[JB02GT]

Not sure what vehicles they should be offered on, but would kind of like to see the return of T-tops.

[JB02GT]

As long as I am on the hybrid kick (as in the Ranchero being a car/truck hybrid, not hybrid as in fuel sources), if gas prices continue to rise, Ford should work on a car/motorcycle hybrid. It would be offered in one-seater and two-seater (one bucket seat behind the driver's seat) models. It would be relatively long and thin - kind of cigar-shaped up front and wider in the rear with an elongated 'dome' over the passenger compartment - with a single, small wheel in the front and two larger wheels in the back (the motor is located in the rear and it is RWD). There would be a small storage space (sort of like a 'trunk') just in front of the passenger compartment. The 'windows' would be very strong plexiglass. It would have a 'gullwing' style door that opens to one side of the vehicle. It would have a basically standard automobile operating control setup - steering wheel, pedals in the floor - and would only be available as a pushbutton automatic. Steering would be tight as the back tires would also be employed in steering - for example, in a right turn, the front wheel would be turned to the right, but also power would be reduced to the right rear tire, allowing it to almost be able to sit in place and turn a 360 degree circle. Work hard to have it classified as a motorcycle for safety regulation purposes. Give it plenty of power but aim for somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 miles per gallon. There would be a certain 'fun' factor to it, but it's main purpose would be as a daily work/school commuter.

[GT02]

Tripleblack wrote:

Also, check out what Ford is doing with their advertising. No mention, no pictures, NOTHING, of any RWD cars except the Mustang.

A friend of mine who works for a local police dept. tells me that their purchasing agents had to withdraw an order for Crown Victoria cars slated to be delivered next summer because Ford informed them that, unless they could take delivery in March, they would be unable to fill the order.

Dodge had no similar problems, and more Chargers are on the way.

"...and the hits just keep on comin' "

That brings up a good point. Since the other RWD cars are also slated for extinction (Lincoln LS and TBird -R.I.P. 2006) and since the Mustang uses "shared parts", from among others the Lincoln LS, where exactly does that leave the Mustang?? The drivetrain components and chassis platform of the Mustang are all from the RWD cars to be discontinued. How long does anyone think that Ford will continue the Mustang as a RWD, IF at all??? Well under 200,000 sold annually; no more economy of production by using components already in use by other lines. What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me, ever since Jack Nasser and Bill Ford struck up their "Unholy Alliance" toward the end of the '90's to push Alex Trotman out of control of Ford, this company has been in trouble, BIG TROUBLE! When Alex Trotman was in charge, all through the 90's, Ford was a solid number 2 in the world and closer to number 1 than number 3. If every auto company in the world was down in sales than it would be due to an economic downturn worldwide. Fact is GM and Ford are down yet Toyota and Honda ad nauseum are up in sales. That very clearly says that the management of each of these companies IS responsible for their respective position! Good leadership = increased sales Bad leadership = diminished sales! Its a very simple but true formula in business. Alex Trotman built up Ford though the 90's by building quality, affordable vehicles that people wanted. Question is: Why is Bill Ford now doing the opposite???

[kscoyote]

Originally Posted by GT02

Tripleblack wrote:

Also, check out what Ford is doing with their advertising. No mention, no pictures, NOTHING, of any RWD cars except the Mustang.

A friend of mine who works for a local police dept. tells me that their purchasing agents had to withdraw an order for Crown Victoria cars slated to be delivered next summer because Ford informed them that, unless they could take delivery in March, they would be unable to fill the order.

Dodge had no similar problems, and more Chargers are on the way.

"...and the hits just keep on comin' "

That brings up a good point. Since the other RWD cars are also slated for extinction (Lincoln LS and TBird -R.I.P. 2006) and since the Mustang uses "shared parts", from among others the Lincoln LS, where exactly does that leave the Mustang?? The drivetrain components and chassis platform of the Mustang are all from the RWD cars to be discontinued. How long does anyone think that Ford will continue the Mustang as a RWD, IF at all??? Well under 200,000 sold annually; no more economy of production by using components already in use by other lines. What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me, ever since Jack Nasser and Bill Ford struck up their "Unholy Alliance" toward the end of the '90's to push Alex Trotman out of control of Ford, this company has been in trouble, BIG TROUBLE! When Alex Trotman was in charge, all through the 90's, Ford was a solid number 2 in the world and closer to number 1 than number 3. If every auto company in the world was down in sales than it would be due to an economic downturn worldwide. Fact is GM and Ford are down yet Toyota and Honda ad nauseum are up in sales. That very clearly says that the management of each of these companies IS responsible for their respective position! Good leadership = increased sales Bad leadership = diminished sales! Its a very simple but true formula in business. Alex Trotman built up Ford though the 90's by building quality, affordable vehicles that people wanted. Question is: Why is Bill Ford now doing the opposite???

The irony of the whole discussion is that Toyota has no RWD vehicles, and Honda has one -the S2000 . . . .

But you never (amend that -rarely!) get ahead copying what the other guy does. You get ahead by doing what he isn't doing, then doing it better.

Toyota never got ahead by it's Baby Mustang Celicas. Honda didn't really get ahead until it picked up Dodge's FWD Performance mantle. The CRXs and GTIs really didn't start selling until the GLHSs, Daytonas, Spirits, etc left the market.

Those Daytona's were pretty darned quick in their time. Sold like crazy. Even the little Rampage . . . There still aren't many FWD vehicles that are as quick as the Shelby or Iroc Daytonas . . . . the SRTs are only starting to Eclipse (pun intended) the performance of the Dodge Spirit VNT.

************************************

But I digress. Dodge never got credit for starting the FWD Compact Performance Craze. Somebody should give it where it's due . . .

************************************

the new Big Lincoln, whatever it's named will have the SHO 4.4L V8 putting out 335 hp. It's a rebodied S80.

I don't know why they don't utilize excess Jaguar production, tooling, etc. There are all kinds of RWD vehicles there. In fact the back half of the mustang is related to the S-Type -So I wouldn't worry too much about Mustang's future, unless Jag goes belly up.

Even using the outgoing chassis, as Mercedes does with Chrysler . . .

[kscoyote]

MT writes that GM is having a hard time keeping the Camaro under 4000lbs, much less the 3500 listed on the Concept.

This should throw off their SIMs.

[tripleblack]

Bill and his clique appear to be europhiles. A quick glance at the european market shows us 60% diesel vehicles, lots of small fwd cars, and rwd restricted to exotics and high end luxury makes.

With Mercedes finally perfecting a way to make diesels meet US emission standards (which in this respect are the highest in the world), we can all look forward to a "diesel revolution" here as well.

To me, the day they drop the gas engines in favor of diesel, will be the day I stop buying new cars - though I would dearly love a true hydrogen car.

Originally Posted by GT02

Tripleblack wrote:

Also, check out what Ford is doing with their advertising. No mention, no pictures, NOTHING, of any RWD cars except the Mustang.

A friend of mine who works for a local police dept. tells me that their purchasing agents had to withdraw an order for Crown Victoria cars slated to be delivered next summer because Ford informed them that, unless they could take delivery in March, they would be unable to fill the order.

Dodge had no similar problems, and more Chargers are on the way.

"...and the hits just keep on comin' "

That brings up a good point. Since the other RWD cars are also slated for extinction (Lincoln LS and TBird -R.I.P. 2006) and since the Mustang uses "shared parts", from among others the Lincoln LS, where exactly does that leave the Mustang?? The drivetrain components and chassis platform of the Mustang are all from the RWD cars to be discontinued. How long does anyone think that Ford will continue the Mustang as a RWD, IF at all??? Well under 200,000 sold annually; no more economy of production by using components already in use by other lines. What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me, ever since Jack Nasser and Bill Ford struck up their "Unholy Alliance" toward the end of the '90's to push Alex Trotman out of control of Ford, this company has been in trouble, BIG TROUBLE! When Alex Trotman was in charge, all through the 90's, Ford was a solid number 2 in the world and closer to number 1 than number 3. If every auto company in the world was down in sales than it would be due to an economic downturn worldwide. Fact is GM and Ford are down yet Toyota and Honda ad nauseum are up in sales. That very clearly says that the management of each of these companies IS responsible for their respective position! Good leadership = increased sales Bad leadership = diminished sales! Its a very simple but true formula in business. Alex Trotman built up Ford though the 90's by building quality, affordable vehicles that people wanted. Question is: Why is Bill Ford now doing the opposite???

[tripleblack]

Low price + Uninque market niche + good performance = Success.

Simple formula. Ford has it sitting under their nose - wonder if they will notice.

Once established, make an offroad version with awd, taller suspension and ground clearance.

Again, NOTHING else like it on the market, with everybody and his cousin scrambling for market share. Small, car-based suv's are the "hot" item right now, with Mazda's one of the nicest I've seen (not driven it yet, though).

Eveybody seems to have realized that a blend of utility (suv seating, hauling capacity, etc) and comfort (car based design that is NOT a truck) is out-selling the traditional large, truck-based SUV's in many age groups. Carrying this same logic to creating a car-based truck seems obvious.

Originally Posted by JB02GT

I believe that were our Ranchero concept to get off the ground, Ford should use the relative novelty of the vehicle as a 'hook' to get people to dealerships to look at it, but then promote an 'image' of excitement, fun, uniqueness and 'coolness' to sell it. Follow some of the same paths, although not exactly the same, as VW used to promote the New Beetle when it was first introduced. People will know that having a truck-type bed gives it a certain amount of utility, but that's boring and won't resonate much with the target audience who will be more interested in the look and its ability to haul a$$ than to haul cargo. However, the utility and gas mileage aspects might be useful when going outside the main 'target' audience. I can see the two lower end models having some popularity among older men - retirees whose Rangers that are nearly worn out have served them well and who enjoy the utility, don't need to haul several passengers and who might be looking at getting into something a bit smaller/more economical than another Ranger. For such consumers, the Ranchero would be great for hauling fishing gear, topsoil, etc. On the fringes, Ford can probably tap into a 'nostalgia' market of folks who have owned previous Ranchero models, but should avoid pushing that aspect too much for risk of losing the central target audience who want 'new and bright', not old and reworked. Kind of like the utility aspects, folks who will buy the Ranchero because of its history will already be aware of that history, they won't need Ford to push it. That doesn't mean (as mentioned below) that Ford won't want to try and 'subtly' work Rancheros into popular media prior to the release of our new model.

I can also see the two lower end models being popular with families that have a family car but are looking for a second, smaller car. It would be a great commuter option and, again, add the utility of a truck bed for occasional light hauling for folks who may not really need an all-out pickup.

As far as promoting to what I feel should be the target audience, give one of the GT or SVT models to someone like Chip Foose and tell him to make it a young male's dream ride, just to show folks what can be done, then use it as a promotional tool. Promote the fact that it isn't a Jetta, Honda, etc. because I believe that market sector is just about ready to become bored with those vehicles and embrace something different. Don't lose the fact that it has roots in American automotive history but really push the fact that it is different than pretty much anything on the road. As I mentioned above, work hard to get some classic Rancheros into popular media, television, movies, music videos, etc. in the months prior to the debut. Make people wish they could have a Ranchero and then offer them the opportunity to do so. Also, don't forget the young Latino market sector - a sector that would likely embrace the concept if promoted correctly.

I think our little Ranchero could be a huge boon for Ford! Just look at the vehicles currently popular among our target consumer. Ten or twelve years ago, there were few cars on the road that I would have considered less the image of 'youthful' or 'cool' than a Honda Civic or a VW Jetta - much less a Dodge Neon. So what happened? They are inexpensive to buy, can be modified, have a good aftermarket, are readily available (or were before becoming so popular) and were featured in movies such as The Fast and The Furious. Ford could purposefully re-create similar circumstances for the Ranchero.

I mentioned stealing some promotional concepts from VW. One other thing I would take is their treatment of the interior. The GTI I had was not at all reliable, but the interior was outstanding. Especially since we only have a small interior space to deal with, Ford should be able to spend the extra $$ to make even the base model interiors relatively nice without significantly raising the price of the finished product. My GTI had cloth seats and plenty of plastic, but it was good quality plastic with very well thought-out surfaces and textures. It truly felt like being in an 'economy' BMW. I love my Mustang. Overall, it kicks the GTIs butt all down the road, but I have to say that the interior in my Mustang is inferior to that in the GTI. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the interior in the '03 GTI I had was possibly even slightly superior, overall, to the '05/'06 Mustangs. This is something that can really make a difference in whether the Ranchero is perceived as 'economical' or just 'cheap'.

There are other potential sales benefits for Ford, as well. Assuming that many aftermarket Ranchero parts, especially engine mods, would also work on some Fusions, there might be a bit of a sales increase there, too, from folks who aren't interested in the car/truck concept. This is really a good opportunity for Ford to get ahead of the automotive curve and build a vehicle that would be fairly inexpensive to develop (based as it would be on mostly existing parts) but could show real profitability.

[tripleblack]

The industry calls these "crossovers", not hyrids, reserving the hybird term for the electric/gas cars.

Originally Posted by JB02GT

As long as I am on the hybrid kick (as in the Ranchero being a car/truck hybrid, not hybrid as in fuel sources), if gas prices continue to rise, Ford should work on a car/motorcycle hybrid. It would be offered in one-seater and two-seater (one bucket seat behind the driver's seat) models. It would be relatively long and thin - kind of cigar-shaped up front and wider in the rear with an elongated 'dome' over the passenger compartment - with a single, small wheel in the front and two larger wheels in the back (the motor is located in the rear and it is RWD). There would be a small storage space (sort of like a 'trunk') just in front of the passenger compartment. The 'windows' would be very strong plexiglass. It would have a 'gullwing' style door that opens to one side of the vehicle. It would have a basically standard automobile operating control setup - steering wheel, pedals in the floor - and would only be available as a pushbutton automatic. Steering would be tight as the back tires would also be employed in steering - for example, in a right turn, the front wheel would be turned to the right, but also power would be reduced to the right rear tire, allowing it to almost be able to sit in place and turn a 360 degree circle. Work hard to have it classified as a motorcycle for safety regulation purposes. Give it plenty of power but aim for somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 miles per gallon. There would be a certain 'fun' factor to it, but it's main purpose would be as a daily work/school commuter.

[JB02GT]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

Once established, make an offroad version with awd, taller suspension and ground clearance.

I had mentioned that possibility before and still think it could be a strong option. Add a light towing package and offer a small, matching cargo trailer (aftermarket) to haul extra camping gear, etc. It would be rated only for 'light' offroad duty, but that is as much as most people would ever need. If Volkswagen can sell an 'offroad' version of the Golf (I think it was called the Golf Highlander, or something like that) then Ford should certainly find some appeal with a car/truck setup.

[JB02GT]

Don't you think it's about time they gave the Edsel another chance?

[JB02GT]

Seriously, though, with the success of the 'retro' Mustang design, along with some other 'retro' designs that have come out the last few years, I wonder if we will ever see a return to lots of chrome, bullet tail lights and, the coolest car design element of all time - fins?

[GT02]

tripleblack: I completely agree about a change to diesels, they don't have the slightest appeal to me. I also completely agree about possible future hydrogen powered vehicles as well! I live for the day that a commercially viable hydrogen vehicle is marketed! That will be the first day of an era that Middle East will NEVER again hold the Western World at their mercy!

[tripleblack]

Weight is money. Or the lack thereof...

Lightweight materials usually cost more than stamped steel, and a performance car that has a big pushrod motor, a heavy tranny, and a big differential, has a lot of strikes starting out. "Lightweight" is not a term we can expect to see when discussing the new Camaro.

Some things they can consider...

Use carbon fiber composites to make hoods, fenders, trunk lids, interior panels, dashes, etc. This material group was available but far too expensive last design cycle, but its price is about 1/3 of what it was 5 or 6 years ago, and it is in common use throughout the aftermarket. If a shop in New Jersey can produce nice CF hoods and sell them for about the same price a dealer sells an oe one, what's the problem?

Go with an aluminum block motor. This will save a lot of weight, though it always costs a bit more.

Use a mini-starter design such as is widely available in the aftermarket. Cost a little more (prob. about $20 each in the mass quantities of an oe manufacturer), but save 10 pounds or more.

Use an electric water pump. No weight savings, but more power from lower parasitic losses and better gas mileage.

Use a lightweight battery pack. Several designs are out there, including complete sets featuring regenerative braking that could potentially replace the alternator.

Use an aluminum drive shaft.

Go easy on the stereo. Modern cars have gigantic, 8 speaker stereos that weigh a lot. List this as an option, but consider the Dolby systems that use tiny speakers to make great sound without massive magnets.

Headers. Ditch the cast iron jobs and go straight to cermic coated headers. Use only 2 (not 4) high efficiency catalytic converters. Design all the cars to have side exhausts to lower weight (pipes snaking all the way to the back of the car weigh a good deal).

Carbon fiber doors. Some interesting research has been done into using carbon fiber structures inside doors to replace heavy anti-intrusion bars currently used.

Lightweight rotors and calipers. Cast aluminum instead of iron. Cross-drilled or slotted. Shed that weight.

Lighten the differential by removing all the generic mounting locations included in "standard" castings that have no funciton in the Camaro (this has been known to save 20#). Use "light weight", high strength gears instead of the standard grade items.

A arms, K member, tranny mounts, rear control arms, etc. can be made from aluminum.

There's at least 500 - 600 pounds on this list.

Originally Posted by kscoyote

MT writes that GM is having a hard time keeping the Camaro under 4000lbs, much less the 3500 listed on the Concept.

This should throw off their SIMs.

[JB02GT]

Okay, this idea came up in another thread (with inspiration from other members) and has been mentioned in at least one more, but I really thought it belonged here, too - not to mention I wanted to save this thread from obscurity, so here goes.

As the Shelby GT500 is not really indicative of the direction Ford seems to be taking, the company needs a new 'halo' car - something that matches more closely what seems to be their corporate philosophy and vision for the future. This could be done and still produce a pretty cool car. My idea is this:

How about a Focus with a supercharged V6, 6 speed, stiffened chassis, racing inspired buckets front and rear and full independent suspension? Put all that in a yellow hatchback, give it a sunroof, and that would be a Focus I would actually want. Of course, it would cost twice the price of a base Focus but still wouldn't be too expensive.

It could be offered in both sedan and hatchback and should be able to meet a price point comparable to other cars in the segment - such as Volkswagen's GTI. Drop the full independent suspension for IRS and make the front and rear bucket seats an option with the standard being basically the same seats as in a regular Focus (with a different, sportier pattern, maybe better quality cloth) and the Focus SC (they made a Thunderbird model called the Thunderbird SC, why not a Focus SC) could be even more economical. Of course, a few other things (such as brakes) would probably need an upgrade and it would need a unique 'appearance package' which should be kept subtle and not all-out Fast and Furious.

Such a vehicle would be Ford's opportunity to see lightning strike twice - it's basically the same idea and philosophy behind the original Mustang. Take an existing platform (or, in this case, an already existing, fully realized car that would just need a bit of 'tweaking' - they could even cannibalize the SVT Focus for some design and engineering elements), and build a quick, fun to drive car that still remains economical (the SVT Focus listed at around 18k and the Focus SC should be able to stay somewhere close to that mark, maybe closer to $20k )- the modern, fuel efficiency concious, 'environmentally responsible' iteration of a Pony car (a V8, or in this case, a hot V6, on a go-cart.) It's a small, FWD car with (at least) IRS - which is the direction Ford seems to be heading, so it would work much better as a 'halo' car than something based on the V8, RWD philosophy that Ford seems to be trying to phase out. I believe that the Focus SC could take the Focus beyond being a grocery-getter or cheap, young person's car into success across many demographics. It would be a fun daily driver and, if done in conjunction with a slight cosmetic redesign across the entire Focus lineup, might just be able to cause a buzz in the American car industry - much the way the Mustang did so many years ago. I wonder how many horses they could get out of a beefed up, supercharged V6? Could they achieve 275 from the factory? If not, that number should be easily attainable in the aftermarket. Surely 240 - 250 stock horses (same range as the 94-98 Mustang GTs, right? - but in a lighter car) wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation. Heck, I admit I wouldn't mind having such a thing - especially for a daily driver. The big thing would be, don't do this limited edition crap that is killing the GT500 as a viable dreamcar for the everyday guy or gal. The Mustang didn't succeed because of any feeling of 'exclusivity' and neither would a souped-up Focus. Produce a good number the first year to see how well they will sell. If they are successful, build the heck out of them in the second year, offer customer incentives, etc. and really put them on the road. If sales go well, introduce a convertible model. Let people see them at dealerships, watch them on the road and want one - and keep the price point at a level where most folks can afford to meet that desire.

[tripleblack]

Back to the Ethanol/Ford story.

Link: http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom...nation=&symb=f

Fields (new Ops Pres at Ford) is whining for the guvmint to get more E85 pumps open. The current number (700 total nationwide) is ridiculously low, of course.

Some problems with the concept...

1. Ethanol is (as usual) selling wholesale for about twice the price of gasoline. Even with healthy federal (and some state) subsidies, it is not price-competitive with gasoline.

2. Our Ethanol production capacity is only 4 billion gallons (not barrels) per year. This is about 1% of what we need to make a meaningful dent in crude oil imports. The good news is that capacity is growing at a rate of about 17% per year right now - which means that we will be making enough ethanol in the year 2080 to actually accomplish something...

3. Oil companies are the primary market for ethanol, with about half going into E85, E15, and similar fuels, and a big chunk of the remainder going into additives for gasolines to replace other additives shown to cause cancer in oil executives (just kidding about the "oil executives" part, of course).

4. More bad news: The more ethanol that we consume, the more money the subsidies cost the American tax payer - which is probably the reason for there being only 700 pumps (mostly concentrated in corn producing agricultural states) from which to purchase E85.

5. Final bad news: Ford has laid plans to curtail production of E85 cars even while they are yelling at government to up the subsidies and make the fuels more widely available. This disingenuous routine would be funny if it were not so sad.