Why aren't Falcons sold in America ???

[jpd80]

An example the other way... Chrysler takes on HSV and FPV......
American performance hero monsters local pair with 347kW of power and more equipment for less money.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Not sure why you would want to put an old I6T in the Mustang, it already comes with a sweet purpose built V8 and it is currently lighter than any Falcon bar the Ecoboost

Because people are realists?
V8's cost way more to register (in a lot of places), more to run, more to service, more to buy. People would love to be able to get the style, but people generally don't care what's under the bonnet in any great detail nowadays.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Because people are realists?
V8's cost way more to register (in a lot of places), more to run, more to service, more to buy. People would love to be able to get the style, but people generally don't care what's under the bonnet in any great detail nowadays.

Yep that's why the Mustang has a six

Still can't see why you'd want the I6T from the Falcon

[Pandemic]

Originally Posted by jpd80

An example the other way... Chrysler takes on HSV and FPV......
American performance hero monsters local pair with 347kW of power and more equipment for less money.




image

Hopefully thats a start with more competitive pricing in Australia.

Meaning cheaper cars... Am I imagining something that'll never happen?

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

Well I'm not sure about driving dynamics or tech (US Fords certainly have the edge tech-wise) but having seen a new Fusion up close, the build quality is still very uncompetitive, even new with locally built Fords. Lots of horrible plastic and molding marks that just aren't acceptable in this day and age.

This is why American built cars never do very well outside of the US (since the 80s at least). This is a screenshot from a video of the new Chrysler 300 I saw on youtube. When they still have poor quality like this, there's no chance of competing. A European or Japanese customer would never accept that.

image

That doesn't appear to be the current model 300. My 2005 F150 has as at least as good quality of an interior as any Australian Falcon or Commodore I've had. These comparisons are stupid. Sure, a few years ago, American interiors sucked. So did paint jobs on BMWs in the 1990s. Stop looking at old model American cars and comparing them to current model cars built elsewhere. Well do it if you must, but just don't expect others to buy into it.

Current model 300 interior: http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/D/R/2/ag_11300_intlt.JPG Yeah, a Camry interior is soooo much better!

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Pandemic

Hopefully thats a start with more competitive pricing in Australia.

Meaning cheaper cars... Am I imagining something that'll never happen?

Can't see FPV dropping the GT's price to match the 300 SRT8

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by TC200six

I've been led to believe the '96 Taurus was a complete lemon plus it looked like an extra terrestrial on our roads. It was also during a time when the Falcon was the cheapest car to repair so it's not surprising the Falcon was considered better, but that was 16 years ago. The current Falcon lacks the electrical gimmicks the current Taurus offers, so as I said earlier, if ever the Falcon was sold in the US the way it is here, it would need to be offered as a budget vehicle there.

Interesting bit about the '96 Taurus—it was the debut of Jack Telnack's "New Edge" styling on a production car. The GT90 show car also demonstrated the philosophy. Clearly it didn't appeal to everyone in that form, but by the time the Focus debuted, Ford had it right.

New Edge was Telnack's last hurrah. The original Taurus, which was an international styling sensation, was introduced under his watch. Telnack was the guy responsible for the aero look craze of the '80s. Ford's first aero car was the Tempo. The styling looked much better on Thunderbirds, though.

Anyway, if you think Telnack was a hack, I must remind you that he started his Ford career in Australia. In fact, he styled the 427 Falcon two-door show car (built from an American '66–'67 Falcon Futura coupe) that debuted at the 1969 Melbourne Motor Show. It introduced the Shaker hood and the Super Roo logo.

It's a small world, after all.

[brett7777]

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

Anyway, if you think Telnack was a hack, I must remind you that he started his Ford career in Australia. In fact, he styled the 427 Falcon two-door show car (built from an American '66–'67 Falcon Futura coupe) that debuted at the 1969 Melbourne Motor Show. It introduced the Shaker hood and the Super Roo logo.

It's a small world, after all.

Interesting!

[brett7777]

Originally Posted by jpd80

An example the other way... Chrysler takes on HSV and FPV......
American performance hero monsters local pair with 347kW of power and more equipment for less money.
image

but it looks like a brick with wheels

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by brett7777

but it looks like a brick with wheels

Yes it does, it's apparently the style that US buyers like. A big car has to look big and
that's why American car makers build their large sedan as an imposing "block of flats".

See, that's the difference with our Falcon and Commodore, they're big on the inside
but much more compact on external dimensions compared to say, the 300 or even Taurus.
It's also why a lot of American consumers are quick to mislabel our large cars as mid sizers...

So when we talk to our American cousins about a large or full size sedan, we need
to think Fairlane/Caprice not Falcon/Commodore which are actually like "fence sitters"

[Moby Vic]

I never liked the first generation of the 300 (the one from this millennium). It looked like they took a proper large car and blunted the front and rear ends with a hot iron.

I think they've improved the rear with the refreshed version, but the front is still too blunt and the grille now reminds me of a Hyundai (I can't remember if it's the Genesis or Equus).

Chrysler made such a bold move with both the 300 and Charger because they're a desperate niche player in the US. Ford still sells enough volume to play it safer with styling (witness the incredibly bland Five Hundred that has now morphed into the aggressive-looking Taurus). Of course Ford has bet the company on daring designs before—the original Taurus is the most recent example, but the '49 Ford was nearly as revolutionary (and the V8 and Model A prior to that).

Chrysler has notoriously cheap interiors. They've actually improved vastly since they were given to Fiat. Sergio approved something like an additional $11 per car for the interior.

Daimler officials couldn't believe that Chrysler could actually produce interiors as cheaply as they did—they thought the dollar value was a typographical error.

US GM and Ford interiors are marginally better than Chrysler interiors. Trucks actually tend to have nice interiors these days.

Personally, I don't mind the plastic—I'd rather spend my money on the engine and suspension. The Mustang interior is as nice as it has ever been, but Ford (and even magazine reviews) bragged about ehe 2005 interior, yet it was clearly much cheaper (hard, hollow plastic) than the interior of my '95.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) actually classes cars based on interior volume, not exterior dimensions. That's why a Mustang is considered a subcompact.

But with the death of the Panther platform, there isn't really a traditional full-sized car still in the US market (even though the Panthers didn't really have that much interior room).

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by chevypower

That doesn't appear to be the current model 300. My 2005 F150 has as at least as good quality of an interior as any Australian Falcon or Commodore I've had. These comparisons are stupid. Sure, a few years ago, American interiors sucked. So did paint jobs on BMWs in the 1990s. Stop looking at old model American cars and comparing them to current model cars built elsewhere. Well do it if you must, but just don't expect others to buy into it.

This is the video I took it from. One year old... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCgBuLlCNo

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

Interesting bit about the '96 Taurus—it was the debut of Jack Telnack's "New Edge" styling on a production car. The GT90 show car also demonstrated the philosophy. Clearly it didn't appeal to everyone in that form, but by the time the Focus debuted, Ford had it right.

As much as the new edge styling looked ugly back then, whenever I see a Taurus on the road today, they blend in really well with the rest of the traffic. Maybe Telnack was ahead of his time.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by TC200six

As much as the new edge styling looked ugly back then, whenever I see a Taurus on the road today, they blend in really well with the rest of the traffic. Maybe Telnack was ahead of his time.

Even Ford US recognised that they stuffed it up by making it look like a foot ball,
Jay Mays took over from Telnac and tried to even out look,

[DFB FGXR6]

My opinion on "New Edge" was it didnt really work on larger cars. Its use on smaller cars such as the Focus, Ka, Cougar and Puma was quite resolved and suited the target audience for these vehicles. New Edge on larger cars didnt suit the more mature and conservative nature of the people that would buy a Falcon or Tauris.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

My opinion on "New Edge" was it didnt really work on larger cars. Its use on smaller cars such as the Focus, Ka, Cougar and Puma was quite resolved and suited the target audience for these vehicles. New Edge on larger cars didnt suit the more mature and conservative nature of the people that would buy a Falcon or Tauris.

That's a fair call as the early D3 Fivehundred had a similar look as an enlarged Focus.




Ford's nth American and European styling has changed so much over the past decade it a wonder anyone can keep up..