankruptcy and they have ****ed away billions of taxpayers
money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands likely for the
rest of my life.

>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate
>>> back
>>>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>>> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the
>>> SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new
>>> towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the Ford
>>> lineup that moves me.
>> If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with the
>> Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat upscale
>> model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a V-8,
>> RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny thing is
>> the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL these
>> traits.
>
> What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG
> factor.

I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where the
car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including a
manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car that
could be expanded on in the future.

>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's
>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a
>> great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and
>> had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We had
>> 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again, the
>> Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a supercharged
>> V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks, big brakes etc.
>> Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with it one of its longest
>> running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin to killing off the
>> Mustang, IMO.
>
> I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after the
> SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder
> that Ford came through it all as well as they did.

Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s.

On May 5, 9:44 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
> >> John S. wrote:
> >>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> >>>> John S. wrote:
> >>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> >>>>>> habitoid wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
> >>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
> >>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
> >>>>>>>> Dick
> >>>>>>> test drive time.
> >>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be cheaper,
> >>>>>>> more reliable
> >>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag and
> >>>>>> generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone cold
> >>>>>> reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
> >>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have any
> >>>>> lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't be any
> >>>>> noticeable lag.
> >>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
> >>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
> >>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low levels
> >>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this, IMO, is
> >>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and therefore
> >>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
> >>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
> >>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos do
> >>>> deliver the power though and they take very little power doing it.
>
> >>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will make
> >>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all the way
> >>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
> >>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact. There is
> >>>> no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling for bearings
> >>>> etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation part of the
> >>>> intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically outlast the engine
> >>>> so they are very reliable.
> >>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
> >>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much more
> >>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply wasn't
> >>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know some
> >>> one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will have to check
> >>> it out!
> >> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a hood
> >> fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add a lot of
> >> complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost. The up side
> >> of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make boost where a
> >> supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting a good effort into
> >> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top selling
> >> family sedan.
>
> > A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the expensive
> > side as well.
>
> > Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted it to
> > left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
> >http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg
>
> It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then maybe it
> is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries with one
> car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems to be
> an industry wide phenomenon. At least Ford seems to be moving in the
> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate back
> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.

You are right... it's all the regulations that make it impossible... A
good friend of mine is an engineer at Ford... way back in the late
80's or early 90's he got stuck on a project to work on a world
car... he said it was simply impossible due to the wildly varied
regulations between the countries...

A co-worker from Belgium was here in the States for 3 few years. He
bought a VW Jetta while he was hear and then shipped it back to
Belgium when he transfered back to Belgium... The officials there made
him change the tail lights! Seems they weren't up to their
regulations... so that should give you a taste of what you would run
into... LOL

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtqbv7$2b3$1
>>>> @news.motzarella.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 4, 1:00 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John S. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On May 1, 10:13 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> habitoid wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dick R." > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>>>>>> test drive time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> why go with turbos? seems like supercharger would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheaper, more reliable
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A Roots or twin screw blower would have zero lag
>>>>>>>>>>> and generate very good low end torque. Plus they are stone
>>>>>>>>>>> cold reliable and much less expensive to repair, if needed.
>>>>>>>>>> Actually a properly sized turbo set up shouldn't really have
>>>>>>>>>> any lag... so with twins I would think there really wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> be any noticeable lag.
>>>>>>>>>> I've driven some turbo'd 4.0L V6 Stangs and they are simply
>>>>>>>>>> amazing... and with no noticeable lag..
>>>>>>>>> From what I have seen with turbos, to reduce lag to very low
>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>> there needs to be plenty of exhaust flow. The rub to this,
>>>>>>>>> IMO,
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> this means that you need a larger displacement engine and
>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>>> it can be designed to deliver performance without the need for
>>>>>>>>> forced induction. The other way to reduce turbo lag is to use
>>>>>>>>> sequential turbos but that just seems too complicated. Turbos
>>>>>>>>> do deliver the power though and they take very little power
>>>>>>>>> doing it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A twin screw blower, and to a lesser extent Roots blower, will
>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> any size engine feel like it has 2-3 times the torque/hp all
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> from idle to redline. The blower and intercooler can be
>>>>>>>>> incorporated into the intake setup and are very compact.
>>>>>>>>> There is no plumbing necessary for air flow, oiling, cooling
>>>>>>>>> for bearings etc. just what is needed for heat dissipation
>>>>>>>>> part of the intercooler. Also, a twin screw will typically
>>>>>>>>> outlast the engine so they are very reliable.
>>>>>>>> I wonder if perhaps it had to do with "packaging"... twin screw
>>>>>>>> basically has to go on top of the motor, while you can get much
>>>> more
>>>>>>>> creative with the placement of a turbo... Perhaps there simply
>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>> room on top? I haven't looked at the new Taurus... but I know
>>>>>>>> some one who will be getting a SHO later this year... i will
>>>>>>>> have to
>>>> check
>>>>>>>> it out!
>>>>>>> Going by the Mustang kits, I think they could fit them under a
>>>>>>> hood fairly easily. Twin turbos take a lot of plumbing and add
>>>>>>> a lot of complexity to manufacturing which in turn adds to cost.
>>>>>>> The up side of turbos is they take almost no horsepower to make
>>>>>>> boost where a supercharger does. I am glad that Ford is putting
>>>>>>> a good effort
>>>> into
>>>>>>> the Taurus because it is vital, IMO, that they have a top
>>>>>>> selling family sedan.
>>>>>> A shame it won't be RWD. And it looks like it'll be on the
>>>>>> expensive side as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ford should've brought this bad boy to the states and converted
>>>>>> it to left-hand drive rather than build a new Taurus:
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d4r4fg
>>>>> It seems they would do this too from a cost standpoint but then
>>>>> maybe
>>>> it
>>>>> is not possible to meet the regulations from so many countries
>>>>> with
>>>> one
>>>>> car. Toyota, Honda etc. does the same with their cars so it seems
>>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>>> an industry wide phenomenon.
>>>> The thing I don't get is why they think a Taurus platform would
>>>> sell better than an Americanized Falcon or G6 platform. Do they
>>>> really think the Taurus platform is superior?
>>> I think back to the last time an auto company tried the transplant
>>> route and it didn't work so well. That was with the GTO. While it
>>> looked great on paper it never lit a fire over here in the USA.
>>> Maybe the Falcon would meet the same fate. The trouble is ford
>>> can't afford to get the Taurus wrong again. I think there is a lot
>>> riding on this car for Ford. Maybe even the viability of the entire
>>> company. I can see why they may not want to put that much faith in
>>> an Aussie chassis.
>>
>> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now
>> seems to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines this
>> IMO. Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the new
>> Taurus and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda
>> already has on the road.
>>
>> Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution;
>> I'm only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more
>> appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.
>
> I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling
> isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high
> performance variant.

<yawn>


> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus
> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a
> potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't
> have the Obama boot up their ass and the good mojo of taking no
> taxpayer bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want
> to buy domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are in,
> of soon to be, in bankruptcy and they have ****ed away billions of
> taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands
> likely for the rest of my life.

Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k,
I'd probably jump at the chance.


>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate
>>>> back
>>>>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>>>> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the
>>>> SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new
>>>> towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the
>>>> Ford lineup that moves me.
>>> If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with
>>> the Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat
>>> upscale model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a
>>> V-8, RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny
>>> thing is the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL
>>> these traits.
>>
>> What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG
>> factor.
>
> I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where the
> car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including a
> manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car
> that could be expanded on in the future.

I'm not sure that the marketplace would support a car like that from
Ford. I think that the higher-end coupe segment is pretty full right
now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford to
produce a car with a good price point.


>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's
>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a
>>> great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and
>>> had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We
>>> had 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again,
>>> the Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a
>>> supercharged V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks,
>>> big brakes etc. Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with it
>>> one of its longest running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin
>>> to killing off the Mustang, IMO.
>>
>> I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after the
>> SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder
>> that Ford came through it all as well as they did.
>
> Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s.

Indeed.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>><snip>
>>> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now
>>> seems to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines this
>>> IMO. Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the new
>>> Taurus and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda
>>> already has on the road.
>>>
>>> Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution;
>>> I'm only saying that there are platforms out there that are much more
>>> appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.
>> I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling
>> isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high
>> performance variant.
>
> <yawn>

Therein lies the rub with the Taurus market segment. Make it too sporty
and you fail to capture your target market. I think the car is about
spot on for styling considering who will be likely to buy it.

>> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus
>> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a
>> potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't
>> have the Obama boot up their ass and the good mojo of taking no
>> taxpayer bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want
>> to buy domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are in,
>> of soon to be, in bankruptcy and they have ****ed away billions of
>> taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands
>> likely for the rest of my life.
>
> Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k,
> I'd probably jump at the chance.

With Obama calling the shots at GM now, what are the odds the Corvette
will survive or continue to get the funding and special treatment in has
enjoyed in the past? It doesn't meet the "green" agenda he has planned
for GM and Chrysler. Obama has cut the balls off the management of any
corporation he has gained control over. He has already said Chrysler
will be a green automaker. Say goodbye to the Viper, Challenger, 300C,
Charger and anything with an SR/T badge on it.

>>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the nameplate
>>>>> back
>>>>>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>>>>> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the
>>>>> SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new
>>>>> towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the
>>>>> Ford lineup that moves me.
>>>> If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with
>>>> the Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat
>>>> upscale model and give it everything you are wanting. That being a
>>>> V-8, RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny
>>>> thing is the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had ALL
>>>> these traits.
>>> What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG
>>> factor.
>> I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where the
>> car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including a
>> manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car
>> that could be expanded on in the future.
>
> I'm not sure that the marketplace would support a car like that from
> Ford. I think that the higher-end coupe segment is pretty full right
> now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford to
> produce a car with a good price point.

I think they could hit a home run with a Thunderbird that takes the
Mustang strategy of providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck. They can take
a page from Hyundai's play book with their Genesis cars.

>>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's
>>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was a
>>>> great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway and
>>>> had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We
>>>> had 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then again,
>>>> the Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a
>>>> supercharged V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks,
>>>> big brakes etc. Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with it
>>>> one of its longest running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin
>>>> to killing off the Mustang, IMO.
>>> I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after the
>>> SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a wonder
>>> that Ford came through it all as well as they did.
>> Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s.
>
> Indeed.

Not as bad a line of mistakes as GM and Chrysler though.

Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtted3$715$1
@news.motzarella.org:

> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>><snip>
>>>> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now
>>>> seems to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines
this
>>>> IMO. Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the
new
>>>> Taurus and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda
>>>> already has on the road.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution;
>>>> I'm only saying that there are platforms out there that are much
more
>>>> appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.
>>> I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling
>>> isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high
>>> performance variant.
>>
>> <yawn>
>
> Therein lies the rub with the Taurus market segment. Make it too
sporty
> and you fail to capture your target market. I think the car is about
> spot on for styling considering who will be likely to buy it.

Two questions:

a) How is the current Taurus doing?

b) What's different about the "new" Taurus (not the SHO, but the
"family" car)?


>>> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus
>>> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a
>>> potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't
>>> have the Obama boot up their ass and the good mojo of taking no
>>> taxpayer bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want
>>> to buy domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are
in,
>>> of soon to be, in bankruptcy and they have ****ed away billions of
>>> taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands
>>> likely for the rest of my life.
>>
>> Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k,
>> I'd probably jump at the chance.
>
> With Obama calling the shots at GM now, what are the odds the Corvette
> will survive or continue to get the funding and special treatment in
has
> enjoyed in the past? It doesn't meet the "green" agenda he has
planned
> for GM and Chrysler. Obama has cut the balls off the management of
any
> corporation he has gained control over. He has already said Chrysler
> will be a green automaker. Say goodbye to the Viper, Challenger,
300C,
> Charger and anything with an SR/T badge on it.

All of that remains to be seen. There is a small but certain market for
powerful vehicles which, if American makers ignore, will be captured by
foreign makers.

I don't believe Obama is "calling the shots", either. The government
may be involved in general, high-level business planning (i.e., ousting
Wagoner), but I don't think it's going to get down to the level of
dictating what models to cut and keep.


>>>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>>>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the
nameplate
>>>>>> back
>>>>>>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>>>>>> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the
>>>>>> SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new
>>>>>> towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the
>>>>>> Ford lineup that moves me.
>>>>> If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with
>>>>> the Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat
>>>>> upscale model and give it everything you are wanting. That being
a
>>>>> V-8, RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny
>>>>> thing is the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had
ALL
>>>>> these traits.
>>>> What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG
>>>> factor.
>>> I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where
the
>>> car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including
a
>>> manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car
>>> that could be expanded on in the future.
>>
>> I'm not sure that the marketplace would support a car like that from
>> Ford. I think that the higher-end coupe segment is pretty full right
>> now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford
to
>> produce a car with a good price point.
>
> I think they could hit a home run with a Thunderbird that takes the
> Mustang strategy of providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck. They can
take
> a page from Hyundai's play book with their Genesis cars.

I'd have to disagree here. I don't think Ford can out-Hyundai Hyundai.


>>>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's
>>>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was
a
>>>>> great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway
and
>>>>> had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We
>>>>> had 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then
again,
>>>>> the Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a
>>>>> supercharged V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks,
>>>>> big brakes etc. Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with
it
>>>>> one of its longest running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin
>>>>> to killing off the Mustang, IMO.
>>>> I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after
the
>>>> SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a
wonder
>>>> that Ford came through it all as well as they did.
>>> Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> Not as bad a line of mistakes as GM and Chrysler though.

Good point!

All in all, I agree with you in that I'd be hard-pressed to buy a GM or
Chrysler vehicle. However, I'll be most likely shopping later this year
and I'll leave no stone unturned.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:gtted3$715$1
> @news.motzarella.org:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> All understood and basically agreed with, but the cutting edge now
>>>>> seems to be RWD (ironic, isn't it). Hyundai Genesis underlines
> this
>>>>> IMO. Ford is basically playing it safe (maybe too safe) with the
> new
>>>>> Taurus and the forthcoming Fiesta. Ford's new cars are what Honda
>>>>> already has on the road.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I'm not suggesting that transplanting per se is the solution;
>>>>> I'm only saying that there are platforms out there that are much
> more
>>>>> appealing than the current crop of FWD lemmings.
>>>> I like the overall direction Ford is taking the Taurus. The styling
>>>> isn't as horrendous as the 500 and they seem to be offering a high
>>>> performance variant.
>>> <yawn>
>> Therein lies the rub with the Taurus market segment. Make it too
> sporty
>> and you fail to capture your target market. I think the car is about
>> spot on for styling considering who will be likely to buy it.
>
> Two questions:
>
> a) How is the current Taurus doing?

I don't know how it is doing. It is a rebadged 500 and was never
intended to fill the roll the Taurus was designed to fill, IMO. The 500
is just too milk toast (way more milk toast than the 2003 Taurus my wife
drives). Ford just wanted to get the Taurus name back in the showrooms
ASAP and the 500 was the only way to do it. The new car has been
designed as a true Taurus replacement so it will be interesting to see
how well it does. I think Ford has designed a decent car. Now the
question is, can they market it?

> b) What's different about the "new" Taurus (not the SHO, but the
> "family" car)?

Styling is MUCH better. Inside and out. That in itself is a good
start. The 500 based car made the Camry look like a Ferrari. Plus, if
the bones are there to allow for a good SHO then that speaks well for
the base Taurus, IMO.

>>>> I don't think Ford has to get the Taurus
>>>> absolutely perfect for it to sell well. IMO, Ford is actually in a
>>>> potentially great position being the only domestic left that doesn't
>>>> have the Obama boot up their ass and the good mojo of taking no
>>>> taxpayer bailout money. I think there are a lot of people that want
>>>> to buy domestics but won't buy GM or Chrysler because one they are
> in,
>>>> of soon to be, in bankruptcy and they have ****ed away billions of
>>>> taxpayers money. I know I will not be buyer either of those brands
>>>> likely for the rest of my life.
>>> Depends on the price. If GM offered me a new Corvette for, say, 22k,
>>> I'd probably jump at the chance.
>> With Obama calling the shots at GM now, what are the odds the Corvette
>> will survive or continue to get the funding and special treatment in
> has
>> enjoyed in the past? It doesn't meet the "green" agenda he has
> planned
>> for GM and Chrysler. Obama has cut the balls off the management of
> any
>> corporation he has gained control over. He has already said Chrysler
>> will be a green automaker. Say goodbye to the Viper, Challenger,
> 300C,
>> Charger and anything with an SR/T badge on it.
>
> All of that remains to be seen. There is a small but certain market for
> powerful vehicles which, if American makers ignore, will be captured by
> foreign makers.

Obama has said Chrysler will be a green automaker. With Fiat, UAW and
Obama calling the shots the days of torquey V-8s are gone for Chrysler,
IMO.

> I don't believe Obama is "calling the shots", either. The government
> may be involved in general, high-level business planning (i.e., ousting
> Wagoner), but I don't think it's going to get down to the level of
> dictating what models to cut and keep.

Obama forced the resignation of GM's CEO and told Citi's CEO he is out
too. He is definitely calling the shots for Chrysler, GM, Citibank,
Freddie, Fannie etc. We are in the midst of having whole industries and
business sectors nationalized right before our eyes and most Americans
could care less. They will once it is too late and jobs are scarce for
decades and their taxes are at the level of Sweden's.

>>>>>>>> At least Ford seems to be moving in the
>>>>>>>> right direction with the Taurus, IMO. just bringing the
> nameplate
>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>> shows that someone in Ford has some marketing sense.
>>>>>>> True. But I wish that they had some damn RWD vehicles except the
>>>>>>> SUVs and the Mustang. I'll probably be looking for something new
>>>>>>> towards the end of the year, and I don't see much at all in the
>>>>>>> Ford lineup that moves me.
>>>>>> If I were running Ford the next car I would bring out is one with
>>>>>> the Thunderbird nameplate. They could make this their somewhat
>>>>>> upscale model and give it everything you are wanting. That being
> a
>>>>>> V-8, RWD/AWD, coupe, IRS in back, sleek styling etc. The funny
>>>>>> thing is the Thunderbird, before they made it a two seater, had
> ALL
>>>>>> these traits.
>>>>> What about four doors and seating for four or five? That's a BIG
>>>>> factor.
>>>> I think having a four door variant would work but a coupe is where
> the
>>>> car should be, IMO. Give it a good choice of drive trains including
> a
>>>> manual transmission option. I think it would be a great niche car
>>>> that could be expanded on in the future.
>>> I'm not sure that the marketplace would support a car like that from
>>> Ford. I think that the higher-end coupe segment is pretty full right
>>> now, and I think that the competition might be a bit tough for Ford
> to
>>> produce a car with a good price point.
>> I think they could hit a home run with a Thunderbird that takes the
>> Mustang strategy of providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck. They can
> take
>> a page from Hyundai's play book with their Genesis cars.
>
> I'd have to disagree here. I don't think Ford can out-Hyundai Hyundai.

..... and they can start with a new value minded Thunderbird.

>>>>>> I consider the killing off of that car another one of Ford's
>>>>>> BIG marketing blunders. We had a '94 T-Bird with a V-8 and it was
> a
>>>>>> great car. It got 20+ mpg in the city, 28-30 mpg on the highway
> and
>>>>>> had decent performance even though it weighed in at 4,000 lbs! We
>>>>>> had 180k miles on it when the prodigal son totaled it. Then
> again,
>>>>>> the Thunder SC was a capable car for its day too. It had a
>>>>>> supercharged V-6, adjustable airbag suspension, adjustable shocks,
>>>>>> big brakes etc. Ford just let the Thunderbird die and along with
> it
>>>>>> one of its longest running, iconic models. Letting it go was akin
>>>>>> to killing off the Mustang, IMO.
>>>>> I don't think Ford handled the Thunderbird correctly at all after
> the
>>>>> SC. Marketing at that time was the absolute pits, and it's a
> wonder
>>>>> that Ford came through it all as well as they did.
>>>> Ford does have a long line of marketing blunders since the 1990s.
>>> Indeed.
>> Not as bad a line of mistakes as GM and Chrysler though.
>
> Good point!
>
> All in all, I agree with you in that I'd be hard-pressed to buy a GM or
> Chrysler vehicle. However, I'll be most likely shopping later this year
> and I'll leave no stone unturned.

The biggest reason I won't be buying a GM or Chrysler is I don't think
they have a prayer of surviving. Chrysler isn't really "Chrysler" but a
subsidiary of Fiat or, in reality, a subsidiary of another POS
automaker. GM is next on the butcher block. I have ZERO faith in the
UAW in collaboration with the federal government being able to run an
automaker and delivering cars anyone wants to drive.

Look for Ford to be put in Obama's cross hairs after he castrates
Chrysler and GM. He can't have a domestic automaker building cars that
the public wants and pushing GM and Chrysler further into the whole. If
he controls the Big Three then the tariffs will roll out on the foreign
automakers and we will be forced to drive the **** boxes mandated by a
socialist government. Don't be so naive to think this isn't coming if
Obama runs unchecked long enough.

"Dick R." > wrote in message
...
> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>
> Dick

If Obama and the Car Czar have their way, the performance car
will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to increase
performance in future cars you'll have to add another battery.

"Fred Brown" > wrote in news:4a32585e$0$213
:

>
> "Dick R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Looks like an interesting vehicle with a twin turbo V6
>> cranking out 360HP, but a 4DR sedan isn't on our wish
>> list. Still, I'd like to drive one!
>>
>> Dick
>
> If Obama and the Car Czar have their way, the performance car
> will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to increase
> performance in future cars you'll have to add another battery.

One day the performance car will be back with a vengeance - only it'll
be electric. Check out the torque curve on an electric motor. It's
completely flat.

Joe wrote:
<snip>
>
> One day the performance car will be back with a vengeance - only it'll
> be electric. Check out the torque curve on an electric motor. It's
> completely flat.

They're here already, but expensive. Check out the Tesla site at:
http://www.teslamotors.com/

"Dick R." > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> One day the performance car will be back with a vengeance - only it'll
>> be electric. Check out the torque curve on an electric motor. It's
>> completely flat.
>
> They're here already, but expensive. Check out the Tesla site at:
> http://www.teslamotors.com/

Yeah, been there before. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Once
battery technology gets better you can bet on more electrics becoming
available and at lower prices.