As I’ve been saying since 1846, the Ford “brand” is so amorphous that it wears a set of air quotes. In other words, Ford doesn’t stand for much of anything. It stands for everything (another way of saying nothing): innovation, excitement, great value and family product [sic]. And those are just the four selling points FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally mentions in the Taurus YouTube video before the editor cuts him off. These days, brand-wise, Ford’s greatest selling point (singular) is that it isn’t GM or Chrysler. Compelling as that may be, it’s not all that compelling. And so The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford is building on its non-GMness by launching a 24-week ad campaign featuring “actual [as opposed to?] Ford customers talking about the features of the Ford vehicles that they like.” Yes, well, does anyone really buy a Ford over a Toyondaissan based on “surprise and delight” features like a capless fuel filler or a built-in refrigerator, neither of which is unique to Ford? I still think The Glass House Gang would be better advised to re-build their brand on the “Built Ford Tough” meme. You?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“You know, technology.” Poor guy.
If Ford stuck with Built Ford Tough and went on to demonstrate what that means in meaningful ways (no jet dragsters, please), that’d be a good move. Killing Mercury and bringing Jill Wagner over to work with Mike Rowe would also be smart.
“Built Ford Tough” is fine for trucks and blue collar/masculine segments. But mainstream cars and crossovers probably need more of a focus on quality (Job 1?) and features.
Actually, Robert, I liked your first idea: “Ford: we’re not GM or Chrysler.”
Actually, I suspect that there are a lot of potential buyers who could be swayed by a series of happy, likeable Ford owners who are proud of their cars and some of the cool features on them. I think this is particularly true of younger buyers who may have no experience with Ford other than Grandpa’s 94 Grand Marquis.
This approach reminds me a little (in concept) of the old “Ford has a better idea” marketing campaign of the mid 60s
You can’t sell a Fiesta with ‘Built Ford Tough.’ It works for trucks but not for sub-compacts.
I think Ford started moving towards a more focused message when they released SYNC. Since then they’ve released other gagetey stuff like Travel Link and importantly, they’ve rolled it out across their entire range.
“Introducing the all new 2011 Ford Focus, it’s like a Civic except it’ll dictate a text message for you,” or something like that. They don’t have to overtly state it (Toyota rarely advertises about their reliability) people will get the message over time.
(Note, this is entirely plagerised from something someone said on a forum. I think the guy was on the money)
What? Fords don’t have gas caps? That would fail emissions testing in the Vancouver BC area.
I think features that delight a customer would make good advertising.
Many car buyers are looking for quality, reliability and durability. Unfortunately revisiting the late 1980s Ford “Quality is Job 1” campaign may reopen old wounds. We couldn’t keep our 1987 model out of the shop.
I thought it was “Built Ram Tough,” as in tough to look at, tough to explain to your why you didn’t buy a Ford or a Chevy. Did they both use the “tough” slogan, or has that been wrongly in my head all these years?
People know that Ford is no longer related to GM and Chrysler – Ford has stopped pushing that message and the time is for them to focus on the product.
For one, I think this is a great campaign. Short, easy to grasp, full of some genuinely surprising features that people other than hardened car journalists or commentators might not know about Ford. We all know and understand what capless refueling is, but a great many (millions?) have no idea. Ditto SYNC. Show the feature and explain its relevance and change people’s perception of the old dinosaur – I think it is very clever.
Actually, a much tighter ad than the marketing mess from GM posted earlier.
Dodge started doing Ram Tough in the 80s (I think while dropping one of their old boxy D250s onto the ground.)
Ford trucks have been advertised as “built Ford Tough” since the 70s (iirc).
I like these spots. They convey the impression that Ford is paying close attention to all of the little details. That’s a good message.
Ford is a mainstream brand. Limiting their message to one narrow attribute just won’t work. As someone noted above Toyota doesn’t focus their advertising on reliability. Imagine a commercial for a sporty version of the Ford Fiesta, the message: Built Ford tough? You’ve got to be joking. Nobody would take that seriously.
Well, first I’d get rid of “We Speak Car” – that is so hideously stupid. Really, someone got paid to come up with that?
Second – it’s “Taurus S-H-O”, not “show”
Next, I’d totally throw GM and Chrysler under the bus and point out that Ford is, for the most part, going it on its own and that Ford is likely to be the last man standing of the former Big 3.
Finally, I’d be the first manufacturer to make a serious bid to sell new cars on the internet without any of the dealer hassles. If the dealers howl it’s too damn bad – they’ll still get their chance to screw customers on repairs.
I’ll tell you how because I bought one last December, a 2008 Ranger. Here’s why:
My 2004 GMC Canyon had been a terrible disappointment. So I looked at the Toyota Tacoma. That truck is so ugly it hurts my eyes and there were no “deals” to be had. The only small truck that is uglier is the Dodge Dakota.
Went to the Nissan dealer’s lot and not a single Frontier in stock. I will not buy a vehicle sight unseen since that is one thing I did wrong with the Canyon.
But low and behold the Ford dealer had a silver Ranger in stock with a sticker on the window with about $4 grand off list. It didn’t have all the fancy electronics that are on my Canyon but they are nothing but a headache anyway I found out. The styling is as old as the hills but at least it is not butt ugly like the Toyota.
And the engine (4.0 liter) is made in Germany which to me is a big plus. The automatic transmission is made in France and is as smooth as silk. Plus the thing was put together 120 miles away in St. Paul and I have more faith in Minnesota workers than those in Shreveport who misassembled my Canyon.
That’s how to sell Fords. Have the vehicle in stock. Keep out the ugly. Discount.
jpcavanaugh:
I thought Ford was the one that dropped the truck from some skyhook onto the white-out ground of a studio. I think this was in the late 90s with the redesigned girly F150 designed to out-aero the 94 Ram and ape its look but not too much.
Back in the 80s Dodge used “Engineered Ram Tough;” it says so on the glovebox door to my 88 D100 Ramcharger.
How about,
Built Without Gas Caps or,
Built With Refrigerators or,
Built as well as Jill Wagner
you know, combine it all into one super confusing motto?
I only watch TV for sports, so I only see “traditional” auto commercials. Is Ford actually putting these on TV? Or are they internet/YouTube only?
My guess is that the idea here is to have the viewer discover some minor feature that is admittedly nice-ish but most of all to look at the “real-world” person and think that people like them buy Fords and like them and that it is OK socially to buy a Ford.
I watched all the related videos that YouTube put at the end and the one about the pink interior lighting caught me by surprise. I knew that some Fords allowed you to change the colors but I assumed that it was just a few basic colors. But now I know that if it can be set to pink then it surely can be set to something I like. Effective ad.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz :
I disagree. They should stick to what they’re doing and *not* drag GM or Chrysler into their advertising in any way.
These spots are positive and helpful for Ford. I like them more than the Howie Long commercials GM is using which, to me, seem pretty condescending.
Ancient platforms freshened for the ’90s ’00s ’10s.
Some of the posters have touched on this, but an auto maker as large as Ford has to offer a dozen or so different lines of cars and trucks and has to sell each of them by the hundreds of thousands. That means you’re going to have to appeal to all walks of life. For some of them Dennis Leary and “Built Ford Tough” is the hook. For others it’s all about Mike or Jill. Still others will be swayed by ads about some of the details and minor features.
Small features like the cap-less fuel filler or Sync, when they resonate, can be the little details that you appreciate every time you drive your car and make you glad you bought it.
To those who are quick to criticize ad campaigns such as this, why not post some examples of the successful car advertising that you’ve developed.
Ford: Spending the least of your tax dollars.
John
I’m calling shenanigans on this claim of “not having your hands smell like gas.” Don’t I still have to grab the disgusting grip of the refueling nozzle? Isn’t it from handling this nozzle that my hands might smell like gas? What am I missing? On my car I deftly grab the knob of my gas cap and place the possibly smelly end in its cradle on the filler door while refueling.
I’d much rather have a low tech screw-on cap than some spring-loaded flap(?) thingy.
Ford was running a similar set of ads just after Sync came out, mainly showing that feature, but also showing real customers and having them describe in their own words why they loved the car. In my mind it was one of the most successful ad campaigns I’ve seen, so I am glad to see them bringing it back.
The best way to sell the cars is to get people to drive them. We have a lot of import owners who are amazed by how nicely the Fusion/Flex/MKS drive. Once someone has come in, seen the car in person, and can be shown the quality and value, the sale becomes pretty easy.
Showing off minor features that imply and show attention to detail is very important. The transplants ate away the D3 marketshare through reliability and attention to detail. There are still plenty of people who don’t realize that a Fusion is every bit as reliable and well built as a Camcord, or who assume since it is Domestic it will be cheap and kludgy. The reliability word is getting out on its own, so showing the attention to detail and quality will go a long way to changing views of Fords as second class products.
97escort: I’ll tell you how because I bought one last December, a 2008 Ranger. Here’s why …
I’ve owned a 1992 F-350 4×4 crew cab for seventeen years that has performed reliably year after year after year with minimal repairs. After all that time, I have no reason yet to sell it or to trade it.
Last year, my son needed a vehicle for college and for sports activities in the snow country, and after doing considerable research on the Net as to why so many people said they were happy with their Ford Rangers, we bought a used 2005 4×4 with 20,000 miles on it at a bargain price.
Our own experience so far reflects what we read on the Net: The design may be “old”, but the vehicle is reliable, the ergonomics are right for us six-footers, it handles quite well for a truck, it is very solidly built, and it is reasonably nimble both in traffic and off road in tight places.
Gas mileage could be better, but I have to believe Ford is working on that objective right now as a near-term improvement goal.
When my son is out of college in a few years and probably needs a different type of vehicle, I’ll take the Ranger back and put it on the driveway next to the F-350.
At least in the truck market, Ford does have a good track record in pleasing customers who have done their homework into what they want and why. This track record needs to be extended into their passenger car lines, whatever way they can manage it.
Ford CEO Alan Mullay has rallied the Ford troops around “One Ford”, period. Simple, focused and better yet, its working.
The “Drive One” campaign plays off one Ford and is easy to remember, direct and focused, plus it plays off the old “have you driven a ford lately”, it works and ad results prove it.
As far as “built Ford tough” works great for trucks, not cars and CUVs…
The “Fiesta Movement” has proven that social marketing works and these new 15 secounds spots with real customers plays to that same tune… it works… get over it.
Don’t decontent cars. I’m not in the market now or I’d know the answer to this.
The original Taurus had some “surprise and delight” features I still miss. I had a 1991 and a 1993 SHO. No car I’ve had since has the dual sunvisors that can keep the sun out of my eyes when it is peeking around both sides of an “A” pillar. And the SHO had the simplest cornering lights – instead of the motorized headlights that track the steering wheel, as on some upmarket cars(a Rube Goldberg if I’ve ever seen one), the SHO tied fixed cornering lights to the directional. Amazing – signal a turn and you can see where you’re going. What a concept.
Years later, I had a Taurus rental. All gone. Does anyone know if those features have made a reappearance?
If they kept making the original SHO, I would have kept buying ’em. The ’93 had over 200K miles when I totaled a police car with it. (Not as interesting a story as it sounds.)
How to sell a Ford?
“Capless fuel fillers are REALLY cool, and will NEVER result in a horrible, fiery death which we will deny for years before settling out-of-court and recalling 3.6 million vehicles.”
Beta Blocker, check out these unhappy Ford truck owners, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford_spark.html
Tosh, You are right about where the gas smell comes from, but if the capless system worked reliabley for —ever— I am all for it.
Here’s the present state of the situation regarding General Motors, Chrysler, Toyota and Ford.
General Motors and Chrysler are presently planning a way to catch up to a company that 3 years ago developed a plan for the future.
Yeah, I know we have heard it all before, but start they did.
They planned for the future borrowing as much money as they could and were at the time much maligned. Even hawking the Blue Oval. That pretty much says it all. They saw what was on the horizon and prepared for battle.
General Motors and Chrysler I’m sure saw as much of the same economic data as Ford, yet chose a different path.
Chrysler’s German owners looked at the data and decided to find someone with all of the cash made on Wall St. that hearted the prestige that being in the car biz provides and found a sucker in Cerebus. Deal done, washed their hands and moved on.
General Motors being General Motors figured, heck we are General Motors the largest auto company in the world, we’ve seen recessions come and go and we are still here. We are General Motors and don’t forget it! Besides management was so consumed with their own arrogance and hubris they felt insulated from what was happening in the outside world. Let’s face it, between July and October of last year the market tanked big time and the alarm bells had barely gone of at the RenCen and they had no time to react. Sucks to be them. The fix was in.
Here we are a year later and I am not surprised as to the outcome.
Business is a battle and when you can’t or won’t prepare? You lose.
I gotta go eat dinner, I’ll get to Toyota later.
Ford is actually following the most current market research that indicates a brand name must now reach out to many different locations and peoples. By using different marketing messages it is hoping to cash in on what other brand images have done lately. Do you think Mcdonald’s ads have stuck with just one marketing or brand identity. Their current slogan” I’m loving it” is
very calculated to reach savy consumers who dont wwant someone else telling them what they want.
Who is loving it? I am loving it. Strange but true. The most recent market research is indicating that consumers dont want to be told what to like, wear or beleive. By expanding their brand image into different ideas and phases they are following this advice.
To just use the slogan, “built Ford tough”(which by the way I like the best) does not fit into thier current strategy of penatrating markets that are new to them.
Ford is certainly on the move and seems to have thier finger on the right buttons right now. It looks like they are trying to capture the same magic for thier marketing campaign. If the campaign gets at least one new person into the showroom that would not have been there before then the marketing plan is a success.
I like these spots. They convey the impression that Ford is paying close attention to all of the little details. That’s a good message.
A buddy of mine bought an F-150 because of the “little details”, like plastic stepside fenders that won’t rust. Then a spark plug blew a hole out of his engine and cost him $2,000… a story that has been repeated by thousands of Ford owners. And that is just the tip of an iceberg that includes millions of defective fuel pumps, transmissions, air conditioners and other core components over the years. Now they’re putting turbochargers and LCD dashboards into mainstream models… imagine the future repair bills on those components.
You can sell cars for awhile on “little details”, but if you don’t get the big things right you will eventually be put out of business by those who do.
How to sell a Ford?
-Sell the decent Ford’s here (Modeo, Falcon, Kuga, Euro Focus.
-Make cars that don’t look like they should be on the Toyota lot.
-Back your cars with a decent warranty.
-Don’t rely on gimmicks.
-Don’t make false/highly suspicious claims in advertising (“Eco”boost).
-Put some soul in the product.
-Ditch the three bar grille
-Bring prices down to a Ford level…just because the car may stack up well against a competitor does not mean you can charge as much as that competitor. With time, you will be able to charge that much…but not now.
Then a spark plug blew a hole out of his engine and cost him $2,000… a story that has been repeated by thousands of Ford owners.
Ford says that’s not a problem….which is just like saying…that’s normal.
So Toyota, spending all of the money made on Scion on product development, I know cheap shot.
Believed as GM did that they being number 2 and all they could weather the storm. Having just entered the full size truck market and with thoughts of sugarplums in their heads planning to double the size of the plant in San Antonio to satisfy future Tundra sales, starting a new plant in Alabama to build Highlanders, what’s with that?, and shipping Prius’ as fast as they could had their head turned when it hit. They have shelved much of their plans for expansion at the expense of new models and must soldier on with the tried and true.
So who got it right? This whole downturn thing? I’m thinkin’…
“Twin I-beam suspension” and “CVCC” have worked wonders for Ford and Honda in the past (respectively).
I suggest they show more comparisons against Brand X, such as the Mike Rowe videos.
People don’t want to buy better ideas, they want to buy a better feature.
Honda and Toyota don’t really have a slogan do they? Seems like Ford doesn’t need one either then. There’s nothing more disgusting than hearing a car company (oh, let’s say Buick for example) that changes their slogan every few months. You get the impression that the folks at that company don’t know what the heck they’re doing.
I would push the “better than Toyota” quality thing hard if I were Ford. How good is their warranty? If it’s good, then push that too as a peace of mind thing.
In its prewar heyday, Ford’s motto could have been “cheap and cheerful.” Car like the Model A and V8 were neither sophisticated nor terribly reliable, but they were cars the average person could come to grips with, they were reasonably sprightly, and the price was right. After the war, they tried hard to be GM, only not. Ford only outsold Chevy (overall) a couple of times, mostly when the public was dissatisfied with overblown GM styling, and Lincoln pretty much only got the people who were at the bottom of the waiting list for Cadillacs.
Strictly from a selling-cars standpoint, the “Better Idea” theme isn’t such a bad idea. If you have a basically solid lineup (which Ford will have, at least for cars, once they finally replace the Focus), it does work — hell, it’s the key driver for consumer electronics.
That is the biggest problem in the car business right now, the 10mm annualized sales rate. Nobody could have predicted/prepared for it. When sales return to more normal historic levels it will be very interesting to see who has what market share.
The only stellar performer in this market has been Hyundai/Kia but you have to balance their performance with their relatively small market share. With the Fiesta and upcoming new Focus I like Ford’s prospects.
That is the biggest problem in the car business right now, the 10mm annualized sales rate. Nobody could have predicted/prepared for it.
My memory is telling me that Ford came the closest. While Hyundai and Toyota were building massive and expensive new US factories, Ford leveraged it all and started talking about a plan to become profitable with drastically reduced vehicle sales.
I remember thinking that they were just facing the reality of not producing cars people wanted to buy. But now that I reflect on it a bit, I’m pretty sure that they saw it coming and started preparing. Go back and look at the financial news in 2006, 2007 and early 2008. There were a lot of people trying to warn everybody that the US economy was headed for a collapse. They were ridiculed, made fun of, criticized, etc. And when things went south they were ignored and it was all “Nobody could have seen this coming!” If Ford had come out and plainly said that the economy was going to crash and they were preparing for it it would have been disastrous for them. They can’t say that publicly.
Echoing some above, I like this kind of campaign, too. Though the capless thing is something that wouldn’t call my attention, the lighting one would and does. I like the idea. It would take me closer to buying one (no, “brazilian” fords get no such feature, here they’re on a decontenting binge that’s building them a bigger hole..but I digress).
On a side, but related note (maybe), VW’s latest campaign down clear claim they are “Das Auto”. Yes (I believe), “The Car” in German. And try to poke fun at other makers saying their cars have no unnecessary little cosmetic lights and other frills, but that they concentrate on the mechanics. Hummmm. When my wife first saw this commercial, there were a bunch of friends w/ us watching TV, and she said, “but I like little lights!”. Well, everyone laughed and agreed w/ her and one even came up with “well, that’s just to justify how drab and dreary their cars are.” This crowd was not made up of car lovers and apparently the rejection was unanimous. It’s hard to understand marketing folk sometimes.
Honda and Toyota don’t really have a slogan do they? Seems like Ford doesn’t need one either then.
H & T don’t need one…their cars sell themselves.
I have no idea about how to bullshit people with salesmanship.
However, Ford has got to get their Design out of the garbage can.
.
Every car they sell here is Hideous; but the Mondeo and the Fiesta are pretty not-bad.
The best possible thing that Ford could possibly be, design+conceptwise, is the American Volkswagen.
Provided they don’t destroy/ignore reliability àla VAG, the reasonably good-looking, affordable, durable people’s car is something FMC Can do.
.
+And pleasepleaseplease get TBWA/C/D to Change the Freaking oldey-timey, silent-film-star of a Logo!
Honestly; it isn’t 1910 anymore, and the WWI vets are all dead! Nobody’s waiting for the next Myrna Loy flick! People are no longer lining up to see star second baseman Napoleon Lajoie out on the field! Josephine Baker isn’t putting on shows anymore! Jules Verne is on permanent hiatus! Phrenology has been thoroughly debunked! Handlebar moustaches are out! –Jeez!
.
++They’ve GOT to give up the badge engineering crap and make Real Actual committments to their other lines with Real Actual Individual Cars (even if they share -only- platforms). eg: Mercury as Amercian Audi, Lincoln as American Lexus.
From the times I’ve rented various cars, I’ve always found the Fords some of the best drives, so why not:
“Ford: The Best Drive”
And concentrate on making the every car or truck engaging to drive (if it’s not already).
They’re about to put the Panther out to pasture, which will help this goal.
Tosh :
October 8th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I’m calling shenanigans on this claim of “not having your hands smell like gas.” Don’t I still have to grab the disgusting grip of the refueling nozzle? Isn’t it from handling this nozzle that my hands might smell like gas? What am I missing? On my car I deftly grab the knob of my gas cap and place the possibly smelly end in its cradle on the filler door while refueling.
Ah, but what about the gentle “ffffuh” of escaping gasoline vapor that is often heard when you unscrew the gas cap? Lots of people hear the vapor venting; they may well associate the sound of escaping gasoline vapor right next to their hands with the subsequent smell of gasoline on their hands (probably with good reason).
If Ford’s capless system prevents the sound of venting gasoline vapor, then buyers may well conclude that their hands won’t be given a gasoline-vapor treatment.
Its odd that more than one poster here mentioned that Toyota doesn’t push its reliability in its ads.’Cause I just saw the new Toyota commercial touting how 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road.
Otherwise how about ” There’s no old VS new Ford, There is only one Ford,”
Actually, great ads. Modern, simple, short and you feel good after you see them.
Also, FORD – THE BEST DRIVE
sounds pretty darn good to me. Its what cars do and who doesn’t want the best?
Works well with each line too. nicely done.
Farago, this is the one you’ve been asking us for- time to get all relentless and isht on ‘the best drive’!!
What are the chances that over time dirt could get into the tank and cause filter problems? The idea sounds great but may not be really the way to go.
Rday – There is a flap that automatically opens and closes when you put the nozzle in the receptacle, and some sort of internal baffle. It will kink up on a hose if someone tries to siphon your gas, so it must be fairly tight. For those who are truly paranoid about their fuel tanks though, you can still buy a regular or locking gas cap that will screw on overtop of the capless fuel filler.
P71 etc.
Lets handles these disparaging remarks one by one shall we.
-Sell the decent Ford’s here (Modeo, Falcon, Kuga, Euro Focus.
Firstly, what is a Modeo? Secondly, Ford is already selling decent Ford’s here – that is why their market share has grown for 11 months out of 12 (retail share that is!) The Transit Connect is already on sale here, the Fiesta and Focus will be here next year and there will be much more to come. So, that argument doesn’t work.
-Make cars that don’t look like they should be on the Toyota lot.
Ford vehicles look nothing like Toyota’s – maybe a trip to the ophthalmologist may be in order!
-Back your cars with a decent warranty.
Ford already has an excellent warranty – and beyond that, warranty claims are down a huge amount (billions of dollars) over the last few years due to the outstanding quality improvements.
-Don’t rely on gimmicks.
Like what exactly? Great vehicles with great quality that are meeting the needs of consumers (as evidenced by sales and share). What is the gimmick?
-Don’t make false/highly suspicious claims in advertising (”Eco”boost).
Please show evidence for this outrageous claim. Please point out the false advertising that you believe makes your point. EcoBoost delivers V8 performance with V6 fuel economy. The AWD V6 Flex delivers 262hp with 16/22. The EcoBoost version delivers 355hp with 16/22. That seems quite compelling to me.
-Put some soul in the product.
Do you have a source for your soul factory? Drive EcoBoost, drive Transit Connect, drive SHO, drive Mustang. Then you will understand what soul is
-Ditch the three bar grille
Why ditch a successful visual differentiator? So Ford’s can look more like Toyota’s – no thank you.
-Bring prices down to a Ford level…just because the car may stack up well against a competitor does not mean you can charge as much as that competitor. With time, you will be able to charge that much…but not now.
That is a crazy statement. Firstly, Ford’s entry level prices match or beat the competition. Secondly, if people want your product, why not charge more for it. In the first 6 months of 2009, Ford’s net pricing has increased by $1.9 BILLION! That sounds like a good business proposition to me.
You still will not say why you hate Ford so much, but your assertions do not stack up.
@ jamie1:
Please show evidence for this outrageous claim. Please point out the false advertising that you believe makes your point. EcoBoost delivers V8 performance with V6 fuel economy. The AWD V6 Flex delivers 262hp with 16/22. The EcoBoost version delivers 355hp with 16/22. That seems quite compelling to me.
*Sigh*
The current Chrysler 5.7L HEMI-badged V8 with their Multiple Displacement System easily achieves 25 or 26 mpg on the highway. I know because I’ve calculated the mpg of my AWD Magnum at dozens of fuel stops.
Hundreds of other 5.7L owners have reported their findings on Mopar forums across the internet. LXforums.com is a great place to start digging up their experiences.
The 5.7L HEMI-badged V8s with Multi-Displacement match the power output of the EcoBoost. They also avoid the additional mechanical and thermal complexities that are part and parcel of the EcoBoost or any turbocharged engine.
I’m sorry, but 16/22 are not mpg ratings that Ford should be crowing about.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz :
October 8th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Second – it’s “Taurus S-H-O”, not “show”
It’s their car. I’d say that they can pronounce it however they want.
I think its perfect… anyone buying a Ford car over the competition obviously doesn’t care about the car. (the big things such as motor, brakes, suspension ect, if they did they wouldn’t be buying a Ford.)
So why not sell them on the features?
rochskier :
October 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
@ jamie1:
Please show evidence for this outrageous claim. Please point out the false advertising that you believe makes your point. EcoBoost delivers V8 performance with V6 fuel economy. The AWD V6 Flex delivers 262hp with 16/22. The EcoBoost version delivers 355hp with 16/22. That seems quite compelling to me.
*Sigh*
The current Chrysler 5.7L HEMI-badged V8 with their Multiple Displacement System easily achieves 25 or 26 mpg on the highway. I know because I’ve calculated the mpg of my AWD Magnum at dozens of fuel stops.
Hundreds of other 5.7L owners have reported their findings on Mopar forums across the internet. LXforums.com is a great place to start digging up their experiences.
The 5.7L HEMI-badged V8s with Multi-Displacement match the power output of the EcoBoost. They also avoid the additional mechanical and thermal complexities that are part and parcel of the EcoBoost or any turbocharged engine.
I’m sorry, but 16/22 are not mpg ratings that Ford should be crowing about.
The last year of the Dodge Magnum (2008) with the 5.7 gets 15/23. So basically the same, not better. To compare vehicles, you’ve got to use apples-to-apples numbers, and the only ones of those available are the official ones, not what somebody says they get.
Regardless of Ford’s hip catch phrases and trendy gadgets, their dealership sales and service experience is enough to keep me away.
Wake up Ford, I don’t want to buy a car from Herb Tarlek.
The AWD V6 Flex delivers 262hp with 16/22. The EcoBoost version delivers 355hp with 16/22. That seems quite compelling to me.
You are using that to support “Eco”Boost?
Classic.
Look, just because Ford builds a V6 that drinks MORE gas than some V8s, does not mean that when they add more power, they can claim that it makes V8 power with V6 mileage. That is false.
If you compare Fords numbers to a company that can actually build something that is not terrible, you will find that Ford builds a 3.5 V6 that gets V8 mileage…both in TT form and not.
“Eco”Boost is a gimmick. Just like the (terrible) fuel filler system that doesn’t work.
Take off the blinders and see the truth for once. It’s refreshing.
P71 Crown Vic:
H & T don’t need one…their cars sell themselves.
What a crock of s***. Toyota’s (now waning) success came from years of advertising and image building. When are you guys ever going to get back to the real nuts an bolts of car reviewing rather than all this b.s. about whetehr you like a car’s “brand image”.
Car reviews should cover:
1. The car’s design specifications
2. How the car rides
3. How the car drives/handles
4. The car’s styling
5. The car’s design
Everything else is namby pamby bull**** put out to trash a brand of car you don’t like. Have you, Robert Farago, ever actually built an engine or done anything mechanical? Or are you concerned with marketing gimmicks?
After reading the last several posts, I believe the “Best and Brightest” should be renamed the “Bitter and Babbling”.
Maxb49:
A large number of the posters here would rather just buy a new car every few years and sit at the computer and complain rather than do anything mechanical.
Armchair CEO’s…We salute you!
“Eco”Boost is a gimmick. Just like the (terrible) fuel filler system that doesn’t work.
Take off the blinders and see the truth for once. It’s refreshing.
Once again, please enlighten us with the facts surrounding the fuel filler system in EcoBoost that you think does not work?
The current 3.5 V6 in the Flex for example is the equal or better than anything else out there. Better than the offering from Honda, equal to the offering from Toyota and also of GM and others. How can you claim that this is a V6 that offers V8 fuel economy – your numbers simply do not add up.
The truth is what eludes you sir. I am basing my comments on facts, not unenlightened rhetoric.
A large number of the posters here would rather just buy a new car every few years and sit at the computer and complain rather than do anything mechanical.
I know it’s a frickin embarassment. This is a purported car website written actually written by people who know nothing about mechanics. If they did they’d recognize a few facts:
1. Any car can be made to perform and handle well.
2. All cars are getting shittier because they are constructed out of increasingly inferior building materials.
3. Every car is overpriced.
4. Marketing and hype don’t amount to a good car. In Robert Farago’s world, a car that is advertised to his preconceived notion about what a car brand “should be” is a great car. Sorry Robert, that doesn’t wash with people who know anything about mechanics. Robert uses his “marketing” arguments to trash other cars of sound mechanical design (virtually anything American) and laude overpriced piles of crap (most new Porsches).
The current Chrysler 5.7L HEMI-badged V8 with their Multiple Displacement System easily achieves 25 or 26 mpg on the highway. I know because I’ve calculated the mpg of my AWD Magnum at dozens of fuel stops.
And I have seen 26 mpg in my EcoBoost Flex – what does that prove? Use the numbers on the EPA website to give a fair comparison otherwise all you are doing is making up numbers to support your point of view – hardly scientific now is it?
You can buy those gas caps at Canadian Tire for about $15. Americans think they can sell cars with gimmicks.
As far as markeing goes, Ford would ae made a much more compelling case for the Taurus if the car had instead been named the Galaxie, offered standard RWD with the optional AWD, and put a V8 under the hood comparable to GM’s LSx engines. A six passenger configuration wouldn’t hurt either. These center consoles are getting bigger every year making the interiors of large automobiles feel claustrophobic. As much as I love the Ford Panther cars, everything else Ford makes is an ‘almost’ great car. The cars are ‘almost’ great but feel mushy, either due to mushy steering or a mushy engine. Come to think of it, I don’t like Fords anymore. Who the hell thought it was okay to let the front end of an F-150 look like someone’s loafer? You guys might be on to something after all.
*named the Galaxie
*Sigh* part II…
@ jamie1:
The main issue is that you claimed:
EcoBoost delivers V8 performance with V6 fuel economy.
It would be an accurate statement if you substituted ‘V8’ for ‘V6’. And the EcoBoost is still stuck with the thermal management and mechanical issues inherent in any twin-turbo setup.
Also, the idea that EPA numbers are ‘scientific’ is laughable. Manufacturers regularly game the EPA test cycle with specially configured vehicles.
@ Geotpf:
I’ve repeatedly calculated 25 mpg highway, 26 if I really baby it. You’re more than welcome to ride along to test that claim.
@ Maxb49:
3. Every car is overpriced.
This, a thousand times, this.
Rochskier, you are absolutely right about the mechanical issues associated with twin turbo setups. Folks, Ford isn’t building a twin turbo setup for fuel economy, or because the government is mandating V6s. Ford is building this piece of shit engine so that it will require a host of brand specific tools to repair, the car will have to go to the dealership, and the engine won’t last forever so you have to buy another car. They could easily build a powerful, reasonably fuel efficient V8 but they won’t do it because V8s last forever. Turbo V6s don’t. And everyone has the tools to repair a V8 (or normal V6 or 4). They’ll make all special tools for EcoBoost repair. Just watch.