Fixing Ford: Mercury to Get Euro-Designed Product(s)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 140 comments
  • 7,751 views
One thing I just thought of... When I saw the '08 "Fivehundred" last weekend at the Grand Rapids Auto Show, I thought it was a little strange that it didn't have any of the "Fivehundred" badges on it. I guess I really didn't think anything of it at the time, maybe just that they "forgot" to put them on...

Either way, of the three cars in question, just as the Freestyle was, the only one thats worth a damn to me is the Taurus X. The price premium is worth it, the performance is there, and IMO it looks a lot better than the standard Taurus. Call me crazy, but the Wagon is by far the cooler model here...
 
God Mulally is smart. What were these idiots thinking replacing the Taurus with a bunch of cars no one's heard of? What the hell is Montego? I will rant about this for days to come.
 
God Mulally is smart. What were these idiots thinking replacing the Taurus with a bunch of cars no one's heard of? What the hell is Montego? I will rant about this for days to come.
Though I disagreed that Five Hundred shouldn't become the new Taurus, I do agree that they should have kept the Taurus name. If it was up to me, Fusion would've been the Taurus.
 
Thank God it wasn't. Taurus should equal good, and the 3.5-liter engine will mean Ford's putting out their first good midsize sedan since 1995.
 
Thank God it wasn't. Taurus should equal good, and the 3.5-liter engine will mean Ford's putting out their first good midsize sedan since 1995.
Considering the car it would have replaced, Fusion would've been a huge upgrade. :D
 
Considering the car it would have replaced, Fusion would've been a huge upgrade. :D

Ouch.

Don't you think it's kind of ironic that the Taurus was such an incredible legacy that it needed three vehicles to replace it?
 
Thank God it wasn't. Taurus should equal good, and the 3.5-liter engine will mean Ford's putting out their first good midsize sedan since 1995.

Fusion anyone? I'd say thats a pretty damn good car.
 
You'd say wrong then.

I don't like you anymore. :ouch: The Fusion is such a better car than any Taurus ever was. Your lovefest for the Taurus is almost nauseating. :yuck: Decent car for point A to point B yes--but, nothing after that. It is 5x more boring to drive than any model Toyota Camry. The early 90's SHO was the only decent Taurus--and that didn't last long since the next gen Taurus was absolute rubbish. Horrible leg room, uncomfortable seats, rubbish driving position, mid-80's "soft wollowly" ride, and of course lack of ANY power. If I had to choose between a Taurus and a 1998 Hyundai saloon I'd choose the Hyundai hands down.

*edit*
Oh and I can add this positive to balance out my negative review of the old Taurus. The Taurus is super reliable, you can beat the hell out of it and it will run.
 
...And I'd take any W-Body since 1988 over ANY Taurus, as they were that bad in my opinion. The only "redeeming" model was the SHO, and by the time they had opted for the new car and changed from the V6 to the V8, it was all-over. Thats why whenever me and my friend go out, we never take her Taurus, we take the Jetta.

1) It is embarrassing being in one
2) It isn't as comfortable as my car
3) Even my Jetta, thats five years older, runs and rides better than that car
 
You'd say wrong then.
Here we go again...
YSSMAN
...And I'd take any W-Body since 1988 over ANY Taurus, as they were that bad in my opinion.
Especially odd, because of the 15 or so cars based on that platform, exactly 3 of them are/were good: Oldmosbile Cutlass Supreme, Oldsmobile Intrigue and Buick LaCrosse. And out of all of those, the only one that comes close to the Taurus when it was in it's prime is the Intrigue.
 
I was thinking of the old Grand Prix GTP Turbo Coupe, or the later Grand Prix GTP S/C, but hey, whatever floats your boat...
 
I liked the performance of the GTP supercharged Grand Prix. And the exterior look was pretty good too. But, nothing else is worth a damn. The interior is of rubbish quality--even for a GM car. My former co-worker had a 1999 and put 30k miles on it before it started rattling and squeaking. And he took care of it and those were 80% highway miles. I would still take a regular Grand Prix over a regular Taurus...even if only based on performance and or interior COMFORT.
 
I hear you harry, but I think that was a chip Ford should have hung onto. For one, I think Toronado is right about how it's an insult to the Taurus name. Wasn't Ford supposed to overhaul their entire lineup by 2012 or something like that?(I forget the exact year). IMO, they should have comeback then with a worthy(i.e. very special) 4-dr sedan at that time, then promote the big Taurus/Ford comeback.

You gotta admit, almost everybody's going to chuckle at this Five Hundred renaming thing. Taurus nameplate on another underachiever......

If the 500/Taurus remains the underacheiver it is now, then it's definitely an insult on the old name. But the short revival of the 500 name is even worse. Anyone who's even seen a Galaxie 500 would know who's receiving the greater insult. I hope Ford truly fixes the problems with the 500, and I hope this is just massive misinformation. There are fewer foolish ideas than the Caliber replacing the Neon, but the Taurus X is one of them.
 
The Freestyle will be renamed Taurus X or something similar. And it will have the new 3.5L Duratec V6 with 260bhp+. It will be quite fast, and since it is great looking inside and out it will be the winner. Afterall it has officially replaced the Freestar--that stupid stumbly minivan.
 
I've also heard that Ford is coming out with Taurus O(off-road). It's the Explorer. Don't forget the Taurus E(fullsize van) either, but the biggest news has been the Taurus GT, which is a Ford GT with new air dam & taillights.

j/k

Ouch.

Don't you think it's kind of ironic that the Taurus was such an incredible legacy that it needed three vehicles to replace it?
You win, Taurus fanboy. :lol:
 
I don't like you anymore. :ouch: The Fusion is such a better car than any Taurus ever was. Your lovefest for the Taurus is almost nauseating. :yuck: Decent car for point A to point B yes--but, nothing after that.

Let me set the stage for you.

It's 1984. Ford sucks. Even more than they do today which, I know, is hard to believe. They're offering no competitive products, they're in heavy debt, and they're honestly looking at the possibility of declaring bankruptcy. They decide to try one more time to change everything.

Ford engineers then purchase an example of every single midsize sedan on the US domestic market. They tear the cars to pieces, identifying every single fault, flaw, and strong point. They look to every single vehicle for pointers. They spend months of 18-hour days designing what they believe to be the most competitive product they can come up with. They throw on a futuristic body with no grille. They have no idea what's going to go on when it's released.

The car is released to the public in November of 1985 as a 1986 model. Everyone in the project reports being unable to sleep in the days before debut.

A year later, the vehicle was the best selling automobile in the United States.

It changed automotive design and engineering (bucket seats! Floor-mounted shift lever! Four-cylinder and six-cylinder!). It changed automotive styling. Look at any pre-Taurus midsize sedan: boxy, bulky, and dated. Then look at the Taurus. We all owe it something for being daring. It might not look it today, but it was out there at the time. Finally, it sent the Japanese back to the drawing board. Toyota had just released a new Camry in '86, and Honda had just released a new Accord that year too. That's the only reason Taurus didn't capture best-selling automobile for the entire year. What's comical is the Japanese did full redesigns in '90 (Honda - and again in '94) and '92 (Toyota) and yet it was Ford, who didn't fully redesign, who had the best-selling car in the US from 1992 to 1995. Boo yeah. It wasn't until Ford conceded the segment with the 1996 redesign, the worst in automotive history, that the Taurus finally gave up its dominance.

Say what you will about how it's boring, or how it's ugly, or how quality sucks. The Ford Taurus is the second most significant automobile in Ford's history, to the Model T, and ahead of the '64 Mustang and the '91 Explorer. It changed the world. Imagine Ford being able to do that now.

Toronado
Here we go again...

Yeah, I'm not going to have this argument again. Well covered territory. You all know how I feel, and we all have evidence to back our arguments.

YSSMAN
...And I'd take any W-Body since 1988 over ANY Taurus, as they were that bad in my opinion. The only "redeeming" model was the SHO, and by the time they had opted for the new car and changed from the V6 to the V8, it was all-over. Thats why whenever me and my friend go out, we never take her Taurus, we take the Jetta.

It wasn't a car guy's car, nor did it pretend to be - it was simply a car for the masses that moved the game forward like no one else could dream of doing. The Taurus moved the game forward for the masses like the Altima did for performance people when it was redesigned in '02.
 
I'd say the 1962 Fairlane is much more significant than the Taurus for where Ford is today. If it was more of a success, the Taurus would have never needed to exist.
 
Why would you say that?

In the early 60s both Ford and GM were introducing new fullsize cars. Back then the fullsize model basically defined the range; if the market liked it that meant the whole range of cars would enjoy good sales. While Ford's entry was competitive, the market never really took to it. Compare this to GM, whose A/G-body (introduced in 1961 and living, albeit in a heavily modified guise, until 1988) became a well respected platform for many of the muscle cars that cemented GM's market share (think GTO, Chevelle, and Buick GS). GM rode this wave of popularity right through the oil-crisis 80s and was not in need of a "winner" in order to keep afloat until the early 90s (what they came up with was not really a winner, but at this point we are talking about a time frame well after the Taurus was introduced). Ford on the other hand had to look to new designs (like the Fox body--remember the LTD?) trying to find a successful mainstream car throughout the late 70s and early 80s.

Like you said the Taurus was a car of necessity--Ford took risks because they needed to. If the 62 Fairlane had wowed consumers like GM managed to with the A body, then in 1985 Ford and GM would be in different positions, and the Taurus would probably not have existed. If this would have been better or worse for Ford I have no idea.

I guess the way I see it can be summarized by saying that the 1986 Taurus was the culmination of about 5 years of Ford searching for a winner. GM didn't need to look for a winner until they tried with the 1990 Lumina, when the allure of those RWD midsizers was finally wearing off.
 
So you're saying because the '62 Fairlane wasn't as incredible as it needed to be, it deserves more recognition than the '86 Taurus?
 
So you're saying because the '62 Fairlane wasn't as incredible as it needed to be, it deserves more recognition than the '86 Taurus?

I'm saying it's at least as significant as the Taurus, which you called the 2nd most significant vehicle in Ford's history.

And by virtue of being slightly worse than the '61 A-bodies, it changed the world just as much as the Taurus. Probably more than most people appreciate.
 
The last few posts have been very insightful and well though out. I hope I'll be able to rep you both.

Ok then, I think that the naming of the Taurus wagon 'Taurus X' is really kinda silly. If it was to be a Taurus, just call it that! I just hope these cars will get FoMoCo out of its deep funk.




I really want this car to succeed.



Really.


I don't think anyone wants to see Ford go the way of Olds, Plymouth, and AMC.
 
I'm saying it's at least as significant as the Taurus, which you called the 2nd most significant vehicle in Ford's history.

And by virtue of being slightly worse than the '61 A-bodies, it changed the world just as much as the Taurus. Probably more than most people appreciate.

I don't know. It may have changed Ford's world, but it was an inevitable change, and it definitely didn't change the rest of the auto market. The Taurus wasn't inevitable, yet it moved everything along.
 
I think you guys are both (technically) right, but I think your both not realizing that you are basically making the same point. When a given car company is backed into a corner, it becomes make-or-break time, and thus cars like the Fairlane and Taurus were needed. All throughout the post-Muscle Car era we have seen this happen with each of the Big Three automakers.

As of recently, Ford has done nothing but drop the ball completely when it comes to making new cars that matter in this country today. Outside of the Mustang, they have the Fusion, and that is pretty much it. Throwing Taurus and Sable badges at cars that were praised for their mediocrity aren't going to define them against a segment of automobiles that has not only grown in performance and prestige, but also is playing a completely different game these days.

...I mean, lets think critically for a moment. You've got $30K to spend on a brand-new American full-size sedan. Are you going to go with A) The Dodge Charger R/T, B) The Pontiac G8 GT, or C) The Ford Taurus 3.5?

Simply put, Ford doesn't stand much of a chance outside of the sales towards the elderly or the emotionally drained. There is little to make this car distinctive in a cut-throat market, be it in style, reliability, or performance. Sure, the name brings a lot of recognition to what amounts as a failing sedan with a different name, but that doesn't automatically make it some kind of a savior at Ford.

Ford has a long, long way to go to get things sorted out. Chrysler is doing their damnedest to keep afloat (and doing it rather poorly I may add), and while GM is certainly in defense/attack mode, they haven't fixed all their issues yet. The new Taurus, Taurus X, and Sable will only add to the recognition of the cars on the market, but I highly doubt a name will help cars that have generally been ignored for the last two years... And it isn't even worth disputing that, as even in Domestic-dominated Michigan, your average Fivehundred and Montego are about as rare as a Mini Cooper around here (ie, not seen very frequently).
 
One problem with your selection YSS. The Five Hundred/Taurus isn't even directed to the same market as the Charger or G8. If there were a PERFORMANCE oriented model of the Taurus...aka SHO THEN we can talk. Having said that, the base models of these saloons is another story. I'd take the 500/Taurus 3.5L over the base V6 models of the other two. Much better value.
 
Ummm, in terms of price the cars would indeed be competitors, there isn't any question there. But if we are to indeed talk only in the case of V6 engines, it would pretty much be left to the Taurus and the G8 in that circumstance, as well lets be rather blunt, the 3.5L mill in the Charger is probably the most-disappointing engine in the entire DCX range.

However, a fight between the G8 and the Taurus would indeed play out to be rather interesting. Although to be more fair to the Ford, it would be a bit easier to swap-in the Chevrolet Impala, however that model has yet to be unveiled. But, assuming the cars would be practically the same, we'd be looking at identical power figures for the G8 and the Taurus (260 BHP), identical transmission sizes (6-speed, both GM/Ford developed units), however the major difference will come in the form of weight, where there will be a 200-400 lb advantage given to the Ford.

...That said, I wouldn't expect much to be given up by the G8 overall. Given that it basically amounts to a Holden, I would expect higher-quality materials, as well as higher build quality all-around. That said, the Ford would likely be a bit more quiet, probably more "comfortable" (read, dreadfully highway-oriented), and would probably have a larger trunk (come to think of it, does anything have a bigger trunk than that thing? By God is it huge!)

I'm eagerly awaiting a comparison test this fall, as it should be very interesting indeed.
 
I'll throw in my "two cents" here.

I like the Taurus X. I'm of a very conservative stance when it comes to car design, vastly preferring refinements on a conventional style, over radical departures. The X is just that, a well-styled, but conventional, take on the traditional midsize SUV. The "signature grille" is still ugly, but it at least works better on an SUV than on a car. The interior is defenitely a huge improvement for Ford. It's attractive, the balance of colour is nice, and it doesn't look cheap. The only objection I've got, and it seems all the US manufacturers are suffering from this same problem, is the steering wheel. It's too chunky looking. Compare it to the sleeker curves of the Japanese offerrings, and the Domestic offerings come up short. However, it's only a minor caveat, and I think the X should be a good seller.

I'd love to see the Mondeo come over here, and, as a Mercury, it shouldn't even need a name change. "Mercury Mondeo" has a very nice ring to it, I think.
 
If the Mondeo comes to the US, I imagine it would remain a Ford-only car, but it is questionable how it would happen, if indeed they plan to do so. The big hurdle Ford would have with the car is the complete disconnect there is between the styling houses of Europe and America, and by that measure, the differences in the overall "look" of the car; American models more square-jawed, the Mach 3 grille versus the European "sexy lady/jellybean" look.

If I had it my way, there would be a gross assimilation between all of the Ford models in North America and Europe, and the two styles would give way to one look, preferably that of the European brand. It just looks better, there isn't any way around it. While the Mach 3 look turned out good on the Fusion and Edge, it hasn't translated well to the Focus, and is only "so-so" on the Taurus spin-offs.

We'll see how people react I suppose. If we were to use my Mom as a gauge for how to judge the new cars, she likes the Fusion, but thinks the Taurus and Taurus X are trying too hard too look like a truck... Something she doesn't like, and wouldn't care to own.
 
AUtoblog
Despite not being official, we've known for some time that Ford CEO Alan Mulally wants to increase the number of platforms shared by its U.S. and European divisions. It's something Ford fanboys have been demanding for some time, and yesterday Mulally officially confirmed that the next-gen Focus and Fusion would be global vehicles, sharing platforms with their counterparts across the pond. This will be in addition to the B-class car that's coming in the form of the new European Fiesta small car that will slot below the Focus in Ford's U.S. lineup.

The amount of overlap between Ford in the U.S. and Ford of Europe was one of the first things that surprised Mulally when he arrived at Ford exactly one year ago. He's quickly set about fixing the redundancy, but we won't likely see the fruits of his labor until 2010 or 2011 when the next Focus is expected to debut for both markets.

Ford execs have said that these cars will wear different styling and be tuned differently, but we've heard from inside the Blue Oval that a conflict between U.S. and Euro designers is growing, with the former group upset that its delicate balance of three-bar grilles will be upset by the Fiesta, and possibly other models, arriving with FoE's "Kinetic Design" theme.

In what may possibly be Ford's biggest "DUH" moment, I'm actually quite happy that reason won-out this time around. There isn't any reason why their products shouldn't be globally shared, even if it has slightly different sheet metal and different names. Personally I'd rather see them give us the next Fusion and call it the Mondeo (like it should be), and I would assume that the Focus would come un-altered. Sweet.
 
Back