[beatr911]

The Taurus was a clean sheet design. The story I remember was that the design group finally persuaded management to let them start from scratch and design something they know would be a hit. This took alot of persuading, salesmanship and nuts by someone to pull off without the inspiration getting diluted in the corporate mire on the way to production.

As I remember (which isn't always accurate) the corporate situation of the big 3, or 4 at the time, was similar to what we see today. I think about the same time Chrysler was getting thier bailout (someone validate this please) which resulted in the Lee Iacocca K-car, thus saving Chrysler for a time.

Gee, history really DOES repeat itsself.

It seems the weak link in the US auto industry is the moral compass of management. Where the big 3 make only what they think will sell, the asian mfrs make what they think people will like to own and live with. There is an important difference here. The big 3 look for profits within 3 or so years, justifiably because it reflects the needs of stockholders - the owners of the company. The asian business model looks for profit in a much longer term that includes earned brand loyalty and the longer term sustainability (to use an over worked word) of profitability.

Where the big three staked profitability on trucks and SUVs where they sold well and made good profits, the asian mfrs were more cautious entering this market. Sure they jumped in, why not, there was $ to be made and it was becoming a long term fad. The difference was that the asian mfrs had already established a culture of reliable and efficient design that makes a vehicle good to live with, rather than for.

Lets hope the culture of american car companies change to include a vision that is oh say 30 years out. Products that reflect this will get my vote with dollars. I sure hope they will learn from this, I really do.