Ford's Kill List

Some interesting commentary:

---
In the old days, our car companies sometimes killed model names.
Fairlane went at Ford, Bel Air went at Chevy, and who has heard of the
Dodge Royal Lancer? Killing actual models - not the names, the vehicles
- was rare. That's because here we're talking about killing hundreds of
millions of dollars of investment, in tools and dies and brand
identity.

Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit
it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler
killsPlymouth.

It's a rare thing. Except at the Ford Motor Co.

Here's a list of Ford cars and trucks killed or soon to be killed. This
list goes back to 2000. Look how long it is:

Taurus (to die soon)
Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already)
Thunderbird (The only Ford anyone turned to see, dead)
Lincoln Blackwood (Who approved this and is he still at Ford?)
Lincoln Aviator (not bad but gone anyway)
Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales)
Ford Contour (the $6 million baby, the failed transplant)
Mystique (the Mercury Contour)
Continental
Excursion (the bigger they come?)
Lincoln LS (this car was murdered)
Mercury Cougar
Mercury Villager

NoOp Comment: He forgot about the Marauder.

That's thirteen vehicles, and I may have missed some. I've never seen
anything like it. And we know there are more to come. The Ford GT is
going, and I suspect the Windstar minivan and its Mercury sidekick, the
Monterey, are not long for this world. When the Wixom, Mich., plant
closes I suppose the Lincoln Town Car will go. And I've never been able
to figure out the plan for the Ford Freestyle, which is the new
crossover (though it looks just like a station wagon) built in Chicago.
One day it's going to die, then it's going to live, then there's to be
a Mercury version, then there's not. I've lost track and stopped
trying.

Anyone can kill a model or two. But look at the list. There are so many
at Ford. Is it any wonder the company's in trouble? This list says that
the Ford team has had no idea of what makes a successful car and that
even if they have one they don't know how to sell it or fix its
problems. I would say there are examples of both in that list.

For example, look at the Blackwood, that strange Lincoln $50,000
SUV/pickup that had no four-wheel-drive and really couldn't even work
as a pickup despite the big box. That should never have been built.
Whose idea was this and is he still at Ford? The Contour and Mystique,
Ford's world cars, didn't work here at all. Ford always had dreamed of
a world car, so I suppose that no one wanted to tell the boss that they
wouldn't work here.

But the Thunderbird and the Lincoln LS are examples are cars that came
out with great fanfare, were hits initially, but faded because of
ineptitude at the company level. Ford just failed to improve the cars
or correct the problems, and when the going got tough, Ford turned
quitter.

The Taurus, once the best-selling American car, and Mercury Sable (they
sold 100,000 a year!), were well accepted by the public with good
quality, too. Instead of correcting the problems, Ford quit on them.

The Excursion. Okay, it was big, but there's room for a big vehicle.
Look at the Suburban.

Alas, you've got to know how to sell it, or at least care. And the
Escort? Nearly 300,000 sales just six years ago (2000). Don't even ask.
The Lincoln Aviator was another that should have been more successful.
Ford just seemed to stop caring about the car.

Cars and trucks, even the successful ones, do run into problems and
most automakers correct the problems. At Ford when there's a problem
they seem to quit, give up, and kill the car.

What is strange is that this is a company that really knew marketing
and how to sell, and had great dealers, too. Somehow the men who knew
how to sell were driven from the company. Those left just don't seem to
have the knack.

Ford's new plan is called the "Way Forward." They might go forward by
learning from the past.

Here are some suggestions:

When a vehicle line has problems, fix them. Your former top-selling
vehicles like the Focus and the Ranger have problems today. They are
dying out there. Don't just sit there, fix the problems!

Expand your lineups with variety. If you have a four-door sedan (like
the Lincoln LS), figure out how to build an SUV/CUV/sport wagon from
it, and maybe a coupe or convertible. If you've got something that
sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the
Mercury Mustang? Mercury was never good enough for a version of the
small Focus? Why not?

If you have any belief in brand quality or brand identity, stop
changing the names of the cars every minute.
---

NoOp Comment: And you can add the name distruction at Lincoln with
their whole lineup soon changing over to Alpha characters. Does the
market really demand cars to be named MKZ, MDX, ABC or XYZ?

Patrick

On 25 May 2006 20:58:10 -0700, wrote:

>Some interesting commentary:
>
>---
>In the old days, our car companies sometimes killed model names.
>Fairlane went at Ford, Bel Air went at Chevy, and who has heard of the
>Dodge Royal Lancer? Killing actual models - not the names, the vehicles
>- was rare. That's because here we're talking about killing hundreds of
>millions of dollars of investment, in tools and dies and brand
>identity.
>
>Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit
>it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler
>killsPlymouth.
>
While I have not done so, have you also gone through the list of GM
products and compiled a list of the models they have killed off?
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

No idea where you found this "gem".... kindest thing would be to put it
back.

"killing" actual models...... I have no idea hwere that term originates....
The Galaxie died a long time ago - Ford has only the Crown Vic left as a car
with a full perimeter frame. What do you think the sales figures would be on
a modern day Galaxie (not some horrid Monte Carlo/GTO/Charger type quest for
sales - but a full on 4000+ pound rear wheel drive, big V8 monster).... for
an answer, we only need to look as far as the last incarnation of the
Marauder....

Times change and consumer tastes change.... The 500 - it's a Taurus but it's
not a Taurus.... Windstar became Freestar (from 50 feet I can't tell the
difference). The Freestyle was born.... what would they call it... it ain't
a Fairlane, it ain't a Cougar.... it is a totally new concept as far as Ford
is concerned. It's not a van, it's not an SUV, it isn't replacing anything
directly.....

Every auto maker is looking for a "hook"... that mystical something that
will stir a consumers juices enough to lay down coin of the realm.... The PT
Cruiser, the HHR and that goofy looking almost a pick-up truck that Chevy is
peddling...

The author has some real trouble distinguishing between car LINES and car
MODELS.... Chrysler killed the Plymouth and Ford pretty much killed Mercury
because the marques put them in direct competition with themselves.... Look
at the Chevy and GMC pick-ups.... Some folks think that the GMC is a much
better truck than the Chevy... even though they are built from the same
parts.....

Then there are those things that need to die... desparately need to die....
Most of you are too young to remember the Olds Firenza and the class action
lawsuit it fostered..... The Cadillac Cimarron (I don't care if your
Cavalier has leather seats.... it ain't a luxury car)....

Things that died early..... the final years of the Corvair showed some
(IMHO) awesome styling cues.... They were fairly nice to drive - powerful in
the Spyder trim but they fell victim to Ralph Nader and those people that
think they know how to drive fast but really don't know how to drive
fast....

The mass produced automobile is nearly 100 years old..... I don't think
there's is a whole lot of "adventure" left, but technology is moving way too
fast...

On 25 May 2006 20:58:10 -0700, wrote:

>Some interesting commentary:
>
>---
>In the old days, our car companies sometimes killed model names.
>Fairlane went at Ford, Bel Air went at Chevy, and who has heard of the
>Dodge Royal Lancer? Killing actual models - not the names, the vehicles
>- was rare. That's because here we're talking about killing hundreds of
>millions of dollars of investment, in tools and dies and brand
>identity.
>
>Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit
>it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler
>killsPlymouth.
>
>It's a rare thing. Except at the Ford Motor Co.
>
>Here's a list of Ford cars and trucks killed or soon to be killed. This
>list goes back to 2000. Look how long it is:
>
>Taurus (to die soon)
>Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already)
>Thunderbird (The only Ford anyone turned to see, dead)
>Lincoln Blackwood (Who approved this and is he still at Ford?)
>Lincoln Aviator (not bad but gone anyway)
>Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales)
>Ford Contour (the $6 million baby, the failed transplant)
>Mystique (the Mercury Contour)
>Continental
>Excursion (the bigger they come?)
>Lincoln LS (this car was murdered)
>Mercury Cougar
>Mercury Villager
>
>NoOp Comment: He forgot about the Marauder.
>
>That's thirteen vehicles, and I may have missed some. I've never seen
>anything like it. And we know there are more to come. The Ford GT is
>going, and I suspect the Windstar minivan and its Mercury sidekick, the
>Monterey, are not long for this world. When the Wixom, Mich., plant
>closes I suppose the Lincoln Town Car will go. And I've never been able
>to figure out the plan for the Ford Freestyle, which is the new
>crossover (though it looks just like a station wagon) built in Chicago.
>One day it's going to die, then it's going to live, then there's to be
>a Mercury version, then there's not. I've lost track and stopped
>trying.
>
>Anyone can kill a model or two. But look at the list. There are so many
>at Ford. Is it any wonder the company's in trouble? This list says that
>the Ford team has had no idea of what makes a successful car and that
>even if they have one they don't know how to sell it or fix its
>problems. I would say there are examples of both in that list.
>
>For example, look at the Blackwood, that strange Lincoln $50,000
>SUV/pickup that had no four-wheel-drive and really couldn't even work
>as a pickup despite the big box. That should never have been built.
>Whose idea was this and is he still at Ford? The Contour and Mystique,
>Ford's world cars, didn't work here at all. Ford always had dreamed of
>a world car, so I suppose that no one wanted to tell the boss that they
>wouldn't work here.
>
>But the Thunderbird and the Lincoln LS are examples are cars that came
>out with great fanfare, were hits initially, but faded because of
>ineptitude at the company level. Ford just failed to improve the cars
>or correct the problems, and when the going got tough, Ford turned
>quitter.
>
>The Taurus, once the best-selling American car, and Mercury Sable (they
>sold 100,000 a year!), were well accepted by the public with good
>quality, too. Instead of correcting the problems, Ford quit on them.
>
>The Excursion. Okay, it was big, but there's room for a big vehicle.
>Look at the Suburban.
>
>Alas, you've got to know how to sell it, or at least care. And the
>Escort? Nearly 300,000 sales just six years ago (2000). Don't even ask.
>The Lincoln Aviator was another that should have been more successful.
>Ford just seemed to stop caring about the car.
>
>Cars and trucks, even the successful ones, do run into problems and
>most automakers correct the problems. At Ford when there's a problem
>they seem to quit, give up, and kill the car.
>
>What is strange is that this is a company that really knew marketing
>and how to sell, and had great dealers, too. Somehow the men who knew
>how to sell were driven from the company. Those left just don't seem to
>have the knack.
>
>Ford's new plan is called the "Way Forward." They might go forward by
>learning from the past.
>
>Here are some suggestions:
>
>When a vehicle line has problems, fix them. Your former top-selling
>vehicles like the Focus and the Ranger have problems today. They are
>dying out there. Don't just sit there, fix the problems!
>
>Expand your lineups with variety. If you have a four-door sedan (like
>the Lincoln LS), figure out how to build an SUV/CUV/sport wagon from
>it, and maybe a coupe or convertible. If you've got something that
>sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the
>Mercury Mustang? Mercury was never good enough for a version of the
>small Focus? Why not?
>
>If you have any belief in brand quality or brand identity, stop
>changing the names of the cars every minute.
>---
>
>NoOp Comment: And you can add the name distruction at Lincoln with
>their whole lineup soon changing over to Alpha characters. Does the
>market really demand cars to be named MKZ, MDX, ABC or XYZ?
>
A couple of observations:

1. Models, car names, come & go. Some go for ever. Can anyone say
Edsel? Some leave the scene to come back reinvented, reincarnated.

2. Plymouth was once upon a time a standalone manufacture, became
part of a larger whole and then was completely discontinued as a
brand. Just like GM killed off the Oldsmobile. The list of dead car
companies is quite extensive. Remember AMC?

3. Many models of one marquee are simply guised up versions of one of
the parent companies other models. i.e. the Aviator is just an
Explorer in evening wear. Same thing applies to the Navigator,
Escalade and many other so-called premium or luxury lines. Nothing
other then guised up lower-end models. In order to bring back the
Aviator all Ford would have to do is fancy up the current Explorer
again.

Just some of my less then astute quick observations. I am quite sure
there are plenty of other examples.


--
For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
death.

For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
possibly death.

Choose your fights carefully.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit
> it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler
> killsPlymouth.
>
> It's a rare thing. Except at the Ford Motor Co.
>
> Here's a list of Ford cars and trucks killed or soon to be killed. This
> list goes back to 2000. Look how long it is:
>
> Taurus (to die soon)
> Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already)

Seems to me I was just reading something about the Taurus continuing to be
built in large quantity, to satisfy demand through rental and fleet sales.
Still one of the most popular rentals for travelling business folks.

Throughout its lifespan, the Taurus (and, for that matter, the Escort) has
proven that it was hardly a failure.

But times change, corporate philosophy changes, and they move on to new
models with new characteristics demanding new name badges.

I don't really read anything into this.

dwight

In article .com>, wrote:

> Taurus (to die soon)
> Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already)

They deserve to be. Now if they would only bring over the falcon/fairline
from down under to replace them.

> Thunderbird (The only Ford anyone turned to see, dead)

It was blah.

> Lincoln Blackwood (Who approved this and is he still at Ford?)
> Lincoln Aviator (not bad but gone anyway)

Lincoln trucks. Who cares?

> Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales)

It's called 'focus' now.

> Ford Contour (the $6 million baby, the failed transplant)
> Mystique (the Mercury Contour)

Marketeer neglect.

> Continental

It will return at some point I'm sure.

> Excursion (the bigger they come?)

It deserves to die.

> Lincoln LS (this car was murdered)

Don't know too much about it, comment seems consistant with ford.

> Mercury Cougar

The two door contour was a good idea, one I had back in '96 in fact. but
calling it cougar was a mistake. Making a new mustang based cougar may be
a good idea if there is a market for it that won't hurt mustang.

> Mercury Villager

It's a minivan.... blah.

> NoOp Comment: He forgot about the Marauder.

True.

> The Ford GT is going,

Instant collectable.

> Whose idea was this and is he still at Ford? The Contour and Mystique,
> Ford's world cars, didn't work here at all. Ford always had dreamed of
> a world car, so I suppose that no one wanted to tell the boss that they
> wouldn't work here.

They would have worked if Ford marketed them properly. Instead they tried
to sell them as if they were upgraded Tempos and Topazes. They were not
the A-to-B basic toasters that they replaced. They were good driving cars
that should have been marketed as such.

> The Taurus, once the best-selling American car, and Mercury Sable (they
> sold 100,000 a year!), were well accepted by the public with good
> quality, too. Instead of correcting the problems, Ford quit on them.

They were mostly large volume crap compared to what ford sells in other
markets.

> Alas, you've got to know how to sell it, or at least care. And the
> Escort? Nearly 300,000 sales just six years ago (2000). Don't even ask.

Focus.

> sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the
> Mercury Mustang?

It would be called Cougar... see above.

> Mercury was never good enough for a version of the
> small Focus? Why not?

I guess they made the bobcat so why not?

In article <Uwwdg.35337$Qq.9434@clgrps12>, Jim Warman wrote:

> "killing" actual models...... I have no idea hwere that term originates....
> The Galaxie died a long time ago - Ford has only the Crown Vic left as a car
> with a full perimeter frame. What do you think the sales figures would be on
> a modern day Galaxie (not some horrid Monte Carlo/GTO/Charger type quest for
> sales - but a full on 4000+ pound rear wheel drive, big V8 monster).... for
> an answer, we only need to look as far as the last incarnation of the
> Marauder....

The Marauder was executed poorly. What I saw was a blacked out old man's
4 door grand marquis / crown vic. I didn't see a galaxie 500XL or a
Marauder. I saw an old man's car trying to look cool. It had 2 too many
doors and too formal of a roofline. Keep in mind there is a good deal of
difference between a Marauder and a galaxie 500 XL in convertible or
fastback form.

"Brent P" > wrote
>> Escort (remember the Escort? 400,000 sales)
>
> It's called 'focus' now.

They are 2 completely different vehicles.

>> sells at Ford, get a Mercury version. The Mustang sells. Where's the
>> Mercury Mustang?
>
> It would be called Cougar... see above.

It would have to be different enough not to directly compete with the
Mustang, just like the original of '67. Yes it was a pony car, but it was
about luxury with balls. The Mustang was never about luxury.
>
>> Mercury was never good enough for a version of the
>> small Focus? Why not?
>
> I guess they made the bobcat so why not?

It'd be exactly like the Neon. They didn't even bother changing the name
between Plymouth and Dodge. Or the "cloud cars" between Plymouth, Dodge, and
Chrysler. Same EXACT car with a different name and a few different options.
What a complete waste!
--
Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

"karinhall" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Zombywoof" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 25 May 2006 20:58:10 -0700, wrote:
>> 3. Many models of one marquee are simply guised up versions of one of
>> the parent companies other models. i.e. the Aviator is just an
>> Explorer in evening wear. Same thing applies to the Navigator,
>> Escalade and many other so-called premium or luxury lines. Nothing
>> other then guised up lower-end models. In order to bring back the
>> Aviator all Ford would have to do is fancy up the current Explorer
>> again.
>>
>> Just some of my less then astute quick observations. I am quite sure
>> there are plenty of other examples.
>>
>>
>> --
>> For choosing to fight, one gets the horrors of war,stress,and possibly
>> death.
>>
>> For choosing not to fight, one gets subjugation,humiliation,and
>> possibly death.
>>
>> Choose your fights carefully.
> What the hell does "guised up" mean?? LOL
>

That is one of those if you have to ask questions...

:-)

"dwight" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Killing a model means failure. You did it so wrong; you've got to admit
>> it. We remember when it happens: GM kills the Camaro, Chrysler
>> killsPlymouth.
>>
>> It's a rare thing. Except at the Ford Motor Co.
>>
>> Here's a list of Ford cars and trucks killed or soon to be killed. This
>> list goes back to 2000. Look how long it is:
>>
>> Taurus (to die soon)
>> Sable (the Mercury Taurus, dead already)
>
> Seems to me I was just reading something about the Taurus continuing to be
> built in large quantity, to satisfy demand through rental and fleet sales.
> Still one of the most popular rentals for travelling business folks.

Part of the reason for this is Ford has decide NOT to allow fleet (& rental)
sales of the Taurus's successor, the Five Hundred.
That doesn't leave many options.

>
> Throughout its lifespan, the Taurus (and, for that matter, the Escort) has
> proven that it was hardly a failure.
>
> But times change, corporate philosophy changes, and they move on to new
> models with new characteristics demanding new name badges.
>
> I don't really read anything into this.
>
> dwight

By the way, I just had a new Taurus (1600 miles) rental car this week, the
damn thing would only accommodate driver and passengers of a about 5'8" or
so. It was so cramped inside I could not believe it. The new Mustang has
more leg room, at least the length between the front seats and the firewall.
The space was very disappointing.