Ford ad - Don't call it a comeback!

[Jesda]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsyGOexjdQM[/youtube]

Unofficial video created by Motofinity. Not a real ad.

http://jesda.com/2011/02/13/ford-dont-c ... -comeback/

[sbird1]

I like. After TG:USA did the test of the Ford Raptor, I have wanted one. Also the new fancy Focus RS is pretty awesome too. Cool commercial. Kind of an in-your-face to GM and Chrysler.

[bigbadberry3]

+1

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Some Ford exec with balls should pick this up.

[themadscientist]

It should be an ad. It doesn't have the air of begging like a Chevy ad. I am immensly proud of Ford for toughing it out with no bailout money and making the hard choices needed to survive. An ad with this attitude would fit them well.

[Ace2cool]

Not to mention Ford is easily the top choice in my book out of the major 3 American manufacturers, having driven examples of nearly every car and competitor. Just seems to have more soul and higher build quality.

[Ozzie]

I'll take a G6E Turbo thanks.




270 kilowatts @ 5250rpm
533Nm across a wide powerband of 2000 - 4750rpm.
It can also generate 10 per cent more peak torque for "several seconds" thanks to a new 'over boost' feature.
That's roughly another 50Nm, which would take peak torque to a mind-numbing 586Nm.
Read more here

[turbonxsx]

YUCK

[Jesda]

YUCK

Since youre a secretary, I need you to fax these for me.

[sbird1]

270 kilowatts @ 5250rpm
533Nm across a wide powerband of 2000 - 4750rpm.
It can also generate 10 per cent more peak torque for "several seconds" thanks to a new 'over boost' feature.
That's roughly another 50Nm, which would take peak torque to a mind-numbing 586Nm.

This is America. We use units of measure that don't make any sense. I have no idea what those numbers mean.

[downedzephyr]

Some Ford exec with balls should pick this up.

+1, I would love to see this on TV

[turbonxsx]

YUCK

Since youre a secretary, I need you to fax these for me.

Whats that mean

[Jesda]

I'm teasing.

[Ozzie]

270 kilowatts @ 5250rpm
533Nm across a wide powerband of 2000 - 4750rpm.
It can also generate 10 per cent more peak torque for "several seconds" thanks to a new 'over boost' feature.
That's roughly another 50Nm, which would take peak torque to a mind-numbing 586Nm.

This is America. We use units of measure that don't make any sense. I have no idea what those numbers mean.

362hp and 393 ft/lb of torque (I think )

[themadscientist]

Silly Aussie, kilowatts are for, well, kind of the entire rest of the world.....

Pass me that 9/16ths wrench would you?

[Bubba1]

It should be an ad. It doesn't have the air of begging like a Chevy ad. I am immensly proud of Ford for toughing it out with no bailout money and making the hard choices needed to survive. An ad with this attitude would fit them well.

The ad left me cold. How do you NOT call it a comeback??? I didn't see a single production car featured from the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Besides the new Raptor pickup, new Boss 302, and Fiesta RS, the next newest production car in the ad was a 1967(?) Shelby mustang???. Sorry, building good cars (assuming they are) after building 40 years of crap not worth mentioning is the definition of a comeback.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm kinda with Bubba. Plus, that line sounds pretty hypocritical coming from the same brand that brought back the Taurus name for its "recognition" and "20 years of history." Nevermind the fact that it was 20 years of the kind of history you're supposed to sweep as far under the carpet as possible. Bad transmissions and fleet sales are not the kind of recognition you're supposed to use to sell cars, Mulally.

Or from the same brand that decided the F150 wasn't selling well enough, so they uglied it up and called it "all new."

Or the brand that has resurrected names like FiveHundred and Zephyr from the distant past (something I like, but still at odds with the ad's message).

Ford IS "back." Denying it just stupid.

And, anyway, I don't see what the big effing obsession is with "comebacks" with the Big Three is anyway. Maybe if they stopped saying "yeah, we used to suck but now we don't" and just focused on "we don't suck now" they'd get somewhere. Stop REMINDING everyone of where you WERE and start PROVING to people where you ARE. Ford's lineup stands up for itself. It doesn't need to hide behind hyperbole. Let's get to the bragging about the 2011 Focus being--for the first time ever--ALL NEW. Let's focus on the superb V6s you get in Ford's lineup. Let's focus on the stuff we're doing CORRECTLY RIGHT NOW.

I also didn't like the music, and third-gen NA-market Focuses stir my soul just about as much as a line of Corollas.

And as for the first-gen Mustang in the ad...that's not helping the cause at all. Imagine if Nissan started running ads showing the J30 Maxima, G50 Q45, M30, and R32 GTR. All that'd do is remind me how they don't make any of those cars anymore, even if a couple of the names are still around. Or imagine if Chevy started running ads showing a 396 Chevelle SS driving around to sell Malibus. Or Ford using pictures of Fairlanes to sell Fusions. All you're doing is reminding people that you DON'T do the great things you used to. STOP FOCUSING ON THE PAST. It is gone. Look forward or GTFO the game. Yes, the 60s were fantastic for American cars. The 60s died 40 years ago. FORTY YEARS. The 70s were s***, and it didn't get much better from there. But now, today, stuff is good. So TALK ABOUT IT. Stop comparing now to then and start comparing now to NOW. The Japanese brands have ALL fallen over the last 15 years. There's no excuse for not having already stolen the pedestals.

[Jesda]

You're all reading wayyy too much into the message. Click the link and read the author's intent.

"Its not a comeback" means "We didn't have to come back from bankruptcy because our talented leadership had the vision to see that the future was not made of unicorns, periwinkles, Taylor Swift albums, and maple syrup"

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm just sick of everyone focusing on the bailout (or not) garbage rather than the CARS. I'm not shopping for a carmaker, I'm shopping for a CAR. I want to hear about the CAR. THE CAR. Take your brand propaganda and shove it. I'll respect the BRAND when I respect the CARS.

The bailouts happened (or didn't). TIME TO MOVE ON. And yes, I realize the shackles are still in place. But it can't be UN-done, so let's focus on where we've gotten since then. And as for Ford, not taking bailout money is only something to brag about because others did. It's like bragging about NOT having run over any old ladies on purpose this year. You're SUPPOSED to not do that. Participation prizes are for saps.

[Jesda]

Its impossible to divorce the manufacturer's philosophy and quality of management from the product. You're not just buying a car. You're buying a philosophy, an image, a brand, a notion of how something makes you feel. When you buy new, you're buying a manufacturer's perceived level of respect for its customers when things go wrong. You're buying a level of consistency when you go for service at a dealer. It matters even more with higher-end vehicles.

The ethical or unethical decisions of a manufacturer matter a lot. If all things are equal (except for Chrysler, modern cars are all fairly dependable) and you're out there looking for a midsize sedan, pickup truck, or crossover, they're mostly the same. What then distinguishes them is brand reputation and perception.

If you're Land O Lakes and you're selling butter, your competitors' butter is almost identical. The lady on the box with the feathers makes the difference.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Don't get me wrong, I understand that brand respect is important. And I understand that it means a lot to love the brand of car you drive. BUT...none of that matters if you don't care about the CAR itself. So my philosophy is to focus on the cars, and the rest will fix itself.

I'm a huge GM fanboy, no secret. I have GM posters all over my apartment. I have a couple Nissan posters, too. But the REASON I'm a GM fanboy is the CARS. Same reason I'm NOT a Nissan fanboy anymore.

I also drive a Lincoln that I LOVE, but am not at all fond of the brand overall right now.

Brand image means a lot, but PRODUCT image means more. I'll NEVER buy a car I don't want to drive. But I DID buy a car made by a company that's doesn't really mean much to me.

[Bubba1]

Its impossible to divorce the manufacturer's philosophy and quality of management from the product. You're not just buying a car. You're buying a philosophy, an image, a brand, a notion of how something makes you feel. When you buy new, you're buying a manufacturer's perceived level of respect for its customers when things go wrong. You're buying a level of consistency when you go for service at a dealer. It matters even more with higher-end vehicles.

The ethical or unethical decisions of a manufacturer matter a lot. If all things are equal (except for Chrysler, modern cars are all fairly dependable) and you're out there looking for a midsize sedan, pickup truck, or crossover, they're mostly the same. What then distinguishes them is brand reputation and perception.

If you're Land O Lakes and you're selling butter, your competitors' butter is almost identical. The lady on the box with the feathers makes the difference.

I agree that perception is one reason why people buy a certain car. But it's not the only one. I did read the article, including your good response, but the financial weathering of recession by Ford was not was implied by that video. The video more suggested Ford has been making good vehicles all along (well, except for that little 40 year gap when they built crap).

[Jesda]

I like my old Cadillac, but none of these ads and messages are intended for us. They're for Americans with 2.2 children who buy the brand new 16 oz boxes of butter that make up the majority of sales volume and profits. Those are the folks who sell, trade, or turn in their cars after 2-5 years.

If I was buying a brand new car, I'd be torn between the Camaro and Mustang. Their strengths and weaknesses are different, but in the end it comes up even for me. I'd then be left with intangibles and other considerations to guide my purchase. Those intangibles involve GM treating its customers and stakeholders like dirt, despite the last ten years of dramatic product improvement under the direction of Bob Lutz and to a lesser degree Rick Wagoner (who gets credit for letting Lutz do for GM what Lutz did for Chrysler in the 90s).

Like the Germans at Daimler Benz who were baffled by Chrysler giving Bob Lutz the boot after the merger, I'm baffled by the federal government forcing Bob Lutz to retire. The Volt that everyone has fallen in love with -- and politicians love to take credit for -- started with Lutz.

Guys like Reuss and Wellburn are still there, but they don't have a strong voice without 'Maximum Bob,' who bypassed GM's bureaucracy and pushed worthwhile projects and designs to the front of the queue. He also had his hands on a few big duds, but failures were infrequent.

So, there you have it. Since the turn of the century, GM's products have changed, but the corporate culture hasn't. This means that once you lose a few key players, the ship starts to sink. This means that if I'm faced with choosing between a mid-level Malibu and Fusion and I'm completely undecided, I'll probably buy the Ford since the company tends to be more customer-oriented and ethical (except that Henry Ford thing where he wanted to burn all the jews, or something like that). All of that design and engineering talent is bottled up in the Renaissance Center, stifled under mismanagement, ready to jump ship the moment Hyundai, Nissan, or Ford make an offer.

[heliochrome85]

i get annoyed when people say that Ford didnt get bailed out. they actually did.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/0 ... -doe-loan/
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/1 ... t-of-ford/

ford is in better shape than GM because they hedged their bets and went bankrupt earlier back in 06 when Mullaly came on board. GM is putting out product like youve never seen before. The Cruze is at the car to beat in terms of build quality. Buick is coming back in a big way. Cadillac has knocked their new lineup out of the park (not STS or DTS as they are from old GM). And Chevy/GMC have been putting out a steady stream of cars that people actualyl WANT to buy.

How many people bought the much heralded Fiesta?
Which sold more last year, the Mustang or the Camaro?


If you havent been to detroit, you dont know what that city is like and the culture that city has. The people literally eat and drink cars. This ad looks childish and showing me shot after shot of the same raptor interspersed with the 1964 mustang does not a strong company show.

[Jesda]

The video more suggested Ford has been making good vehicles all along (well, except for that little 40 year gap when they built crap).

Except, its very true.

Ford made cars that were "not quite as frequently awful as the other guys". Not good by any measure, just "not as awful, as often." They had fewer design and engineering disasters. Fewer disasters -- not none -- fewer. Ford has been more consistent than Chrysler and GM because its taken fewer risks and made fewer promises. It never boomed the way GM did and never claimed that its fortunes were tied to the prosperity of America, nor did it experience the up and down extremes that Chrysler endured.

Its always been there, middling around, staring at the floor and picking its nose, while its more boisterous competitors have said "We're back!" or "We're sorry! Now we're back and its going to be different!" more than a few times. You might remember the internal video I posted a few years back that GM created to pump up its employees, the one featuring Don Henley's "Boys of Summer." You might remember the first round of controversial "We're sorry about the last few decades" ads that GM ran in magazines and newspapers a decade ago.


Ford sat around eating Doritos, being distinctly mediocre, failing on occasion, achieving nothing. Chrysler has been hospitalized twice for heart attacks. GM has cancer.

I think Ford's stability might be tied to family ownership. Tortoise wins, for now.

[Jesda]

Buick is coming back in a big way. Cadillac has knocked their new lineup out of the park (not STS or DTS as they are from old GM). And Chevy/GMC have been putting out a steady stream of cars that people actualyl WANT to buy.

If you havent been to detroit, you dont know what that city is like and the culture that city has. The people literally eat and drink cars. This ad looks childish and showing me shot after shot of the same raptor interspersed with the 1964 mustang does not a strong company show.

The finance arms of all three took TARP money. As for Cadillac, its a mixed bag.

The CTS is a hit and the CTS-V is a truly outstanding halo car.

The current SRX is based on the Equinox, a HUGE step down from the previous Sigma-based SUV which Car and Driver said was better to drive than a similarly priced Cayenne (when equipped with the Northstar V8). The XTS has the dated proportions of a Dodge Intrepid and continues to be front wheel drive. GM itself has said its unhappy with the Cadillac XTS and ALREADY hopes to replace it in 2016. The ATS actually looks like a promising development.

And by the way, there is no DOHC V8 available to Cadillac anymore, nor is one planned! The departure of the Northstar leaves a gaping hole for the competition.

The other issue is that while Cadillac looks downmarket for increased volume (and piles on the incentives to get them sold), Buick is moving up. The two are stepping on each other's territory. Someone needs to get these two brands figured out soon before they become a Lincoln-Mercury. Cadillac is a long, long way from what was intended back in 2002, and something needs to be done before it becomes Lincoln.


As for Detroit, I've been there and gone exploring (probably foolishly in some parts). I wouldn't mind living and working there.

[Bubba1]

The video more suggested Ford has been making good vehicles all along (well, except for that little 40 year gap when they built crap).

Except, its very true.

Ford made cars that were "not quite as frequently awful as the other guys". Not good by any measure, just "not as awful, as often." They had fewer design and engineering disasters. Fewer disasters -- not none -- fewer. Ford has been more consistent than Chrysler and GM because its taken fewer risks and made fewer promises. It never boomed the way GM did and never claimed that its fortunes were tied to the prosperity of America, nor did it experience the up and down extremes that Chrysler endured.

Its always been there, middling around, staring at the floor and picking its nose, while its more boisterous competitors have said "We're back!" or "We're sorry! Now we're back and its going to be different!" more than a few times. You might remember the internal video I posted a few years back that GM created to pump up its employees, the one featuring Don Henley's "Boys of Summer." You might remember the first round of controversial "We're sorry about the last few decades" ads that GM ran in magazines and newspapers a decade ago.


Ford sat around eating Doritos, being distinctly mediocre, failing on occasion, achieving nothing. Chrysler has been hospitalized twice for heart attacks. GM has cancer.

I think Ford's stability might be tied to family ownership. Tortoise wins, for now.

Yes it may be true, but how that's portrayed in the video(or more accurately, not portrayed)in the video is what I take issue with. Patting themselves on the back for having the least stupid management of the big three is not a glorious achievement as implied by the video. They were still stupid.

[Jesda]

The main idea behind the video is pretty obvious to me. It says very explicitly in large white letters "We never left", which means its referring to the bankruptcy of its two American competitors. There's nothing subtle about it. And GM technically ceased to exist when an entirely new business entity was created and old assets and liabilities were discarded.

"We never left" is a different message from "The Topaz was awesome". You have negative memories and associations, probably justifiable, but you're incorrectly attributing them to the video, which makes its meaning very clear.

And a car ad is going to show cars, not Ken Burns-style pictures of Bill Ford.


Irony: Ford ran several ads with Bill Ford. They were terrible.

[bundy26]

That is one sick a** video, should be on the air ASAP, the other two won't know what to do.

[Jesda]

That is one sick a** video, should be on the air ASAP, the other two won't know what to do.

Not likely to happen. Mulally was there in DC to support bailouts and concessions for Chrysler and GM.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28159257/ns/business-autos/