Ford Motor Retrofuturism

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    No, I'm saying Ford's retrofuturism is a bad automotive design strategy, and the GT40 is a symptom of that strategy. Going retrofuturistic is a nostalgia based strategy and I don't think it'll carry them that for. The GT40 may sell, but I don't think the company can maintain. I essentially see it as a sign that the competency of the company's designers has degraded or has gone down the wrong path.



    As long as GM puts out cars that look like the Buick Regal above, Ford will have plenty of customers. GM must be paying Tiger Woods a whole lot of money to get him to sit in a Buick Rendezvous...



    Just go to edmunds.com and compare the Chevy/Caddie/Buick/Pontiac 2004 line-up to the Ford/Lincoln/Mercury market equivalents. There's not one GM car I'd choose over a Ford. Trucks, I don't know. We've got a Suburban here, but current models are so ugly, and facelifted Ford Super-Duties rock.



    Ford's also done very well to infuse Jaguar with a healthy dose of sales. Pre-Ford, what could you buy? An XJ or XK...both completely out of reach for most... And Volvos aren't boxy for once...



    I'd be more worried about GM's commitment to the future. Pontiacs have looked the same for the past decade. Cadillacs are a cubist's wet dream. Buicks are plain evil. Chevys ... they just suck. Even their global partners like Saab and Opel seem stuck on their old designs.
  • Reply 22 of 41
    scottibscottib Posts: 381member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Are you saying the Ford 'GT' doesn't attract 20-35 year olds?



    At over $100k, few that age can afford it. Anyway, the GT's like the 17" AlBook: a lot won't be produced, but pretty much all will be purchased.



    I'd agree with THT's sentiment in general. While I enjoy most of the retro designs (I dig the mid-century modern aesthetic, in general), and I like the reuse of model names (there are too many alphabet soup, invented word and spelling abortions in new models--bring back the Comet, Falcon, and Galaxie, too), there's a certain played-out feel.



    We are, though, just seeing show cars--some more than a year old--and not the final product (but close, probably), and there are plenty of other cars in the Ford stable that will have a current feel (Focus, Freestyle).



    As long as Ford doesn't mess around with the F-150, they'll be okay.
  • Reply 23 of 41
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    Are you saying the Ford 'GT' doesn't attract 20-35 year olds?



    Twenty-to-thirty-five year olds don't buy Ford GTs, unless they converted those IPO shares to hard currency before the bust.



    Forty-to-fifty year olds will buy the GT, unless their portfolio is just so-so. Then they'll buy a Porsche.



    But I'm biased. I hate Ford because their my customer, and since I know how they put cars together, I wouldn't buy one. Especially the one I worked on. Like I'm responsible enough to design the airbag sensing system. Yeah-- right!
  • Reply 24 of 41
    Actually, it's my fault that Ford design sucks.



    <name dropping>Someone introduced me to J Mays at a local autocross just as he started at Ford. Being clueless, I naturally asked him, "So are you supposed to be famous or something?"</name dropping>



    So his lost of self-esteem is evident in his designs.
  • Reply 25 of 41
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    You winers are all very wrong and must lack a sense of style:



    clearly these cars are awesome



    and I have seen some of these in person and they look truly awesome



    I actualy think it is the only design that has been daring in a long time

    except for German cars

    and except for the fact that there were precedents with the retro-like wagon truck that is truly hideous but sold well

    and the 20th anniversary or etc TBird that sold out before they went retail
  • Reply 26 of 41
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    I would never bother to purchase a Ford product. EVER!



    I had one of their products a 92 model and it was front wheel drive and new and listed for $26,000 MSRP new. Less than one year later it would flex as the unibody frame was more weak than a geo metro convertible. You could hear the car flex and hear plastic rub and rattle. The engine mounts went out twice before 40,000 miles and I drive very easy on cars they were liquid filled as to try to miniumize engine vibration but they were poorly made. The auto transmission would never shift in a crisp way it always smeared into gear. Ford thought that was smooth I thought it was annoying. The heating and air panel on the dash started to have issues. The thin thin thin plastic ford used on the buttons started to crack and at night when the headlights were on you could see bright light coming through the cracks and it looked awful. Every now and then a piece of plastic would just fall off the under side of the seats that once covered greasy rails for the power seats. (background info) Ford had a recall on their 3.8L V6 engine as they would fail before 60,000 miles. The mustang was covered during this period not the "product" I owned. That car died at 62,000 miles as the engine failed just as was noted by the ford recall. Ford would not cover the engine on this model. Same engine but ford had decided they had lost enough money already.



    Needless to say I think Ford is a sad excuse for an automaker. I will NEVER purchase another ford product.



    I have owned and driven VW, Audi, Mazda, Chevrolet, Dodge and I can tell you Ford is by far the worst made excuse for a vehicle I have ever owned.



    I don't care what their cars look like.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 27 of 41
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    I would never bother to purchase a Ford product. EVER!



    I had one of their products a 92 model and it was front wheel drive and new and listed for $26,000 MSRP new. Less than one year later it would flex as the unibody frame was more weak than a geo metro convertible. You could hear the car flex and hear plastic rub and rattle. The engine mounts went out twice before 40,000 miles and I drive very easy on cars they were liquid filled as to try to miniumize engine vibration but they were poorly made. The auto transmission would never shift in a crisp way it always smeared into gear. Ford thought that was smooth I thought it was annoying. The heating and air panel on the dash started to have issues. The thin thin thin plastic ford used on the buttons started to crack and at night when the headlights were on you could see bright light coming through the cracks and it looked awful. Every now and then a piece of plastic would just fall off the under side of the seats that once covered greasy rails for the power seats. (background info) Ford had a recall on their 3.8L V6 engine as they would fail before 60,000 miles. The mustang was covered during this period not the "product" I owned. That car died at 62,000 miles as the engine failed just as was noted by the ford recall. Ford would not cover the engine on this model. Same engine but ford had decided they had lost enough money already.



    Needless to say I think Ford is a sad excuse for an automaker. I will NEVER purchase another ford product.



    I have owned and driven VW, Audi, Mazda, Chevrolet, Dodge and I can tell you Ford is by far the worst made excuse for a vehicle I have ever owned.



    I don't care what their cars look like.



    Fellowship




    That's probably true . . . and probably true of all american cars . . . but Ford's trucks and vans are good . . . they knew Planned Obsolescence wouldn't work with work vehicles so they still make good ones there
  • Reply 28 of 41
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    That's probably true . . . and probably true of all american cars . . . but Ford's trucks and vans are good . . . they knew Planned Obsolescence wouldn't work with work vehicles so they still make good ones there



    Yes their trucks at least last much more so than their front wheel drive cars. I could have bought a Ford F-150 but after how Ford did me with the engine failure due to no fault of my own and entirely to their design flaws I will never hand Ford another cent.



    Not only that but the F-150 is cheap. The interior sucks and the trucks do awful in the crash tests.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 29 of 41
    Quote:

    Originally posted by _ alliance _

    ... ford needs to follow dodge and let euros show them the right way to make a vehicle...



    It wasn't Daimler that made Chrysler's designs so good. They were already doing that pre-merger. Where Daimler will eventually make it's impact felt is in build quality but so far they haven't had as much of an effect on Chrysler as I initially hoped they would. The Crossfire, which is coming out next year, is very promising, though. It will have a Mercedes drivetrain and relies on a retrofuturistic design that Chrysler is so much better at than Ford.



    As for Ford I have an SHO that I bought a couple of months ago. This is the first Ford I've owned since I briefly had a POS Pinto and so far I love it. It's the original SHO with the Yamaha engine. I don't think I'd get too excited about the ones they're making today. Anyway, when the Taurus first came out it was a breakthrough design. I don't think you could say that about any other Ford of the past 30 years which tells you pretty much all you need to know about Ford these days. By the way, I bought that Pinto for $800, drove it for a year and sold it for $500. It was a POS but I really can't complain.
  • Reply 30 of 41
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Ford's built a lot of shit but they've been good at selling it, as has chevy. BTW, when I was talking good pushrod engines (factory) is was obviously talking about the 350 V8's and the 3800 V6's (not the 4300 v6's). These are remarkably reliable, powerful, and efficient (for their outputs) depending on application.



    Did Chrysler do something wrong to the Viper? I saw a new one, I thought it was better balanced thant he original, but it is huge and ostentatious.



    Chevy has also sucked as hard as Ford since the 70's. They haven't had a decent sports car untill the c5 vette arrived. Now if they really wanted a great sports car, they'd import the VX220, and either put an turbo'd ecotec in there, or the 3800 V6. But it wouldn't do to have a better (cheaper) sports car than the vette in the lineup, so that might have to wait untill the c6. At least the pontiac 4-door sports sedan concepts finally look decent, and they should build the SS concept pronto, what a muscle car should be. I hope Lutz makes a difference. The Solistice was a nice little coupe, and the I-4 plus supercharger looks really great mounted longitudinally out front.
  • Reply 31 of 41
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fred_lj

    What does it take to put leather in a car that doesn't age to a plastic state? What does it take to make labels on surfaces that are resistant to USE? What does it take to make an interior that doesn't look like engineers designed it?



    I have no idea. No idea. Perhaps they are still mired in 1980s corporate thinking and the inertia of the bureaucracy hasn't been broken yet. All large corporations and agencies fall prey to this.



    One big thing is probably that gas prices in Europe and Japan put an acute focus on fuel efficiency for foreign car makes, so foreign engines are at the forefront of efficiency. Also, I think the Germans and the Japanese have "cultural" traditions in graphic design, or generally, traditions in creating designs that are elegant. So it bleeds into their cars.



    Quote:

    Sorry to say this, but Ford (after having thought of the above) should have bought into some Japanese automaker. Lexus and Acura (AKA Honda/Toyota) know their business.



    Actually, Ford and Mazda are about in bed together as one can get without one buying out the other. I am not sure what buying a foreign automaker would buy Ford though.
  • Reply 32 of 41
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    I'd be more worried about GM's commitment to the future.



    I'm not so worried about GM because their sheer size acts as a buffer for stupid decisions. There are like 5 different GM brands per car market. They pay a price for it by being slow, but I think they are in better shape than Ford.



    Quote:

    Trucks, I don't know. We've got a Suburban here, but current models are so ugly, and facelifted Ford Super-Duties rock.



    The F-150 SVT Lightning is the only Ford vehicle I lust after. The Lightning concept model this year is also very lustful.



    Quote:

    Ford's also done very well to infuse Jaguar with a healthy dose of sales. Pre-Ford, what could you buy? An XJ or XK...both completely out of reach for most... And Volvos aren't boxy for once...



    But it looks like the cost of moving Jaguar downmarket is moving Lincoln downmarket. Lincoln is one of two true American luxury car brands. At least, that's what the rumors are, and that doesn't sound very good at all. I agree with the Volvo sentiment.
  • Reply 33 of 41
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    It wasn't Daimler that made Chrysler's designs so good. They were already doing that pre-merger. Where Daimler will eventually make it's impact felt is in build quality but so far they haven't had as much of an effect on Chrysler as I initially hoped they would. The Crossfire, which is coming out next year, is very promising, though. It will have a Mercedes drivetrain and relies on a retrofuturistic design that Chrysler is so much better at than Ford.



    Yup, and I like the Crossfire the least. I think Chrysler is really in a design renaissance right now. I'm not exactly sure where the retro is from, or if there is any, but they are on the ball in there design language like Nissan is. All the concept cars, hopefully real retail vehicles, have similar and very aggessive design language. If they price it right with competitive specs and have good build quality, I think they'll come back. Compare this to Ford who is wondering all over the place.



    Chrysler 300C





    Chrysler Airflite





    Dodge Magnum SRT-8





    Chrysler Pacifica





    Dodge Durango RT

  • Reply 34 of 41
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I though the 300C was supposed to be a convertible Muscle Car using the new Hemi?



    That thing under your 300C looks like crap. The rest are good to interesting though, excpet for the durango, which I don't care for.



    The Charger concept of last year was great, the perfect muscle car, too bad they didn't build it.



    Also, to me the PT cruiser doesn't quite look like it should. There's a concept out there using brushed aluminium as a tribute to the "woody" wagons of years past. The roof is squared off and cleaner, and with two doors it looks a lot better than the PT, with minimal changes to the overall shape, another model that they shoulda made instead of what they did release.
  • Reply 35 of 41
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    I would never bother to purchase a Ford product. EVER!



    <snip>



    Fellowship




    HMM, where have I heard this sort of drivel before?



    "I will never buy another ____ again."
  • Reply 36 of 41
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    Yup, and I like the Crossfire the least. I think Chrysler is really in a design renaissance right now. I'm not exactly sure where the retro is from, or if there is any, but they are on the ball in there design language like Nissan is. All the concept cars, hopefully real retail vehicles, have similar and very aggessive design language. If they price it right with competitive specs and have good build quality, I think they'll come back. Compare this to Ford who is wondering all over the place.



    The similar look of all the Dodge vehicles you pasted isn't necessarily a good thing. What if I don't like the look? At least if I don't like the Ford Forty-Nine or Thunderbird, I can look at other Fords without puking...
  • Reply 37 of 41
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights

    Twenty-to-thirty-five year olds don't buy Ford GTs, unless they converted those IPO shares to hard currency before the bust.



    Forty-to-fifty year olds will buy the GT, unless their portfolio is just so-so. Then they'll buy a Porsche.





    Who cares if the 20-year olds buy GTs? The point is whether the design appeals to them.
  • Reply 38 of 41
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    I though the 300C was supposed to be a convertible Muscle Car using the new Hemi?



    Well, apparently the 300C is going to be the successor to the 300M. I like it the best of the bunch. Maybe they need to massage the front fascia a little bit though, but overall, I think it's pretty sweet.



    Quote:

    That thing under your 300C looks like crap. The rest are good to interesting though, excpet for the durango, which I don't care for.



    The Airflite is just a slightly stretched 4 door Crossfire. It's growing on me, but the Crossfire and Airflite lines are the ones I like the least. I also hope they build the M80 concept.
  • Reply 39 of 41
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    Yup, and I like the Crossfire the least. I think Chrysler is really in a design renaissance right now. I'm not exactly sure where the retro is from, or if there is any, but they are on the ball in there design language like Nissan is. All the concept cars, hopefully real retail vehicles, have similar and very aggessive design language. If they price it right with competitive specs and have good build quality, I think they'll come back. Compare this to Ford who is wondering all over the place.





    How can you load that awfull design and say they are in a rennaissance?!?!?!?



    look at it, it all looks influenced by some batmobile idea . . .. that tired out swept back headlight look . . . . ugg . . .its like they don't know whether they want it to look like some child's robot/vehicle toy, military or what . . . the whole distorted diamond angles that predominates in these cars and in cadillac are awful and ugly . . .







    oh yeah: IMO
  • Reply 40 of 41
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The Caddilac Sixteen look brilliant. They should scale it down slightly to a "Twelve" and build it tomorrow.
Sign In or Register to comment.