Ford Speeds to Tailor European cars for US Crowd

[Sherminator98]

"There is far more emphasis, especially with insurance companies, on low-speed damage from a frontal collision," said Mr. Kozak, who dispatched a team of safety engineers from Dearborn to Germany 20 months ago to modify European designs to meet American requirements. "You can't find an F-150 [truck] in Europe, so the requirements there don't have those collisions in mind."

 

At Ford's test track in Lommel, Gunnar Herrmann, executive director of Ford's next-generation Focus car programs, pointed to the front end of the company's new Fiesta to show the placement of a prominent bar across the grille designed to protect pedestrians.

 

That crossbar will be removed when the Fiesta arrives in the U.S. market in 2010, he said, replaced by a new structure hidden behind the grille, and designed to withstand a high-speed, full-frontal impact with another car or truck.

 

Other safety modifications for the new line of cars entering the U.S. include larger, dual-stage air bags, because federal safety standards demand vehicles also protect unbelted passengers. Mr. Herrmann said the safety belts also will be different because the U.S. versions need to take account of higher-speed crashes.

 

Ford engineers and designers also need to make critical modifications to appeal to American consumer tastes. They plan to outfit U.S. cars with an American version of a spare tire -- European models use a tire that has to be inflated before it can be used -- as well as a more powerful air-conditioning system, as Americans typically expect their cars to cool down more rapidly than Europeans, according to Marin Burela, who helps lead Fiesta's global product development.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220645376...us_inside_today

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Ford are going to make a 1 seater KA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MKII]

Automakers find safety in U.S. doesn’t translate

 

The Associated Press

updated 10:18 a.m. ET, Fri., Aug. 29, 2008

 

DEARBORN, Mich. - It seems like an easy solution: Americans are looking for more fuel-efficient vehicles, so Ford Motor Co. is bringing over some of the small, gas-sipping cars it's been selling to Europeans for years.

 

But introducing the cars to the U.S. market isn't as simple as changing the speedometer from kilometers to miles. Ford has to reconcile American and European safety regulations — everything from the color of rear turn signals to the positioning of crash test dummies — that will keep the cars from hitting U.S. highways anytime soon.

 

Competing interests among automakers, governments and the insurance industry are hampering efforts to standardize safety requirements worldwide. That means extra engineering to make different versions of vehicles for different markets.

 

"Each party negotiating this has their own views about their own standards being better," said Ronald Medford, senior associate administrator of vehicle safety at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets U.S. standards. "But as long as we can show we're not lowering safety and we're lowering cost, we're all interested in that."

 

Some differences are significant, like the U.S. rule that requires protection for passengers not wearing seat belts, which has no European equivalent. Others are small, like the U.S. requirement that vehicles have side lights, which are optional in Europe.

 

Ford isn't the only automaker facing this issue. The ultra-compact Smart car was sold overseas for nine years, but before Daimler AG could bring it to the U.S., it had to make the car longer to meet U.S. crash standards, spokesman Ken Kettenbeil said.

 

But Ford's promise to bring six small, fuel-efficient vehicles from Europe and start building them in North America in 2010 puts a new focus on the challenge of satisfying governments' varying requirements.

 

These global models are the cornerstone of Ford's plan to return to profitability after losing $8.7 billion last quarter. The Dearborn-based automaker says its small European vehicles sell well and are superior to those in the U.S. Ford also plans to save billions from designing products for global sales, boosting profits on small cars, which don't generate the revenue of trucks and SUVs.

 

Automakers know how to retrofit their vehicles but question the time and expense involved when the changes may not make those vehicles safer, said Jim Vondale, director of Ford's safety office.

 

"It may involve changes to the structure, it may involve changes to material, but they result in not so many differences in the safety levels of the vehicles," he said.

 

Ford recently studied 43 regulations in Europe and the U.S. and found that just 11 were equivalent, Vondale said. Fourteen had major differences that would require significant changes. Asian countries' regulations, which are closer to European requirements than their U.S. counterparts, add even more complexities.

 

It doesn't stop with government standards. Automakers also have to contend with the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is funded by the insurance industry and runs its own closely watched set of crash tests.

 

 

Tests may look similar at the outset but contain crucial differences. The European frontal crash test uses a deformable barrier — made to mimic another car — that slams into 40 percent of the front of the vehicle. That challenges engineers to spread the energy from the crash across the rest of the car. The fixed barrier in the U.S. test absorbs no energy, causing a severe crash that evaluates the vehicle's overall strength.

 

Adding to the complexity of the frontal test is that the U.S. and Europe put their crash test dummies in different seating positions, which can affect how the air bags should deploy, said IIHS President Adrian Lund.

 

Some tests have very different goals. IIHS tests bumpers with 3 mph and 6 mph collisions to see how well the bumpers protect the vehicle in a crash. In Europe, tests replicate hitting pedestrians at 25 mph to see how much harm the bumper causes.

 

 

"The bumper to absorb energy to reduce the risk of injury is not the kind of bumper system you would design to help protect the vehicle," Vondale said.

 

Medford said NHTSA's test to make sure cars are safe for unbelted occupants is important in the U.S. market, where people who weren't wearing seat belts make up 45 percent of all traffic fatalities.

 

"The data that we have really drives the direction and the nature of the standards we develop," he said.

 

But car makers grumble that NHTSA's requirement makes cars less safe for belted occupants, since protecting people without seat belts requires more powerful air bags and other changes.

 

"We would much prefer to design a vehicle that provides good protection for unbelted occupants but is tuned specifically to protect occupants that are doing what they're supposed to be doing," Vondale said.

 

He said 40 countries, including the U.S., have signed on to a 10-year-old effort to harmonize regulations. The group has agreed to frameworks for global regulations governing door locks, rear head restraints and electronic stability control. Next, the group will consider pedestrian protection.

 

 

But efforts to match lighting standards, for example, were shelved after Japan nixed a regulation requiring daytime running lights and Europe refused to allow rear turn signals to blink red instead of amber, Vondale said.

 

"It's very difficult for governments that have had a specific regulation on their books for many years to suddenly decide to change," Vondale said. But he said the short-term cost of redesigning vehicles for the global market would be more than made up by the long-term savings of harmonization.

 

"We think it's very important to have a single set of requirements that can be enacted globally," he said.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26444467/

Edited September 8, 2008 by MKII

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Automakers find safety in U.S. doesn't translate

 

The Associated Press

updated 10:18 a.m. ET, Fri., Aug. 29, 2008

 

DEARBORN, Mich. - It seems like an easy solution: Americans are looking for more fuel-efficient vehicles, so Ford Motor Co. is bringing over some of the small, gas-sipping cars it's been selling to Europeans for years.

 

But introducing the cars to the U.S. market isn't as simple as changing the speedometer from kilometers to miles. Ford has to reconcile American and European safety regulations — everything from the color of rear turn signals to the positioning of crash test dummies — that will keep the cars from hitting U.S. highways anytime soon.

 

Competing interests among automakers, governments and the insurance industry are hampering efforts to standardize safety requirements worldwide. That means extra engineering to make different versions of vehicles for different markets.

 

"Each party negotiating this has their own views about their own standards being better," said Ronald Medford, senior associate administrator of vehicle safety at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets U.S. standards. "But as long as we can show we're not lowering safety and we're lowering cost, we're all interested in that."

 

Some differences are significant, like the U.S. rule that requires protection for passengers not wearing seat belts, which has no European equivalent. Others are small, like the U.S. requirement that vehicles have side lights, which are optional in Europe.

 

Ford isn't the only automaker facing this issue. The ultra-compact Smart car was sold overseas for nine years, but before Daimler AG could bring it to the U.S., it had to make the car longer to meet U.S. crash standards, spokesman Ken Kettenbeil said.

 

But Ford's promise to bring six small, fuel-efficient vehicles from Europe and start building them in North America in 2010 puts a new focus on the challenge of satisfying governments' varying requirements.

 

These global models are the cornerstone of Ford's plan to return to profitability after losing $8.7 billion last quarter. The Dearborn-based automaker says its small European vehicles sell well and are superior to those in the U.S. Ford also plans to save billions from designing products for global sales, boosting profits on small cars, which don't generate the revenue of trucks and SUVs.

 

Automakers know how to retrofit their vehicles but question the time and expense involved when the changes may not make those vehicles safer, said Jim Vondale, director of Ford's safety office.

 

"It may involve changes to the structure, it may involve changes to material, but they result in not so many differences in the safety levels of the vehicles," he said.

 

Ford recently studied 43 regulations in Europe and the U.S. and found that just 11 were equivalent, Vondale said. Fourteen had major differences that would require significant changes. Asian countries' regulations, which are closer to European requirements than their U.S. counterparts, add even more complexities.

 

It doesn't stop with government standards. Automakers also have to contend with the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is funded by the insurance industry and runs its own closely watched set of crash tests.

 

 

Tests may look similar at the outset but contain crucial differences. The European frontal crash test uses a deformable barrier — made to mimic another car — that slams into 40 percent of the front of the vehicle. That challenges engineers to spread the energy from the crash across the rest of the car. The fixed barrier in the U.S. test absorbs no energy, causing a severe crash that evaluates the vehicle's overall strength.

 

Adding to the complexity of the frontal test is that the U.S. and Europe put their crash test dummies in different seating positions, which can affect how the air bags should deploy, said IIHS President Adrian Lund.

 

Some tests have very different goals. IIHS tests bumpers with 3 mph and 6 mph collisions to see how well the bumpers protect the vehicle in a crash. In Europe, tests replicate hitting pedestrians at 25 mph to see how much harm the bumper causes.

 

 

"The bumper to absorb energy to reduce the risk of injury is not the kind of bumper system you would design to help protect the vehicle," Vondale said.

 

Medford said NHTSA's test to make sure cars are safe for unbelted occupants is important in the U.S. market, where people who weren't wearing seat belts make up 45 percent of all traffic fatalities.

 

"The data that we have really drives the direction and the nature of the standards we develop," he said.

 

But car makers grumble that NHTSA's requirement makes cars less safe for belted occupants, since protecting people without seat belts requires more powerful air bags and other changes.

 

"We would much prefer to design a vehicle that provides good protection for unbelted occupants but is tuned specifically to protect occupants that are doing what they're supposed to be doing," Vondale said.

 

He said 40 countries, including the U.S., have signed on to a 10-year-old effort to harmonize regulations. The group has agreed to frameworks for global regulations governing door locks, rear head restraints and electronic stability control. Next, the group will consider pedestrian protection.

 

 

But efforts to match lighting standards, for example, were shelved after Japan nixed a regulation requiring daytime running lights and Europe refused to allow rear turn signals to blink red instead of amber, Vondale said.

 

"It's very difficult for governments that have had a specific regulation on their books for many years to suddenly decide to change," Vondale said. But he said the short-term cost of redesigning vehicles for the global market would be more than made up by the long-term savings of harmonization.

 

"We think it's very important to have a single set of requirements that can be enacted globally," he said.

 

I guess that won't include small diesel cars you only like the healthy options like huge great diesel pick-up trucks instead.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RichardJensen]

Nice pair of articles--barring the "Mercury Merkur" gaffe, and the usual early edition WSJ typos (thanks to my location at the extreme end of the regional WSJ printery route, when I subscribed I usually got 1st or 2nd editions, chock full of typos).

 

It was particularly refreshing to read this:

 

"We didn't spend any time to find out the unique needs of the American market," said Andreas Ostendorf, Ford's chief vehicle engineer in Europe, who worked on the Contour program.

 

These articles, believe me, will be referenced again and again, to explain the differences between the US & the EU.

 

Notice particularly the differences in crash tests..........

Edited September 8, 2008 by RichardJensen

[TStag]

If MINI can do it.....

[Deanh]

If MINI can do it.....

ahh...but they are one of the few ( if the ONLY one ) that can get 25 -30k for a car that really is a characature of what a car should be for that $...

[Sherminator98]

If MINI can do it.....

 

Ford can't survive on 5K sales a month

[mike_in_va]

Maybe instead of low-interest loans the Gov. could help out the automakers by lightening up some of the regulations and coordinating them with other countries' requirements where feasible.

 

Also, I noticed the mentioned they're doing a spare tire for the Fiesta. Focus dosen't come standard with a spare tire, just a patch kit. Why go to all the effort to engineer a new spare for the Fiesta?

[Deanh]

Maybe instead of low-interest loans the Gov. could help out the automakers by lightening up some of the regulations and coordinating them with other countries' requirements where feasible.

 

Also, I noticed the mentioned they're doing a spare tire for the Fiesta. Focus dosen't come standard with a spare tire, just a patch kit. Why go to all the effort to engineer a new spare for the Fiesta?

here it is kind of semi expected.....

[papilgee4evaeva]

Ford can't survive on 5K sales a month

 

Ford's also not owned by BMW.

[battyr]

They plan to outfit U.S. cars with an American version of a spare tire -- European models use a tire that has to be inflated before it can be used -- as well as a more powerful air-conditioning system, as Americans typically expect their cars to cool down more rapidly than Europeans

 

I always thought that Europeans were backwards.

[V8 Ford]

At Ford's test track in Lommel, Gunnar Herrmann, executive director of Ford's next-generation Focus car programs, pointed to the front end of the company's new Fiesta to show the placement of a prominent bar across the grille designed to protect pedestrians.

 

That crossbar will be removed when the Fiesta arrives in the U.S. market in 2010, he said, replaced by a new structure hidden behind the grille, and designed to withstand a high-speed, full-frontal impact with another car or truck.

Good news- well, not for pedestrians- but I like the looks of the concepts with the fully visible grill better than the production one with the obstructing bar.

[wescoent]

Euro front:

 

 

US front:

 

Edited September 9, 2008 by wescoent

[BORG]

Euro front:

 

 

US front:

 

 

The US front actually has a much smaller lower air dam than the concept version. You can kinda see it here. The US version definitely has the less attractive face thanks to that ultra dull grille. Ford of North American really needs to be much more involved in the global design, it can't attractively adapt EU designs retroactively.

 

And I for one hate the vertically mounted side-view mirrors, something the Lincoln MKT is also getting to my horror.

Edited September 9, 2008 by BORG

[pcsario]

Ford of North American really needs to be much more involved in the global design

 

Ugh... no thanks.

 

Can you imagine FNA's idea of a "gorgeous" Fiesta?

 

Edited September 9, 2008 by pcsario

[Tico]

I have to believe the idea of lowering US safety standards to European levels is a non starter. Right or wrong I don't see it happening. So I don' know what the solution is. What does Toyota do? I saw plenty of Toyotas on the Road when I was in Scandinavia. Are they different from US Toyotas?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

If MINI can do it.....

 

If they let junk like a Triumph Stag in standards must be piss poor in the US.

[theoldwizard]

What bothers me most is that these engineering design changes are being done by FoE, who has no experience in engineering vars to meet US safety or emission standards !

 

I am pleased that have "captured the requirements" of the US market (I'll believe that when I see it), but can they make the necessary changes and contain the costs ? For example, high strength, low alloy steel is now common through out the US car industry because the remaining US steel manufacturers have made it their specialty. Is such a material widely available at the same costs in Europe ? If not, it is likely the European engineers may bypass this material, which has excellent properties, for stiffening body rails and other components and just add more steel.

 

So how many Americans are helping with these design changes ? Oh that's right, American Ford Engineers, who are required to have a 4 year degree, cost more than British Ford engineers, most of which have a 2 year degree, so they were "eliminated".

 

The original US Fiesta had serious brake wear issues for 2 reasons. The front pads would wear out in 10-15K miles because the brakes were not redesigned to carry the extra load of the US safety components (mostly the bumpers, windshield and other window glass). Additionally the rear brakes were not self adjusting making them useless after about 5-10K mile. A few click on the rear adjuster every oil change would have added to front brake life, but know one knew this.

[MKII]

What bothers me most is that these engineering design changes are being done by FoE, who has no experience in engineering vars to meet US safety or emission standards !

 

So how many Americans are helping with these design changes ? Oh that's right, American Ford Engineers, who are required to have a 4 year degree, cost more than British Ford engineers, most of which have a 2 year degree, so they were "eliminated".

 

Mr. Kozak, who dispatched a team of safety engineers from Dearborn to Germany 20 months ago to modify European designs to meet American requirements. (How many are on the team from Dearborn)

 

Steve Kozak, one of Ford's top safety engineers, said the company is now designing new American bumpers for the European compacts and midsize models Ford aims to start assembling in North American plants next year. It is the single most expensive adaptation, he said.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

What bothers me most is that these engineering design changes are being done by FoE, who has no experience in engineering vars to meet US safety or emission standards !

 

I am pleased that have "captured the requirements" of the US market (I'll believe that when I see it), but can they make the necessary changes and contain the costs ? For example, high strength, low alloy steel is now common through out the US car industry because the remaining US steel manufacturers have made it their specialty. Is such a material widely available at the same costs in Europe ? If not, it is likely the European engineers may bypass this material, which has excellent properties, for stiffening body rails and other components and just add more steel.

 

So how many Americans are helping with these design changes ? Oh that's right, American Ford Engineers, who are required to have a 4 year degree, cost more than British Ford engineers, most of which have a 2 year degree, so they were "eliminated".

 

The original US Fiesta had serious brake wear issues for 2 reasons. The front pads would wear out in 10-15K miles because the brakes were not redesigned to carry the extra load of the US safety components (mostly the bumpers, windshield and other window glass). Additionally the rear brakes were not self adjusting making them useless after about 5-10K mile. A few click on the rear adjuster every oil change would have added to front brake life, but know one knew this.

Gotta say its going to be hard match your safety standards?

Ford Stalled for Years While Trucks Burned.

Federal investigators have concluded that the cruise control switch found in 6.7 million Ford vehicles might cause a potentially devastating fire that could spread throughout the engine compartment and set the vehicle ablaze. Gotta say FOE never gave me any of these safety features.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006...ford_fires.html

 

Aviation industry is no better why does the rest of the world have to suffer SFAR-88 ask Alan Mulally, because it takes daft Americans 4 years to get a degree that Brits can pass it in 2. Gotta say you can't beat having more practical experience on the job rather than being a master swotter.

 

Whats a 1976 Fiesta got in common with today l don't think the Fiesta will drum brakes all round that you adjust on a cam things have moved on FOE wont be using the trusty X-flow in the 2008 Fiesta, we didnot have Jerry, Jerry, Jerry Springer back then now we know a Fiesta will have to carry over 1 ton of lard arse around inside based on the folk that take part in Jerry's show, floors will have to be reinforced using low alloy steel stiffening floor/seat rails for the US market, those brake pads were never designed to stop a 1 ton car load of lard arses your right.

 

Fiesta used to be the most boring car in Ford line-up in the 70's, all of FOE cars have become very boring today and the new Fiesta is now the most exciting its kind of funny how things change around. Ford market share has dipped over 50% in the UK since Ford decided that boring was what the customer wanted back in 1981. Biggest problem will be if Americans will warm to FOE boring cold designs gotta say l would not be pleased if FOA lost 50% of its market share like we have in the UK.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[battyr]

What bothers me most is that these engineering design changes are being done by FoE, who has no experience in engineering vars to meet US safety or emission standards !

 

I am pleased that have "captured the requirements" of the US market (I'll believe that when I see it), but can they make the necessary changes and contain the costs ? For example, high strength, low alloy steel is now common through out the US car industry because the remaining US steel manufacturers have made it their specialty. Is such a material widely available at the same costs in Europe ? If not, it is likely the European engineers may bypass this material, which has excellent properties, for stiffening body rails and other components and just add more steel.

 

So how many Americans are helping with these design changes ? Oh that's right, American Ford Engineers, who are required to have a 4 year degree, cost more than British Ford engineers, most of which have a 2 year degree, so they were "eliminated".

 

The original US Fiesta had serious brake wear issues for 2 reasons. The front pads would wear out in 10-15K miles because the brakes were not redesigned to carry the extra load of the US safety components (mostly the bumpers, windshield and other window glass). Additionally the rear brakes were not self adjusting making them useless after about 5-10K mile. A few click on the rear adjuster every oil change would have added to front brake life, but know one knew this.

 

That's why FoE engineers need to learn how to design for North America. Ford need one design team located around the world that can design cars to be used around the world. If you design a car for one region and then modifiy it later for other regions, you are going to have problems like under sized brakes. You need to start with a flexible design. Originally design it for all regions.

[jon_the_limey]

What bothers me most is that these engineering design changes are being done by FoE, who has no experience in engineering vars to meet US safety or emission standards !

 

I am pleased that have "captured the requirements" of the US market (I'll believe that when I see it), but can they make the necessary changes and contain the costs ? For example, high strength, low alloy steel is now common through out the US car industry because the remaining US steel manufacturers have made it their specialty. Is such a material widely available at the same costs in Europe ? If not, it is likely the European engineers may bypass this material, which has excellent properties, for stiffening body rails and other components and just add more steel.

 

So how many Americans are helping with these design changes ? Oh that's right, American Ford Engineers, who are required to have a 4 year degree, cost more than British Ford engineers, most of which have a 2 year degree, so they were "eliminated".

 

The original US Fiesta had serious brake wear issues for 2 reasons. The front pads would wear out in 10-15K miles because the brakes were not redesigned to carry the extra load of the US safety components (mostly the bumpers, windshield and other window glass). Additionally the rear brakes were not self adjusting making them useless after about 5-10K mile. A few click on the rear adjuster every oil change would have added to front brake life, but know one knew this.

 

I cannot believe the inaccuracy and the arrogance of what you have just written.

 

First of all 2 year degrees in Britain have never existed. All Bachelor degrees are minimum 3 years full time and always have been. The reason they are just 3 years is because the entrance qualifications (A-levels) are more specialised to a higher level in the required subjects than the typical High School Diploma or European Baccalaureate. For example to get onto an Engineering degree in a good university one needs minimum three A levels in Pure & Applied Maths (not statistics), Physics and another A-level in a relevant field including Further Maths or Chemistry and most definitely not English Literature, History, Business Studies, or bloody Psychology. Furthermore when I said to a higher level I don't think many High School Diploma or Baccalaureate students were doing Matrix Algebra or Partial Differential Equations like a 17 years old would do in Further Maths!

 

Secondly Ford of Britain's entrance requirements are amongst the highest in the UK, largely because they have so many people applying because Ford is a household name and because they are traditionally the better payers for engineering. To be even considered for an assessment centre one must have minimum 2:1 degree in an IMechE accredited Engineering degree from a regarded university. Then one has to go through the assessment centre which typically has an extremely high rejection rate, i.e. sometimes no one gets hired.

 

The reason Engineers in the UK are relatively poorly paid compared to their American counterparts is diverse. The engineering industry in the UK has been under pressure for decades, there are highly qualified engineering graduates on our doorstep in Europe (especially Eastern Europe) that are willing and able to come over because their countries engineering industry pays really poorly and is less developed than the UK. Another reason is much more subtle typical British engineers are so nerd-like & meek that they rarely push their management for a rise and higher management is typically made up of Accountancy or Business Studies graduates (don't get me started on MBA graduates) that they do everything to keep the wages down anyway. A reason automotive engineers in Detroit are relatively well paid compared to everybody else in the world (including the Germans) is probably an accident of circumstance and geography, i.e. Metro-Detroit alone probably contains the vast majority of all automotive engineering talent in the US, so in the good times if one is pissed off with their pay they only have to go down the road to get another job.

 

Picking on just "Limey" engineers is not only prejudiced but ridiculous not least because most of the vehicle engineering will be done in Germany. Kuzak when he was over here oversaw the reorganisation of FoE Product Development to have passenger vehicle engineering done in Germany and Powertrain & Commercial Vehicles in Britain. Plenty of people were "eliminated" or transferred when that happened, and before that when FoE was doing really shit it was the British engineers, manufacturing personnel & plants that bore the brunt of cuts because "Anglo-Saxon" economic practice meant we were always far cheaper to sack than their European (especially German) counterparts.

 

Going on to more general things, Ultra High Tensile Steels are not the preserve of US Steel manufacturers, the likes of Corus, ThyssenKrupp, etc have the ability to formulate and supply advanced high-alloy steels. Ford of Europe, if they haven't got experienced engineers already, has access to plenty of engineers (contract or consultancy) in Britain and Germany who have had the NHTSA, EPA, and CARB breathing down their necks.

 

We all have stories about how useless the other guys are, and I have plenty about how fucking overmanned with "Powerpoint Engineers", over-demarcated and over-political NA OEM's can be (not just Ford) and how incompetent, narrow-minded, ultra-conservative & uncompromising to the detriment of the others some American engineers are (again not just Ford). I'm willing to accept that I'm pointing out the worst examples and have experienced the good and rather clever stuff that sometimes goes on over there.

[Deanh]

The US front actually has a much smaller lower air dam than the concept version. You can kinda see it here. The US version definitely has the less attractive face thanks to that ultra dull grille. Ford of North American really needs to be much more involved in the global design, it can't attractively adapt EU designs retroactively.

 

And I for one hate the vertically mounted side-view mirrors, something the Lincoln MKT is also getting to my horror.

either one is fine for me...actually semi prefer the US version...are the larger grill openings a reaction to perhaps larger A/c units and the need for additional engine cooling? higher temperature extremes perhaps.....

[P71_CrownVic]

And I for one hate the vertically mounted side-view mirrors, something the Lincoln MKT is also getting to my horror.

 

Maybe they want to be like the 1991-1994 GM B-bodies.

 

 

Ugh... no thanks.

 

Can you imagine FNA's idea of a "gorgeous" Fiesta?

 

 

That almost looks better than the real car!!