Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-Rocky
If you follow such minutia (or read all 80 pages of our Detroit auto show coverage), you probably already know that the Ford Five Hundred is slated to get a Fusion-style, three-chrome-slat grille and a 260-hp, 3.5-liter V-6 for 2008.
It also shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone that the Five Hundred name has garnered precisely zero brand equity in its three years on the market. Blame it on the car’s inadequate power, its lack of competitive safety features, or its utterly forgettable styling.
You might also know that the Taurus, which was once America’s best-selling car, is now out of production after years of neglect and sales that dropped in direct proportion to the number of times Ford cost-cutters said “Put off those Taurus updates for another year.”
The obvious solution (even to people with a marketing degree, apparently) is to ditch the Five Hundred nameplate and revive the Taurus designation for Ford’s big sedan. Why didn’t we think of that? We’re not going to be too hard on ourselves, as Ford itself apparently got this bright idea after it had already introduced the vehicle as the 2008 Five Hundred at the Detroit auto show in January of 2007.
The only problem with this name shuffling is that long-time Taurus buyers may be confused by the re-badged Five Hundred, as it’s a much bigger and more expensive car. But what do we know, Ford has confirmed that it won't de-content the Taurus and chop its $24k price to be competitive with the smaller Toyota Camry and Honda Accord which start around $20,000 for four-cylinder models.
From C&D...Pretty Silly, don't you think?
Regards,
OW
This is the kind of bright idea that is causing Ford to slip further and further down my personal list with every passing month.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I remember driving Chevys that would refuse to stay in a straight line above 55 MPH...just no excuse for that.
As do I - and I agree - somewhere around the 70's, when I found out I had to slam a GM car door so hard it would practically tip over the car, I stopped liking them. Body by Fisher, I think they called it.
Ford has the Fusion to compete with the less expensive Accords and Camrys. Car & Driver should know this. It's a better-looking car than the Five Hundred/Taurus, and is earning decent reviews (and reliability ratings).
The automakers all had their "moments" in the 1960s and 1970s.
This past Sunday I went to the local college library and looked up some old issues of Popular Mechanics to check out the "Owners' Reports" articles, which were probably the best measurement of quality (at least during the first year of ownership) through the 1980s.
I checked what percentage of owners complained of sloppy workmanship, rattles and poor finish; how many owners reported experiencing mechanical problems; and how owners rated their vehicles (excellent, good, fair and poor).
During the early 1960s, Chevrolets were generally the best built and least troublesome, followed by the Fords and then the Plymouths. By the late 1960s, however, the cheaper GM cars had slipped behind the cheaper Fords, with some exceptions (1968 Torino versus 1968 Chevelle). Except for the Valiant and Dart, Mopars were pretty bad across the board.
AMCs were junk by the end of the 1960s. The high-line GM cars (Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac) were still pretty good.
Bottom line, though, is that quality improved for everyone in the early 1960s, and then slipped in the late 1960s. At least, based on what owners said about their new vehicles.
Some of the problems that owners reported on their new vehicles are pretty unbelievable by today's standards.
I think the level of quality has vastly changed since then but the perceptions persist against the big three because of the persistent lag time and market share loss which is a product of the bad decision making regarding Quality methodology.
The Asians embraced it. We let it slide though our fingers!
Regards
OW
Now it's time for re-engineering at the 5 Pointed Star! (or de-greeding, so to speak)
Regards,
OW
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, yes, YES they will sell.
Put another way, if the 300C, 2009 Camaro, FORD Mustang, Corvette, 2008-9 Challenger had bulletproof build quality, do you think they would sell?
No brainer! Off the charts, IMO. The problem is it takes time to develop the brand.
The reason this will NOT HAPPEN is US Auto keep killing the brands!
Regards,
OW
Ditto the Ford Mustang. Cheapness everywhere, a crappy shifter, I could go on. This is a little more acceptable in an $18K V-6 pony car (but I sure wouldn't put up with it in the $25K V-8 model), but isn't something to be proud of. The Mustang sells on its iconic reputation and inexpensive horsepower-per-dollar ratio.
My point is, give all those cars you mentioned bulletproof reliability, and you're still only 2 for 3 IMO. (In fact, neither the 300C nor the Mustang have proven to be unreliable models, have they? Not that I have read)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not to worry. As I said, that will never happen anyway.
Regards,
OW
At least not as much as they were.
That is why I'm always shopping around and also why I'm not brand loyal.
My humble opinion.
Regards,
OW
Toyota is just too far out ahead of the US automakers just now in all categories especially quality and reputation for reliability.
That's not to say that GM might catch up someday, but for now they're going to have to be satisfied playing second fiddle.
Also too, it's GM's fault in the long run; too big, too arrogant, for too long.
As for Ford and Chrysler? I think they're on the way out. It's just a matter of when now.
Regards,
OW
GM has been making progress, but its largest vehicles (full-size pickups and SUVs), the Corvette and Cadillacs are still its best offerings. That has been the GM story since the 1960s.
GM's smaller passenger cars are either mediocre or underwhelming (except for the Aura, and even it still hasn't bested the class leader). And I'm seeing too much emphasis on vehicles like 700-horsepower Corvettes, when what GM really needs is a Cobalt that makes money and bests the Civic and Mazda3.
Which tells me that GM hasn't undergone a fundamental culture change, which it really needs to do if it is to survive, especially if gas prices continue to rise.
Mullaly is taking on Ford's entrenched corporate culture, and attacking the root of its problems. And Ford has learned a great deal from Mazda and Volvo, and incorporated that knowledge into its vehicles. Imagine how awful Ford's lineup would be without the Mazda-based vehicles!
The key question is whether he will have enough time to do so, or whether changes in the market will simply overwhelm his efforts.
Umm....Ford has non-Mazda based vehicles? Oh wait, yeah, they do. Everything with a frame is pure-Ford. If it's not body-on-frame, it's Mazda-based
In all honesty, I do not perceive the off shore branded vehicles as really being superior to the domestic brands-- not in the larger picture. But our car culture has gone dangerously far off that shore, so to speak, and we need to drag it back and preserve the industrial base of this nation. Who's tending the store? And by the way, I for one hope that Daimler liberates Chrysler. If our good friends and neighbors, the Canadians buy Chrysler's option, it would be a great boon to North America. That is only slightly less good than if the USA grabs it back, wouldn't you agree?
IOW, I went with my heart in 2006 and purchased a superior product.
It would be great if some rich US engineers who love cars bought Chrysler and ran it regardless of what bean counters say is good for the company, and instead make great cars! How much money would they loose if the product blew away anything on the road? It should be a challenge rather than saving $2/unit for 200,000 pieces of crap! Tear after year of that led to the current fate. Let's try something completely different and see what happens.
Regards,
OW
Monday May 14, 7:05 am ET
By Matt Moore and Tom Krisher, AP Business Writers
DaimlerChrysler to Sell Controlling Stake of Chrysler Group to Cerberus Capital Management LP
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- DaimlerChrysler AG will sell 80.1 percent of its money-losing Chrysler Group to private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP for $7.4 billion, the company announced Monday, undoing a 1998 merger aimed at creating a global auto giant.
That's just incredible. I mean, I understand why they had to do it, but man.
Now, what do you think the equity firm will do to make the best cars in the world?
My money says they will slash and burn. Let's see the new management team that will head this new enterprise. They have a huge task to turn this baby around and create shareholder value.
Regards,
OW
I'm rooting for them here. :shades:
Oh, they'd stop alright - because the price-points would put them in the luxury category, out of reach of their intended victims, er, I mean customers.....
Ford saw this with the Jaguar S-Type/Lincoln LS fraternal twins - the quality of the stuff in the Lincoln was Jaguar, but they couldn't sell them at the price they needed to, because they were Lincolns, and not all that good looking either.
That is the issue with the US. Out side of the late '60's and some here and there nice looking models, the seeds were sown for the results we see today.
There is no soul in Detroit anymore!
Regards,
OW
Take this car company, please
"The sale of Chrysler will be a wrenching but much-needed step for the U.S. auto industry," says Jim Ostroff in Kiplinger.com. Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford need to slash the cost of their unionized work forces to "compete with foreign brands," and Cerberus will be a "catalyst for change." If the United Auto Workers refuse to "scrap" costly health-care and pension benefits, Cerberus "will simply walk away, leaving Chrysler's future in grave doubt."
The official line is that Cerberus is paying $7.4 billion for 80 percent of Chrysler, says Allan Sloan in The Washington Post (free registration required), but hardly any of the money is going to DaimlerChrysler. In fact, Daimler is pumping so much money back into the struggling U.S. automaker that it is essentially paying Cerberus to "cart Chrysler away" like "an old junker." Daimler paid $36 billion to buy Chrysler in 1998, but that turned out to be one of the all-time "deals from hell."
I would continue to say away from Chrysler for now...
Regards,
OW
I notice Dodge is now running this fairly pathetic TV ad promoting their fuel economy? Really? Fuel economy at Dodge? Apparently the 28 mpg rating of the Charger V-6 and the 32 mpg of the Caliber is worth celebrating. Not in my book...in fact it perfectly highlights one of the reasons Dodge and Chrysler are in a bad slump, no fuel-efficient models.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Chrysler is on a respirator AGAIN!! Ford is in intensive care, but change is happening. What will be the end result of Ford remains to be seen.
GM is "reputedly" back on track. However, I think that's a smoke screen. There is no way you can turn that Elephant back up on its feet overnight.
My next new vehicle will either be a T&C, Grand Caravan, or Odyssey. :shades:
I understand this is entirely subjective and opinion based butt I am making my rankings based on a whole bunch of factors to contribute to their overall performance which are, market share, current sales, amount of recalls, resale values, customer service/support, corporate philosophy/structure and quality/reliability of models
1) Ford
2) Toyota
3) GM
4) Chrysler
how would you guys/girls rank these big 4 automakers based on the current auto industry environment and market??
1) Ford
2) GM
3) Toyota
4) Chrysler
Ford, though I don't really care for most of their products, is having a resurgence.
GM is slowly coming back, but they've got that bailout stigma.
Toyota's reputation is being totally trashed, fairly or unfairly.
Chrysler is pretty much an automotive zombie.
Now, as far as my personal preferences go:
1) GM
2) Chrysler
3) Ford
4) Toyota
(pretty close to each other)
1. Toyota
2. Honda (but any repairs will be expensive ones)
3. Ford
(a small bit of a gap then)
4. GM
(a BIG gap)
5. Chrysler
Time to change the topic to ranking just the 3: Ford, GM, and Toyota. And I would definitely put Ford on top. I may own my first new Ford ever if the Fiesta turns out mostly as promised later this year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think the topic here is large automakers, which Subaru certainly isn't.
I would like to see Honda in the mix too, though, which I would certainly rate above Toyota. But I'm not sure I would rate it above Ford. Have to think about that one.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)