mmarshall

It wasn't all Ford's fault....or the Explorer's suspension.....that was only part of it. Part of it was on the owners themselves for not maintaining proper tire PSI and overloading their vehicles at high speeds on hot desert roads where most of the tire failures took place. Part of it was on Firestone for not designing in a good enough safety margin in the Wilderness series tires. And part of it was a disagreement between Ford and Firestone on what the proper tire pressures should be. Owners were complaining about the Explorer's firm, truck-like ride, and Ford then specified lower PSIs for ride comfort....down to 26 PSI. Firestone engineers wanted 30 PSI or more, for more tire resistance to heat buildup. Ford, though, in the press, got stuck with most of the blame. The rest, of course, is history.

IS-SV

Agreed it was not all Ford's fault, but here's why Ford paid most of the damages:

. In a weak attempt to improve gas mileage, Ford tasked Firestone to come up with a lighter high-efficiency OEM tire, and we know how crappy it was.

. Ford was well aware that they set artifically low load ratings for the vehicle because of the weak tires, but they moved into production anyway. And of course owners loaded their Explorer just like any other family car or family station wagon or SUV. But the owners were technically overloading it, because they didn't read the fine print. Ford thought they had their *** covered, they later found out not.

. The lame carryover twin-I beam suspension was dangerous and prone to a "jacking effect" increasing instability in emergency situations. That front suspension design was trashed a few years into the first gen production.

. Roof was weak, only met the letter of the law at that time.

mmarshall

My point, "buisness" case or not, was that it is interesting that after GM and Chrysler shed Olds, Plymouth, and Eagle, they started down the road to bankrupcy. Now, of course, those actions alone did not lead to bankrupcy (it was a large number of factors combined, part of which came through the UAW).

I think we all agree on that. Where some of us disagree (not just between you and me, but among a number of us here in this thread) is just what those "competitive" vehicles will be, and who will be the core customer group looking at them. I am of the opinion that, with tens of millions of Baby Boomers moving into their retirement years (the traditional luxury-car-buying age), to drop a division or radically change their products that, for years, like Buick, have catered to an older-than-average crowd is risky.

IS-SV

I agree, interesting if nothing else.

But I for one would not put my reputation as a business person at risk by suggesting that saving Olds, Plymouth, Eagle could have prevented what needed to happen (bankruptcy). But that's just an opinion.

mmarshall

For now, though, we're not actually dealing with a whole Mercury axing, just the Mountaineer. There is probably a case for that. It is essentially rebadged, slightly more plush Explorer that does not sell as well, and lacks the Explorer's off-road 4WD-Lock system, retaining only the automatic AWD, the reasoning for that being that most Mercury buyers are not as likely to want to go off-road to start with.

IS-SV

Mercury is probably on "deathwatch" status. Around here it's hard to find a dealership that sells them. As long as Ford Motor is flexible on allowing the Merc dealerships to sell multiple brands, they should be able to survive while waiting for a more complete lineup of new cars. And hopefully the new cars will go beyond the usual badge-engineering.

SLegacy99

A trio of vehicles: Mariner, Milan, Gran Marq.

Where is Sable going?

IS-SV

Didn't it go the way of the Tortoise (or Taurus I think it was called).

SLegacy99

Ah I found it. Taurus X and Sable discotinued for 2010 model year. Damn, Mercury had better get something unique in there to beef up their lineup. Bring back the Marauder perhaps. I will say, though the powetrain is the same, the Fusion and Milan look very different. This is a good thing.

mmarshall

Dropping the Sable, though perhaps an attractive idea right now, I don't think will turn out to be a good idea in the long run. I elaborated on this in an earlier post above.....the Sable will probably be attractive to the huge number of Baby Boomers about to retire.

Dropping the Taurus X, IMO, is an even bigger potential mistake. The AWD Taurus X wagon is probably the ONLY domestic-nameplate competition to the Subaru Outback, Toyota Venza, Audi All-Road, BMW X-drive wagons, and Volvo XC70. Neither GM nor Chrysler have anything like it.

SLegacy99

I think Ford's best move right now would be to attach their hybrid drive to their 3.5L engine. Then install that setup in the Edge/MKX and the MKZ.

LexFather

Sorry Mike I disagree, Mercury needs to go. Its a rebadge brand its not good, its not trend setting its Ford's version of Pontiac or Saturn but WORSE.

mmarshall

Well, that's just my point. It's easy to make that case now, as you and a few others here are saying. But it may not be so easy to say that in a couple of years, if Cadillac, Lincoln, and and Buick end up driving their core customer groups away, which, IMO, is a distinct possibility. They could end up turning to Mercury if the division is still around and makes the traditional products they want.

We've seen, time and time again in the auto industry, the bad consequences of impulse actions without real planning for the future. Look what happened to GM, for example, after Oldsmobile was axed, and Chrysler after Eagle and Plymouth were axed. Both companies took a sharp downturn towards bankrupcy....and never recovered. Ford, so far, has kept Mercury........and has neither gone bankrupt nor needed public money to stay afloat.

LexFather

Mike, I can't think of one reason to get a Mercury over the competition. Not one.

mmarshall

Right now, you are correct...........there is none. But, see my #28 post above.