What Ford Will Look Like in 2012

After we wrote our reports on the upcoming Ford, Lincoln and Mercury lineups, Cars.com intern Colin Bird pointed out a few interesting tidbits Ford mentioned about those future lineups beyond what we already covered.

Using the mantra “One Ford,” the company says it will build just one global midsize sedan, unifying the American Ford Fusion and European Ford Mondeo in the next five years. We’re hoping the Mondeo (shown above) wins out. That would make sense, as it is considerably smaller than the Ford Taurus.

In less mass-market news, Ford also says it will consolidate its cargo vans. Say goodbye to the E-Series as you know it and hello to something better able to meet future government fuel-efficiency rulings, like the Transit (shown above), not to be confused with the smaller Transit Connect already announced as a 2010 U.S. model.

For those interested, there was also a slew of news about fuel-saving technology that’s intended to be phased in throughout Ford’s lineup by 2012. Again, this sounds like a move to meet new CAFE standards.

Ford says it will introduce a six-speed automatic transmission with PowerShift that will rival the mileage ratings manual transmissions manage. Things like start-stop engines that shut off when cars come to a stop to conserve fuel, electric power steering and direct injection will be added.

Ford says its EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder engines will be introduced in North America for 2010 as well. The V-6 turbo engines are intended to be introduced in calendar year 2009 in the Lincoln MKS, Ford Flex and redesigned Ford Taurus.

Comments

[Mart]

Is the Mondeo really considerably smaller than the Taurus? The new Mondeo is actually a pretty enormous car.

[Mart]

Actually, ignore me... I was thinking of the Fusion, which the Mondeo is probably bigger than...

[Dave T.]

Take it back they're almost identical now.

[Mart]

Wow - I'm surprised as the new Mondeo took a pretty big step-up in size when it was redesigned and isn't the Fusion based on the last Mazda6, which was pretty small itself?

Colour me surprised!

[kj]

I am just amazed that it has taken Ford this long to finally sell such attractive cars like these. For decades Ford has been selling shoe boxes on wheels. Even worse they have been relatively unreliable and lose their value quickly. Yet I still won't buy a Ford for any price. Far more dependable cars on the market right now.

[Scott]

I'm really glad to see a US auto company bet big on a strategy that works: smaller, efficient, well-made, good-looking cars. The key difference between this turnaround -- and all the others undertaken -- is that the products that Ford is promising already exist and are already well received. It's just a matter of getting them here and making money doing it.

Guys - Good work on making this story meaningful to consumers -- and evolving the content as the implications of today's announcement becomes clearer and clearer.

[Tom]

This story confirms my that Ford is at least a decade behind Honda and Toyota. I'm not surprised.

[Tom]

This story confirms my that Ford is at least a decade behind Honda and Toyota. I'm not surprised.

[K]

Reliable? Decade behind Honda & Toyota?
Let's see Taurus 196K miles, Taurus 127K miles, Explorer 104K miles and counting. Fusion 36K miles and counting. 1 was in a garage for 1 day. I would say that's pretty reliable. All Auto companies have been sleeping on bringing more fuel efficient cars to market. I got 31 MPG in my 1986 Taurus. Twenty years is plenty of time for R&D to come up with a 40MPG. The market just hasn't pushed hard enough from all manufacturers.

[AUD]

I was just wondering, with all these new cars, that AREN'T going to replace the Taurus, why isn't Ford considering the Ford FG Falcon, which have bettter attributes than the Taurus, like: RWD, I6 with 260HP all the way to a V8 Sports version with 422HP and a Turbo I6 with 415HP with slightly less powerful V8 and Turbo non-sports models, this competes with the Commodore (Pontiac G8) with upscale interiors and body design. so, why not?

[maxwell]

K: All cars are far less fuel efficient than they were 20-30 years ago. It's all the emissions and safety regs. Cars weigh far more than they did 2-30 years ago.

For instance a new Rabbit weighs about 2900 lbs vs a 75 Rabbit that weighed 1900 lbs. The 75 Rabbit gat about 40 something mpg on the highway. The new one gets about 34. The same holds for these new little cars like Fit and Yaris. They're VERY heavy and, thus, really don't get great mileage for their size.

On Ford reliability, I have you beat. I had a 73 (I think) Maverick that I bought used in 75. It passed through any number of my family members till the floor rusted out in 2000. It never once broke. I had a 87 E150 work truck that I get rid of in 2004 because I no longer needed it. It never broke once. I just got rid of a 96 Escort because the 12 year old car needed some tranny work and I figured it wasn't worth it.

My sister is on her 3rd car in her entire, 68 year. life. The first 2 were Mercury Marquis. The only reason that she got rid of the second one was that her husband died, and he had a 2 year old Accord so she decided to keep that newer car.

[Dave T]

AUD,
The current state of gas shock in the U.S. has put most RWD development on hold. Most automakers are looking at FWD w/AWD as an upgrade for those who either want performance or better handling in bad weather.

The G8 has not sold terribly well so far in the U.S. despite the fact it gets the same mileage as the Chrysler RWD vehicles .

[DonB]

The comment above by Maxwell that cars are much less fuel-efficient now than 20-30 years ago doesn't ring true for me. In the '70s and '80s we had huge cars, thirsty V8s with huge displacements, and "muscle cars". I don't think those cars were MORE fuel-efficient than what we have today. I understand that cars weigh more, but they also drink less.

Dave, can you weigh in a clarify this for us please??

Thanks!

[Dave T]

the little Hondas etc that got such remarkable mileage did weigh less yes. The mpg numbers were also higher than they are now because the EPA changed the ratings in 2007/2008. Two major factors for the perception difference. And even today's civic is the size of yesterday's accord as most cars have grown besides the old boats etc.

[Lil'Tom]

DonB,

You're right, the average fuel economy has been pretty stable since the mid-80s, and increased a lot over the previous decade.

Passenger car CAFE 1977-2204
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/NewPassengerCarFleet.htm

Light truck CAFE 1979-2004
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/LightTruckFleet.htm

Passenger car CAFE 1955-1978
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/HistoricalCarFleet.htm

[maxwell]

Guys, on mileage - I was referring to cars of the same size. not behemoths that are no longer made.

Dave is correct that cars with the same name, like Civic and Corolla, have grown, but a 70s Civic or Corolla or Rabbit got far better ACTUAL mileage than current cars like Fit and Yaris, especially highway. it's simply because they weighed less and needed less horsepower. I always refer to my 75 Rabbit that had a 71 hp engine pushing 1900 lbs. It was REALLY fast and sipped gas. What car today has an engine under 100 hp?

[Tony]

You would get les MPG today even if cars were identical because today's gas contains ethanol and ethanol has much less energy.
Basically, to produce same energy you need 2 gallons of ethanol where only 1 gallon of gas

[AUD]

Dave T,

I was suggesting the Falcon range as an all over replacment vehicle for the Crown Vic, Marquis and Town Car. and the variety of engines, and the quality and technology of the cars is far more advanced then that of the current flagships of the Ford Motors lineup

[Hugo90]

The big USA Fords are much larger inside than the Aussie Falcon. Taurus and Sable are big Volvos, and the Crown Vic is a seventies car, basically the 1977 platform, and they cost a lot less at retail than a Falcon.

[AUD]

but the Falcon is worth the extra money, with the better specs, and technology used. a base one here starts round 35k but for that money u get a lot better car overall

[Infosaur]

I hate this theory that "we can make a FWD a performance car by adding AWD" instead of just building a simple RWD car.

Adding AWD adds weight and complexity. Weight hinders performance. Complexity adds to cost. And you only need AWD in the last 10% of the performance envelope. Makes about as much sense as towing a sailboat behind your F-150 all year because you never know when you might go sailing!

Give us SCCA performance nuts what we've been begging for for 20 years, cheap lightweight RWD. Like an new MR-2 or AE-86. Bring back the 240SX, or just take the R&D from the S2000 and make a RWD Prelude Coupe (with a Acura spinoff Sporsedan, Integra perhaps?)

We can only buy so many used Boxters.