2006 Mercury Milan
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,306
From: Jersey Shore
Re: 2006 Mercury Milan
No one bashed anyone for sharring platforms, its the ongoing rebadging that Ford does to Merc.
GM has improved NVH, interiors, and many other things, without resorting to sharring sheetmetal and just swapping a grill and a badge for there sedans. Why cant big bad Ford do the same?
Hey Ford, try spending the MILLONS of dollars on cars people will buy, and not on a supercar and mega concpets for a company that just a year ago was in the sh*tter.
GM is building there base first as well as making a few "fun" cars, then they will go for the "ubercars". Ford seems to be going the other way and build from the top, down. Its only a matter of time to find out which one works best.
GM has improved NVH, interiors, and many other things, without resorting to sharring sheetmetal and just swapping a grill and a badge for there sedans. Why cant big bad Ford do the same?
Hey Ford, try spending the MILLONS of dollars on cars people will buy, and not on a supercar and mega concpets for a company that just a year ago was in the sh*tter.
GM is building there base first as well as making a few "fun" cars, then they will go for the "ubercars". Ford seems to be going the other way and build from the top, down. Its only a matter of time to find out which one works best.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: 2006 Mercury Milan
Gotta chime in with my long winded post of the day.
First, there is no issue here about Ford sharing platforms. GM is the king of platform sharing, and always has been. If anything, Ford has a reputation of wasting money on single use platforms!
Look at the MN12. It was a Thunderbird & Cougar only car that could have served as the basis of a new line of fulll sized cars, and was concieved as a potential new platform for the 90s Mustang. The Mark VIII was also a unique platform. It was based on MN12, but it had it's own designation, chassis components, and was substantially modified. Then there's the current DEW chassis under the LS. Sure it's shared with Jaguar & was destined to be the basis of a wide range of Ford & Lincolns, but it's seems like a good bet it will be dead in a couple of years. The 2006 Mustang, if Phil Martens has his way, will also be a solo chassis, and the Falcon's chassis will continue to be quarantined in Australia & New Zealand.
The funny thing is that all these (including the MN12, engineered in the 80s) are STILL highly advanced RWD chassis, with handling characteristics that put most all modern IRS RWD cars (including European brands) to shame.
Second, the issue here isn't that Ford is sharing platforms with Mazda, Volvo, or anyone else. The Lincoln Zephyr is actually a very very attractive (if undersized) ride, and Ford will probally sell every next edition Aviator they can make. The issue is that Ford seems to have completely missed Chrysler's experience in the 1980s using FWD as a cure-all for everything.
In the 80s, Chrysler based everything off the FWD "K" chassis. While they made some impressive and stylish cars (for their time), no one took their luxury cars seriously anymore. What took the cake was that K-car based limosine Chrysler made (it wasn't aftermarket!). Real luxury buyers went for quick Lincolns or big Cadillacs.
I can see Lincoln having a FWD model or 2 to pick up the parinoids who'll be displaced from Chrysler & GM as they move their luxury rides to RWD. Ford keeping their bread and butter cars FWD while saving RWD for a few cars is no problem. But turning every frigging car save the Mustang & Thunderbird to FWD? I think that's going to be a serous mistake.
They'll make a wad of cash (low-to-no cost in development & flexible assembly plants = mega-profits), but their reputation won't be all that great.
Just thank goodness that Mustang's Gaurdian Angel just happens to be the company's CEO, and that his name is on the side of the building.
First, there is no issue here about Ford sharing platforms. GM is the king of platform sharing, and always has been. If anything, Ford has a reputation of wasting money on single use platforms!
Look at the MN12. It was a Thunderbird & Cougar only car that could have served as the basis of a new line of fulll sized cars, and was concieved as a potential new platform for the 90s Mustang. The Mark VIII was also a unique platform. It was based on MN12, but it had it's own designation, chassis components, and was substantially modified. Then there's the current DEW chassis under the LS. Sure it's shared with Jaguar & was destined to be the basis of a wide range of Ford & Lincolns, but it's seems like a good bet it will be dead in a couple of years. The 2006 Mustang, if Phil Martens has his way, will also be a solo chassis, and the Falcon's chassis will continue to be quarantined in Australia & New Zealand.
The funny thing is that all these (including the MN12, engineered in the 80s) are STILL highly advanced RWD chassis, with handling characteristics that put most all modern IRS RWD cars (including European brands) to shame.
Second, the issue here isn't that Ford is sharing platforms with Mazda, Volvo, or anyone else. The Lincoln Zephyr is actually a very very attractive (if undersized) ride, and Ford will probally sell every next edition Aviator they can make. The issue is that Ford seems to have completely missed Chrysler's experience in the 1980s using FWD as a cure-all for everything.
In the 80s, Chrysler based everything off the FWD "K" chassis. While they made some impressive and stylish cars (for their time), no one took their luxury cars seriously anymore. What took the cake was that K-car based limosine Chrysler made (it wasn't aftermarket!). Real luxury buyers went for quick Lincolns or big Cadillacs.
I can see Lincoln having a FWD model or 2 to pick up the parinoids who'll be displaced from Chrysler & GM as they move their luxury rides to RWD. Ford keeping their bread and butter cars FWD while saving RWD for a few cars is no problem. But turning every frigging car save the Mustang & Thunderbird to FWD? I think that's going to be a serous mistake.
They'll make a wad of cash (low-to-no cost in development & flexible assembly plants = mega-profits), but their reputation won't be all that great.
Just thank goodness that Mustang's Gaurdian Angel just happens to be the company's CEO, and that his name is on the side of the building.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: 2006 Mercury Milan
Originally Posted by formula79
GM has more brands, which dilutes each brand's invidual sales. Compare Taurus/Sable sales to GM W-body sales and tell me what you get.
GM does have nothing that competes with the Crown Vic....but on the reverse Ford has had nothing to compete with the N-body/Epsilon class of small/mid-sized sedans. The Fusion will fill this hole...but in a few years GM will fill it's large RWD sedan hole
GM does have nothing that competes with the Crown Vic....but on the reverse Ford has had nothing to compete with the N-body/Epsilon class of small/mid-sized sedans. The Fusion will fill this hole...but in a few years GM will fill it's large RWD sedan hole
Impala's sales are holding flat over last year (almost to the exact number as of July 31!), Grand Prix's up an astonding 35%. Last year, the Regal grossly outsold by the Corvette (over 2 to 1), so it's not even a serious player in "W" sales. As of July, GM's 2 "W's" are outselling Ford's 2 front drivers. Last year, The Taurus alone (194,000 YTD-July 2003) was well within 30,000 cars of outselling both Impala & Grand Prix combined.
It's intresting you point out what each company doesn't have to compete. It's almost as if they planned it that way:
*Ford pulls the Thunderbird & keeps the Mustang, GM pulls the Camaro & leaves the Monte Carlo.
*Ford creates the Thunderbird, but seems careful not to market it against the Corvette, despite having supercharged versions in engineering capable of doing just that.
*GM pulls the Caprice leaving Ford the Crown Vic, Ford pulls the Cougar leaving GM the Cavalier & Ion coupe.
Conspiracy theorists, start your engines.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Re: 2006 Mercury Milan
Originally Posted by guionM
Gotta chime in with my long winded post of the day.
First, there is no issue here about Ford sharing platforms. GM is the king of platform sharing, and always has been. If anything, Ford has a reputation of wasting money on single use platforms!
Look at the MN12. It was a Thunderbird & Cougar only car that could have served as the basis of a new line of fulll sized cars, and was concieved as a potential new platform for the 90s Mustang. The Mark VIII was also a unique platform. It was based on MN12, but it had it's own designation, chassis components, and was substantially modified. Then there's the current DEW chassis under the LS. Sure it's shared with Jaguar & was destined to be the basis of a wide range of Ford & Lincolns, but it's seems like a good bet it will be dead in a couple of years. The 2006 Mustang, if Phil Martens has his way, will also be a solo chassis, and the Falcon's chassis will continue to be quarantined in Australia & New Zealand.
The funny thing is that all these (including the MN12, engineered in the 80s) are STILL highly advanced RWD chassis, with handling characteristics that put most all modern IRS RWD cars (including European brands) to shame.
Second, the issue here isn't that Ford is sharing platforms with Mazda, Volvo, or anyone else. The Lincoln Zephyr is actually a very very attractive (if undersized) ride, and Ford will probally sell every next edition Aviator they can make. The issue is that Ford seems to have completely missed Chrysler's experience in the 1980s using FWD as a cure-all for everything.
In the 80s, Chrysler based everything off the FWD "K" chassis. While they made some impressive and stylish cars (for their time), no one took their luxury cars seriously anymore. What took the cake was that K-car based limosine Chrysler made (it wasn't aftermarket!). Real luxury buyers went for quick Lincolns or big Cadillacs.
I can see Lincoln having a FWD model or 2 to pick up the parinoids who'll be displaced from Chrysler & GM as they move their luxury rides to RWD. Ford keeping their bread and butter cars FWD while saving RWD for a few cars is no problem. But turning every frigging car save the Mustang & Thunderbird to FWD? I think that's going to be a serous mistake.
They'll make a wad of cash (low-to-no cost in development & flexible assembly plants = mega-profits), but their reputation won't be all that great.
Just thank goodness that Mustang's Gaurdian Angel just happens to be the company's CEO, and that his name is on the side of the building.
First, there is no issue here about Ford sharing platforms. GM is the king of platform sharing, and always has been. If anything, Ford has a reputation of wasting money on single use platforms!
Look at the MN12. It was a Thunderbird & Cougar only car that could have served as the basis of a new line of fulll sized cars, and was concieved as a potential new platform for the 90s Mustang. The Mark VIII was also a unique platform. It was based on MN12, but it had it's own designation, chassis components, and was substantially modified. Then there's the current DEW chassis under the LS. Sure it's shared with Jaguar & was destined to be the basis of a wide range of Ford & Lincolns, but it's seems like a good bet it will be dead in a couple of years. The 2006 Mustang, if Phil Martens has his way, will also be a solo chassis, and the Falcon's chassis will continue to be quarantined in Australia & New Zealand.
The funny thing is that all these (including the MN12, engineered in the 80s) are STILL highly advanced RWD chassis, with handling characteristics that put most all modern IRS RWD cars (including European brands) to shame.
Second, the issue here isn't that Ford is sharing platforms with Mazda, Volvo, or anyone else. The Lincoln Zephyr is actually a very very attractive (if undersized) ride, and Ford will probally sell every next edition Aviator they can make. The issue is that Ford seems to have completely missed Chrysler's experience in the 1980s using FWD as a cure-all for everything.
In the 80s, Chrysler based everything off the FWD "K" chassis. While they made some impressive and stylish cars (for their time), no one took their luxury cars seriously anymore. What took the cake was that K-car based limosine Chrysler made (it wasn't aftermarket!). Real luxury buyers went for quick Lincolns or big Cadillacs.
I can see Lincoln having a FWD model or 2 to pick up the parinoids who'll be displaced from Chrysler & GM as they move their luxury rides to RWD. Ford keeping their bread and butter cars FWD while saving RWD for a few cars is no problem. But turning every frigging car save the Mustang & Thunderbird to FWD? I think that's going to be a serous mistake.
They'll make a wad of cash (low-to-no cost in development & flexible assembly plants = mega-profits), but their reputation won't be all that great.
Just thank goodness that Mustang's Gaurdian Angel just happens to be the company's CEO, and that his name is on the side of the building.
Can't add a word different.As for the FWD exodus, I am hoping that things will change a bit as concepts are taken to focus groups and current owners. I too think it is OK to have a few units based on FWd or AWD platforms, but not the whole lineup. If ANYBODY at Ford has been watching the market for the last 5-10 years, they will SURELY see the trend is not towards basic FWD.
A parting salvo here - "just food for thought"...
JUST SUPPOSE that Ford is actually moving towards a new technology, and the FWD movement is just a stepping-stone to get there. You know... a "baby-step" that might lead to a new AWD/power transmission system. If you've got the RWD part down-pat, and want to end up at AWD, you need to develop the FWD part somewhere along the way.
And NO, I'm not talking basic, fundamental FWD or AWD either. Nothing like anything we've seen to date. I'm talking about a unique hybrid system that is capable of putting 100% of the drive-force needed to move the vehicle on ANY SINGLE WHEEL, and do so with les mechanical loss than any AWD or 4wd system made to date. Hmmm...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Jul 17, 2015 02:47 PM
guionM
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
20
Sep 19, 2011 09:14 AM
