I know what you’re thinking. If Ford’s dedicating itself to building automobiles without A-pillars the size of redwood trees and blind spots that could hide a girl scout chapter, then huzzah! The Blue Oval Boyz get it! Uh, no. The only thing FoMoCo wants to “get” is more money for backup cameras. “Ford Motor Company is answering consumer requests for more visibility around their vehicles. Ford plans to continue its aggressive technology onslaught by doubling the number of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models that offer its innovative and affordable Rear View Camera System by the end of 2009. Approximately 75 percent of Ford vehicles will offer the feature by the end of next year, including the new 2010 Ford Mustang – the only sports car to offer the feature when it arrives in spring 2009 – and the recently introduced 2010 Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid.” Don’t get me wrong: my minivan’s backup camera is much appreciated (by my neighbors if no one else). But if “our research shows that visibility is one of the biggest customer concerns today,” why not design for it? Oh right, the Ford Taurus. OK, carry on then.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“including the new 2010 Ford Mustang – the only sports car to offer the feature when it arrives in spring 2009”
Audi R8 already has a rear camera
Like RF said, we could go back to the days when truck beds weren’t 5 ft. tall and sedan’s DLOs weren’t emulating the profile of a tank. Then we’d have great visibility without the need for the extra cost and weight of cameras.
But Ford doesn’t have the money to dig that deep in their redesigns…and they’d rather make a buck or two on a customer need.
Come on. Why go after Ford? Out of the big three, Ford has been the least pig-headed. Over the years, they’ve actually improved quality and they have a few decent offerings, which is more than we can say for the likes of Chrysler.
How about eliminating huge pillars in the rear? That would help visibility a lot, and be a lot cheaper to boot. I’m talking to you, Toyota. Their latest batch of vehicles have made “rear blind spot” a design feature.
You have to understand that for older people–yeah, I’m 72 and still go to the gym–doing the Exorcist bit to properly look aft is not all that easy. You find yourself using the rearview mirrors a lot more than you should.
And don’t be snide, children. Someday you’ll also be 72.
So does this mean function now follows form AND feature?
Face it. Ford trucks “Jumped the Shark” when they introduced the tailgate step ladder option a few years back. The height of all Detroit truck boxes is just incredible. Who are these 9ft humans who can actually load and unload from the side or back of these insanely tall trucks? The bed floor is no larger than trucks from decades ago yet the chassis and box height is lifted to the point of lunacy. How about the product planners and designers simply lower the truck height so the drivers can see better and all of us driving behind and next to them can see better as well.
You also could just move from behind a truck if you can’t see around it.
Hardly fair to pick on Ford for this. The FJ Cruiser is the poster child of unnecessary blind spots in the name of styling. One of my first impressions when I sat in the Prius was the large blind spot to the rear.
In terms of weight additional costs back-up cameras don’t add that much. Just an optical sensor on the rear or the vehicle and a small wire going to the front. I’m assuming that the LCD screen is already there for the Navigation/Stereo/Climate Control/Margarita Blender.
Gotta go old school greenhouse design – Crown Vic or Grand Marquis. Those Ford designers of the past knew their slide-rule rules.
Oh wait, it is an old platform, so marketing tells us to think it sucks compared to the modern tank slit-windows on all the latest designs.
Why is this an issue? I have seen several of these and they work great. NO vehicle has such great visibility that a small child can’t be hidden from view when directly behind you. Yes, there are backup sensors but they are not always totally reliable and you wouldn’t know if it was a child or just a car/tree that you can see how close you are to and ignore the signal.
My brother was hit by someone backing out of their driveway somewhere around 1963. He was riding his tricycle and had stopped in their drive for some reason and they just backed into him. Luckily his injuries were fairly minor.
Short of walking behind your car before you backup EVERY TIME, how can you be sure this couldn’t happen to you?
I would like to see this made mandatory as a safety device that would also help the many parking challenged out there. It doesn’t cost so much any more and increased production will drive the price down even further.
I like the deep beds on pickups. I remember looking at a Tundra from a few years back – 05 maybe – and thought, what a waste to have such a shallow bed.
The backup camera is the way to go. Not much weight involved. It doesn’t have to involve the expense of the navigation option. They have them now integrated into the rear view mirror that look like they would work fine – definitely more useful than the backup sensors.
“NO vehicle has such great visibility that a small child can’t be hidden from view when directly behind you.”
Hmmm… here’s a few from memory:
MG T-series
Jaguar SS90/100
Any drop-top Morgan
(In fact from all the above you can reach back, grab the kid and toss ’em out of the way!)
E-type Jaguar (OTS)
AMC Pacer
1st gen VW Golf/Rabbit
Mazda Miata
BMW Z3
I’m sure there are many more. You just have to mentally eliminate vehicles from the “barge” and “truck” category to find them.
;)
–chuck
The Subaru Forester (pre-2009 at least) has great visibility. And you feel like a pontiff to boot.
And don’t be snide, children. Someday you’ll also be 72.
You know you’re getting old when you take aspirin before your morning coffee. You know you’re getting old when your good knee hurts more than your bad knee. You know you’re getting old when you hope it’s a STD, treatable with drugs, than a plumbing issue.
Just think, there are kids in college who have never used a telephone connected by a wire or lived in a house without a computer.
Here’s a novel idea…how about making the windows bigger?
Gee…what a hard concept to grasp…
—————-
Look at the windows on the re-skinned Taurus? The windows are stupidly small…like the 300C.
@ chuckgoolsbee
” chuckgoolsbee :
December 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“NO vehicle has such great visibility that a small child can’t be hidden from view when directly behind you.”
Hmmm… here’s a few from memory:
MG T-series
Jaguar SS90/100
Any drop-top Morgan
(In fact from all the above you can reach back, grab the kid and toss ‘em out of the way!)
E-type Jaguar (OTS)
AMC Pacer
1st gen VW Golf/Rabbit
Mazda Miata
BMW Z3″
Sorry, in none of the above would you see a kid sitting, crawling or laying down behind you. These are all things little ones do. I stand behind my statement.
No one would deny that some cars have better rear visibility than others; the point is that I can’t see through steel or plastic – can you?
I was admiring my friend’s 1998 BMW 325, it had 360 visibility.
This Tonka toy design fad has got to end.
Sorry, in none of the above would you see a kid sitting, crawling or laying down behind you.
If you’re going to take things to the implausible extreme, by the same token you wouldn’t see them sitting, crawling or laying down directly in front of these cars, either. Shall we put electronic eyes on the front bumpers, too?
I agree with the comments about the F-150 bed depth and truck height. Making superduty proportions standard makes the “1/2 ton” trucks less useful for the suburban homeowner. It just needs to be big enough to haul plywood, sofas, and refrigerators and extra size and weight beyond this is a negative. Maybe bed depth extenders or deeper beds, heavy duty springs, 4×4 ride height, etc. could be options vs. making extra helpings of macho standard across the product line.
Unfortunately, most human beings are burdened with an irrational blind spot when it comes to children. It often causes us to make terribly bad decisions about allocation of resources and to coddle the little gems. I suppose the reverse is worse, but it would help if we all stopped a second and engaged our brains more and hearts less when it comes to children.
Do I have to get this feature in my new Mustang? Or, is it an option? If given teh opportunity, I’ll opt out.
My Infiniti G37 has a rear view camera that is included with the navigation system. Without the camera, the procedure for backing up is to check behind the car before getting in and then rely on dead reckoning. With the camera, you can see well enough to position the car with an accuracy of three or four inches.
How much will Ford be charging to put one of these on the cars? $500? $1000? You can get a rear view camera that attaches to your rear license plate bracket for $60 (I think) at Canadian Tire. Just like DVD players and nav systems, it’ll be cheaper to buy from Canadian Tire than from the dealer.
anoldbikeguy:
Short of walking behind your car before you backup EVERY TIME, how can you be sure this couldn’t happen to you?
Deductive reasoning.
1. I garage my car.
2. There are no kids in my garage.
3. Therefore, I won’t squish a kid when I back up.
— Q.E.D. —
I would like to see this made mandatory as a safety device that would also help the many parking challenged out there. It doesn’t cost so much any more and increased production will drive the price down even further.
That’s one more thing to break which could be expensive to repair and/or troubleshoot (especially if it’s a wiring issue). Worse, if the camera/sensor FALSE alarms occasionally, many ignoramuses will ignore it (like they do their chirping home smoke alarms that need a battery).
Also, there is the TV mindset that “If it ain’t on the video, nothing’s there.”
Many will expect the camera to remain 100% (magically) free of snow/ice/condensation without any effort. And yeah, they’ll promptly file a fifty gazillion dollar lawsuit they day they squish one of their kids.
Vehicle visibility… like the visibility I don’t have when driving behind a big truck.
You also could just move from behind a truck if you can’t see around it.
Or, you could stop tailgating. It’s rude, AND unsafe.
We need cars with thinner pillars, taller roofs and low belt-lines. I wonder how the car market would be affected if it consisted of people who are into cars, rather than people who just treat them like appliances or status symbols.