Ford Changover: Euro Models Come in 2010

[TheCracker]

okay...ford guys are officially gonna have a (bleep)fit. I can see a slightly shrunk F replacing the Ranger (which is for the axe), but Euopean market? nuh-uh.

we tried that once. it was called Merkur and Contour (RS200, Sierra, and Mondeo). they're TOO SMALL INSIDE for most people. and with Americans bigger than they were 10-20 years ago...

The latest Mondeo is bigger all round than your current Fusion. I don't think you'll have any problem fitting in it.

 

[Tornado]

You realize that a LOT of people would be MUCH happier if we started building motors for low-end torque, right?

America has made engines like that for 30 years, which is what started this whole mess in the first place. The 3800 was a torquier engine than anything any of the Japanese or Germans had to offer, yet few people clambered over each other to get one of them.

More displacement may be a dirty word, however, it WORKS. Bigger engine spinning less RPM = better fuel efficiency.

Um...what? One can easily get Honda Civic fuel economy out of cars like the S2000 if one doesn't rev them. The fact that bigger engine cars typically do not like to rev is why they seem more economic than engines designed to, and all the people need to do is drive the cars designed to rev more frugally. More displacement is currently taboo for a reason. Everything you said is like the opposite of what needs to happen.

 

[YSSMAN]

If they are expecting a game winning homer out of this Euro thing, they got another thing coming......

I agree with that, however, we're all well aware that their American cars can't hold a candle to the Euro models under most occasions. The thing is, its more or less a band aid until they get around to fully integrating the Euro and American lines (much like what GM is in the process of doing). Either way, they have capacity to build them, they could use the sales, so why not give it a try?

I wholeheartedly believe that if they can bring these models here, build them in our back yard, prove that they are better than the foreign competition, they will sell well... And hopefully change opinions about American vehicles in general.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Aslong long as they don't plan on sending too many of the US models over here I'm fine with it. Do we really need the Sebring!?

[EDIT] Sorry that was in comment on the whole American brands globalising.

Would America take the Ka though, out of interest.

 

[Joey D]

The Sebring is a Chrysler product, not a Ford.

 

[YSSMAN]

As far as I can recall, Ford Europe only imported two of our vehicles "officially," the F-150 and the Escape. I think the Mustang is still a "gray market" import, right? In all honesty, we don't have that much that would go over well there. I think the only new American Ford that would have any kind of chance would be the Flex, but given that you guys have the Galaxy, it would just overlap further.

 

[homeforsummer]

Would America take the Ka though, out of interest.

I very much doubt it, Americans may be downsizing but the Ka is very small. Even the impending replacement for the current model which is based on the Fiat 500 would be pushing it. That said, the Geo Metro seemed to sell, and the Ka is certainly a hell of a lot better than that heap.

As far as I can recall, Ford Europe only imported two of our vehicles "officially," the F-150 and the Escape. I think the Mustang is still a "gray market" import, right? In all honesty, we don't have that much that would go over well there. I think the only new American Ford that would have any kind of chance would be the Flex, but given that you guys have the Galaxy, it would just overlap further.

I think you're right on the official imports, plus of course the Explorer was sold over here for a few years. The Escape was named the Maverick over here and only sold briefly. Maverick was the name of a smaller 4x4 Ford previously sold under the Explorer, based on the Nissan Terrano. It was a shockingly bad road car but brilliant in the mud.

Actually I'm not sure the F-150 was officially sold, I think some Ford special vehicle dealerships sold the Lightning for a very brief period, and other importers brought in Lightnings and more standard F-150s (there used to be a light silvery blue one near me).

Also, the first Kia Sedona MPV which sold reasonably in the UK (and won a bunch of budget awards) was based on the late 90s Ford Windstar.

I could see the Ford Edge doing okay in the UK, though that'd probably overlap with the Kuga now.

 

[Joey D]

Would America take the Ka though, out of interest.

Sure, we buy the MINI, Yaris and Fit so I can't imagine the Ka would be any different.

 

[MustangSVT]

More displacement may be a dirty word, however, it WORKS. Bigger engine spinning less RPM = better fuel efficiency.

But another thing is camshaft timing, port and valve sizing, and the bore/stroke ratio.

Longer stroke, smaller ports/valves, and a low-end biased cam will sacrifice peak power, true, but low-end will be increased greatly. And that's where the average driver spends most of their time. Not to mention that taller gears can be run without lugging the motor, and thereby better (highway) fuel efficiency.

That makes no sense at all. I'd like to see you squeeze out 30mpg city and 36+mpg highway out of a 3.0L V6 because that's the numbers I manage with my Lancer GTS. People in europe are getting 45-60mpg highway from their cars. How?

- Diesel engines of 1.3L to 1.7L
- compact hatchback cars (think Citroen C4 or smaller, Volkswagen Polo to name a few) which don't weigh all that much

They're not getting great mileage by driving 2.5L+ engines.

 

[JCE]

You guys are missing one point. ECOBOOST FTW!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

America has made engines like that for 30 years, which is what started this whole mess in the first place. The 3800 was a torquier engine than anything any of the Japanese or Germans had to offer, yet few people clambered over each other to get one of them.


Um...what? One can easily get Honda Civic fuel economy out of cars like the S2000 if one doesn't rev them. The fact that bigger engine cars typically do not like to rev is why they seem more economic than engines designed to, and all the people need to do is drive the cars designed to rev more frugally. More displacement is currently taboo for a reason. Everything you said is like the opposite of what needs to happen.

The 3800 Buick V6 was a very good engine, but the wrapper was horribly boring. Show me something that got that engine that was remotely attractive. Good luck.

Indeed, it makes low-end torque. Enough that it CAN knock down 30mpg on the freeway with long gears (2.86 final + .69 I want to say overdrive) in a near-2-ton Buick.


The thing is... When you drive those cars that are made to rev "frugally' you ain't moving.

That makes no sense at all. I'd like to see you squeeze out 30mpg city and 36+mpg highway out of a 3.0L V6 because that's the numbers I manage with my Lancer GTS. People in europe are getting 45-60mpg highway from their cars. How?

- Diesel engines of 1.3L to 1.7L
- compact hatchback cars (think Citroen C4 or smaller, Volkswagen Polo to name a few) which don't weigh all that much

They're not getting great mileage by driving 2.5L+ engines.

Give me a car the weight of your Lancer. 3800 (or any other low-end specialty) V6 and a 2.5-2.75 final gear with a .67-.69 overdrive.

When it never needs to work, it's not going to take much fuel, is it? Christ, a Mustang Mach 1 can and will match a Prelude or Celica (at least when they're geared either like Brad's Celica or Boz Mon's Preludes) on the freeway in terms of fuel economy, and that's with a 4.6L V8 tuned to make torque a bit higher up and running 3.55 gears and a .62? overdrive.

 

[Tornado]

Bigger engines use more fuel. Period. Cheater gear ratios only go so far to negate that fact. The fact of the matter is that smaller engines will soon become more common (as they are in Europe) because bigger engines are less efficient. You are deluded if you think that larger, torquier engines are what is needed to help solve problems at the pump; funnily enough, your own Mustang example betrays you.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Bigger engines use more fuel. Period. Cheater gear ratios only go so far to negate that fact. The fact of the matter is that smaller engines will soon become more common (as they are in Europe) because bigger engines are less efficient. You are deluded if you think that larger, torquier engines are what is needed to help solve problems at the pump; funnily enough, your own Mustang example betrays you.

In what way does the Muskrat example betray me?


Bigger engines DO use more fuel for a given RPM... But when a smaller engine needs twice the RPM to accelerate adequately, the size difference is negated. Same for cruising speeds. A 3L V6 running at 1500 won't drink as much as a 2L four buzzing at 3k.

With that said, another issue against the smaller engines is that most manufacturers are building them to wind high enough to post a decent peak power figure; If we'd throw that out the window, and tune engines more for low-end torque, we could use a smaller engine to great benefit. Well, it WOULD be a performance hit, but fuel efficiency and the FEELING of having guts around town would be improved.

I'd like to see the results of a blind test: Take two cars, identical aside from gearing and the powerplant.

Both running 2.3-2.5L four cylinders.

One with taller gears and an engine tuned for low-end twist over peak power, and another with the average, 160hp mill that likes to wind out a bit.

Have someone drive each for a week. Don't tell them any technical specs of either, and do not have a tachometer in either. Both need to be automatics.

Find out which felt stronger.

10:1 it's the low-end biased vehicle that feels stronger for almost anyone's daily commute, and 10:1 that said vehicle gets better fuel efficiency if geared to take advantage of the added low-end.

I didn't say precisely that a larger engine is the only solution, but torque is. There is no engine on the market today that makes much torque below 2-3k outside of trucks and diesels. Or has displacement out its tail. In fact, just to find a V6 with decent torque, we have to look back to the early 90s.

Gimme torque. I don't quite care about peak power in a daily hooptie. Fuel efficiency on the other hand, yes.



Parting shot: Why in hell is the 2009 Mazda 6 getting BIGGER engines that are posting fuel economy GAINS? The four is going to 2.5L and the six to 3.7L. 💡

 

[Tornado]

In what way does the Muskrat example betray me?

Because not only is a smaller engine than the 4.6L with pretty identical gearing that gets more fuel mileage across the board; but the V6 Mustang is an engine tuned for torque with gearing to take advantage of it and it can hardly get out of its own way.

Same for cruising speeds. A 3L V6 running at 1500 won't drink as much as a 2L four buzzing at 3k.

So you gear the I4 to be cruising at a lower speed. 💡 Its not particularly hard to gear a car for acceleration and fuel mileage, you just need a designated cruising gear. Many small engined cars forgo such ideas because it is cheaper to go without and their fuel economy usually is better than a bigger engined car anyways.

Take two cars, identical aside from gearing and the powerplant.

Which already throws the entire experiment into a sink hole.

I really don't see your point. We have small engined cars that already get usually identical mileage to cars with cheater gears for cruising speeds, in addition to getting worlds better mileage in other places. What exactly necessitates what you are suggesting again?

 

[homeforsummer]

Parting shot: Why in hell is the 2009 Mazda 6 getting BIGGER engines that are posting fuel economy GAINS? The four is going to 2.5L and the six to 3.7L. 💡

Because technology is improving? Regardless of the engine size the efficiency for any given capacity is improving.

 

[Sniffs]

again, I'd like to remind non americans americans hate the deisel smell and noise!

the point has been made that the Focus II would be new to america! remember, we've had three refreshes of the mark one.

I'm thinking of the "personal space" size of the interior of european market models, not the size of the body itself. americans need more "personal space" between them. when your touching elbows trying to use a center armrest only 4 inches wide, that's invasion of personal space.

anyhoo...just have them wisen the insides a bit, if they do go this way.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Because technology is improving? Regardless of the engine size the efficiency for any given capacity is improving.

Right, but in that case, why increase displacement?

Oh, wait... That's right, we didn't increase the bore size of the MZR, we stroked it out to 2.5. Guess where the biggest benefits of a longer stroke come in?


Toronado: You realize that most cars running "cheater gears" are fairly heavy next to those with smaller engines and shorter gearing, right?

And the V6 Mustang isn't slow... It's quite quick considering the same 3.8 has been in everything since 198X with nothing but induction changes really.

Or if you mean the '05+ Mustang V6, it's nearly as quick as the 1987-1995 5.0 cars, as well as the 1996-1998 4.6 cars (Well, the GT).

15.0 off the showroom floor. It took a damn good driver in an 87-93 5.0 to do the 14.5 at 95 that's ingrained in everyone's head. 2.73 gears and an average driver means 16.0 at 90.

Also... If smaller engined vehicles generally get better fuel economy than those with larger engines, how in HELL is my mother seeing all of 2mpg difference between the 1992 Taurus she HAD and the 2005 Mazda 6i she HAS? Taurus got right around 20-22mpg versus 23-25 in the 6 in the same operating conditions. And the Taurus had an issue with mysteriously putting the parking brake on... Without touching the parking brake pedal.



EDIT: @ Sniffs: You realize that the MKI Focus is completely cramped and I hardly fit into one, right? The MKII can't be worse. Seriously. I'm only 5'11. Euro models aren't a bad idea at all. We need them. The Baby Eater MKI is selling quite well around here DESPITE looking like hell from the nose and being absolutely tiny inside. The Mazda 3 is much better, and guess what the MKII shares its chassis with?

 

[Joey D]

Bigger engines DO use more fuel for a given RPM... But when a smaller engine needs twice the RPM to accelerate adequately, the size difference is negated. Same for cruising speeds. A 3L V6 running at 1500 won't drink as much as a 2L four buzzing at 3k.

My Blazer had a 4.3L V6 in it and it revved higher at 75 (highway cruising speed) then the MINI does with a 1.6L in it. The Blazer would be at about 4000 rpms and the MINI is around 3000rpms. Ex

Also... If smaller engined vehicles generally get better fuel economy than those with larger engines, how in HELL is my mother seeing all of 2mpg difference between the 1992 Taurus she HAD and the 2005 Mazda 6i she HAS? Taurus got right around 20-22mpg versus 23-25 in the 6 in the same operating conditions. And the Taurus had an issue with mysteriously putting the parking brake on... Without touching the parking brake pedal.

Probably a lot of it had to do with the gearing of the Mazda 6 versus the Taurus. The Taurus probably had four gears where as the Mazda I assume has 5. Also 2mpg isn't a huge difference, it can be made up through how you drive and what sort of things are running in the car. Smaller engine will more often then not get better mileage.

I have a 1.6L as I've mentioned and really do get mid 30's in the city if I drive sensible. Show me a car with a 2.2 or 2.4L that does that, I drove a lot of cars during my test driving phase and talked to many owners and nothing I saw compared to the fuel mileage of the MINI save for the hybrid Civic and motorcycles. The only other vehicle I can think of in the states now is the SMART car...which is a golf cart.

 

[JCE]

Oftopic rant (seems I'm on a roll today):

I have a 1.6L as I've mentioned and really do get mid 30's in the city if I drive sensible. Show me a car with a 2.2 or 2.4L that does that, I drove a lot of cars during my test driving phase and talked to many owners and nothing I saw compared to the fuel mileage of the MINI save for the hybrid Civic and motorcycles. The only other vehicle I can think of in the states now is the SMART car...which is a golf cart.

Ok, I've had enough of reading that from you in every post where the words MINI Cooper are talked about. You most certainly do not get "mid 30's" in the city. Yes your MINI is very good on economy--and leading alot of other manufacturers (but not all), but you most certainly do not get that mileage. Every roadtest, review, and fuel economy number everywhere rates your car within 26mpg city and 34mpg highway. And that's for your non-S model and the automatic transmission. If the numbers for the highway number BARELY reach the "mid 30's" then how do you seriously expect us to believe your city driving--which I might add with an automatic can't have the RPM control than a manual could--yields your stated number. I could believe an amount of 29-31mpg city with a manual but nothing more. An automatic? You'd be lucky to get 27-28mpg city if you took it seriously and really concentrated on being more efficiant.

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml

The Smart car with alot less weight and less power--which is strickly GEARED towards fuel economy--barely makes mid 30's in the city. So how do you honestly think your MINI with an automatic can tie or beat it?

*edit*
Don't take it personally, because it wasn't meant to be a personal shot. I just find it hard to believe those numbers.

 

[a6m5]

I agree with that, however, we're all well aware that their American cars can't hold a candle to the Euro models under most occasions. The thing is, its more or less a band aid until they get around to fully integrating the Euro and American lines (much like what GM is in the process of doing). Either way, they have capacity to build them, they could use the sales, so why not give it a try?

I wholeheartedly believe that if they can bring these models here, build them in our back yard, prove that they are better than the foreign competition, they will sell well... And hopefully change opinions about American vehicles in general.

I do believe that this will be a good move. But what I was getting at was that this won't(imo) give Ford any advantages. I think this will put Ford on the even playing field with the "foreign competition". I could be wrong, but that's my view on it.

Would America take the Ka though, out of interest.

I was thinking about that, when I read the original post! And while Ka is too small for the American roads, I believe that it's Ka() like that, that will give Ford that small edge in the car sales business it desperately needs.

But with the Fiesta already in the (future)line-up, I'd be really surprised if Ford even considered bringing Ka to the States.

 

[Joey D]

Oftopic rant (seems I'm on a roll today):

Ok, I've had enough of reading that from you in every post where the words MINI Cooper are talked about. You most certainly do not get "mid 30's" in the city. Yes your MINI is very good on economy--and leading alot of other manufacturers (but not all), but you most certainly do not get that mileage. Every roadtest, review, and fuel economy number everywhere rates your car within 26mpg city and 34mpg highway. And that's for your non-S model and the automatic transmission. If the numbers for the highway number BARELY reach the "mid 30's" then how do you seriously expect us to believe your city driving--which I might add with an automatic can't have the RPM control than a manual could--yields your stated number. I could believe an amount of 29-31mpg city with a manual but nothing more. An automatic? You'd be lucky to get 27-28mpg city if you took it seriously and really concentrated on being more efficiant.

I drive the car every single day, I know exactly what the fuel mileage is. My idea of mid-30's is a bit different and wrong, I look at it as 32-38mpg (which is probably not how most people see it but whatever). So for argument sake I'll say it gets low 30's in the city. I even have to fill up the tank tomorrow so I'll take a photo of the receipt to prove to you what I put in and the trip meter to so how far I've gone.

Anyways I keep meticulous records of the fuel for my vehicle and to prove just how wrong you are here is the data sheet with the GTP in the task bar to prove it's on my computer. That is probably 95-99% city driving as I don't really go on the expressway all that much and when I do it's for 50 miles at the very most down and back to Detroit.



Look at when I'm getting in the high 20's though, January, February, and March...the three coldest months in Michigan.

 

[YSSMAN]

I do believe that this will be a good move. But what I was getting at was that this won't(imo) give Ford any advantages. I think this will put Ford on the even playing field with the "foreign competition". I could be wrong, but that's my view on it.

Ah, yes, then I completely agree. Its more of a step forward than anything, but with the Civic and Accord already selling quite well, they've obviously got a lot of ground to make up...

===

RE: Engine sizes...

GM should have their 1.4L turbocharged engine debuting in their small cars late this year or early next, and they're also planning on sticking the 2.0L turbo in more vehicles as well. Its all about fuel economy, and to that extent, they can deliver it more easily in the city while providing the same amount of power as much larger V6s.

...Its more about technology leaping forward than the just the gas crunch alone...

 

[Rotary Junkie]

My Blazer had a 4.3L V6 in it and it revved higher at 75 (highway cruising speed) then the MINI does with a 1.6L in it. The Blazer would be at about 4000 rpms and the MINI is around 3000rpms. Ex





Probably a lot of it had to do with the gearing of the Mazda 6 versus the Taurus. The Taurus probably had four gears where as the Mazda I assume has 5. Also 2mpg isn't a huge difference, it can be made up through how you drive and what sort of things are running in the car. Smaller engine will more often then not get better mileage.

I have a 1.6L as I've mentioned and really do get mid 30's in the city if I drive sensible. Show me a car with a 2.2 or 2.4L that does that, I drove a lot of cars during my test driving phase and talked to many owners and nothing I saw compared to the fuel mileage of the MINI save for the hybrid Civic and motorcycles. The only other vehicle I can think of in the states now is the SMART car...which is a golf cart.

Mazda is a four-speed, as was the Taurus. .7L of engine missing should help fuel economy, right? But it doesn't. Not much.


As to the MINI debate: Joey's idea of "city" driving may not be the same as other people's. Stopping every 1/2 mile and getting back up to 45 is normal, but out in the semi-boonies, it's much less frequent.

 

[Tornado]

Toronado: You realize that most cars running "cheater gears" are fairly heavy next to those with smaller engines and shorter gearing, right?

And, that is a problem because...
Furthermore, it has already been stated that there is nothing stopping companies from putting cruising gears in their cars.

Also... If smaller engined vehicles generally get better fuel economy than those with larger engines, how in HELL is my mother seeing all of 2mpg difference between the 1992 Taurus she HAD and the 2005 Mazda 6i she HAS? Taurus got right around 20-22mpg versus 23-25 in the 6 in the same operating conditions.

I don't get your point. Mazda looks higher to me.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

And, that is a problem because...
Furthermore, it has already been stated that there is nothing stopping companies from putting cruising gears in their cars.


I don't get your point. Mazda looks higher to me.

Yet companies DON'T put cruising gears in their cars because most already have a .62-.75 overdrive in place. .5 is about as much as I've EVER seen in use.

Considering most use a 4:1 final OR SHORTER...

As to the Mazda V Taurus: Yes, the Mazda gets better fuel economy; BARELY. And that's the point. Even when smaller engines do provide gains, they don't seem to provide much in similarly sized vehicles.

 

[niky]

again, I'd like to remind non americans americans hate the deisel smell and noise!

And I'd like to ask the American mainlanders to hold your judgement till you've driven a good CRDi powerplant. Horribly tuneless, but not noisy and not smelly.

----

The argument for big engines versus small engines ignores a few things:

@Rotary Junkie: Why do you think the Mazda has shorter gears? It's a Japanese car. Japanese cars are designed with Japanese conditions in mind, which means cruising at 40-50 mph, and a maximum allowable speed of 109 mph (180 km/h?). They're geared for that.

In Japanese conditions, small engined cars get terrific fuel mileage. On American highways, where you're cruising at 80 mph, not so. But that's only because they're geared wrong for that. Take a small-engined European car, with gears stretched to hit speeds of 130 mph, and the fuel consumption on the highway goes down.

However you like it, big engines drink more in traffic... period. Both a Mini and a Mustang get 0 mpg at 0 mph, but in gridlock, you're actually counting gallons per hour... and bigger engines will usually drink more gallons per hour than smaller engines, dependent on design.

While I have driven bigger engined cars that have matched some medium engined cars in fuel economy... none have been able to match a true economy-engined car... BTW, Mazda is a horrible example to use, since their fuel efficiency is pretty bad compared to the best small engine manufacturers. Mazdas have tighter gearing than most, less efficient transmissions and engines tuned more for grunt than economy. My Mazda hits top speed at redline. The nearest competitors it has from Toyota, Mitsubishi and Honda have intergalactic gearing by comparison.

You can't compare apples to oranges. You've got to compare apples to apples. And from driving different trim levels of different cars, I can tell you, the smallest engined one always gets better fuel economy, as long as you don't drive the nuts off of it looking for power.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

And I'd like to ask the American mainlanders to hold your judgement till you've driven a good CRDi powerplant. Horribly tuneless, but not noisy and not smelly.

I actually like the smell. Every time a diesel pick-up passes, I make sure to get a good whiff.

 

[homeforsummer]

And I'd like to ask the American mainlanders to hold your judgement till you've driven a good CRDi powerplant. Horribly tuneless, but not noisy and not smelly.

Agreed, many modern diesels aren't really any louder than petrols (even on start-up now, which for a few years was still the giveaway), and at motorway speeds they're quieter if anything because they're revving lower.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

The argument for big engines versus small engines ignores a few things:

@Rotary Junkie: Why do you think the Mazda has shorter gears? It's a Japanese car. Japanese cars are designed with Japanese conditions in mind, which means cruising at 40-50 mph, and a maximum allowable speed of 109 mph (180 km/h?). They're geared for that.

In Japanese conditions, small engined cars get terrific fuel mileage. On American highways, where you're cruising at 80 mph, not so. But that's only because they're geared wrong for that. Take a small-engined European car, with gears stretched to hit speeds of 130 mph, and the fuel consumption on the highway goes down.

However you like it, big engines drink more in traffic... period. Both a Mini and a Mustang get 0 mpg at 0 mph, but in gridlock, you're actually counting gallons per hour... and bigger engines will usually drink more gallons per hour than smaller engines, dependent on design.

While I have driven bigger engined cars that have matched some medium engined cars in fuel economy... none have been able to match a true economy-engined car... BTW, Mazda is a horrible example to use, since their fuel efficiency is pretty bad compared to the best small engine manufacturers. Mazdas have tighter gearing than most, less efficient transmissions and engines tuned more for grunt than economy. My Mazda hits top speed at redline. The nearest competitors it has from Toyota, Mitsubishi and Honda have intergalactic gearing by comparison.

You can't compare apples to oranges. You've got to compare apples to apples. And from driving different trim levels of different cars, I can tell you, the smallest engined one always gets better fuel economy, as long as you don't drive the nuts off of it looking for power.

Yeah, I guess I was a little unfair.

As to traffic consumption: I can't argue with that. In fact, I find nothing in your post I really CAN argue with. In fact... +AirRep for a well written post that covers all bases at hand.


Back on topic...


Ford does need the euro models... Though not necessarily with the same badging. Fiesta ain't going to fly in the US. Just no. There's too much of a "oh, that's a little pile of dog crap" idea about anything called a Ford Fiesta. Focus might be able to get away with it. The Mondeo could be badged up as a Mercury and sold that way... Giving Ford a reason to keep Mercury alive AND finding a slot for the Mondeo. Mercury Marquis (note lack of a "Grand") makes its return?

 

[Joey D]

As to the MINI debate: Joey's idea of "city" driving may not be the same as other people's. Stopping every 1/2 mile and getting back up to 45 is normal, but out in the semi-boonies, it's much less frequent.

Do you have any idea where I live? I know you are from somewhere in Michigan so if you really want to see how bad it is come out this way and have a look. But I sit in traffic and it's a lot of stop and go. And Lake Orion is hardly semi-boonies. It's at the northern end of the huge, massive sprawl which is Detroit and it's suburbs.