What's missing from the new Fords

Page 1 of 3  
http://www.roadode.com/travel_1.shtml
Watch the ad 3rd one down on the left.
Note: "The Falcon can sit 6 adults and get 30Mpg"
I've been in Falcons and that wasn't a lie about seating
the 6 adults. The MPG figures are fudged, a bit though, but they are better than any vehicle today that can sit 6 adults comfortably.
More to the point, though - this ad captures and summarizes what is missing from modern Fords. In a word - they are bland.
Ford doesen't have the market share in the US that they did in 1960 and this is why. Fords then - you were looking at something distinctive. You were looking at a car that you would want to be seen getting out of. These were cars with personality.
In the nearly 50 years since then we have lost something. Today, every car looks the same. They are all styled in wind tunnels. And for what? Better mileage? Better than what? Certainly not any better than what you got in 1960.
Sure, cars today are safer and pollute about a tenth of what the 1960 Falcon did. But, why can't the safety advancements and engine improvements we have today be married to the kind of distinctive styles we had 50 years ago?
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In a word "regulations."
Note: Ford, like GM sells, more vehicles in todays expended market than they did in the sixties
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

What is an "expended" market?
Gee, they are selling more vehicles, but can barely make a profit and have a ton of liabilities.
What does that say?
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i have problem with our local ford/mercury dealer. i went there in my old grande marquis. wanted one a year or two old,green. they pushed me on everything but . i was going to pay cash,they pushed me into ford credit. the old guy there i used to deal with died. i know its just these younger guys not listening.still drivin my old g/m.. lucas
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote:

say the hell with him and go buy one somewhere else.
Deal over the phone. These jockeys are effed in the head
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Back in '05 I posted here about the screw job my local dealer tried to give me when I wanted to order a new Mustang GT. I ended-up going to Mullinax Ford (the cornerstone dealership of AutoNation) in Amherst, Ohio. I had purchased 3 cars there previously, but have moved 50 miles away. But it was worth the trip - I got it for $5500 less than what the local dealer wanted.
Then a few months ago I started to think about replacing my daily driver.........I wanted a used but low mileage Ford Five Hundred. I checked autotrader.com because you can program the Search for the exact vehicle you're looking for. Low and behold, Mullinax came-up with several and I waited for the right one: an '06 with 15,000 miles (Limited,AWD). I delt with the internet sales mgr who had worked with me on the Mustang.....and got what I think was a great deal.
But the big surprise was the super-service I got on a used car: not only was the car fully detailed,but you would have thought I was buying an '08 Lincoln.......after the test drive and purchase, they again changed the oil, washed it, put in the factory floormats, and did a new car style delivery inside the showroom.
SO, it's not like the old days (I remember my Dad dealing with the same salesman, year after year, car after car, who kept records and could even anticipate when we were ready for a new car and would call us when he had one he thought was right for us).......but there are still some dealers who are interested in repeat customers, I'll sure go back to Mullinax for the next one - even if it is 50 miles away. And I highly recommend shopping on autotrader.
btw: the Five Hundred is GREAT.......all that bs about them being underpowered is just that......it's solid, a pleasure to drive, and get's great mileage.......thanks to all who posted here when I asked for advice in the Spring - you all spoke highly of them and you were right!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
my uncle a decorated ww2 sailor called the same ford dealer 5 miles down the road to pick him up so he could look at a new truck to buy.they wouldnt do it. he then called toyota dealer across the river in another state 30 miles. they came and picked him up and sold him a toyota truck. the ford dealer is tri county ford in buckner ky ,i71 exit 14 . lucas
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote:

ford is a farce..
too bad their new f150s aren't proving as reliable as the 99-04's
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And why do you think this is true? Even Toyota Reports...errr I mean Consumer Reports lists the F150 as a "Recommended" vehicle (unlike the new Tundra which is NOT recommended). BTW, 2004 and 2005 F150 are essentially the same truck. The model was redesigned for 2004. The 2005 models is rated better than the 2004 model.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You aren't suggesting a 1960 Falcon as a high point in styling are you? I thought they defined bland back then. I don't know who was getting 30 mpg in a 1960 Falcon - certainly that wasn't an around town mileage. We had a couple of 1964 Fairlanes, and we never broke 24 mpg on a trip. Around town, 15 was about all they would do. Our '69 Country Sedan got around 12 around town. My 2007 Fusion (V-6 AWD) gets around 22 around town and 32 on the highway trip. And when will I have to do anything more than look at things and change the oil - 100k miles? How long could you go between points and plugs on a 1960 Falcon? If you are going to be in an accident, would you rather be in a 1960 Falcon, or a 2007 Fusion? Which car would you rather breathe behind? Styling is such a fickle thing. I've always thought Honda did pretty good - until now. I just saw an ad for the new Accord 4 door sedan but until they said something, I thought it was a Saturn. At least the 2 Door Coupe is decent looking.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While most will have to agree with your points vis a v old cars to new, but the Falcons are indeed considered stylish by many. There are several Falcon car clubs that beg the point. One will see plenty of Falcons sedan, convertibles and TRUCKS at old cars shows around the country. Nary a Japanese car from the same era, however.
The Falcon was the feature car at the Macungie PA cars show in August of this year, one of the most well attended on the east coast, and there must have been 75 or more Falcons on the show field.
In any event I believe he was referring to the Australian Falcon, currently available as a full size car 'down-under.' I owned around a half dozen US Falcon. The ONLY one that could carry six, actually seven, comfortable was the Falcon Club wagon like the '67 I once owned. ;) mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Our 1970 1/2 Falcon was a 6 passenger easy, & got ~ 27 mpg highway.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A 1970 1/2 Falcon was nothing more than decontented Fairlane (or Torino). It wasn't a true Falcon at all. I'd love to see your gas mileage receipts from back then. We owned two 1964 Fairlanes and one 1967 Fairlane and I never broke 24 with any of them on the highway. I suppose 27 is possible (like in the Mobil Economy Run) but I find in difficult to believe you consistently got 27 on the highway.
Ed

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That may be, but that last model was not really a Falcon but a shortened version of the Fairlane
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not really. The Fairlane was buildt on a seperate chassis and had a heaver undercarage, although V8 Falcons used the Fairlane suspension.
It a bit hard for me to remember, don't forget we were designing those vehicles five to seven years befor they went on sale, so we are talking about over fifty years ago. I not will to do a search but as I recall the Falcon deritives were the orginal Mustang, Cougar and Comet uptill the end of the sixties, the Cyclone was a Comet modle.
Comet moved up as a deritve of the Maverick in the seventies.
The Falcon Club wagon that came out in 62 was a derivatvie of the 625 Econline Van built on a truch chassis, not the other way around
The later generations like the Torino, Granada, Versailles, Monarch, Cougar where larger chassis on frame cars. We designed those cars to replace Fords full size cars but as gas became availabe again under Reagans free market concept, Ford and it devisions contined to build and sell the larger RWD full size cars that GM and Chrysler abandoned
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Make that '61 E100, Econoline van. We also made two Falcon trucks. The Ranchero, from the wagon, and the Club Wagon based pick up for a few years.
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

AKA Reagan's do-nothing energy policy that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You certainly are entitled to you own opinion but history clearly shows our failure to take advantage of our many available alternate energy sources, like nuclear power and clean burning coal, as well as the billons of barrels of oil resources available in own county and off shore over the past 25 or 30 years, are was has increased our dependency of imported oil.
Our do-nothing energy policy, as you call it, since the oil crisis in the seventies has been the result of inaction by the Congress. ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

After 1961, US Ford Fairlanes never had a separate chassis. If you park an early intermediate Fairlane next to the same year Falcon, the similarities are readily apparent. The Fairlanes had a longer wheelbase, but it is not hard to see that they were from the same group of designers. Intermediate size US Fairlanes (after 1961 till the name was dropped) were always unit body vehicles (in the 50's Fairlanes were just a model of the full size Ford line). Torinos moved to a body on frame design for the 1972 model year (they also got coil spring rear suspension at that time).

There was no chassis under the original Econoline van (truck or otherwise). It was a unit body construction vehicle, with the engine mostly beside the driver, extending to the rear which is unlike the later Econoline vans were the engine was mostly in front of the driver. Have you actually ever even been in an original version (1961-67)? The original Econoline van was considered a Falcon derivative because it was a unit body vehicle that used the Falcon's six cylinder engine unlike other Ford trucks that used the large six and V-8s. It wasn't a Falcon in the sense that it used the Falcon's suspension or anything significant beyond the drivetrain. I've ridden in both the van and pick-up versions. I've also ridden in the Corvan (van based on the Corvair) and seen the pick-up version.

Granadas, Monarchs, and Versailles were always unit body cars - they never had a separate chassis. Originally they were Falcon/Fairlane/Maverick family derivatives, later Grandas and Monarchs were off the Fairmont (Fox) platform. At least you are right about the later Torinos and later model Cougars (1974-1976).

"We?" "You" seem to have a really bad memory. Surely if "you" had anything to do with designing Fords, "you" wouldn't get so many facts wrong.

Exactly when did GM abandon full RWD size cars - let's see, the full size RWD Caprice was in production till 1996 in the US. The RWD Buick Roadmaster also lasted until 1996. And Regan left office in - oh yes, 1988..........Interesting how Reagan's "free market" policies allowed GM to keep producing large RWD cars from before he was born until after he was out of office for 8 years.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.