CKit

Upon reading that the Ford 500 was getting rebadged this year as a TAURUS and the Mercury Montego is going to be a SABLE...



I thought: They really don't get it. Then I came across this article that pretty much sums up my feelings.

[QUOTE]
Taurus: What's in a name?
Posted 2/7/2007 9:50:27 AM by Angus MacKenzie

vader1

I had not heard of the rebadge. Its so dumb its mind boggling this is all they can come up with. Reeks of desperation.

How about making decent product?

Keep the F150, Mustang, Fusion. Bring in the Euro Focus. SCRAP EVERYTHING ELSE AND START OVER.

And fire everybody at the top.

Saki GT

The problem with the 500 was bland, outdated styling and a weak engine. Now Ford has put a decent engine and transmission in it and reworked the sheet metal a bit, but the 500 has a bad reputation now. The Taurus name has a bigger following than you think, despite how terrible the old car was.

Ford needs to do something, so if it entails renaming the 500 Taurus, good for it.

Taurus = WalMart = largest retailer in the US

It may be low end and cheap, but its popular and inexpensive.

Slamnasty

I couldn't believe this when I read it either. But then, I couldn't believe 2 years ago that Ford thought it was a good idea to release the 500, an AWD car that is larger and heavier than the Taurus ever was, with a 200hp V6. Add to that the utterly neglected Freestar, which is about as figurehead an automobile can become, save the zombie-like Ranger, which hasn't seen a substantial update in over a decade.

I seriously have no idea what's going on at the blue oval. They make GM look like the epitome of execution in the marketplace, to say nothing of Honda and Toyota. They've had so many failures of late it's hard to keep count: Lincoln Blackwood had a chance and looked great for a truck, but it didn't make any sense and was never marketed. The Ford Freestyle is as lame as the 500 on paper, only having 200hp and weighing in alongside an Explorer. The Ford 500/Mercury Montego speak for themselves and offer nothing new in their segment.

So basically Ford is surviving on F150s and Mustangs in America, and even that's temporally in question with GM *AND* Toyota both poised with brand new trucks to run wild on the segment. That's pretty bad. They also relegated Lincoln to a simple trim upgrade ages ago. Nothin in Lincoln's lineup would pull anyone away from any other luxury make, let alone nicer, more plebian cars like the Avalon. There's hope in that new Lincoln concept (I forgot the name), but it won't become reality for another couple years probably, and by then more profit will have been sacrificed.

They are truly astray as a car company.

QUIKAG

I have a bad feeling about Ford's survival chances.

dyhppy

ford is a prime example of natural selection. im surprised it hasn't died already.

kadeshpa

Yep yep.

Their reluctance to bring over the true Euro Focus spells out the inability of upper management to provide more quality product in NA.

I however do agree with the Taurus renaming (500 was just lame and why in the world would the kill off one of the MOST successful names in Ford's history?). However they should pair this with a boost in power and some minor cosmetic upgrades.

The 500, ahem, Taurus is not a bad car by any means. It is comfortable, reliable transportation. They just need to up the power by adding the new v6 in it that make ~250hp. A little tightening up of the exterior lines with some accent lines would do a lot in improving the new Taurus.

vader1

I may be wrong about this but when you look at the former 500 do you see a modernizing of the old Taurus or of the Crown Vic?

Thats why I thought the 500 would be a dud from the get go. Instead of a new modern family car, it was kind of a re-imagining of a car that was a dead seller and only bought by geezers and police departments.

To me, anyway, I just don't think it will sell whatever you call it. Call it a Rolls Royce and it is still a big boat, underpowered even at 250 hp, and sitting in showrooms without much walk up traffic in the first place. I only see sales continuing to decline.


The article mentions Mazda, of which Ford is part owner. Mazda is this tiny little player in the marketplace, but match up the 6, the 3, the RX8 (with all its flaws), the Miata, and the CX7 against any five cars from Ford and you scratch your head. Why does this little company with far less resources have a lineup that is 15 years more modern than the big daddy?

My wife has a 2007 Mazda 3 and it is a fantasic little car. Really high quality. (the Euro focus is based on it) And how the people at Ford can look at this little car and then look at their own offering in NA and not see something is horribly wrong is beyond me.

I don't dislike Ford (although I have never owned one) but I could pull 20 people from this board who would do a better job running the company then anyone they have had in the past 20 years. I had many of the same criticisms of GM but they seem to be making many corrections.

I think you would have a best seller on your hands if you could get a retired exec who was trying to change things write about how screwed up their corporate culture must be.

Triple-H

I saw an article in USA Today about this and just

The article basically said the 500 was being renaimed Taurus because of the strong brand awareness Taurus had. It then also went on to say the Taurus name was dropped originally because it was associated with so many negatives.

So if you add those two thoughts together what do you get?

Ford management = head up their bass

Saki GT

Yup, it updated the 500/Taurus to look like the Fusion, but its another case of too little, too late at Ford. It amazes me that a car company could be so out of touch, but Ford is way off the desired path for automakers.