http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-taurus-future.html
It's starting in a very good place. The Taurus.
Ford has decided to combine elements of its "Bold American" and European "Kinetic" design language for the 2010 model. While this isn't Ford's all-new design language (which will debut in several years), it is certainly a move in the right direction.
(http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/april2008/ford-taurus.jpg)
*Ahem*
I can do better then a sketch.
;)
(You never saw these...)
Nice Camry...
Those pictures were up briefly yesterday before Ford had them yanked. Apparently Edmunds didn't care and left them up. Now several sites have put them back up.
Those pictures surfaced just two weeks after I got a Fusion. My luck.
looks like someone snapped those pictures with a phone while walking by.
Uh, yeah, I'd say! Very nice! The world is on its head when I find myself wanting a full-size Pontiac and a mid-size Ford.
Eric, the Camry wishes. ;)
The original Taurus broke new ground. This one looks like every other 4-door midsize sedan on the road. Kinetic? Hardly...the current 500/Taurus looks more exciting than this. But, whatever gets your pee-pee hard... ;)
Yeah I was expecting something amazing and then I saw the drawing *yawn* zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I actually thought "hyundai sonata" immediately but camry sonata same difference! Oh well...
Pee-pee hard? Hardly........ wait......
Anyway, You really think the Obese looking Ford Passat looks better than this Seudo-Mondeo? It may not be the most amazing mid-sized sedan I've ever seen, but it is miles ahead of the embarrassing offering they have out now. Say what you will, but the
buying public has spoken. The 500 was an exercise in falling flat on your face, and the Taurus rename/refresh didn't do a thing to bring new buyers to the table. A great number of people have said they would buy the Mondeo on looks alone, so I'd call this a definite step in the right direction. Forcing a redesign of a car three times in as many years proves there was, and is, a problem with what's on the lot now.
Wow Ford can make nice looking cars if they're forced to.
So that will make 4 redesigns within 6-7 years. That means this "new" model STILL won't be what they wanted in the first place. Another 2-year creation from Ford. Which some people know all about here. ;)
See, there's a huge problem with bringing over European cars to North America:
they don't look North American. If people want a full European look they'll buy a true European car (BMW, Mercedes, etc.). Ford has tried this umpteen times with zero success. Why they continue to beat a dead horse is beyond me. Now the Aussie cars, they're different enough and have nice features. Even some South American Fords look decent enough for American roads. That's where Ford should be looking.
You even call it a "pseudo-Mondeo"...in other words, a takeoff of a European car. A Euro-Euro car. In America?! Are you kidding me? Yeah,
that's going to put the Taurus right at the top of the shopping list. :rolleyes: Ford is content to be just as good as everyone else on the road today. In that respect they will never come near, let alone top, the best selling cars again. Chevy thought outside the box with the Malibu and look what's happening with its sales.
Our cars sold great because they had shades of Euro flavor but true American looks. And if you think about it, nearly all of Ford's successful vehicles were like that (Taurus/Sable, Thunderbird/Cougar/Mark VII, even the Fusion/Milan/MKZ to some extent, if you don't look at the back end LOL). The styling didn't forget America, and more importantly,
AMERICANS. This...this car says nothing about America but everything about trying to be like the other cars that are already selling well in America. Last I checked, the desire for an American-feeling car is still there, at least with some of us.
What Ford should do is hire back the designers from the 1980's as consultants (if they're still alive LOL), to help guide the people they've got doing the design work today. I mean, it's really sad when I prefer the styling of a 1990-ish Tempo to nearly anything in their showrooms right now. Their sense of passion, of reaching for something bold yet remembering their home market, has been gone for a decade now. Ford's only mainstream desirable vehicle to me is sitting in my driveway...and it's an SUV. That is truly sad.
Heyyyy now.
I still prefer the new Malibu to the Taurus if I'm looking midsize.
We will see how aussie vehicles work for Pontiac (G8+El Camino [the yet unnamed rebadged Holden ute]) They tried and failed with the GTO. I love all of the aussie imports and most car people I've conversed with agree, but the mainstream "I see my car as an appliance" types hold too much say in the market.
Eric, did you read the article? It seems like you missed a few very important bits about the design process of this car. They did exactly what you said they should do. That formula for a successful Ford you named is precisely what they used.
Ford has decided to combine elements of its "Bold American" and European "Kinetic" design language for the 2010 model.
The basic three-bar grille remains, but it has been grafted onto a trapezoidal opening. A similarly shaped inverted air intake sits below the grille. The headlights have some detailing similar to other American Ford products, but their shape is decidedly European.I'd love to say that were true, but the 90's was a while ago. The majority of people have no fond memories of Domestics anymore, and that is mostly due to what we were sold in the 80's and 90's.
I'll say it again. This is why Enthusiasts aren't allowed to design cars. They prefer old cars, and hate the new. Guess what that means. They don't buy new. Ford doesn't care about these people, nor does any other carmaker. Bringing back 80's design elements would be an even worse move than letting Bill Ford Jr. manage your stocks. Ford would become an even bigger laughing stock than Chrysler. If people liked 80's design, body cladding would be on everything.
If I were Ford, I'd be trying to appeal to the market that will make them money, not the 2% of the population that would rather drive an 80's car.
(So you know I'm not in a huff [that looks like a heated post] here's a reminder of why we move forward, not backwards with design. Grab a beer and laugh with me.)
(http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/winkysrides/tbird0001-2.jpg)
Well...sheesh...how does one follow up on THAT... LOL
Fixed now. :)
I read the article but remain unconvinced that what's in the spy photo is what's being described. The text makes the car look promising. The car in the photo looks like it came out of the Toyota plant. I'm sensing a huge disconnect there. Meh, doesn't really matter, I won't be buying one.
And isn't that really the point here...?My point was that they should be helping to guide the latest round of designers as to combining classic elements in with new shapes. That's why our cars looked futuristic back then, and still look fresh today. They are timeless. So is the original Taurus/Sable. There was a certain uniformity to the blending back then, and nobody did it like Ford did. That's why I became a fan and owner in the first place.
But it seems that newer designers have forgotten some of that. I mean, how else can you explain the recent penchant for the retro-look cars? It can only mean that the older cars--no surprise--had classic styling that they now want to emulate. There's nothing wrong with that when it's done as a niche vehicle. When there's nothing else orignial in the pipeline, though--such as, oh, now, and about the last decade--that's when you have to start worrying about the competency of the current design staff. A little retro-guidance might go a long way. That's all I'm saying.
BTW, Chrysler's design staff has had it all over Ford for at least 12 model years. I've never laughed at their cars for styling...only their quality. ;)
For the most part I'll agree with you on that. We can thank GM's switch to FWD vehicles for that, although Chrysler had a pretty big hand in that as well.
A few years ago I was asked by the Cougar Club of America if I would be interested in making rules for full judged classes of 1983-88 Cougars at their national shows. You can imagine how giddy I was. They sent me over a copy of their then-current judging rules for me to emulate for our classes. I started to read them, pouring over the nuances of the judging...
...and then it hit me. I would probably never be able to get a complete, full set of judging rules for our 1983-88 Cougars. You want to know why?
In just six model years there were...
- Two different computer management systems (EEC-III, EEC-IV)
- Multiple engine intake setups (carb, CFI, EFI, MPI, etc.)
- Three different engines (I-4, V6, V8)
- At least 8 different engine bay configurations
- Four different transmissions (C3, C5, AOD, T-5...and if you count the A4LD in the Turbo Coupes, that's 5 transmissions)
- Two general interior types
- Roughly half a dozen different door panel styles
- About a dozen different wheel types
- About a dozen radio types
- Three levels of trim (base/GS, LS, XR7), each with their own features
- Do we even want to get into the yearly-changing paint?
- Shall we figure out the different interior colors like we did in the other thread (http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?t=18360)?
This is just
for starters. Before the end of the decade the MN12 debuted with virtually nothing carried over. And the cars started the decade with almost everything changed from our cars, even though it was technically the same chassis. You even have to treat the 1987-88 Turbo Coupe as its own separate car line, with all its different wiring and sensors and technical equipment.
We've had so many discussions on this board in the last few years about what is "correct" for a particular car, what might be, what can't be, etc. that we really can never say for sure what is right or wrong when it came to these cars. I cannot tell you another car line, except for maybe the Corvette, where so many things were changed in such a rapid succession.
And these were some of the better built cars of that decade!
My point here is that I have never, nor probably will I ever, see another decade where so many changes have happened to an auto industry and, subsequently, a single car line like the 1980's. Like it or not, we are still slaves to its legacy. Fortunately we can hold our heads high because of the styling and general overall quality of our cars. That isn't true for all 1980's vehicles, of course, but I like to think that those rules don't apply to us. :)
Eric, I've gotta disagree with the European Fords failing because they're too European statement. I think it's the opposite - Ford (and GM) have traditionally failed at building "Euro" cars because they make 'em LOOK European, but they dumb their driving dynamics down. That's why the Malibu (and to a lesser extent, Saturn Aura) are doing well - they look good and their driving experience doesn't disappoint. They retained the rock-solid feel of a European car instead of trading driving feel for fat-ass American "ride the couch down the freeway" mushiness.
Think about it - what could be worse than going to a dealership to test-drive a stylish Euro-knockoff only to find that it drives like, well, a 20 year old T-Bird? We (and by "we" I mean "everybody") want a car that drives as well as it looks. Sally soccer mom and Charlie couch potato may not care about all-out handling, but they do notice (and care) if a car feels solid. They equate solid with well built. Well built inspires confidence. A car that falls over on its side when the road bends does not feel solid or inspire confidence. And yes, I know the top-selling Camccords are not known for their handling prowess, but even the worst handling Accord feels better than the best handling Taurus.
I'd like to think we might see a day when Fords regains styling leadership it enjoyed in the 80's (just think of the innovative styling, from the T-Bird/Cougar to the Tempaz to the Taurus/Sable). Unfortunately Ford does not have the resources, manpower, or balls to lead the way like they did back then. Ford is now a follower, several billion dollars short and several years late.
I will agree, that of all the Domestics, Ford was doing everything right in the 80's. Sure, the sheet metal got a little thin and was pr0ne to rust, but every car in that era suffered from that. The original Taurus was very much made to look like a European car. I fail to see any traditional American styling on either of those two cars (Sable). Put an '86 Taurus beside an '85 Scorpio and you'll see what I mean. In fact, much of the Scorpio look was seen throughout the range. One of the most noticeable design elements of 80's fords, where they left other domestics behind, was in their flush mounted headlights. Ford at the time sited that as being Euro inspired.
Europe is always at the forefront of Automotive design, and it has been that way since the mid 70's. Since then, America has been sampling bits and pieces and melding them with their own design, usually with very good results. puppiesan 'emulates' both Euro and American design. Kia does the same, but indirectly by 'emulating' puppiesanese design. China, well, they just blatantly rip everyone off.
The Sable was even more Scorpio-esqe.
IMO they should have just brought the Scorpio over as the Taurus/Sable. Everyone was wanting FWD at that time though, which is sad. The Sierra/Granada platform was very capable and downright ubiquitous overseas and could have served well here also.
Imagine a RWD SHO however... Wait, that would never have happened here as it would have kicked the Mustang square in the nuts.
You cant have competion with the mustang! That is the problem to often... 83-88 non mustang Fox chassis cars ring a bell... yeah the real reason we got :nannerbang: on power.