Find Reviews by Make:
Poor Ford Motor Company! Even when FoMoCo produces a good car, the product is still weighed down by the stigma of Tempos and Escorts of yore. In his latest column, MSNBC 's Roland Jones takes stock of the Ford Fusion's dismal sales in June 2007 (12,435 examples sold), what it means for FoMoCo, and how they can generate Impala-like numbers (35,489 examples sold). In this bread-and-butter segment so thoroughly dominated by Camcords, Jones asserts that people don't want an import-clone from a domestic automaker. He's right. Fighting Toyota and Honda on their own turf is a losing battle for Detroit. The market has shown a willingness to buy boldly-styled, rear-wheel drive Americana from America. That's what Ford should build.
34 Comments on “MSNBC Commentator Calls Ford Fusion a Mistake...”
Read all comments
I actually like the Fusion. I think that if Ford had priced it a bit lower and advertised it better it would be a winner.
That’s what I said in my comments on the Review of the Mustang GT 500. Ford (Detroit in General) can’t compete with imports in the same class. They need to be in their own class that no one else can keep up with. And the unabashedly low tech high horsepower rear drive Mustang is the way to go.
It’s funny but the only two new cars I want are either an RS4 or a GT 500. However, since I can’t afford either, I really don’t have to make that decision.
I couldn’t agree more with Samir on this one.The Fusion and the Impala are the best thing to come out of Detroit in years.However the perception gap isn’t gonna go away.
We need a real genuine R.W.D. American car. We don’t need a warmed over Holden [GTO?] yuck.We don’t want to build a camel [the early 90s Caprice] what were they thinking?
Come on Detroit lets do, it and do it now.The undertaker is measuring us up.
The Fusion is no home run, but the MSNBC commentator took a misstep by presuming that the Impala is a winner just because of absolute sales numbers.
Those sales figures ignore the fact that the Impala is dumping 54% of its Impalas into fleets, while Ford fleet sales are at half that figure. If you consider only retail sales, and add Fusion retail sales together with those of its Milan sibling, it was actually about on par with the Impala as of the first half of the 2007 model year.
The greater problem is that neither car competes head on with the Accord, Camry and Altima, all of which beat both domestics hands down. The critical mass is in favor of the new Big 3, and it is true that Ford needs a radical look-at-me replacement that might start winning a few people back.
I really disagree with the idea that American car companies
can be rescued by building high horse, low-tech, rear driven
cars. They could build some to fulfill a niche but it certainly
isn’t going to do much for the bottom line.
The market is very large indeed for vanilla, reliable, decent mileage transport. Why would you compete on the fringe?
Around here you just don’t see them on the street.
Two weeks in flyover country and I saw a couple, but even the numbers they mention sound high, maybe they all are in rental fleets at airports?
Ford Australia would be more than happy to supply all the RWD cars that Ford of North America might want – they are very interested in exporting the Falcon and/or the Falcon RWD platform. Check out the story HERE.
And the new Falcon shows up very soon, which is supposed to be a big improvement over the current-generation. I would imagine the Falcon’s looks would have to change for the American market (remember the Pontiac GTO, which came from the Holden Monaro, was bashed for being too bland), but that’s not a big obstacle to overcome.
B Moore – Autosavant.net
jbyrne: It’s all about moving the market over, so what was once fringe is fringe no longer. American car companies can compete on heritage, imagination, bold styling, creativity, soul, unique products, cachet. No one is more pioneering than America.
So why copy? It hasn’t worked for the last 20 years. The American FWD-saloon experiment has been a dismal failure.
jbyrne
I agree. The market for appliance like vehicles is too big to ignore.
Detroit could make Uber-Detroit vehicles in a way no one else could, but they’d be relegated to a small niche (maybe they will be anyway?). Isn’t this basically where Chrysler is at – with Hemi powered everythings that are loosing market share in an era of $3.30/gal gas?
What the Japanese have discovered is that many (most?)Americans are unadventerous -despite our national self-image as rugged risk taking individualists. What many want (myself included) is no suprises.
Many of the cars that have played a pivotal role in Detroit’s various brink-of-death recoveries — the K car, Dodge Neon, Chrysler minivans, Ford Taurus — have all been front-wheel drive. Some of the most popular cars in the country are front-wheel drive.
Clearly, the average consumer is not particularly hung up on getting power from the rear wheels. The average American doesn’t know the difference between them and is not yearning for a rear-wheel drive car. Obviously, they aren’t lining up for V-8’s, either.
I agree that the American designers need to be unique and different — no need to buy a fake Accord when you can just go get the real thing — but that does not mean leaping into the Wayback machine for a trip down Memory Lane, either.
Detroit needs to gain new core competencies in areas that have left it behind. It’s not good enough to benchmark the Accord of ten years ago and miss the mark — you have to build a car that’s different and better, so that you are both unique and can earn conquest sales. Aside from trucks and SUV’s, midsize and compact cars are the most popular segments, and it is simply beyond stupid for a mainstream automaker to not have products suitable for a mainstream segment.
This would start by making a fantastic four-banger, and dropping it into a package with equally terrific styling and a drop-dead gorgeous interior. Slap a long, no-BS warranty to take the risk out of the purchase, upgrade the service levels so that ownership is easier (I’d even include free maintenance for a couple of years) and charge a competitive, not a discounted price, and work hard to earn back their trust. Continually improve it, build word of mouth buzz, and in time, you might just have a business back.
First, I can’t help but note the rich irony in MSNBC criticizing another company for falling short in the competitive marketplace.
But that aside, I think jbyrne, Dynamic88 and Pch101 have it right: Ford, GM and Chrysler must win with mainstream products. The Fusion is a nice car, but “almost as good as Camcordima” won’t sell enough units and at a profitable price.
Some variations on the Fusion platform (maybe a station wagon or a swoopy coupe) could help sales but Ford’s product development budget apparently can’t afford it.
Pch101
To follow up on your comment, what you propose would require an orientation towards being in business a decade from now, rather than next quarter’s earnings. They might have to accept lower sales volume for several years while they rebuild brand loyalty. I don’t know that the American companies can get their heads around that concept.
It’s unbelievable that the B3 have so few decent offerings in the sub-compact/compact/midsize fields, despite decades of time to work out a solution.
I agree that American companies need to do what American companies do best: build ’em big and awesome. Build the Interceptor, make it body on frame, make it look JUST like the concept…but don’t scrap the Fusion. Make it a butch little FWD Interceptorette.
If the previous news article was correct, most people size up their cars by looks. Currently, nothing looks good. Do that and you actually have a fighting chance.
As for a killer 4 cylinder, it might be nice to come up with something middle-sized like a 2.0 that can be normally aspirated for smaller cars, and turbocharged for the bigger cars. I love how the 1.8T made it into just about everything VW made and the A4 and TT. Save money and stick that sucker in everything.
Heres an idea just keep trying to improve the Fusion with the next generation Fusion making incremental improvements in as many areas as possible. Stop dropping model names, stop changing course mid stream when something doesn’t work. Prove to me the consumer that I can trust you by sticking to your guns and making the best Fusion possible. Why should I rush out to buy your next rwd Fusion replacement? Most people don’t trust detroit so rebuild that trust first.
Dynamic88: “What the Japanese have discovered is that many (most?)Americans are unadventerous -despite our national self-image as rugged risk taking individualists. What many want (myself included) is no suprises.”
The myth that underpins our national self-image, and the image that many people throughout the rest of world see is that of Americans as a bunch of cowboys. A cowboy is very much a “rugged risk taking individualist”, but even a cowboy doesn’t want their horse dropping dead underneath them, since that puts a crimp in the “rugged risk taking”. It is funny that the Japanese recognized this and continue to, while Detroit seemed to have no clue (and still doesn’t)and has been driven by marketing research, and have given us things like larger tail-fins and more chrome or constantly misfired by giving us cars that are attempts to meet Japanese standards but don’t come close, and for a long time have counted mostly on brand loyalty to keep their customers. Like I said, cowboys want a horse that won’t collapse under them, or be too high strung, plus most would prefer to get the best or most reasonable prices on their horsey, so they’ll avoid the breeds that don’t fulfill that need, and go for heartier, more sound breeds, like Camrys and Accords.
And yes, I did say “myth” above about Americans’ self-image, because it has been my observation that Americans tend more toward unadventurousness and conformity, and seem to disapprove of folks who are too strongly “rugged individualists”.
I also don’t see the shift to front-wheel drive as a mistake or failure, since the main advantage of it at least in manufacturing terms is that the car frame doesn’t need to be quite as strong as one in a rear-wheel drive car, since there is less stress on it. You don’t need the steel, for instance, to be a higher gauge, and the manufacturer ultimately can save both in costs and in weight, the latter being desirable as far as necessary engine power and thus fuel economy, amongst other things.
917K
Related to your comments, I wanted to share this. Many years ago, as a student, I had a visiting prof. from Japan. He mentioned that in Japan they’d watch the old TV show Bonanza -dubbed in Japanese.
He said that while Americans usually took the show as an example of frontier spirit in the traditon of rugged individualism, the Japanese saw it as a show about consensus building and cooperation. The Cartwrights (sp?) would have a problem, then they’d discusss it as a family, and sometimes include neighbors in the decission making, then having reached consensus they’d cooperate to solve the problem. A very different take on a classic western.
I think Japan understands us better than Detroit does.
Can someone give me sales #s for Ontario, Canada for the Camcord and Fusion, they have to be damn close based on my area atleast.
I as a fusion owner, have to disagree. I bought the car after test driving Camcord, Altima and Mazda 6 along with some GM clones.
Fusion’s ultra cheap price coupled with a load of features for which i had to dish out nearly 30K (Canadian) for an overpriced Camcord, the decision seemed simple.
after 7 months of ownership, I have not found anything wrong with the car, the transmision is good, as well as the ride and all other features, so long I am willing to cross the 4000rpm mark the car is fun as hell to drive, something I wasn’t used to on my I30.
Nothing has come loose and there are no rattles. This is all coming from someone who has only had japanese cars since the 1970s, including Datsun, Land Crusier, Suzuki, Nissan, Mazda etc.
Yes, the camcord are better cars than Fusion, but a premium, which wasn’t worth it for me atleast. Same goes for Hyundai, which was only rejected by the family on its looks and ubbersoft handling. Otherwise that was an excellent alternate.
For anyone who is about to come forward with resale value, I will keep the car for next 5~7 years, so I know whatever resale I will get on any car would be garbadge compared to the retail price. And I rather save money today rather than wait for 3~5 years for some “relative savings”, if I am still alive that is.
Anyways, I have seen more new Fusion on the road in my neighbourhood than new Camrys, so I would greatly appriciate the #s.
Dynamic88: What the Japanese have discovered is that many (most?)Americans are unadventerous -despite our national self-image as rugged risk taking individualists. What many want (myself included) is no suprises.
Detroit knew that at one time, too. In the 1960s, the Chevrolet Impala/Caprice, Chevelle/Malibu and Nova and Ford Galaxie/LTD, Fairlane/Torino and Falcon were considered the “safe” choices.
Unfortunately, in the 1970s, Detroit started giving us some rather unwelcome “surprises.”
As for the Fusion – I actually think that Ford is on the right track here. It took an excellent platform and gave it unique styling cues (that three-bar grille really does stand out on the road). The car has earned very good reliability scores from Consumer Reports.
What Ford needs to do is take a page from the Toyota playbook – improve the weak points and build upon the strengths, but keep the nameplate to build marketplace recognition.
Chamar, you make a great case for the Fusion. Ford ought to pay you for the endorsement. The only thing I’d add is that if one finds himself in Outer Boondocks needing something fixed, there’s a lot better chance of having a Ford store nearby than a Camcord dealership.
But it will take years of good experiences for the mass market, let alone Consumer Reports, to decide Ford’s quality and durability is as good or better than Camcord’s. I hope Ford has enough time left.
Oh, hell. Why is it that even the Detroit somehow produces a moderately sexy car some dunderhead has to point out that it doesn’t sell 100,000 units a month and therefore sucks? It’s this bottom-line mentality that got Detroit where it is today – instead of focusing on the art of building automobiles the treated cars as “units”, purely economic entities with costs on one end and profits on the other. While this is true and a business needs to focus on these things to succeed, it makes me a sad panda to think that this volume-selling focus might drag Ford back into the bean-counting mire.
On my way home from Home Depot, about an hour ago, I stopped at the Ford Dealer and looked over the new Fusion. The dealer was closed (otherwise I wouldn’t have stopped) but I got out and looked over a nice Champagne colored one.
It’s a decent looking car, in terms of fit and finish. The design isn’t bad, though for me the Japanese sci-fi headlights need a redo next model change. The interior struck me as being fairly nice – not cheap and schlocky at all. Reliability still needs to be proven, but visible indicators of quality are getting closer to the competition.
The only thing I wasn’t real sure about was the parking brake lever. It’s located on the center console, ala european cars. I have no inherent objection to this, but neither is it a plus, at least for me. Europeans put the parking brake in the center console because they are cheap. That location offers the shrotest run of cable to the parking brakes. I prefer the dashbord locale myself.
We could check with Broderick Crawford on this. (If you don’t know who Crawford is (was) enjoy your youth) It might be easier to do handbrake truns with the lever in that location.
Anyway, imo, the Fusion represents a respectable attempt by Ford to meet the competition. They’ve gotten a lot closer.
First time for me on any discussion site, but I find the discussion compelling.
I just turned 50, never made my million, and have always driven vehicles in the value family segment, for work as well as for personal use. I can agree with many of all of your perceptions. The challenges for the B3 are many, but as a group, they are closer to the competition than they have ever been.
For work, I drive a low end (no Hemi) Chrysler 300. I have been mildly surprised in many respects, but there has been a few quality issues, none severe. But this is what has been the issue with domestic cars right along, negative issues to outweigh an overall positive experience. This coupled with historically poor dealer support spells doom in a segment filled with caviar expectations on a meatloaf budget.
As far as the Fusion is concerned, hooray. Ford is showing some leadership with styling reminiscent of the Cadillac styling, there is no mistaking it on the road, however, with not quite the impact of the 1984 (5?) Taurus. The Mazda 6 derived chassis is a great start. One of you mentioned development of a world class foundation 4 cylinder powertrain, I agree, that’s a page out of Honda’s playbook.
Others have commented on the unwillingness of corporate America to invest and develop a brand properly. Marketing used to be the strength of the USA companies, but no more. Generations of graduates of US business school’s dogma have US models in many markets playing second fiddle to foreign competition while they chase the easy money, in many cases, for themselves.
Ford is a microcosm of the US, our competitiveness is being challenged on all fronts, not restricted solely to manufacturing. Ford, GM and Chrysler need to cooperate and codevelop shared subsystems. This is not an unusual tact with the overseas competition. It saves a lot of capital and usually results in a better quality result.
I am in Ford’s corner and hope they can pull off a turnaround. I TRUST Bill Ford, that is saying something for me.
Sorry for the diatribe, this seems like the best place for it. Thanks.
The problem with the Fusion is that there is no compelling reason to buy it instead of a Camry, Accord or Sonata. The patriotic sell is hard to accept for a Mexican built car of Japanese descent. What other good reason is there for a person to take another chance on a Ford instead of going with the tried and true Accord or the bargain priced Sonata with it’s 100k mile powertrain warranty?
Considering all of the quality issues so many people have suffered through with domestics over the past several decades the ONLY way these guys have a chance is by going with Hyundai like warrantys. The problem is, the 2.5 know that such warranties would kill their profits and take a chunk out of the profits dealers are making by selling extended service contracts.
Treat your customers like carnival marks for 30 years and you can expect that they will start to wise up.
Truck buyers still have a reason to shop domestic due to variety and generally more robust products (as compared to domestic cars). Car buyers have no reason to do business with Ford USA.
Sure, the Fusion is “competitive”. But so what? “Competitive” doesn’t cut it in this market.
Way back in 1987 I bought a brand new Ford Taurus after test driving every decent mid-priced sedan on the market. At that time the Taurus offered Audi like styling, an array of neat features (like the dual sun visors, which I wish cars still offered) and was a full size class larger than the Camrys and Accords of the day and all for much less money than the imports. Not only was the price right, but the Taurus offered a combination of attributes which simply couldn’t be had anywhere else. Chevrolet’s competition at the time was the Corsica, which was clearly an inferior product compared to the Taurus. Luckily I insisted on a manual transmission, so I didn’t live through the early Taurus automatic transmission nightmares most buyers got stuck with. I did, however, have a horrible paint job on which the clear coat self destructed after only four years, something which has not happened with any vehicle I purchased before or after that car.
The Fusion competes one size down from where the Taurus is, and that is a class where Ford has never had a real success. Even with the relative success of the Fusion it is never going to be the best selling car in America, a title the original Taurus held for years.
Fusion is no miricle cure for Ford, simply because it is not a world beater. It is however, designed for a limited pocket and truly make the a very compeling case for someone who finds the Camcord dealers cocky and their prices to be non-competitve with everything in the segment.
Fusion is definetly a step in the correct direction (Five Hundered on the other hand was a leap in quick sand) and ford needs to build on that. Ford Edge also seems like something people are interested in (2 on my street, one black and one orange). Hopefully, Allan Mulally has some more tricks up his sleeves.
Even I feel sort of sorry for Ford. The Fusion is a fine car, but as has been pointed out time and again fine just plain doesn’t cut it in the midsize family sedan market, if it still cuts it in any segment of the market these days.
The answer isn’t abandoning that segment of the market for the LX Triplets’ big, rear-wheel drive hoonmobile niche (though letting that niche go fallow is another big mistake on Ford’s part). For most buyers of family sedans rear-wheel drive is nothing more than a gimmick, and in the snowbelt the only distinguishing factor most drivers are guaranteed to know between drivetrain styles is that rear-wheel drive sucks on ice.
Like it or not, Ford has no choice BUT to beat the Japanese at their own game. They need to do more than compete in both the compact and the midsize segments, they need to WIN on the merits of their cars. But at this point, with money for product development so short, I think that may well be impossible.
As jthorner points out, the Fusion is a hard sell; especially when potential buyers take a gander at that “Domestic/Imported” content sticker on the window — I wonder how many traditional Ford buyers walked (over to a “transplant” dealer) that can trumpet more “domestic” content. I’m pretty sure that the sticker is federally mandated (i.e., it can’t be removed at the dealer), and was probably pushed for by the domestic manufacturers; and it may be starting to “backfire”.
The problem with the Big 3 is not that they can’t compete with the Camcord’s from Japan… it’s that the Big 3 consistantly compete with the last generation of Camcord’s from Japan.
When Ford introduced the Taurus, it was a generation ahead of it’s competition. And as a result, Americans recognized it’s value for money.
When and if the Big 3 feel it a good idea to produce a Camcord competitor that is a generation ahead of it’s Japanese/European rivals, then we’ll see the tide turn.
But that’s a big IF.
I really don’t know what any of you are talking about.
The Ford Fusion was actually found to be in the same class of reliability as the Accord and Camry according to Consumer Reports. They ARE building a high quality product, and the underpinnings of the Fusion are worthy compeitition for these models.
There have also been a long list of auto mags and various reviewers who have put the Fusion/Milan in a higher overall class than the Camry. The Car & Driver comparo a little while back comes to mind.
I think the ONLY area the Fusion becomes questionable is with it’s front and rear fascia. The front is just plain ugly in the opinion’s of an awful lot of people. The razor blade look and Cadillac-esque headlights simply don’t translate very well. The Camry is a bit ugly as well, but most people who buy them are simply buying the ‘Camry’ mystique. Ford doesn’t have that luxury.
The rear healights look to be a bit downmarket, boy racer in it’s styling. Ford needs to get rid of it… quick.
However I find that the Accord, Altima and Fusion have interiors that are a click above the rest in this market place. A Sonata with a leather interior is also a worthy mention. But the Fusion is one of the few vehicles in this class that actually looks like a high quality product even in it’s base trim.
Ford needs to clean up what they have, and offer a hybrid with some spunk in it. All the mentions of a long warranty, free maintenance, outstanding service, and an overall different marketing approach (Bold Moves??? Gimme’ a break!) would go a long way towards making the Fusion a class leader.
Overall, Ford’s made some invredible progress with the Fusion and I hope they ultimately stick with it and succeed.
Well Ford is ahead in one respect – the Fusion offers AWD. While this leaves Ford years behind Subaru, it puts them ahead of the curve compared to Camcords.
It’s not for everyone, but for those who really want AWD on a sedan, Camcords just fell out of the running. Let’s give Ford some credit for recognizing where the market is going. (Has been, if you’re a Subaru fan)
I wonder how much profit Ford has made selling Fusions this year. I bet it is hardly enough to keep UAW in Viagra or the Execs in Jet-A.
Ford cannot compete in low-profit production…Not even if they win a 30% pay-cut from the UAW. Ford’s legacy costs and debt service costs are, um, really costly. It’s like De Beers selling Cubic Zirconia.
I mentioned it before, but I’m thinking about it more now, and I wonder…
Is it viable for Ford to drop the Fusion from it’s line and use the Mustang based Interceptor in it’s place as their sedan offering? Leave the FusilanKZ model to Mercury and Lincoln and use the Interceptor to go after the “American Bad Ass” sedan loving crowd?
The folks that want a Ford snoozer sedan can buy a Taurus and there would be a compelling reason for family types to consider the Mercury (which I have yet to see on the street here)
I like the Fusion and would have bought one but for the lack of headroom. It’s a nice car but has room for improvement. Hopefully Ford will keep tweaking it rather than leave it alone for 7 years and wonder why it doesn’t sell…
The numbers surprise me. I see these things quite a lot in Louisville.
I enjoyed all the replies.
I believe that historically the big 3 have waged a catchup marketing response over the past 15 years to Honda and Toyota in the sedan market. More recently, they are in the same position with small and midsize trucks and suv’s. Ford’s offerings in particular have been unremarkable. Toyota and Honda have incrementally built brand loyalty over decades, something I’m not sure our current crop of Jack Welch wannabes would understand. They deserve to reap the rewards of that investment, namely higher sale prices and profits.
I owned a 1st gen Subaru Legacy wagon because my son played travel hockey and we lived in the snowbelt of upstate NY. Although there was nothing about its performance or styling that was earthshattering, I was impressed by its overall build quality, content level and balance of the AWD powertrain. In the winter, it was a hoot to drive, actually a challenge to induce it to lose traction. The current Subies are all refinements to this original powertrain and chassis, once again an investment.
To me the Fusion is a great start, Ford needs to stick with it, refine it, morph it into cuv and wagon variants. I have driven rental Camrys and the package does not impress. If Ford can keep the content level and quality high at a competitive price and warranty, I would consider buying it for the overall value. At this time, I will not pay the premium that Camcords enjoy in the marketplace. I personally don’t care where the components in the car are from, as long as they are of high quality. The soccer moms are the ones to impress. They want security and looks (no minivans). Actually they have moved over to suv’s for the “command’ seating”.
I am pulling for Big Blue.