Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Crown Vic and Grand Marquis
152 messages, Last post on Jun 07, 2008 at 4:54 PM
You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Aug 06, 2007 7:16 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Aug 06, 2007 7:16 am) |
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Aug 06, 2007 8:35 am) |
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Aug 03, 2007 9:30 am) |
|
|
and what it would cost are two very different things...I would suppose that the actual cost to Ford is barely over $100 per car (what is the actual cost difference for a different valve or piston shapr???...almost nothing), but what they want to charge for it is something else... They could easily do it for $500 and I would certainly pay $500 for the better engine...but $5000???...no way, I will wave goodbye to Ford and buy a competitor product...now, no $500 for Ford or $5000, I am gone... But they could upgrade the CV with the better engine, put in real sport seats for another $100 (their economies of scale are immense, and the actual difference is cost is hardly anything, yet the comfort to the driver is a world of difference), upgrade the dash and radio for almost nothing (it has to have a dash and radio, anyway) so it is a little more modern, like something in say, the 1990s (...  ...), and just make it into a 21st century family sedan...with all the tooling almost paid for...
|
|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Aug 07, 2007 7:24 am) Don't want to get into a tit-for-tat about it, so suffice it to say, there are many of other considerations besides just dropping a different engine into a car. I agree, the 4 valves in the 4.6L as opposed to the 3 valves in the 5.4L are not really a big issue. Sometimes extra power, torque, and or weight requires stronger tranny seals, suspension tweaks, cooling upgrades, and more. Even at Ford's economies of scale, it is not possible to make the changes we're talking about for a 'C-Note'. Putting more padding in the seats, maybe. But putting in structurally superior, ergonomically improved seating (good idea) would cost a lot more than $100. Changing the dash (another good idea) requires re-engineering; everything has to be re-designed into the new dash and tolerances have to be tight (Ford is improving there). Sometimes changing one thing throws all else out of alignment. Bottom line, $250-$350 million or so invested into the CV/GM/TC trio for a significant facelift, interior upgrade and power boost would probably trigger a nice sales spike. It may cost Ford $400, $500 or even $600 a copy to do it right; and I wouldn't begrudge them charging $1000 more. After all, everyone is entitled to a reasonable profit, and a few hundred dollars extra profit x a bunch more cars may entice them to do it; and that would be a good thing. Besides, the difference between $50k and $51k aint much of nothin, if it means the difference in getting a car that's improved, as opposed to getting warmed over oatmeal. Oh, by the way, yes the tooling is paid for, and yes they've been cash cows for Ford. But with the recent cut in margins to narrow the sticker price-to-transaction price difference, and the continuing high cost of incentives (rebates/subvented financing), a lot of that profit is now gone. That's the real reason why Ford would consider killing their (used to be) Cash Cow. Make it look different, feel better, act stronger and I think many folks (like me) will come buy another one; after all why buy the same thing with a higher year designation, when the old thing is working just fine. I want my new car to look like a new car, I even want my neighbors to know that I have a new car (vain as that might sound), and most consumers (even commercial consumers) are like that, so there's a lot of sales that Ford's loosing. Hell, we might even get a few of those Cadillac, Buick and Chrysler customers to jump ship. One more thing, I really like the upcoming MK-S, I really do. I just believe that that car is going to draw a very different type of customer. Heck, I might even buy one of those myself after I take a good look at it. But the Town Car customer is really more of a Cadillac, Buick, and maybe even a S-Class Benz, Lexus LS-Series type of buyer. Big car luxury and/or definately RWD oriented. They definately are not BMW 5-Series, Audi A6, or Cadillac Catera buyers. The MK-S will appeal more to them. And that's a good thing, Ford needs to capture that type of buyer. But in addition to maybe buying an MK-S, I would DEFINATELY buy a new Town Car, if it were done right, and I know lots and lots of people who would. Besides, you aint gonna find Limo/Livery buyers driving an MK-S. Or cops driving a Ford Fusion or even a Taurus (500) as a Police Cruiser. No sense in Ford driving their customers over to the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger showrooms. That's like handing Chrysler a gift. WAKE-UP Ford! This market is your birthright. Fight to keep it, or piss a lot of folks off. Anyway, there you have it. |
|
|
In WWII, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed many of our battleships, the Navy brass became very anti-battleship. Tactics of the war and the determination of those in charge hastened the advent of the aircraft carrier as the "capital ship" of choice. Now, even though you can get chapter and verse from the Marines how it is wise to reactivate the Missouri, Iowa, New Jersey and Wisconsin for duty in shore bombardment and fleet defense, there is as much chance of that happening as there is of Ford keeping these platforms. What's the tie in? Well, just as much as one can make the case for continuing these cars in an era of renewed interest in RWD platforms, nobody at FMC is going to open their ears and listen, the logic be d**ned. Right or wrong, I would guess the Congressional mutterings about raising CAFE standards are being used as an extra nail in the coffin of the Panther cars. And, talking points I can also guess will highlight the interior space of the new Taurus/old 500 as being superior to the CV/GM and dealers will be told to tell people "whatcha griping about?"...in so many words. A few years ago when the Marauder was announced I was excited, thinking we'd get to keep these cars for a good many years. So much for that notion 
|
|
|
Replying to: bigunit67 (Sep 30, 2007 8:56 am) And again you're right, Ford probably won't continue the Panther trio. The difference though is that Ford, even after re-pricing these cars closer to actual transaction prices, is still making money on them. And Ford still pretty much owns the police cruiser and livery markets unto themselves, and shares ownership of the geriatric and near-geriatric crowd with Buick. Currently there is nothing out there that those markets would strongly prefer over the current stalwarts. Granted, the 60-80 year old generation is dieing away, but there are still enough of us old fogies left with enough disposable income to buy another round of these old behemoths. Ford is currently looking at an Australian rwd platform as a replacement for it's large rwd cars, and I agree that's a much better long term solution, after all, there's not much more messaging that can be done on the Panther platform. But there is currently nothing in the Ford stable that can fill the void that would be left if Ford kills those cars. Sure, given no other choice, the market place will find it's own replacements. But will they be Ford products? And after the defections, will Ford be able to win back those defectors? Maybe, maybe not. But even if they do, they'll have to fight for what was heretofore theirs, and that could be quite expensive. I subscribe to the theory that you keep what's yours, while trying to take a little of the enemy's turf. You don't hand the enemy your turf on a silver platter and then hope to win it back later. My suggestion to Ford is, invest enough in a significant facelift to buy yourself enough time (3-4 yrs.) to get that new Aussie platform developed into world-class replacements for these cars. Something that'll be competitive for the next 15-20 years. Ford doesn't have very deep pockets, so they've gotta make some smart moves, but they've also gotta take some chances. I think investing $250-$350 mil, maybe even $500 million in the CV/GM/TC trio could produce a change similar in magnitude as that of the '07 Expedition/Navigator, or the '08 Escape/Mariner. That would be enough of a change to drive most of their current market back into their showrooms for another dose. It'd be enough of a change to drive sales without the $10k rebate programs. Like I said before, people want their new car to look like a new car, and all of the name-changing (eg: MK-TC) aint gonna do it. Remember the Windstar/Freestar debacle? By giving us a substantially spiffed up new chariot, police departments, limo companies, semi-old fogies (like me), as well as the old fogies would all be happy to stay in the fold while Ford gets it's act together. Oh, by the way, gas mileage numbers aren't all that bad on these cars, given what they compete with; besides, they're not being hit with gas-guzzler surcharges as many cars are. And as far as the new Taurus/Sable being superior to CV/GM, you're right, but tell that to all the major law enforcement agencies that test the hell out of virtually every concievable police cruiser, and still virtually all of them keep tapping the Crown Vic as the cruiser of choice, despite a few glaring soft spots. And while you're at it, try telling BMW, M/Bnz, Lexus, etc., that front wheel drive is the better drive system choice for a large luxury car. Heck, even Cadillac has seen the error of their ways and is making the switch back to rwd. Consumer demand has always been the stronger driver of product developement, despite CAFE. The answer for CAFE standards is hybrids (better yet diesel/electric hybrids) in short-term, hydrogen fuel cell technology in the mid-term, and vastly improved mass-transit infrastructure and consumer transit appetites in the long-term.
|
|
|
Replying to: peetiedog (Sep 30, 2007 10:15 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: hwyhobo (Oct 01, 2007 10:11 am) It would be great if Ford would do exactly as you've said. New exciting styling, new platform, new powerplant/drive-train (possibly a clean-diesel/electric hybrid), better build quality & reliability, and a new marketing attitude. Then they would have a winning hand. Forget about chasing market share or pure numbers. Build 'Must Have' vehicles, the numbers will automaticly happen, but the best part is they will be PROFITABLE. Because of my past relationship with the Ford Motor Company product marketing, I spend a lot of time looking at and studying their new models. I believe they're on the right track. Quality is much better than just 10 yrs. ago, engineering is vastly improved, interiors are near European in quality (Ford has been taking a few pages out of Audi's book), and safety is top shelf. The tepidity and missteps of management, executive in-fighting and turf battles, along with stale products are what lies at the root of Ford's problems. Now that the insiders have been suppressed or pushed out, and under the new leadership of Alan Mullaly, Ford stands a good chance of putting the shine back on the blue oval. A lot of good product has been launched lately. Quality is high, warranty claims are way down (strong contributor to Ford's most recent quarter showing a profit), and subvention & incentive costs (on the new products) is very low (compared to products they replaced). So things are looking up. Still, Ford is hampered by a very small monetary war-chest. They have to be careful how and when they spend their meager resources. I do understand they can't re-do all their stale product all at once. I know new vehicles like the Flex, the MKS, a new F-Series P/U, a new Ranger, and the new TwinForce engine family and PowerShift dual clutch family of gearboxes all have to take precedence over many other worthy needs. So until Ford can get some of those new products on the ground and start to fill up their coffers, which can fund the new CV/GM/TC replacements, as well as other new product further down the pipeline. I'd be content with a major facelift and powertrain stroking. It's probably all we even stand a remote chance of getting. Besides, it's better than letting the CV/GM/TC just languish in the gutter; totally untouched and unloved. So when sales continue to drop, some bean counter will use that as justification for the axe. History will bear witness to that being another one of Ford's major missteps; and the point when FoMoCo handed GM and Chrysler the limo/livery, police, and large rwd market on a silver platter. Doesn't it make sense to plug that 3-5 year gap, between the current Panther platform and the future stretched-Aussie platform repacements, with something that might defend your dominant market position until worthy replacements are available? Especially since you can probably make a profit doing it. Maybe the problem with my rationale is that it makes sense. Ford's recent history has been to continually do things that don't make sense, like shooting themselves in the foot. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Crown Vic and Grand Marquis
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Ford Crown Victoria
2009 Mercury Grand Marquis
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
