|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
View Poll Results: Should Ford give the Falcon I4T another name or appearance? | |||
Nope, I like having a 4Cyl Falcon | 73 | 55.30% | |
Change the name but let them look the same | 22 | 16.67% | |
Change the name and the look - and the market segment too? | 37 | 28.03% | |
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-08-2009, 02:26 PM | #1 | ||
Lukeyson
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW
Posts: 2,585
|
Think of it this way:
(1) Ford could have jacked up a Falcon Wagon, whacked 4WD under it and tried to sell it. History shows that the Territory, because it was sufficiently different, sold way better than the equivalent jacked-up-Holden-Commodore-Wagon. (2) Toyota had been trying to sell a car known to be a small/mid 4 Cylinder car with a V6 in it for quite some time without much success. When they split the same car in two - Camry vs Aurion (I'll conveniently side-step the Avalon) - it confused the average punter into thinking they were different cars and received a much greater reception from buyers. So when Ford bolt a I4T into the Falcon, should the car have a different name or look different? Lukeyson
__________________
If the human brain was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it. |
||