You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan

5511 messages,  Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM

You are in the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Mercury Milan, Ford Fusion, Sedan

Messages Page 2 of 551 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 551 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#11 of 5511 by ANT14 May 04, 2003 (7:55 pm)
Just like Ford states the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/ Town Car platform is totally new. In reality it's basic form dates back 30 years, it's just been re-engineered so much, that they claim it's new.   No one has set priciple standards to describe what all new is exactly. I say, that if a platform is changed lets say 60%, then the original structure, then it would classify as all new. Or something along those lines for example.   Yeah the Camry platform is all new (I would hope so), but it's linage dates back quite awhile. It's a very good platform actually, quite easy to tailor, and it's easily flexible which is why it's been able to grow thru time. But totally brand new, never have seen before, from scratch, totally disoriented from any other product, unique to itself, kind of new it's not.   Actually, last one to have a truely, totally newly engineered platform, new to anyone, was the Altima and now the Maxima is using a variation from it.   The Futura will feature a totally new platform (uh huh--New to Ford brand) it's linage started with the Mazda6, it'll just be lengthened and widen, but the original gene, is still the Mazda6 (JV Platform). Just like the 500/Montego will have an all new platform, BUT in reality, it's an extensivly modified Volvo P2 platform. Just how much has changed to classify it as "ALL NEW", depends on the marketing dept. being there's no real classifications to state that.
#12 of 5511 by regfootball May 04, 2003 (7:59 pm)
FREESTAR   Legend   FREESTYLE   Aurora   FORD FREEBASER   FORD FREERANGECHICKEN   FORD FREELOADER   FORD FREE BACON DOUBLE CHEESEBURGER (WITH THE PURCHASE OF EQUAL OR GREATER VALUE)   I mean, Ford come on....put some freaking thought into it and come up with a real name for a car. Jeez, Bill Ford, I will work for you if you gimme a FREE MONDEO (5 sp plz) to drive around in. I know I can come up with better names than FREESTAR.   Kia has way better names.
#13 of 5511 no. by alpha01 May 05, 2003 (4:11 am)
Your analogy of the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis to the Camry is laughable. Show me documentation indicating that the Camry platform is not all new. Its one thing for manufacturers to fib and tell you they have an all new design- but usually the trade press will see through it, like with the Mustang and how Car and Driver points out that its based on the 78 Fairmont/Futura. But when the Camry came out in Sept 01, C/D stated it was the first all new Camry in 10 years. If the lineage of the Camry is as old as you indicate, please tell me exactly how old it is.   Regardless. Ford is dying. The alligence of the loyal will take them only so far, before they start killing off brands (cough cough Mercury) and realizing big losses on the balance sheet.   ~alpha
#14 of 5511 by ANT14 May 05, 2003 (7:24 am)
Ok bad analogy, but I was hoping you would understand it, in an extreme way....   Thats why I stated, there's no real measure, as to how to indicate when a platform can be deemed "all new"... Just like there's a fine line between SUV,Crossovers,Trucks and how the EPA is having a hard time differentiating them, to be able to place them on new classes for fuel economy numbers.   So if a publication is stating it's all new, surely enough of the platform was changed, to deem it all new, but how much really??   Ford will not, and cannot kill Mercury. Without them, Lincoln would not be able to exsist. And many of their vehicles would not be viable, without the additional sales Mercury can account for. Between Lincoln and Mercury, there's 400K+, and they wouldnt pass that up. Volvo they bought in the black, and pretty much takes care of itself, while contributing to spread engineering costs by sharing safety and platform techonology. Jaguar they have invested 10 years worth, and is needed for more sophisticated engineering. Same with Aston Martin. Mazda is in charge of small engine development, and have been able to make it out of the red after 8-some years.   Just takes a year or 2 to see the current progress. IN then in that time, another year or 2, to see progress that will be started in 6 months. AND THATS gonna be FUN from what I see. Right now, is when Mercury and Lincoln is looking bad... And it will for another year. But after that, things will only improve. Just gotta wait and see is the most I can tell you.
#15 of 5511 Again, points well taken by alpha01 May 05, 2003 (8:23 am)
In my opinion though, it speaks really poorly of Ford, in terms of position, historically, currently, and prospectively that "Lincoln will not be able to exist" (without Mercury). You don't see GM bundling Buicks and Caddys at the same dealership.   Sure, in two years things may be better for Ford/Mercury/Lincoln, whatever. But will that be enough? Things will probably be better for alot of automakers: Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc.   I apologize for getting so far off the topic, but my point remains: Of any automaker in the US market, I feel that Ford is in the least favorable position going forward, and faces great risk in maintaining their current market share in the next 5 years.   ~alpha
#16 of 5511 by regfootball May 05, 2003 (10:01 am)
Actually, I have no issues with Mercury being on line as a purveyor of rebadged tarted up Fords, as long as the interior quality is superior and the exterior tweaks are substantive enough to give the image of a 'special edition' Ford or something kinda unique. With so many other brands out fighting out there, there's not much need for Mercury to be anything other than 'another Ford outlet' for the Lincoln dealer. Just like GMC trucks in a way.....something to fill out the lineup for the dealer. Then Mercury can function as a niche brand and maybe have some high performance models too, and Ford can remain garden variety with cheap plastic interiors and the Mercury can get the nice leather, wood, plastic, etc. As long as they don't try to make Mercury a volumen seller or a high prestige brand they will be ok. Just make it an alternative to someone who doesn't want a garden variety Ford.   As an example, maybe you can buy a Mercury Montego that has a killer interior and kick butt wheels with a really high grade chrome grille or something and maybe options like a manual tranny or AWD, brake upgrades, power sunshades, double sunroof, etc.
#17 of 5511 by ANT14 May 05, 2003 (12:48 pm)
Actually so far this year, in comparison to last year, Ford increase market share up to 1.7% (last month April, they lost .01%) While GM has lost about 2.X% so far this year. Those numbers flashed in my eyes 2 days ago, so I'm going to try and look for that paper again. GM is is more effected by market share, than Ford is. GM has much more volume, when they lose 10% for example, of production for that month, thats not a few hundred vehicles like some other maker, but thats easily a few tens of thousands. So the push of getting rid of cars at huge rebates is cheaper, than idling factories for a long duration. Considering the UAW still gets paid 96% even if they are idled (I wont go there)....   In relation to Mercury being a high volume niche, Ford has always been protective of what cars to give Mercury because it's afraid of just that. Even with the last Cougar...They killed the Probe which was selling well at approx. 80-100K units, so the Cougar wouldn't have competition. Their thinking back then was to give Mercury products to fill segments Ford brand didn't have. Obviously it's not the product you have, it's the customer class and demographics your catering too. The last Cougar did not bring much young buyers, into the L/M dealership. Lesson learned.   Back to basics....Mercury's most stable sales in the past decade or 2 has been chromed clones of Fords, different trims, packages, etc. So they are going back to basics in that sense. Mercury at that time also had steady sales. Meaning, when there was a slow month, sales didnt drop as much. Whereas now, when they drop... They bomb... but lets not forget Mercury just has 3 products now. So when it drops 25% for example, it's really a few hundred units. NOT as massive as it might sound.
#18 of 5511 Buicks & Cadillacs at same dealer..... by navigator3740 May 05, 2003 (4:38 pm)
Maybe GM should bundle up some of their product like Ford does with Lincoln & Mercury. The companies who are really on task with quality and stability make about 6 cars total, not 6 LINES of cars like GM does, and they seem to do it with more consistency. My 89 Civic with 170,000 miles on it is worn & torn, but still quite trouble free. I wouldn't count Ford out yet. I think Nasser just about tanked it, with a little more time, he might have succeeded, but it looks to me like it's been rescued in time, and I remember other times when blue has bled red, and come back.   I remember the first time I rented an 83 Thunderbird in Maui. I was so impressed, I came home and bought a new 84, and drove that one 5 years. That was the beginning of a great era for Ford that stayed profitable and strong until Petersen & whatshisname retired, and Nasser took over, firing everybody in the company who understood cars and hiring a bunch of people from soap and steel companies. Oh well, I digress....   Don't count Ford out yet.....I'm not.
#19 of 5511 Jac The Knife by ANT14 May 05, 2003 (5:35 pm)
Ah yes Jac The Knife.... He is majorly responsible for the issues we see today with Ford. The only credit I will give him, is buying Volvo (my opinion here). But thats pretty much about it.   Cadillac is currently under-going, what was originally Lincolns first idea (during Jac's era). Transform the whole brand. Cadillac has taken it beyond that, and trying to compete with MB, BMW, Jag, Audi, Etc. Personally in my opnion, the benefit of "American Luxury" is that it's priced reasonable.   Lincoln will not be following upmarket because it already has Jaguar in the area Cadillac wishes to compete. GM doesnt have any other brands. IN replacement, they will push Buick brand upwards, to fill the segment/price classes, that Cadillac is leaving in this transformation.   Now, just my opinion here. Personally a luxury make SHOULD have RWD, so those DTS and STS better transform soon enough. YET this will leave Buick, with the same issue Cadillac had... Or maybe even worse. Many customers shopping for luxury vehicles in the $30-50K range, are not fond of FWD, Pushrod OHV V6 engines, Superchared or not, which I see as a problem. They are rectifying this a new engine to be used (3.6L DOHC) in the Rendezvcous and CTS. But Buick needs massive product overhaul to fill the shoes GM has given it.
#20 of 5511 Buick & FWD by navigator3740 May 06, 2003 (10:15 am)
Couldn't agree more, Ant. I drove Cadillacs in the 80's, but they were slow enough that torque steer wasn't an issue. Once they brought out a decent engine, (the Northstar), the car was unmanageable under hard acceration. Nobody else builds FWD cars in the luxury segment except Volvo, who I was sorry to see go that way, but I figured it was a snow thing. Anyway, I have shyed away from FWD now since 97. I can't see Buick selling at the Cadillac level, but I guess we'll see. I'm glad Lincoln is staying reasonably priced.

Messages Page 2 of 551 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 551 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan