time to start the hate letters to ford

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by BLOCKER

if you think about it this could spell a whole new company... I know I am going to get slammed for saying this but the ford umbrella is could include Mercury, Lincoln, Astin Martin, Landrover, and MUSTANG.... I know we all love the idea of rear wheel drive V8 powered 2 door coupe or convertable, but imagine how easy it would be easy to sell the same rearwheel drive V8 that can be easliy modifed, and still look cool.. well, kind of cool, with out having to settle for a chrysler product. As much as I hate to say it, money talks and bull**it walks... if Ford can turn a profit selling a 4 door Mustang wagon to middle aged guys who are unable to afford a toy, or able to convince the wife to cram the 2 kids into the back of the 2 door convertable... why not turn the profit? any hoo, let the slams begin!

O.K. You're either a Ford PR employee or, more likely, simply miss the point. I'm guessing the latter. Besides, a Ford employee would know full well that the Ford 'umbrella' already includes the cars you listed in your post. Especially the MUSTANG (as you put it).

The point is that the 42-year-old Mustang name means something - which is why the ill-fated Mustang II was bitterly opposed by Mustang fans back in the mid-70's. It diluted and misused the Mustang name by pasting it on what was basically an econo-car, meant to respond to the then-gas shortage with a 4 cylinder 'Mustang'. Even the V-8 model was dowplayed and hardly a fast machine. That was then. Fast-forward to 'now'.

Once you start calling tepid, grocery-getter vehicles by names that infer power and style you are basically prostituting the hard-earned panache inherent in the Mustang name. GM did this with some of it's vehicles in the 80's and by doing so, killed off perfectly good marques, such as the Olds Cutlass and, eventuaslly, the entire Oldsmobile line. Nice job, GM. Of course, they were pretty crappy cars, anyway, and that didn't help. Slapping 'performance' names on warmed-over loads doesn't fool many buyers (or savvy auto magazine testers) for long. If Ford takes that road, they will likely fail and bury the built-in sales allure of the Mustang to a point where it cannot be resurrected. That would be a shame because money would 'talking' alright...and Ford would likely be losing it, not making it.

Middle-aged guys who want 'performance' in a car also want luxury and 'prestige'. They are not into being uncomfortable. That's why the BMW was such a hit in the '90's. It was 'different' (foreign), powerful, responsive and - relatively - expensive. Now, even Cadillacs have suspensions that allow you some road feel and engines that actually have some pick-up. Most of the FWD/AWD Japanese luxury cars (Accura, Avalon, Infiniti, Lexus) have very refined engines (often at or close to 300 HP) with more-than respectable 0-60 and quarter-mile times...most with automatic transmissions, leather interiors, climate control, a killer stereo and a navi system included. Expensive, yes, but a lot of car and with all the power most middle-aged moms and dads can handle.

Some over-40 guy looking for a 'toy' usually wants luxury and power. He doesn't want his kid's car. That's why the Mercury Marauder - a Ford experiment - didn't sell. It had 'muscle' - but not enough panache. It was also expensive for what you got...a Mercury. A Mercury doesn't impress the neighbors. A Lexus does. A Lexus that makes the owner/driver feel like a rich guy with a sophisticatied machine at his fingertips sells. A warmed-over Mustang clone does not.

However, even if a four-door 'Mustang' SUV could be manufactured, I doubt it would appeal to a very wide audience. Mustang fans would hate it on principal and those middle-aged folks it was supposed to sell to would rather have a sophisticated foreign AWD machine to play with. Preferably one with a 'prestige' nameplate, not the marque of his kids car.

I could be wrong but I don't see this idea of a near-desperate Ford bastardizing the Mustang name to grab a few hoped-for sales as doing anything but failing.